UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Clause structure, agreement and case in Gitksan Hunt, Katharine D. 1993

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1993_fall_phd_hunt_katharine.pdf [ 9.64MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098804.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098804-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098804-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098804-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098804-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098804-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098804-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098804-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098804.ris

Full Text

CLAUSE STRUCTURE, AGREEMENT AND CASEIN GITKSANbyKATHARINE DOROTHY HUNTB.A., The University of Canterbury, 1981M.A., The University of Canterbury, 1983A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Department of Linguistics)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAAugust 1993© Katharine Dorothy HuntIn presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of  1.--t NiutiC )1 CSThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate DE-6 (2/88)AbstractThis dissertation proposes an analysis of certain aspects of the syntax and morphology ofGitksan, a Tsimshianic language of northwestern British Columbia. In particular, the goalof the dissertation is to show that, despite claims and surface appearances to the contrary,the structure of a Gitksan sentence conforms to the putatively universal constraints onsentence structure proposed in Government and Binding theory. In order to defend thisclaim, I show that other structures which have been proposed for the language are not well-motivated by data, and that the structure I propose is able to account for the complex caseand agreement facts observed in declarative Gitksan sentences.The thesis is structured in the following way. Chapter 1 briefly sketches the theoreticalframework I assume, while Chapter 2 consists of a short introduction to some salientaspects of Gitksan phonology, morphology and syntax. Chapter 3 contains acomprehensive discussion of typological and structural properties of Gitksan sentences. Ireview those characteristics of the language which have led researchers to claim thatGitksan is either an ergative or a non-configurational language, but I argue that thesesurface characteristics do not provide compelling evidence that Gitksan should be assignedany divergent type of syntactic structure. On the contrary, I show that there is syntacticevidence in Gitksan to support a standard structure. I conclude Chapter 3 by examining apossible alternative proposal, namely that Gitksan is a pronominal argument language.'Once again, however, I argue that the data are more consistent with a conservative account- in this case, one in which nominals function as arguments rather than adjuncts. InChapter 4, I present in some detail data relating to agreement, case and the distribution ofovert and silent pronominals in Gitksan, showing how these complex data can beaccounted for under the structure I assume. The analysis presented in this chapter hasIIimportant consequences for the treatment of morphological agreement and case in GBtheory.iiiTable of ContentsAbstract. ^ iiTable of Contents.^ ivList of Abbreviations. ixAcknowledgements xiChapter 1: Theoretical Background1.Introduction to GB theory^ 11.1.Lexicon 11.2.Phrase structure 21.3.Theta theory and argument structure^ 31.3.1. The Theta Criterion and empty categories^31.3.2. The domain of theta role assignment and the VP internalsubject^ 41.3.3. The organization of theta roles ^ 51.4.LF and PF 51.5.Checking theory and movement 61.6.Summary^ 62.Relevance of Gitksan to the theory^ 63.Broader implications of the dissertation 9Chapter 2: A sketch of Gitksan1. Introduction^ 102. Data^ 103.^Introduction to Gitksan^ 123.1. Introduction to the phonology of Gitksan^ 123.1.1. Phonemic inventory and across the board rules^ 133.1.2. Two morphologically conditioned rules 153.2. Introduction to the morphology of Gitksan 183.2.1. Morphological complexity^ 183.2.2.^Clitics^ 193.2.3. Preverbals and prenominals 213.3. Introduction to the syntax of Gitksan 223.3.1. Word order 233.3.2. Dependent vs independent clauses^ 25Chapter 3: Structural and Typological Characteristics of Gitksan1.^Ergativity^ 271.1. Introduction 271.2. Constructions exhibiting ergative patterns^281.2.1. Ergative patterns restricted to independent clauses^281.2.1.1. Case marking^ 281.2.1.2. Series II and III person markers^291.2.1.3.^Zero pronominals 311.2.2. Ergative patterns restricted to dependent clauses 321.2.2.1. Series I person markers 321.2.3. Other ergative patterns^ 331.2.3.1. Imperatives 331.2.3.2. Number agreement 341.2.3.3.^Extraction 371.3. The status of Gitksan's ergativity^ 371.4. Morphological vs syntactic ergativity 381.4.1.Dixon (1979) 39iv1.4.1.2.Morphological ergativity in Gitksan^401.4.1.3.Lack of syntactic ergativity in Gitksan 411.4.1.3.1.^Coordination 421.4.1.3.2. Relative clauses 441.4.1.3.3. Complement clauses^451.4.1.3.4. Summary^ 461.4.1.4.Split ergativity 461.4.1.5. Conclusion 461.4.2.Marantz's definition of syntactic ergativity^471.4.2.1.Introduction^ 471.4.2.2.0utline of Marantz's proposal 472. Gitksan and non-configurationality 512.1. Defining non-configurationality 512.2. Typological non-configurationality^ 522.2.1. Defining and applying the typological tests^532.1.1. Free word order 53i. Discussion of the property 53ii. Order in Gitksan^ 562.1.2. Discontinuous expressions 58i. Discussion of the property^58ii. Gitksan discontinuous constituents 602.1.3. Frequent pro drop^ 63i. Discussion of the property^63ii. Gitksan and pro drop 652.1.4. No NP movement 67i. Discussion of the property^67ii. NP movement in Gitksan 68A.^Passive^ 68a. Form of the passive 69b. Lexical exceptions and lack ofproductivity 70c. Idiosyncratic meanings^70d. Suppression of agent ^71e. Summary^ 71B. Unaccusative verbs 71a. Surface ordering^72b. Case-marking 72c. Pronominal marking 73d. Morphological marking ofextraction^ 74e. Plural marking 74f. Conclusion 75C. Raising to subject predicates^76D.Ddstentials^ 77E. Conclusion regarding NP movement^772.1.5. No expletives 77i. Discussion of the property^77ii. Expletives in Gitksan^ 79A. Passive 79B. Raising, unaccusative, existential andweather predicates 802.1.6. Rich case system^ 82i Discussion of the property^82ii. Case in Gitksan 832.1.7. Complex verb words or verb cum AUX system^ 84i. Discussion of the property^84ii. Complex verb/AUX in Gitksan 852.1.8.^Summary^ 882.3.Structural non-configurationality 892.3.1.Motivation for adopting Hale's (1982) approach to structuralnon-configurationality 913. VP tests^ 943.1.Tests supporting an accusative structure^ 953.1.1. VP ellipsis^ 953.1.2. Incorporation 973.1.3. Weak crossover 1003.2. Inconclusive tests with binding^ 1033.2.1. Binding Condition C 1043.2.2. Binding Condition A 1083.3.Summary^ 1104. Is Gitksan a pronominal argument language?^ 1104.1. Introduction 1104.2. The data^ 1114.3. Tarpent's analysis^ 1154.4. Pronominal vs. nominal argument analysis^ 1184.4.1. Adjunct / argument asymmetries 1204.4.1.1 Word order^ 1204.4.1.2 Long distance extraction asymmetries^ 1214.4.2. Case-related asymmetries 1234.4.2.1 Presence of obliques^ 1234.4.2.2 Morphological marking of extraction^ 1244.4.3. Problems with the t-deletion rule 1264.4.4. Positions not realised by a pronominal affix 1294.5.^Independent pronominals^ 1304.6. Conclusion^ 1335. Summary of Chapter 3 133Chapter 4: Agreement and Case in Gitksan0.Introduction^ 1351.Independent vs. dependent clauses^ 1351.1. Major differences between independent and dependent clauses: ^ 1351.2. Dependent markers^ 1381.2.1. Certain intransitive verbs^ 1381.2.2. Temporal / aspectual particles 1401.2.3.^Conjunction 1421.2.4. Subordinators^ 1421.3. Syntactic characterization of differences between two clause types.^ 1431.3.1. Main vs. embedded clauses?^ 1441.3.2. Independent clauses vs. infinitives? 1451.3.3. A structural generalization 1461.3.4. Dependent clauses without dependent markers^ 1482. A theoretical account of Agreement and Case in Gitksan^ 1512.1. Verbal Number Agreement^ 1512.1.1. Absolutive number agreement 1512.1.1.1. Invariant nouns and verbs 1522 1 2 Iterative plural ^ 1542.1.3.^Interaction patterns 155vi2.1.3.1. Number of absolutive and number of actions arethe same^ 1562.1.3.2. Number of absolutive and number of actions aredifferent 1572.1.3.3. Summary and discussion^ 1592.1.3.4. Exceptional verbs 1602.2. ASPP (Travis (1992))^ 1612.3.ASPP and Gitksan number agreement 1632.3.1. Feature Strength and Agreement^ 1632.3.1.1.Word Order in Arabic and morphological richness^ 1662.3.2. Feature checking of verbal plural marking^ 1672.3.2.1. Feature checking with ASP 1682.3.2.2. Feature checking with the object 1682.3.2.3. Strong vs. weak number agreement^ 1692.3.3. Underspecification of [plural]^ 1702.4.Agreement in intransitive clauses 1712.4.1. Theoretical Implications 1732.5.Structure above VP^ 1752.5.1. Motivation for TrP^ 1762.5.2. Deriving VSO order 1792.6.Series II agreement markers 1812.6.1. Strength of Series II 1812.6.2. Word order and agreement with Series II^ 1842.6.2.1.The mechanism of Series II agreement^ 1842.6.2.2. Agreement with overt lexical arguments 1852.6.2.3. Agreement with pro arguments 1862.6.3. Morphological strength of NPs^ 1872.6.4. Subject or object agreement? 1882.6.5.Summary^ 1892.7.Series I agreement markers 1892.7.1. The form and position of Series I^ 1892.7.2. Strength of Series I agreement 1912.7.3. 1st and 2nd person pro arguments 1922.7.4. 3rd person pro arguments 1922.7.5. Overt NP arguments^ 1942.7.6. Series I agreement paradigm - summary^ 1962.8. Agreement Interactions in Transitive Clauses 1962.8.1. Series II Agreement in Independent Clauses 1972.8.2. Agreement in Dependent Clauses 1982.8.2.1. Determining the reference of the /t/ suffix^ 1992.8.2.2. Restricting Series II agreement^ 2012.8.2.3. Application of the HPA and OSAP 2032.8.2.3.1.Dependent clause with lexical subject^2032.8.2.3.2.Clause with pro subject^2042.8.2.4.^Extensions^ 2042.8.2.4.1. Third person plural pronominal subjects^2052.8.2.4.2. Lexical subject, 1st or 2nd personpronominal object. 2062.9. Summary^ 2102.10. Overt pronominals in transitive clauses^ 2132.11. Morphological Case-marking in Gitksan 2152.11.1. Form and Position of /s/ case-marking^ 2169 11 2 Weak vs strong case feature^2172.11.3. Summary^ 218vii2.12. Agreement and Case in Intransitive clauses^ 2182.12.1. Agreement and case in dependent intransitive clauses^2192.12.1.1. overt subject^ 2192.12.1.2. pro subject 2202.12.2. Agreement and case in independent intransitive clauses^2212.12.2.1.Absence of Series II agreement^2212.12.2.2.Lexical and overt pronominal subjects^2222.12.2.3. pro in independent intransitive clauses 2232.12.3.Summary^ 2242.13.Conclusion^ 2243. The suffix /a/^ 2253.1.Distribution of the suffix /a/ 2253.2. /a/ and transitivizing suffixes. ^ 2263.2.1. Distributional description of /(t)an/^ 2263.2.2. Differences between /a/ and the causative^2283.2.3. /a/ and transitivizing prefixes 2293.2.4. Phonological /a/ deletion 2303.2.4.1. VR final stems^ 2313.2.4.2. -at suffix 2323.2.5.^Conclusion^ 2333.3. T-verbs. 2343.3.1. Characterizing the T verbs^ 2363.3.2. Tarpent's analysis of T verbs 2383.3.3. Conclusion^ 2413.4./a/ is not a marker of object relativization 2423.4.1. Tarpent's (1991) analysis of the /a/ suffix^2423.4.2. Interpreting Tarpent's analysis 2453.4.2.1.Specificational vs predicational pseudocleft^2453.4.2.2.Application to Tarpent's analysis^2473.4.3.Problems for a pseudocleft analysis of independent clauses^2503.4.3.1. Adverbial position^ 2503.4.3.2. Asymmetry between object and subject headlessrelatives^ 2503.5.Advantages of a non-pseudocleft analysis^ 252Chapter 5: Conclusions 254References^ 259viiiAbbreviations used:affix boundaryclitic boundaryA.extr^marker of extraction of transitive subjectantip^antipassiveAsp^Aspectattr^attributive suffixaux^auxiliaryen^connective (discussed in Chapter 2)comp^complementizercompl^completive^check..cont^contrastivedat^dativedef^definitedem^demonstrativedetr^detransitivizerdist^distributive (plural)distr^distributive clitic (gi)dub^dubitativedur^durativeerg^/a/ ergative suffix (discussed in Chapter 4.3)fut^futureincept^inceptiveinstr^instrumentalinter^interrogative cliticinteract^interactive cliticintns^intensifierjuss^jussiveLF^Logical FormO.extr^marker of extraction of transitive objectobl^obliquepass^passivepert^perfectivePF^Phonetic Formpfx^prefixpl^pluralprep^prepositionprog^progressiverep^reportiveS.extr^marker of extraction of intransitive subjectsg^singularst^somethingT^a suffix found on transitive verbs, discussed in Chapter 4.3tog^togethertrn^transitivizervi^verb intransitive[e]^phonetically empty pronominalAcknowledgementsI would like to acknowledge the help and support I have received from many people duringthe time I have worked on this dissertation.I thank my final committee members, Michael Rochemont, Dale Kinkade and Jay Powell.Michael Rochemont has been encouraging and helpful in every way throughout the lengthyperiod I have been working on this dissertation. I feel very lucky to have had such apatient and enthusiastic thesis supervisor. I am grateful to Dale Kinkade for firstintroducing me to Gitksan and ergativity in a field methods course, and for always beingwilling to discuss data and analysis with me. I thank Jay Powell for providing such rapidand helpful feedback on a previous draft of the thesis. I am also endebted to Bob Levineand Linda Walsh, previous members of my committee, for many hours of usefuldiscussion of the issues and data addressed in this thesis, and for their encouragement.Thanks also to the departmental examiner, David Ingram, the university examiner, RitaWatson, and the external examiner, Tom Hukari, for their willingness to serve andtherefore to spend part of their summer reading my dissertation. I am especially grateful toTom Hukari for extensive and very useful comments on this thesis.I am very endebted to the Gitksan speakers I have worked with, especially Barbara Sennotand Margaret Heit, who were my principal consultants, but also Elizabeth Tait, RodneyGood, Pearl Tromblay and Phyllis Haizimsque. Without their help this dissertation wouldobviously not have been possible. I especially appreciate their friendship and their patiencein long elicitation sessions. I am also grateful to Bruce Rigsby and Marie-Lucie Tarpentfor their ground-breaking work on interior Tsimshianic, and for their willingness to sharetheir insights into the language.I have discussed aspects of this dissertation with many people, and I thank the followingfor their input at various times: Robyn Belvin, Bruce Bagemihl, Barbara Birch, RichCampbell, Guy Carden, Chandrashekar, Bonnie Chiu, Tom Cornell, Harold Crook, EwaCzaykowska-Higgins, Henry Davis, Bill Dolan, Ellen Eggers, Dwight Gardiner, JumahHameed, Ellen Livingston, Diane Massam, P.J.Mistry, Kumiko Murasugi, Joel Nevis,Daphne Remnant, Yves Roberge, Vida Samiian, Patricia Shaw, Emily Sityar, GrahamThurgood and Karen Wallace.For making time spent in the UBC linguistics department so enjoyable I am especiallyendebted to Carmen de Silva, the departmental secretary, and to the graduate students whooverlapped with me: Christina Andrews, Bruce Bagemihl, Nicola Besse11, He1mi Braches,Henry Davis, Jane Fee, Jumah Hameed, Cathy Howett, Helen List, Johanne Paradis,Daphne Remnant, Diane Rodgers and Yves Roberge.Outside the linguistics department, Kathy, Adriana, Bruce, Daphne, Caroline, Nicola,horacio, Janine, Rosalind, Johanne, Breda, Alastair, Sue and Cathy made being inVancouver fun. I am especially grateful to Kathy (and her roommates) for allowing me tostay so often when I was visiting from Fresno. Without that support, working on thisthesis at a distance would have been much more difficult.I would like to thank the faculty and staff of the linguistics department at California StateUniversity Fresno for their support while I was trying to balance teaching and writing, andespecially Vida Samiian and Luis Costa for administrative support at crucial times.My studies were funded by a Commonwealth Scholarship, and my field work was fundedby grants from the Jacobs Fund and the Phillips Fund. I am grateful for all this support. • II .1^ .1 • oro y unt, an to my us an/Bill Dolan, for their unfailing love and support.xiChapter 1: Theoretical Background.1.^Introduction to GB theoryThe analysis in this thesis is presented within the Government and Binding (GB) syntacticmodel, developed in Chomsky (1981, 1982, 1986a, 1986b, 1991, 1992). This sectionpresents a brief introduction to those components of GB theory which will be relevant tomy discussion in Chapters 3 and 4. The discussion here will be quite general, with moredetailed exposition of particular aspects of the theory presented as they become important tothe discussion.1.1. LexiconThe lexicon is that component of the grammar in which lexical items are stored, along withidiosyncratic information about them, such as their category (e.g. noun, verb). Forelements that function as predicates, the lexicon also contains information about theirargument structure, such as how many arguments the predicate licenses and what thematicor theta roles (such as agent, patient, or experiencer) are associated with those arguments.For example, the lexical entry for an English verb such as "see" will encode the fact thatthis verb is associated with two arguments, which will bear the thematic roles agent (theone who sees) and patient (the one who is seen).As well as containing entries for lexical categories such as nouns, verbs, prepositions andadjectives, the lexicon also contains what are called "functional" categories, such ascomplementizers, determiners, tense and aspect. These categories do not assign thematicroles, but can select particular kinds of complements.11.2. Phrase structurePhrase structure is projected from elements which are selected from the lexicon.Projections are assumed to conform to the following type:(1) XPYP^X'X/ \ZPThe category of a phrase XP is determined by the category of its head, X. Thus, if X is anoun, its maximal projection will be a NP. Both inflectional and lexical categories canserve as phrasal heads.As a more concrete example, consider the following tree, which represents my analysis ofpart of a Gitksan sentence.(2) AspPAsp'Asp^VPNP \V/In this tree Asp is a functional category which serves as the head of the phrase AspP. VPis the complement of Asp, headed by the lexical category V, with NP as its specifier.AspP and VP are maximal projections of the heads Asp and V respectively.Chomsky (1992) proposes that only particular structural relations within trees of this typecan be syntactically relevant. One is the head-specifier relationship, which is exemplified inthis tree by the relationship between V and NP. Another syntactically relevant structural2relationship is that which holds between different heads in a single tree. This kind ofrelationship holds between the two heads Asp and V in the above tree.One further kind of structural relationship to which I will refer in this dissertation is c-command, which can be defined as follows:(3) C-commanda c-commands [3 if and only if a does not dominate (3 and every y that dominates adominates (3.(Chomsky 1986a:8)In the tree in (2), Asp c-commands VP and everything contained in VP.1.3. Theta theory and argument structureWhen a predicate is inserted into phrase structure, its thematic roles are assigned to otherelements in the clause. GB theory assumes that there are various universal constraints onthe relationship between a predicate and the elements which bear its theta roles. The extentto which language variation in this area is possible underlies much of the discussion inChapter 3.1.3.1. The Theta Criterion and empty categoriesOne principle of theta theory is the "Theta Criterion", which can be stated as follows:(4) Theta CriterionEach argument bears one and only one theta role and each theta role is assigned toone and only one argument. (Chomsky 1981:36)The requirements of the Theta Criterion sometimes demand that elements be posited whichhave no phonetic form. For example, consider the following Gitksan sentence: 11 Such a sentence is grammatical in context - for example, in answer to the following question:(15) nta =1^kwala - y'where = cn blanket-lcg "Where's my blanket?"3(16) kin'am - a - y' ?a = s t = Billgive -erg-lsg to =case cn=Bill"I gave it to Bill"gi'nami'y as BillIn this sentence, the verb /kin'am/ "give" has three theta roles to assign - an agent, a themeand a goal. There is no overt element in the sentence to which the theme argument can beassigned, yet the Theta Criterion dictates that the theme role must still be assigned. Thisapparent paradox is resolved in GB theory by assuming that such sentences contain aphonetically empty pronominal element, pro, which bears the theme role:(16) kin'am -a - y' pro ?a = s t = Bill[theme]The distribution of pro in Gitksan is crucial to the discussion in Chapter 4.1.3.2. The domain of theta role assignment and the VP internal subjectAnother constraint of theta theory is that theta roles must be assigned within some restrictedstructural domain. One recent proposal is that all the theta roles associated with a verbshould be assigned within that verb's maximal projection. (cf. Koopman and Sportiche1991, Guilfoyle, Hung and Travis 1992 and others.)An important consequence of this claim is that the agent theta role, which is normallyassociated with the subject of the sentence, must also be assigned to an argument within theVP. This contrasts with earlier models, in which the agent theta role was assigned to anelement in a VP-external subject position. Various proposals have been made aboutexactly where in the VP this agent theta role should be assigned - to the specifier of VP(Guilfoyle et al. 1992, Kuroda 1988), to a position adjoined to VP (Koopman andndahl gwila'yDetaiLabollt the presentntinn of Giticsan examples is given in Chaptel 2.4Sportiche 1991) or to a higher projection of V (Travis 1991). In Chapter 4's analysis ofGitksan clause structure I will be assuming Travis's version of the VP-internal subjecthypothesis, although this choice is not crucial to my argument.1.3.3. The organization of theta rolesThe position to which particular theta roles can be assigned is also highly restricted. Forexample, most languages which have been investigated within the GB framework areanalysed as having the type of structure given in (7), in which the agent is assigned to ahigher position than the theme, but not structures such as (8), in which the theme isassigned to a higher position than the agent.(7) /\ (8) *VP / \NP V' NP V'agent / \^theme /^V NP V NPtheme agentEvidence of this type has led to proposals that the theta roles which make up argumentstructures are hierarchically arranged. The following hierarchy from Grimshaw (1990:8) isone example:(9)^(agent (experiencer (goal/source/location (theme))))It is further assumed that structural realisation of arguments in the phrase structure mustmirror this hierarchy, with roles higher in the hierarchy being associated with positionshigher in the tree. The structure in (8) is thus ruled out, because the theme, the lowestelement in the hierarchy, is assigned to a higher position than the agent.1.4. LF and PFIn order to fulfill its communicative function, a representation generated by the modulesmus U mate y pro• uce a sentence which is well-formed5semantically and phonetically. The interface between the syntactic component and thesesemantic and phonetic components occurs at levels of representation referred to as LogicalForm (LF) and Phonetic Form (PF). The structure which feeds the LF and PFcomponents is referred to as S-Structure.1.5. Checking theory and movementChomsky (1992) assumes that lexical items are inserted into syntactic structure withinflectional features already attached. During the course of the derivation each feature mustbe checked, or licensed under identity with a feature on another element within thestructure. The checking requirements of a lexical item can potentially motivate syntacticmovement.The details of this feature-checking theory are relevant only in Chapter 4, and so I delaypresenting a more detailed discussion of this topic until that chapter.1.6. SummaryThis section has presented a brief introduction to some of the theoretical notions which willbe relevant to the discussion in later chapters. Before concluding this chapter, I brieflyaddress why the Gitksan data I describe are of interest to both theoretical and descriptivelinguists.2.^Relevance of Gitksan to the theoryAny theory which makes universal claims about the nature of language must obviously beaccountable to data from any human language. However, the vast majority of work within the GB fram - •^I.^Se^8-_ ra er6homogeneous languages of Western Europe. An important test of the theory is, therefore,that it also be able to explain phenomena from genetically unrelated and typologicallydiverse languages.Various aspects of the morphology and syntax of Gitksan suggest that it might have arather different structure from a language like English.One such characteristic is that it has extensive ergative patterns in its morphology. It istherefore possible that Gitksan is a syntactically ergative language in the sense of Marantz(1984), with a structure like the following:(10)/\NP VPtheme/ \V NPagentWhile such structures can account for ergative patterns, they violate the assumption thatagents are universally assigned to the structurally highest position in the sentence, thusintroducing undesirable interlanguage variation.Gitksan also exhibits various characteristics which have been associated with so-callednon-configurational languages (e.g. Hale 1982). For example, it allows frequent pro drop,has no expletives2 , does not exhibit NP movement and has a complex verb/aux. A non-configurational language has a structure such as the following, in which there is nohierarchical distinction between subject and object position.as ere an it in English, and they arediscussed in more detail in Chapter 3.27(11)V \'■,V NP NPagent themeAs with the ergative structure in (10), allowing non-configurational structures woulddramatically increase the range of language variation permitted by the theory Like theergative structure, this non-configurational structure violates the assumption thathierarchical relationships in the syntax should reflect hierarchical relationships in theargument structure.Given its typological characteristics, Gitksan thus seems like a plausible candidate forproving untenable the kind of structural identity among languages proposed in GB theory.However, I will argue on the basis of syntactic evidence that the most plausible analysis ofGitksan is one which conforms to the constraints proposed by GB theory. Given thetypological differences between Gitksan and the languages of Western Europe, this findingprovides interesting support for the theory.More specifically, my analysis supports the instantiation of GB theory proposed inChomsky (1992), which claims that language variation derives principally frommorphological properties. Gitksan is morphologically much richer than English, especiallyin the area of agreement, and thus provides a good testing ground for a theory in whichmorphology plays a central role. My analysis of the Gitksan agreement data provescompatible with the general framework described in Chomsky (1992). In addition,however, my analysis leads me to some specific elaborations of the theory, related to theinteraction of feature strength, morphological richness, and syntactic movement.83.^Broader implications of the dissertationAlthough the arguments in this dissertation are couched within the terms of GB theory, thedata I discuss and the issues they raise are of more general interest. For instance, much ofthe data on ergativity and non-configurationality presented in Chapter 3 is typological innature, and thus relatively theory-neutral. Even the discussion in Chapter 4, which ismore heavily dependent on the specific machinery of current GB theory, is ultimately aimedat producing a general characterization of the relationship between case/agreementmorphology and syntax. For the reader whose primary interest is descriptive linguistics,this chapter can be viewed as one way of organizing complex data to reveal interestinggeneralizations.9Chapter 2. A sketch of Gitksan1. Introduction This chapter provides a brief introduction to Gitksan, the language which is the focus ofthis dissertation.Gitksan is a Tsimshianic language, with at least 500 speakers (Powell and Stevens 1977)living mostly in Northwestern British Columbia, in a number of villages on or near theSkeena River and also in Kitwancool. Gitksan is very closely related to Nisgha, spoken onthe Nass River, and more distantly to Coast Tsimshian and Southern Tsimshian, spoken inthe coastal area.The most complete early description of Tsimshianic languages is Boas (1911) whichdescribes aspects of the phonology, morphology and syntax of Nisgha and CoastTsimshian. More recent descriptions of the Tsimshianic languages are Rigsby (1986) onGitksan, Tarpent (1987) on Nisgha, and Dunn (1979) on Coast Tsimshian.2. DataUnless otherwise stated, the data in this thesis are taken from my own field notes. Myprincipal language consultants for this thesis have been Barbara Sennott and Margaret Heitof Kispiox. I have also worked with Elizabeth Tait and Rodney Good of Kitwancool andPearl Tromblay of Hazelton, and, briefly, with Phyllis Haizimsque and Cindy ofKitwancool.Where data come from other sources, R indicates Rigsby (1986), and T (date) indicateswork b T10languages are very similar syntactically. Analyses by Tarpent will frequently be referred toin the discussion of Gitksan syntax, if the motivation for the Nisgha analysis also exists inGitksan.Most of the data are presented in four-part sets. The first line is a phonemic representation,with affix (-) and clitic (=) boundaries indicated. The second line consists of morpheme-by-morpheme glosses, and the third line provides an English translation. Finally, eachsentence is also given (italicized) in the standard Gitksan orthography described in Hindleand Rigsby (1973) and Rigsby (1986).The Gitksan orthography developed by Rigsby is broadly phonetic in nature, and ingeneral, the symbol usage is close to North American phonetic notation. The followingsymbols, however, are particular to the Gitksan orthographic system.(1) orthographic^phoneticsymbol interpretationk^[q]x [X]g [G]hl^[1][ 2 Jxw^[xw]k w' [kW]gw^[gW]ky' [kY']gY^[gY]Various conventions govern the use of these symbols in the Gitksan orthography. Glottalstop is not indicated in word-initial position. "w" is used to indicate labialization of velarsexcept when they occur before rounded vowels. "y" is used to indicate palatalization onlybefore round back vowels. Glottalization of segments is represented with an apostrophe.However, the position of the apostrophe varies according to the kind of segment it isassociated with. Ejective stops and affricates are represented with an apostrophe following11the stop symbol (p', , ts', k', k) . Glottalization on sonorants is represented with anapostrophe preceding the symbol ('m, 'n, 7, 'y, 'w).Long vowels are indicated by a sequence of two identical vowels. For example, "cc"represents fe:). The orthography does not distinguish between tense and lax vowels.Ungrammatical sentences, where used in argumentation, will not be presented in theGitksan orthography, since they are not sentences which would be used by Gitksanspeakers. Following standard practice, the phonemic representations of such sentenceswill be marked with an asterisk.3. Introduction to GitksanThis section briefly sketches some of the major features of Gitksan phonology,morphology, and syntax which will help the reader follow the data presented in the thesis.Certain aspects of the language will be described in more detail in later chapters, as theybecome relevant to the discussion.3.1. Introduction to the phonology of GitksanIn this section I present a brief introduction to the phonology of Gitksan. For more detaileddiscussion of the phonology of Gitksan, the reader is referred to Rigsby (1986, Chapter 3)and Hunt (1991).The rules presented in this section will help readers to interpret the relationship between thephonemic and the orthographic representations of the data presented in this thesis. Someadditional rules are discussed in the course of the dissertation, when they are relevant to aparticular syntactic argument.123.1.1. Phonemic inventory and across the board rules.I assume the phonemic vowel inventory in (2), which is based on the inventory given inRigsby (1986).(2) Short vowels:^Long vowels:i^u i:^u:a e:^o:a a.The vowel /a/ is coloured by adjacent consonants, so that it is realised as [u] beforerounded consonants (3), as [a] before or after uvulars and glottals (4), and as [I](orthographic "i") elsewhere (5).UR^PR^orthography(3) /10-wa:x/^[luwa:x]^luwaax^R:93p1-paddle (vi)(4) /la -2aks/^[la2aks]^la'aks^R:93pl-drink (vi)(5) /la -mo:-txw/^[1Imo:txw]^limootxw^R:93pl-root-pass"be cured"A high vowel is lowered to a mid vowel before a uvular or a glottal stop:(6) [+syll] -> [-hi ] / ___ {2, q, q', X} (based on Rigsby 1986: 204)+ hi^-lo(7) /nuX/^[noX]^noamotherA vowel followed by a tautosyllabic glottal stop is realised with an echo vowel immediatelyfollowing the glottal closure. This is illustrated in the following example:13(8) /si2/^[Set]^se'efootThe phonemic consonant inventory I assume is the following:(9) p^t^ts^k^kw q^2p'^t'^ts'^k'^kw' q's x xw X hIm n 1 Y wm' n'^l'^y'^w'The obstruents /k, k', x/ are generally realised with palatal articulation. However, I followRigsby (1986) in representing them phonemically without palatalization.Voicing is not distinctive underlyingly. However, on the surface there are both voiced andvoiceless stops and affricates, due to the effects of a prevocalic voicing rule:(10) -son -> [+voice] / ___ [-cons] (based on Rigsby 1986:134)-cont[(11) /kwup - a - t/^[gUbIt] gubiteat - erg - 3sg"s/he ate (st)"Rigsby (1986:135) notes that exceptions to the prevocalic voicing rule may arise inborrowings from English, in which aspirated voiceless stops appear prevocalically. Herepresents these phonemically as clusters of plain voiceless stops followed by /h/, asillustrated in the following example:^(12) ildia:/^[kha..]^kaa^"car"^R: 135There are also native words, such as [thun] "this", which contain prevocalic [th].Distributional and comparative evidence leads Rigsby to analyse these as deriving from anunderlying sequcncc of a voiceless stop followed by a velar fricative. A phonological rule14converts the fricative into aspiration. Thus /t=xwin/ is the underlying representation of[thun] "this". 1Sonorant consonants may only occur adjacent to a vowel. Vowel epenthesis (12) applieswhen affixation produces disallowed sequences, as illustrated in (13).(12) Vowel epenthesis: 0 ----> a/ C^C^[+cons]^[+son] #(13) /2a:t - m kat/^[2a:dim eat]^aadim gatnet -attr man"net fisherman"A lenition rule (14) converts dorsal fricatives into glides when they occur intervocalically, ifthe preceding vowel is stressed, as illustrated in (15).(14) xx''-> ywh/ V[+stress]V (Rigsby 1986:173)(15) /kwlixw - a - t/ [gdwit] guwitshoot-erg- 3sg"s/he shot (st)"3.1.2. Two morphologically conditioned rulesi. Connective deletionAs is discussed in more detail in the next section, nouns in Gitksan are normally precededby a semantically empty clitic, which is generally referred to as a connective. Beforeproper nouns, this connective takes the form It/, as in the following example:(16) w'itxw t = John qu2 - y'come^cn = John loc 2 - 1 sg"John came to my place"'witxw t John go to'y1 An additional rule converts /xwi/ into [xti]. See Rigsby (1986:135-8) for more detailed discussion.2Possible English translations of the illuipheine /qu?/ include both "to" and "at". I follow Rigsby inglossing the morpheme as "loc" (locative).15In certain syntactic environments, however, the /t/ connective does not surface. Instead,the proper noun is preceded by an /s/ morpheme:(17) ne: - ti:^w'itxw = s John qu2 - y'not -contr come =^John loc -lsg"John didn't come to my place"needii 'witxws John go'o'yBecause of the apparently complementary distribution of the Is/ and It/ morphemes, Tarpent(1981), Rigsby (1986), and Hunt (1987) (among others) assumed that they were variantsof the same connective morpheme. However, Tarpent (1986, fn.3) points out thatevidence from plural proper nouns suggests that the /s/ and /t/ must be realisations ofdifferent morphemes in Nisgha. Parallel evidence exists in Gitksan. The structure ofTarpent's argument is presented below, illustrated with examples from Gitksan.Before a plural proper noun, the connective takes the form/tip! instead of /t/. (The pluralconnective /tip/, used before a singular proper noun, has the interpretation of a group ofpeople which includes the person named.)(18) pakw^tip John qu2 - y'come.pl cn John loc -lsg"John and them came to my place"bakw dip John go'o'yInterestingly, the plural connective /tip!, unlike the singular connective /t/, can cooccurwith the morpheme Is!:(19) ne: - ti:^pakw = s^tip John qu2 - y'not -contr come.pl =^cn John loc -1 sg"John and them didn't come to my place"needii bakws dip John go'o'yOn the basis of such data, Tarpent concludes that /s/ must be a realisation of a differentmorpheme. Her analysis attributes the failure of the /t/ to cooccur with the /s/ to a clusterredi.&tioii i ule which deletes the It!:163 In this usage I differ from Tarpent (1981 and subsequently) and Rigsby (1990), who gloss the Is/morpheme as a connective and the /t/ and /tip/ morphemes as determinate markers.4g osses it as a• .^ __ .Ti,$ • I oh.(20) t -> 0 / s _ CThus, the underlying representation of a sentence such as (17) must be the following:(21) ne: - ti: w'itxw = s t =John qu2 - y'needii 'witxws John go'o'yThe /t/ is not realised on the surface as a result of the application of the deletion rule (20).The /t/ deletion rule in (20) is, however, clearly morphologically conditioned, since [stCJclusters occur elsewhere in the language, where (minimally) the /s/ is part of a separatemorpheme from the following It/, as illustrated in the following examples:(22) 2aks - t = I kwatats' - y'wet -pass=cn coat - 1 sg"My coat is wet"aksthl gudats'i'y(23) 2amam'a5 t = Marybeautiful^cn = Mary"Mary is beautiful"ama'mas t MaryIn the remainder of the thesis I will gloss the A/ morpheme as a connective (cn) and the /s/morpheme as a case-marker ("case").3ii. t/0 alternationsA number of morphemes in both Nisgha and Gitksan alternate between a /t/-initial form,which occurs after sonorants, and a non-A/-initial form which occurs in otherenvironments. For example, the passive morpheme alternates in form between /txw/ and/xw/, as illustrated below4 : medial suffix. It has a wide range of uses and meanings.17(24) kutan - txw - y'horse - pass-1 sg"my horse"gyudantxwi'y(25.) hag - xw - y'goose-pass-lsg"my goose"hatxwi'yWalsh (1990), working on Nisgha, proposes that the IV-initial form of these suffixes isunderlying and that the It/ is deleted by a process of stray erasure resulting from the failureof the /t/ to be prosodically licensed when it occurs after a non-moraic segment.5 While Iaccept this analysis, in my phonemic representations I will represent these suffixesaccording to their surface form, in order to make the relationship between the phonemic andorthographic representations more transparent.3.2. Introduction to the morphology of Gitksan3.2.1. Morphological complexityGitksan is more complex morphologically than English, but less so than its Athabaskanneighbour, Carrier. Gitksan has been compared in its degree of morphological complexityto German (Tarpent 1983:123, Rigsby 1989:247-8).The verb may be morphologically simple, but frequently hosts a range of affixes which arerelevant to the syntax, such as passive, antipassive, and transitivizing affixes, as well asnumber agreement and person markers. A few examples are given below (affixes5 Walsh presents evidence that vowels and sonorant consonants are moraic in Gitksan and Nisgha. The t-deletion process is restricted to the first and second levels of the lexicon. Later in the phonology C t Csequences are permitted even if the first C is non-moraic, as for example in the following sentence:(1) n'it - 1 lip - wilp - t - ^qanwila lu: - saks - an - t3sg -cn self-house-3-cn always in -clean -trn -3sg"It's his own house he always cleans"'nithl lipwilpthl ganwila luusaksint18underlined):(26) a - wila:x - a - an -pfx6- know - pass - trn7 - 3"S/he taught it"^R:361siwilaaksint(27) kwin sok - saks - an - k =i^nu2 = I^2a = s^t=Maryjuss pl - clean - tm - 1 sg = cn dishes = cn prep=case cn=Mary"I told Mary to wash the dishes"gun siksaksini'yhl no'ohl as MaryNominals may also be morphologically simple or include various derivational affixes, as inthe following examples:(28) ha - n'i: - t'a:instr -on -sit"chair"ha'niit'aa(29) tan - lu: - quyp'aXobject - in - light"window"anluugoyp'ax3.2.2.^CliticsGitksan exhibits a range of proclitics and enclitics, including evidentials (30), theinterrogative marker (31) and one set of person markers (32).(30) lamo: - a - t -^= s^t = Kathy t = Johnhelp - erg - 3 - rep = case cn = Kathy cn = John"Apparently Kathy helped John"hlimooyitgas Kathy t John(31) yukw= t 2ixw - n = aprog = cn fish -2sg=inter"Are you fishing?"yukwhl iwina?6The prefix Isa/ has a very wide range of uses and meanings, so Rigsby (1986) simply glosses it as"prefix " .7 I differ from Risgby (1986) in glossing this morpheme simply as a transitivizer  rather than a causative. n at a su ix is followed by the /a/ ergative•^'^. " .1 .1^• I 11"^.suffix. See Chapter 4, Section 3.2 for further discussion.19morp eme y morp emeI(32) ne: - ti: =^kwup = s^t = Peter =I^susi:tnot - contr = AGR eat = case en = Peter = en potato"Peter didn't eat the potatoes"neediit gups Peterhl susiitOther elides which occur in almost every sentence are the so-called connectives, mentionedin Section 3.1.2, which precede all noun phrases. The form of the connective isdetermined by the head of the following noun phrase. Before phrases headed by commonnouns, the enclitic connective /i/ occurs.(33) kwup- a - y' =^2its - m huneat -erg-lsg= en fry - attr fish"I ate fried fish"gubi'yhl ijam hunBefore proper nouns8, a class which includes personal names, certain kinship terms anddemonstrative pronouns, the connective takes the form It/ in the singular and/tip! in theplural, as was mentioned in the previous section.The plural connective is not phonologically cliticized, but instead stands alone as a word, asin the following example:(34) ka2 - a - y'^Lip Marysee -erg-1 sg en Mary"I saw Mary and them"ga'a'y dip MaryThe singular connective appears to be a clitic, but it is difficult to establish whether itcliticizes to the left or to the right. In Rigsby (1986) it is treated as an enclitic, but I followRigsby (1989) in treating it as a proclitic.9 Evidence supporting this analysis comes fromthe fact that this morpheme can occur in absolute sentence-initial position, where there is noelement to its left to which it could cliticize, as in the following example:8There is also a variety of terminology used to characterize these noun classes. Boas (1911:297) refers tothe two classes as those referring to "special human individuals" and "common nouns". Tarpent (1981 andsubsequently) uses the terms "determinate" and "non-determinate" to refer to the two noun classes. I followRigsby's (1986, 1990) use of the terms "proper" and "common".9representations treats it as an independent word.20(35) t = Peter = i^sim'o:kit - xw - m'cn= Peter = cn chief - pass - 1pl"Peter is our chief"t Peterhl si'moogitxwu'mProper nouns in certain syntactic environments are also preceded by a morpheme /s/ whichI treat as a case morpheme. This morpheme is an enclitic, as illustrated:(36) naks - xw - a = s^t = John t =Marymarry - pass - erg=case cn= John cn = Mary"John married Mary"naksxwil John t Mary3.2.3. Preverbals and prenominalsRigsby (1986) identifies a class of preverbal and prenominal elements which are adverbialor adjectival in meaning, but which are difficult to classify morphologically. Unlike trueadverbs and adjectives, these morphemes do not receive primary stress. The preverbalsdiffer in syntactic position from morphologically independent adverbs, which occur afterthe verb and its arguments. The prenominals differ from adjectives in that they do not takean attributive suffix. Furthermore, Rigsby (1986:58) points out that the preverbals andprenominals are more independent in form and meaning than prefixes, and that they aremore selective in their hosts than clitics. He thus proposes that they should be given anindependent classification as prenominals and preverbals. The underlined elements in (37)- (39) are examples of preverbals, and in (40) - (42) are examples of prenominals.(37) lu: saks - an - y'= i^ts'im wilpin clean-trn-lsg = cn^in^house"I cleaned the house"luusaksinryhl ts'im wilp(38) t'ak - a - y'^wil^skitam w'itxw - y' qu2 = s^t = Kathyforget-erg-lsg comp have.to come -lsg loc = case cn = Kathy"I forgot I was supposed to come to Kathy's"t'agi'y wil sgidim 'witxwi'y go?os Kathy21(39) kw'a^ma:s2us n'u:m' qu2 = i laX ts'e:= i^2aksformerly play (pi) lpl^loc = en on edge = cn water"We used to play beside the river"kw'a maas'us 'nuu'rn go'ohl lax ts'eehl aks(40) ts'i:kw= I^qaltam^2aks t = xwinleak = en container water cn= dem"This pail leaks"ts'iikwhl galdim ?aks tun(41) wit'aX hu - muxw n'i:y'big(p1) pl - ear^1 sg"I have big ears"wit'ax humuxw 'nii'y(42) kw'upa^tkilxwsmall(p1) child"group of children"k'uba tk'ihlxwSome preverbals condition particular suffixes on the verb. For instance, in the followingexample, the preverbal /his/ his "pretend" conditions the presence of the passive suffix onthe verb.(43) w'ii^his ^paX - xw = i iku^tk'ilxwaround pretend run -pass=cn small^child"The child was just pretending to run"Wihl his baxxwhl hlgu tk'ihlxwMore detailed discussion of particular affixes and clitics will be given at relevant points laterin the dissertation. See Rigsby (1986) and Tarpent (1987) for a much more extensivediscussion of the morphology.3.3. Introduction to the syntax of GitksanIn this section I outline some basic features of Gitksan syntax.223.3.1. Word orderGitskan is a VS0 language, as shown by the following sentences.(44) stil - a = s^t = John t = Peteraccompany - erg = case cn= John en = PeterV^ SUBJ OBJ"John accompanied Peter"sdilis John t Peter(45) paX t = Johnrun cn= JohnV^SUBJ"John ran"bal t JohnNot only verbs, but also noun phrases and adjectives may serve as (intransitive) predicates,as in the following data.Nominal Predicate(46) stik'e:kw - y'^t =Peterbrother - lsg^cn= Peter"Peter is my brother"sdik'eegwi'y t PeterAdjectival predicate(47) 2amam'as = I ma:xwsbeautiful =cn snow"The snow is beautiful"ama'mashl maaxwsAs in most VSO languages, the word order within NPs and PPs is basically head-initial,with the noun preceding its possessor (48) and the preposition preceding its object (49).(48) wilp = s^t =Johnhouse = case en = John"John's house"wilps John(49) 2a = s^t =Maryto = case cn = Mary"to Mary"as MaryHowever, since adjectives precede nouns, the head noun is not necessarily in absoluteinitial position in its NP. Thus, in the following example, /Xpi:st/.biist23noun despite the fact that it is preceded by the adjective /stin/ sdin "heavy".(50) stin - m^Xpi:stheavy - attr box"heavy box"sdinim thiistOblique arguments, adverbials and subordinate clauses, if present, can never intervene inthe VSO sequence, but rather follow the subject and object arguments in a sentence.Subcategorized elements normally precede adjuncts, but there is some degree of freedom inordering:(51) ye: t = John qu2 =^Terrace k'o:tsgo cn = John loc = cn Terrace yesterday"John went to Terrace yesterday"yee t John go'ohl Terrace ky'oots(52) kin'am -a = s t = Peter =1 saw'nsxw 2a = s^t = Marygive -erg=case cn=Peter = cn paper^to = case cn= Mary"Peter gave Mary the paper"gi'namis Peterhl sa'wnsxw as Mary(53) limo: - a- t^n'i:y' [ wil^lags - y' ]help -erg-3sg lsg^[ comp wash - 1 sg ]"She helped me take a bath / when I took a bath"hlimooyit 'nii'y wilThe preverbal position may be occupied by wh-phrases (54) or foci (55).10 ((55) is thecorrect form for an answer to a question such as (54).)(54) na: = i^ka2 = s^t = Johnwho = cn see = case cn = John"Whom did John see?"naahl ga'as John(55) t = Peter =^ka2 = s^t = Johncn=Peter = cn see =case cn = John"John saw Peter."t Peterhl ga'as John101 use the term "focus" in the sense of Rochemont (1986).243.3.2. Dependent vs independent clausesAlso in preverbal position, we find subordinating elements, which I shall refer to as"dependent markers".11 The class of dependent markers includes elements markingnegation (56), clause subordination (57) and aspect (58),(59).(56) ne: - ti: = t^kwup = s^t = Peter =1^susi:tnot - contr = AGR eat = case en = Peter = en potato"Peter didn't eat the potatoes"neediit gups Peterhl susiit(57) mai - T - a = s^t = John wil = t^n'im - ka2 - y'say- T - erg=case en = John comp = AGR want - see -lsg"John said he wanted to see me"mahldis John wilt 'nimga'a'y(58) yukw = t tsap = I wine:xprog =AGR make = en food"He is making food"yukwt japhl wineex(59) la:^ta:Vi = s t =Maryincept leave =case en = Mary"Mary is leaving right now"hlaa daa'whls MaryClauses introduced by dependent markers, which I shall refer to as dependent clauses,differ in important ways from verb-initial independent clauses12. Independent clausesexhibit different verbal morphology, and different patterns of case-marking and agreementfrom dependent clauses. More detailed discussion of these differences is given in Chapter4.11Tament (1987) groups these elements into several classes: auxiliary verbs, negative verbs andsubordinators. The status of these elements and of dependent clauses in general will be discussed in moredetail in later chapters.12Many different terms have been adopted to refer to this clause type. Boas (1911) termed them"subjunctive", Rigsby (1986,1990) and Tarpent (1981) use the term "dependent", which I have adopted,Tarpent (1987) refers to them as "regular" clauses and Livingston (1987) refers to them as "non-verb-initial"Similarly, independent clauses have gone by various names. Boas terms these "indicative" the teIl•^ If •! arpen^, arpent (1987) uses the term "predicatefocused" and Livingston (1987) uses the term "verb-initial".• e•.^"i .1 I25Chapter 3 Structural and Typological Characteristics of Gitksan0. IntroductionThis chapter explores some fundamental questions regarding the structure of the Gitksanclause. On the surface, Gitksan seems to differ greatly in its syntactic properties from alanguage like English. For example, Gitksan shows a range of ergative properties, itshares various properties with non-configurational languages, and, in many sentence types,verbal arguments appear to be represented by bound person markers rather than overtnominals.These characteristics might be accounted for by claiming that Gitksan clause structurediffers dramatically from the clause structure of a language like English. My goal in thischapter, however, is to show that these surface characteristics do not provide particularlystrong evidence for deviating, in the case of Gitksan, from the kinds of clause structurespermitted by GB theory. I conclude, in fact, that there is evidence to support an analysis ofGitksan using a quite standard clause structure.The chapter is structured as follows. Section 1 considers the ergative features exhibited byGitksan, and I show that these features are, from a typological standpoint, characteristic ofa morphologically ergative rather than a syntactically ergative language. In Section 2, Iconsider the question of whether Gitksan is typologically non-configurational. I show thatGitksan cannot unambiguously be classed as non-configurational, since it shares propertieswith both non-configurational and configurational languages. Section 3 presents syntacticarguments which support an accusative, configurational analysis of Gitksan. Finally,Section 4 shows that Gitksan does not display the characteristics of a pronominal argumentlanguage.261. ErgativityIn this section I consider the ergativity of Gitksan. In Section 1.2, I outline the ergativecharacteristics of Gitksan, and in Section 1.3, I show that these characteristics aremorphological rather than syntactic in nature, and that Gitksan fails to show typologicallyergative characteristics in its syntax.1.1. IntroductionGitksan, like all the Tsimshianic languages, shows many ergative patterns. That is, withrespect to certain features, the intransitive subject and the transitive object (the absolutivearguments) pattern together and differently from the transitive subject (the ergativeargument).Since the issues under discussion here make the terms "subject" and "object" ambiguous,throughout the discussion of ergativity I shall adopt the following conventions, used inComrie (1978) and Dixon (1979), for referring to the arguments of a verb: S will refer tothe single argument of an intransitive verb, A will refer to the agent argument of a transitiveverb, 0 will refer to the theme argument of a transitive verb. Ergative patterns will beones in which S and 0 pattern alike and unlike A. Accusative patterns will be ones inwhich S and A pattern alike and unlike O.(1) nom/ace erg/absnominativeergative[AJaccusativeS[ 0absolutive271.2. Constructions exhibiting ergative patterns.In this section I outline the ergative patterns of Gitksan. The data I use to illustrate thesepatterns are largely my own, but the patterns themselves have all been described elsewherein the Tsimshianic literature. See Rigsby (1975) on Gitksan, Tarpent (1982) and Belvin(1984) on Nisgha, and Mulder (1988) on Coast Tsimshian.1.2.1. Ergative patterns restricted to independent clausesRecall from Chapter 2 that Gitksan has two different clause types - independent (verb-initial) and dependent (introduced by a dependent marker). A number of ergative patternsin Gitksan are restricted to independent clauses, and it is these patterns which I willconsider in this section.1.2.1.1. Case markingAs I discussed in Chapter 2, proper nouns are sometimes preceded by an /s/ case-markingmorpheme. In independent sentences, the distribution of this morpheme is ergative, in thatit precedes A but not S or 0, as is illustrated in the following data:(2) ka2 - a = s tip John t = Marysee -erg=case cn John cn= Mary"John and them saw Mary"ga'as dip John t Mary(3) ye: tip John qu2 =1^Terracego cn John loc = cn Terrace"John and them went to Terrace"yee dip John go'ohl TerraceThe distribution of this /s/ morpheme is ergative only in independent clauses. In dependentclauses, /s/ precedes any proper noun argument which immediately follows the verb.Thus, it can potentially appear before S, A, or 0. The following example shows the /s/morpheme appearing before S in a dependent clause.28(4) yukw =I litsXxw = s t = Johnprog = cn read = case cn=John"John is reading"yukwhl litssxws John1.2.1.2. Series II and III person markersTwo series of person markers in Gitksan also show ergative distribution in independentclauses. The Series II person markersl, given in (5), appear suffixed to lexical heads,while the Series III person markers, given in (6), are independent pronouns.(5) Series II (Rigsby 1986:413)sg pl1^-y' -m' -3' -'m2^-n -sem' -n -si'm3^-t -ti:t -t -diit(6) Series III (Rigsby 1986:413)sg^pl1^n'i:y' n'u:m' 'nii'y 'nuu'm2^n'i:n n'isim' 'nun 'nisi'm3^n'it n'idi:t 'nit 'nidiitIn independent clauses, Series II suffixes are used to represent the person and number of A(7), while Series III pronouns are used to represent S (8) and 0(9).2(7) ka2 - a - y' tip Johnsee -erg-lsg cn John"I saw John and them"ga'a'y dip John(8) paX n'i:y'run lsg"I ran"bax 'nii'y1The names of the person marking series are taken from Rigsby (1986).2 S ei_es HI :0.11epee.cleg.t fav,.. ^e st, aso *I^sq..), a-pi ailai,^• iit..ub , ieaitJ1css of 1grammatical role. However, in this section I restrict my attention to pronouns in their canonical positions.29(9) ka2 - a - y' n'i:nsee -erg-lsg 2sg"I saw you"ga'a'y 'niinIt is ungrammatical to use Series Ill pronouns to represent A (10) or to use Series IIsuffixes to represent S (11) or 0 (12).(10) *ka2 - a n'i:y' tip Johnsee -erg lsg^cn John(I saw John and them)(11) *paX - y' 3run -1 sg(I ran)(12) *ka2 - a = s^tip John - y'see -erg = case cn John - 1 sg(John and them saw me)Again, this ergative pattern does not extend to dependent sentences. In a dependentsentence, a Series II suffix can potentially be used to represent S, A or 0, 4 and a SeriesIII pronoun can be used only to represent 0. This is illustrated by the following examples.In (13), a dependent clause, S is represented by a Series II suffix. (14) shows that it isungrammatical in this sentence type to represent S by a Series III pronoun.(13) yukw = I litsXxw - y'prog = cn read -lsg"I am reading"yukwhl litspcwi'y3Tarpent (1991) claims that sentences of this type are in fact possible in Nisgha. However, the data I havegathered for Gitksan suggest that such sentences are impossible with most verbs. See Chapter 4 for morediscussion. Note, however, that (11) could be rendered grammatical by the addition of a dependent markerbefore the verb.4Which argument is realised by the Series II suffix in a dependent sentence is not freely variable, butI'S.'16^1.61^1' 1 - n 41.141^11.•^.• .1^11 . 1 .^.I! e.^ s:^,.e..Chapter 4 for details.30(14) *yukw = I litsXxw n 'i:y 'prog = cn read^1 sg(I am reading)1.2.1.3. Zero pronominals Certain third person pronominal arguments in Gitksan may fail to be overtly realised in aclause if their reference is clear from context, as illustrated in the following question-answer pairs. In (16), the answer to (15), 0 is omitted, and in (18), the answer to (17), Sis omitted. (The position of the omitted pronoun is indicated by [e].)(15) nta = I^kwala - y'where = cn blanket-1 sg"Where's my blanket?"ndahl gwila'y(16) kan'am - a - y' [e] 2a = s^t = Billgive -erg- 1 sg^to =case cn=Bill"I gave it to Bill"gi' nami'y as Bill(17) kwi =1^tsap -^= s^t = Bill^k'o:tswhat = cn make -erg =case cn= Bill yesterday"What did Bill do yesterday?"gwihl jabis Bill ky'oots(18) ye: [e]^qu2 = i Terracego^loc = cn Terrace"He went to Terrace"yee go'ohl TerraceHowever, an A argument cannot be left totally unrealised, even if its reference is clear fromcontext. In (20), a possible answer to (19), the 3rd person pronominal must be representedby the Series II It/ suffix on the verb. The sentence is ungrammatical if the suffix isomitted, as in (21).(19) ne: - t^ka2 - y' t = Bill = aneg - 3 see -lsg cn= Bill = inter"Did Bill see me?"neet ga'a'y t Billa ?31(20) 2e:2, ka2 - a - t^n'i:n = a styes see -erg- 3 2sg =interact"Yes he did (see you)"ee'e, ga'at 'niinist(21) *2e:2, ka2 - a - [e] n'i:n - a stThus the distribution of phonetically empty pronouns in independent clauses appears to beergative, in that it is restricted to S or 0 positions. Again this is true only of independentclauses; in dependent clauses the empty pronoun is restricted to 0 positions. Thefollowing examples show that in a dependent clause S must be realised by a Series II suffix(22) and cannot be left unrealised (23): 5(22) ne: - ti:^ye: - t qu2 = I^Terracenot - contr go - 3sg loc = cn Terrace"He didn't go to Terrace"needii yeet go'ohl Terrace(23) *ne: - ti: ye: [e]^qu2 = i Terrace1.2.2. Ergative patterns restricted to dependent clauses.As illustrated in the previous section, various ergative features of Gitksan are restricted toindependent clauses. However, one ergative feature of the language - the distribution ofSeries I person markers - is restricted to dependent clauses.1.2.2.1. Series I person markersThe Series I person/number morphemes have the following forms:5In fact the distribution of the empty pronoun is identical to the distribution of the Series III pronoun.32(24) Series I (Rigsby 1986:412)sg^pl1 na^tap^ni, na, nu^dip2 ma^ma ^ sa m^mi, ma, mu mi ... sim3 t t t^tThese morphemes appear preverbally, and show an ergative distribution in that they reflectthe person/number value of A, but not of S or O. This is illustrated in (25) - (27).(25)^ne: - ti: = ti^ka2 - y'. t = Peter.J^inot -contr=AGR.3 see -lsg cn= Peter"Peter didn't see me"neediit ga'a'y t Peter(26) ne: - ti: = 2p_i^ka2 = s^t =John.Jnot -contr =AGR.1p1 see =case cn= John"We didn't see John"neediidip ga'as John(27) ne: - ti: (*=t)^paX = s t = Peternot -contr (*=AGR) run = case cn= Peter"Peter didn't run"needii baxs PeterThe Series I morphemes appear only in dependent clauses and imperatives.61.2.3. Other ergative patternsThe data in this fmal section illustrate patterns which are ergative to some degree, but whichare not restricted to either dependent or independent clauses.1.2.3.1. Imperatives Imperatives pattern ergatively in Gitksan, in that it is only A which (potentially) fails to bephonetically realised in an imperative. Consider the imperatives below:6Imperatives pattern like truncated dependent clauses.33(28) yo:q - an =1 ikwueat - trn = cn^small child"Feed the baby"yooginhl hlgu tk'ihlxw(29) paX - nrun - 2sg"Run!"bahan!In a transitive imperative such as (28), the second person addressee (A) is not phoneticallyrealised. In an intransitive imperative such as (29), however, the second person addressee(S) is phonetically realised, by the Series II second person suffix /-n/. Since 0 must bephonetically realised also, as in (28), this is another example of ergative patterning, inwhich S and 0 behave alike, and unlike A.The ergative pattern does not extend to imperatives with plural addressees, however. Inthese imperatives, the addressee (A) is realised by the Series I person marker /situ/:(30) sem = kipa - m'2p1= wait -1p1"Wait for us" R 310sim giba'm1.2.3.2. Number agreementAnother characteristic of Gitksan which patterns in an ergative manner is verbal numberagreement. The verb agrees in number with S and 0, but not with A. The agreement ismorphologically marked on the predicate via prefixation or suppletion.(31) and (32) are intransitive sentences. The form of the verb alternates according towhether S is singular (31) or plural (32).34(31) vu:axw t = Petereat(sg) cn= Peter"Peter has eaten"yuukxw t Peter(32) tXo:qxw = I smaxeat(p1) = cn bear"The bears have eaten"txookxwhl smax(31) - (32) are instances of independent sentences. However, the agreement patternsidentically in dependent sentences, as in (33) - (34):(33) yukw = i yu:qxw - y'prog = cn eat(sg) -1 sg"I am eating"yukwhl yuukxwi'y(34) yukw =1 t X o : qxw - m'prog = cn eat(p1) -1p1"We are eating"yukwhl txookxwu'm(35)-(37) are transitive sentences. The verb alternates in form according to whether 0 issingular (35) or plural (36). The plurality of A does not make the verb appear in its pluralform (37).(35) n'i:-mau-T-9=s^t = Peter = I k'iy'=1: ts'ak' laX ha - n'i:- tXo:qxwon-put -T-erg=case cn=Peter=cn one=cn plate on instr-on - eat"Peter put one plate on the table"'niimakdis Peterhl Visyhl ts'ak' laxha'niitxookxw(36) n'i: - tai - T - a - s^t = Peter = i null laX ha - n'i: - tXo:qxwon -put(p1)-T-erg=case cn=Peter = cn dishes on instr-on - eat"Peter put the dishes on the table"'niit'ahldis Peterhl nosohl lax ha'niitxookxw(37) n'i: - maa - T - a - m' =1^2an - tsam laX ha - n'i: - tXo:qxwon -put(sg)- T-erg-lpl = cn object -cook on instr-on - eat"We put the pot on the table"'niimakdi'mhl anjam lax ha'niitxookxw35The transitive number agreement is also found in dependent clauses, as illustrated in thesubordinate clause in the following pair of examples. In (38) 0 is singular, while in (39) 0is plural. The plurality of the verb in (39) is indicated by the CVC reduplicative prefix onthe verb.(38) wila:x - y' wil^ne: - ti: - t saks-an = s^t = John = l ts'im wilpknow - lsg comp not-contr-3 clean-trn=case cn=John=cn in^house"I know that John didn't clean the house"wilaayi'y wil neediit saksins Johnhl ts'im wilp(39) limo: - a - t n'i:y' na- wil^sok - saks - an = I nulhelp -erg-3 lsg^1 sg - comp pl - clean - trn= cn^dishes"She helped me clean the dishes"hlimooyit 'nii'y nul siksaksinhl no'ohlHowever, as noted in Rigsby (1986 :269 and 361) and in Tarpent (1987), plural markingon the verb can indicate plural actions rather than the plurality of S or 0, as in the followingexamples. In (40), S is singular, but the verb is plural, indicating repeated actions. In(41), S is plural, but the verb is singular indicating a single action.(40) n'a: - tas - t'is - a^n'itinto.view - pl - hit -detr 3sg"S/he knocked"'naa dist'isa 'nit(41) la:^k'atsxw - ti:tincept arrive.sg - 3p1"They have arrived/docked (in one boat)" 7hlaa k'atsxwdiitThe details of number agreement on the verb are considered in much more detail in Chapter4.7 This example is based on Tarpent (1987), who notes the contrast in meaning with the plural form:(i)^kas-k'atsxw - ti:tperf pl- arrive - 3p1"They vc affiv^LA- d (ni many boats) (bas onTarpent (1987))hlaa gisk'atsxwdiit361.2.3.3. ExtractionErgative patterns are also observed when arguments are extracted, as in wh-questions,focus constructions or relative clauses.8 When A is extracted, a special morpheme /2an - t/appears between the fronted element and the remainder of the clause, as in (42). However,this morpheme fails to appear when either S or 0 is extracted. Instead, the connective /i/appears, as in (43) and (44). This is an ergative pattern.(42) t=John 2an - t ne:ti: - t limo: - t = s t = Mary k'o:tscn=John A.extr-3 not - 3 help- 3 = case cn= Mary yesterday"It's John who didn't help Mary yesterday"t John ant neediit hlimoos Mary ky'oots(43) t =John = I^limo: - a - t - s^t = Mary k'o:tscn=John = cn help - erg- 3 = case cn = Mary yesterday"It's John Mary helped yesterday"t Johnhl hlimooyis Mary ky'oots(44) t =John = I w'itxw - atcn =John= en come - S.extr"It's John who came"t Johnhl 'witxwitHowever, 0 and S do not show identical patterns. When S is extracted (44), the suffix/at/ appears on the verb. This morpheme does not appear when 0 is extracted (43).Thus, while the marking of extraction is partially ergatively, in some respects A, S and 0all pattern distinctly.1.3. The status of Gitksan's ergativityIn the previous section I reviewed a wide range of ergative patterns in the Gitksan data.How these ergative patterns should be accounted for has been a controversial issue amonglinguists working on Gitksan and other Tsimshianic languages.81 in not address in this dissertation whether the movement m these constructions is of overt NPs or emptyoperators.371.4. Morphological vs. syntactic ergativityIt is generally accepted that ergativity may be of two types, syntactic or morphological, adivision proposed in Anderson (1976). If a language is syntactically ergative, then thissuggests that it may have a rather different syntactic structure from an accusative language.However, identifying a language as morphologically ergative does not necessarily entail theassumption that it is syntactically ergative. In fact, analyses of morphologically ergativelanguages generally assume that these languages have syntactically accusative structures.There has been some disagreement in the literature on Tsimshianic languages regardingwhether they should be classed as syntactically or morphologically ergative. Rigsby(1975) proposed a syntactic analysis of Gitksan's ergativity, claiming that it derived from asyntactic structure in which the ergative argument was in VP internal position at D-Structure, while the absolutive argument was in VP external position. 9 Rood (1977)proposed a partially syntactic analysis of these ergative facts. He claimed that transitiveclauses in Gitksan had the same structure as in an accusative language but that intransitiveclauses were structured differently in that the single argument was always in VP internalposition, and thus in the same position as transitive objects. 10An almost identical range of facts has been cited in discussions of ergativity in Nisgha.Tarpent (1982) claims that Nisgha is syntactically ergativell, while Belvin (1984) claimsthat Nisgha is syntactically accusative and morphologically ergative. Mulder (1987) shows9This is in principle identical to Marantz's (1984) proposal, discussed later, although Rigsby's proposalpredates Marantz's and is based on different theoretical assumptions. In a more recent paper, Rigsby (1989)revises his earlier analysis, and concludes that there is not strong evidence of syntactic ergativity. Instead,he speculates that Gitksan is perhaps non-configurational, a proposal which is discussed in Section 2 of thischapter.1 pose in apter .11Note that Tarpent and Belvin do not assume the same definition of syntactic ergativity.38that Coast Tsimshian exhibits some ergative patterns and some accusative patterns in bothits syntax and its morphology. Dunn(1987) explicitly proposes a syntactically ergativeanalysis of Coast Tsimshian.12The range of analyses that have been proposed illustrate that it is not immediately obviouswhether the ergativity displayed by these languages is syntactic or morphological in nature.In order to address this question, I will examine two different definitions of syntacticergativity - that of Dixon (1979) and that of Marantz (1984). I will show that under bothapproaches, Gitksan should be classified as morphologically rather than syntacticallyergative.1.4.1.^Dixon (1979)Dixon (1979) considers data from a wide variety of languages which are considered to beergative, and based on this study proposes a basis for determining whether certainconstructions are morphologically or syntactically ergative.Briefly, Dixon suggests that ergative patterns should be classed as morphological if theyrelate to how the language marks its grammatical functions. For example, verbal affixes,case-marking or particles which mark S and 0 in the same way, but mark A distinctly aremorphologically ergative patternsWith respect to syntax, Dixon assumes that all languages are syntactically accusative atsome abstract level, since A and S are grouped together as a universal category of"subject". Certain syntactic constructions in all languages appeal to this universallyaccusative base. For example, in imperatives, S and A are universally grouped together as12Note., however, that Coast Tsimshian is syntactically rather different from Gitksan and Nisgha, so thatclaims about its grammar cannot automatically be assumed to hold of Nisgha and Gitksan.39the 2nd person addressees; in jussive complements, the object of the jussive verb isuniversally the S or A of the complement; the subject of a verb like "can" is universally theS or A of the associated lexical verb. Since these constructions are universally accusative,Dixon argues that they should not be used in determining whether a language has ergativeor accusative syntax.Instead, true evidence of syntactic ergativity is revealed at a more shallow level, related toconstructions such as coordination, subordination and relativization. If a language groupstogether S and 0 as syntatic pivots 13 in this type of construction, then Dixon argues that itmay be considered to show syntactic ergativity.In the following section I consider how the data from Gitksan should be classified underthis definition of syntactic vs.morphological ergativity.1.4,1,2. Morphological ergativity in GitksanIt is clear that many of the ergative patterns listed earlier should be classed as morphologicalunder Dixon's approach. In particular, all patterns relating to case-marking, agreement andperson-markers could be classified as morphologically ergative, since they relate to howGitksan marks grammatical relations. It is somewhat more difficult to classify the ergativepatterns related to empty pronominals, imperatives, and extraction. However, I suggestthat these are also basically morphological in nature.The fact that S and 0 group together in being potentially realised by zero pronominals inindependent clauses can ultimately be traced to morphological factors. The distribution ofzero pronominals is exactly equivalent to the distribution of Series III person markers, and13 e eren 1.^ tween two clauses in suchVo - I^.^F.^•constructions. See Dixon (1979:120ff) for more discussion of this term.40since only S and 0 can be realised by Series III person markers, only S and 0 can occur aszero pronominals.The ergative pattern observed in imperatives also seems to be a byproduct of the ergativeperson marking system. Morphologically, an imperative patterns like a truncateddependent clause, and in a dependent clause only A is marked by a preverbal morpheme.Thus, when the clause is truncated preverbally it is only the morpheme representing Awhich is lost.Finally, the ergative pattern in extraction constructions also seems to be basicallymorphological in nature, in that the extraction morphology serves to mark the grammaticalfunction of the extracted NP.Adopting Dixon's view of the split between morphological and syntactic ergativity, then,all the ergative patterns described earlier should be classified as morphologically ergative.The fact that many of these ergative patterns are restricted in their distribution to particularclause types does not mean that Gitksan should not be classified as morphologicallyergative. Dixon (1979:64) notes that of the languages which have been classified as havingergative morphology, none is consistently ergative throughout all its morphology.1,4.1.3. Lack of syntactic ergativity in Gitksan In order to support my general claim that Gitksan is morphologically ergative but notsyntactically ergative, it is also necessary to show that Gitksan does not exhibit the kinds ofsyntactically ergative patterns described by Dixon. In this section I begin by discussing e acts in questionD^— es - IS I41can be explained without appealing to the notion of syntactic ergativity. More specifically,I argue that the apparent evidence of syntactic ergativity encountered in one type ofcoordination construction is actually the result of a morphologically ergative pattern. I thenshow that in subordination and relativization constructions no ergative patterns areexhibited.1.4.1.3.1.^CoordinationDixon shows that in the Australian language Dyirbal, clausal coordination has an ergativebasis, in that S and 0 act as the syntactic pivot. In Dyirbal, two clauses can becoordinated only if they share an NP which has S or 0 function. In the second clause thecommon NP can be deleted. Thus, a sentence paralleling (45) is acceptable, since thecommon NP is S in both clauses.(45) Father returned and was seen by mother.However, a sentence such as (46) is not acceptable, since the common NP is S in the firstclause, but A in the second.(46) Father returned and saw mother.Tarpent (1982) suggests that Nisgha shows a similar kind of syntactic ergativity related todeletion in coordinate structures. Consider the following Nisgha sentence, taken fromTarpent (1982:63):(47) ts'in^t = Fred 2i: - t humts'aX = s t = Marycome.in cn=Fred and-3 kiss = case cn=Mary"Fred came in and Mary kissed him"ts'in t Fred lit humts'a,2g MaryIn the second half of the conjunct, the argument "Fred" is understood but not phonetically ed should be1-^ e "^11^• .1 "42interpreted as the A or 0 of the second clause. However, according to Tarpent, Nisghaspeakers normally interpret the missing argument as the 0 rather than the A of this secondclause. Thus, the 0 of the second clause is deleted under identity with the S of the firstclause. Tarpent therefore claims that the Nisgha construction has an ergative/absolutiverather than a nominative/accusative basis. This, she notes, contrasts to a comparableconstruction in an accusative language like English. In the following example, it is the Aof the second clause which is deleted under identity with the S of the first clause.(48) Fred came in and kissed Mary^(Tarpent 1982:63)The relation of identity between S and A is a nominative/accusative pattern.Data comparable to (47) are found in Gitksan. However, there are a number of problemswith using sentences of this type as an argument for syntactic ergativity. First, unlikeDyirbal, Gitksan does not restrict to S and 0 the elements which may be coreferentialbetween two conjoined clauses, as illustrated in the following example:(49) w'itxw t = Johni 2i: - ti sa- 2ankw =1^hunarrive cn=John and-3 pfx-cook=cn^fish"John arrived and he cooked the fish"'witxw t John iit sa'ankwhl hunIn this example, the S of the first clause is coreferential with the A of the second clause(both marked with i subscript).This example does differ from the examples cited in (47) in that there is no truly missingargument in the second clause. The A argument is realised in the second clause by theSeries I agreement marker, underlined in (49). However, the fact that the A argument isrealised by a person marker in the second clause in (49), while the 0 argument is totally as no • aring on e question o syntacticI 1 ' .1^WI 1^1 "^' • 1^. 143ergativity. Rather it simply results from a morphological fact about person marking.Clauses introduced by the coordinator /2i:/ are dependent in form, and therefore alwayscontain a Series I person marker reflecting the person and number of A. Thus there aremorphological reasons why A can never be totally unrealised in the second clause of acoordinate sentence.A second problem with using data such as (47) as evidence to support a syntacticallyergative analysis is that, as Tarpent notes, sentences of this type are potentially ambiguous,with the interpretation "Fred came in and kissed Mary" also available for (47). Under thisinterpretation the sentence clearly no longer illustrates the ergative pattern underconsideration. Tarpent notes that for Nisgha speakers this alternative interpretation ismarked and has a different stress pattem14,15. However, the fact that the alternativeinterpretation is available at all undermines the argument that data such as (47) constituteevidence of syntactic ergativity.1.4.1.3.2.^Relative clausesRelative clauses are a second construction type in which we might expect to find evidenceof syntactic ergativity. Dixon notes that in Dyirbal relative clauses, the relativized NP mustbe in S or 0 function in the relative clause. In Gitksan, however, NPs can be relativized inS, 0 or A function, as illustrated in the following examples:(50) S relativizedka2 - a - y' =^kat =I tawl - at = astsee - erg-1 sg=cn man=cn leave-S.extr=interact"I saw the man who left"ga'a'yhl gathl da'whlidist14For the Gitksan speakers I have worked with this actually seems to be the preferred interpretation of theequivalent Gitksan sentence.0.-."^I II • WO •^o owmg e ver^• "in this case) instead of on theverb, as is usual.44(51) A relativizedka2 - a - y' = I^kat Ian - t tsakw -T=i smaxsee - erg-lsg=cn man A.extr-3 kill - T = cn bear"I saw the man who killed the bear"ga'a'yhl gat ant jagwihl smax(52) 0 relativized2amatoX - T - a - y' = I saw'nsxw = I kan'am - a = s t = Mary lo: - y'sort - T -erg-1sg=cn paper=cn give - erg =case cn=Mary to-lsg"I sorted the papers Mary gave me"amadoxdryhl sa'wnsxwhl gi'namis Mary loo'yThus, Gitksan relative clauses provide no evidence of syntactic ergativity.1.4.1.3.3.^Complement clausesDixon cites complement clauses as another area in which one might find evidence ofsyntactic ergativity. In Dyirbal purposive complements, for example, the NP shared by thetwo clauses must be the S or 0 of both clauses. However, no such constraint seems togovern the relationship between a main clause and its complement clause in Gitksan, as thefollowing examples illustrate:(53) 2e:2sxW t = Johni tim - ti stil - y'promise cn=John fut - 3 accompany-lsgSi^Ai"John promised to accompany me"ee'esxw t John dimt sdili'y(54) wila:x - y' tim ko:ks - y'know - lsg fut float - lsgAi^Si"I know how to float"wilaayi'y dim gyooksi'yIn (53), the S of the main clause is coreferential with the A of the complement clause, andin (54) the A of the main clause is coreferential with the S of the subordinate clause.Neither of these possibilities would be permissible if coreference in clausal complementswere governed by syntactic ergativity.451.4.1.3.4. SummaryIn this section I have considered three types of constructions where syntactically ergativepatterns are likely to be found, and I have shown that in all cases ergative patterns fail toappear. This provides further support for the claim that Gitksan is not syntacticallyergative.1.4.1.4.^Split ergativity. Before concluding this section I wish to address briefly the question of split ergativity inGitksan.As was evident in the description of ergative patterns in Section 1.2, there are manyergative patterns which are restricted to independent clauses. These apparent differences inergative patterns between independent and dependent clauses have led Silverstein(1976:113) to cite Tsimshianic languages as examples of split ergative languages, with thesplit being conditioned by clause type.While it is certainly true that there is a relationship between clause type and the extent ofergative patterning, with ergative patterns more prevalent in independent clauses, it issomewhat misleading to classify Gitksan as a split ergative language in this simple manner.As we have seen, some ergative patterns occur in both independent and dependent clauses,and at least one ergative pattern (the distribution of Series I agreement) is restricted todependent clauses.1.4.1.5. ConclusionThis section has shown that under Dixon's (1979) assumptions, Gitksan should be .^II II so^e ' •^vit^I^.11^' we.46^1.4.2.^Marantz's definition of syntactic ergativity.^1.4.2.1.^Introduction A rather different approach to the issue of syntactic vs.morphological ergativity, based on astructural definition of syntactic ergativity, is found in Marantz (1984). Although theprevious section showed that under Dixon's definition of ergativity, all the ergative patternsin Gitksan should be classed as morphologically ergative, Marantz's definition issufficiently different that the same conclusion might not necessarily hold under hisapproach.In this section I outline Marantz's proposal and discuss some general problems with it. Iultimately claim that under this definition also, Gitksan proves to be morphologically ratherthan syntactically ergative. However, the evidence for this classification is not presenteduntil Section 3 of this chapter.1.4.2.2. Outline of Marantz's proposal Marantz claims that syntactically ergative languages differ from syntactically accusativelanguages at D-Structure, in the mapping of theta roles onto syntactic positions.In a syntactically accusative language, like English, the agent role is mapped onto the [NP,SJ 16 position and the theme role is mapped onto the [NP, VP] position, producing atransitive structure like the following:^16-Forrefeiiiiig to structural positions, [NP,S] refers to an NP immediately dominated by S, sister to VPand [NP, VP] refers to an NP immediately dominated by VP, sister to V.47(56) i.^S ii./ \NP VPagent /V/VP IV NPtheme(55)^S/ \NP^VPagentV NPthemeIn an intransitive sentence, the single argument, whether agent or theme, will also be in{NP,S} position at S-Structure. If this argument is an agent, it will be base-generated inthis position (i); if it is a theme it will reach this position by movement (ii).17In (55)-(56), S and A are both in the [NP,S] position at S-Structure. This explains why, inEnglish, they pattern together syntactically.Marantz proposes, however, that languages have another mapping available to them, inwhich the agent is mapped onto the [NP,V13] position and the theme is mapped onto the[NP,S] position. This mapping results in a transitive structure such as the following:18"What exactly motivates movement to [NP,S] position depends on what version of GB theory is assumed.In Chomsky (1981) such movement is motivated by the Extended Projection Principle which requires everyclause to have a subject.assume a -initial structure here, since this is the one which is relevant for Giticsan. Other orderingsare obviously possible.1848(57)^S/ \'VP^NPthemeV NPagentIn intransitive sentences, again, the single argument will be in the [NP,S] position at S-Structure, by movement (i) or base-generation (ii).(58)i. /^ii.^S/ \1/13\ I^/^thVP NPeme^V NP VagentThis other mapping produces what Marantz terms a syntactically ergative language. In alanguage with this type of mapping, S and 0 are in the same structural position, [NP,S], atS-Structure, while A is in a different structural position inside the VP. This provides asyntactic account of why A should pattern differently from S and O.Under this assumption about mapping, a syntactically ergative language is predicted toshow very different syntactic characteristics from an accusative language.19 For example,in a transitive clause V and A instead of V and 0 should pattern together as a VPconstituent, and 0 should behave as though it is structurally higher (rather than lower) thanA. In Section 3 of this chapter, which discusses syntactic evidence concerning thestructure of the clause in Gitksan, I will show that in fact Gitksan fails to pattern assyntactically ergative in the ways predicted by Marantz's classification.19See Levin (1983) for more detailed discussion of this issue.49The status of Marantz's proposal is somewhat controversial. Allowing such radicaldifferences in the kinds of structures assigned to languages is clearly undesirable for atheory which aims to restrict the extent to which languages may vary. Since the mainreason for wanting the theory to be restrictive in this way is to account for learnability, it isinteresting that Pye (1990) has argued explicitly that this type of syntactic ergativity isunlearnable, since no consistent cues are available to tell children whether or not thelanguage they are learning is syntactically ergative. As Johns (1987) points out, any cuewould need to be robust, given that this type of syntactic ergativity, if it exists at all, isclearly the marked option. Pye shows that neither morphology, nor word order, norsemantic bootstrapping can be used as cues, and that if a learner once wrongly assumedthat the language she was learning was syntactically accusative, there would be nothing toforce her to retreat from this position. All apparent counterevidence could be handled withsimple local adjustments.These problems suggest that probably no language is syntactically ergative in Marantz'ssense. Despite this, however, Marantz's proposal has been important in the literature onergative languages over the last decade, and so it seems worthwhile to show explicitly, as Ido in Section 3 of this chapter, that Gitksan is not syntactically ergative in this sense. Thisresult is desirable in that it provides indirect support for my claim that Gitksan data can beaccounted for within a standard accusative structure, and also for the broader claim thatsyntactically ergative languages in Marantz's sense do not exist.50Z. Gitksan and non-configurationalityAnother hypothesis that has been advanced regarding the structure of Gitksan and Nisghais that they might be classed as non-configurational languages. Jelinek (1986) first claimsthat Nisgha is non-configurational, and Rigsby (1989) suggests that Gitksan might be non-configurational. As noted in Chapter 1, such an analysis is problematic for GB theory. Anon-configurational structure violates putative universals governing the relationshipbetween theta roles and syntactic structure, and, as a result, allowing such structures makesthe theory less restrictive. From a theory-internal standpoint, then, there is a strongmotivation for trying to reanalyse any apparent examples of non-configurational languagesas configurational.Although Gitksan and Nisgha have been regarded as non-configurational, no extensivedefence of this position has been presented in the literature. This section examines thisquestion with respect to Gitksan, and concludes that there is in fact insufficient evidence tosupport a non-configurational analysis of Gitksan.2.1. Defining non -configurationalitySince the term "non-configurational" has been used in (at least) two distinct ways in theliterature, I begin by defining how I will be using the term. In current usage, a languagemight be classed as non-configurational if it either :A. Exhibits certain surface characteristics, in particular free word order, but alsodiscontinuous constituents, extensive use of null anaphora, lack of expletives, lackof movement transformations, especially NP movement, and a rich case system.or:B. Lacks some or all hierarchical phrase structure configurations, and in particular thephrasal category VP. 51In order to keep these two meanings distinct, I shall refer to A as "typological non-configurationality", and B as "structural non-configurationality".Under certain accounts of non-configurationality (e.g. Hale 1983), the two definitions ofconfigurationality are closely related, since typological non-configurationality is viewed asresulting from structural non-configurationality, and in general it is only proposed that alanguage is structurally non-configurational if it shows at least some of the typologicalproperties in A. One approach to determining whether Gitksan is structurally non-configurational, therefore, is to consider whether it shows the predicted typologicalcharacteristics. This is addressed in this section. Since this approach ultimately provesinconclusive, however, in Section 3 of this chapter I turn to structural tests to determinewhether Gitksan is structurally non-configurational. I conclude that there is sufficientevidence of a VP to classify Gitksan as a configurational language.2.2. Typological non-configurationalityAs pointed out in Maracz and Muysken (1989:15), little exclusively typological work hasbeen done on non-configurationality. However, in the syntactic literature, many claimshave been made about the typological characteristics of non-configurational languages. Thebest known list of typological characteristics is the following, given in Hale (1982):52(59) free word orderdiscontinuous expressionsfrequent pro-dropno NP movementno expletivesrich case systemcomplex verb words or verb cum AUX systemThese properties clearly divide English, which is considered to be a configurationallanguage, and shows none of the properties, from Warlpiri, which is considered to be anon-configurational language, and shows all of the properties.In the remainder of this section I consider each of these properties in turn, and show howGitksan patterns with respect to each.2.2.1. Defining and applying the typological testsThe fact that languages such as English and Warlpiri can be readily classified with respectto Hale's typological characteristics seems to suggest that it will always be obvious whetheror not a particular language exhibits any of these properties. However, English andWarlpiri seem to represent unusually clear cases, being at the extreme points on acontinuum, with many languages arrayed between these two extremes. For theseintermediate languages it is often much more difficult to determine whether or not theyshow a particular property. In this section, therefore, I consider in detail what is meant byeach property, and propose a more precise definition for each, before trying to classifyGitksan with respect to that property.2.1.1. Free word orderi. Discussion of the propertyThe first property proposed by Hale as a distinguishing feature of non-configurationalor o er.^e term "free word order" is used in a number of different53ways, as has been pointed out by Schaufele (1991), Perhaps in its most common usage,it is used to mean "free constituent order", as in Stowell (1981:75). 21 This has often beenviewed as the prototypical non-configurational property, and like most of the propertiesdiscussed in this section, it is one which clearly distinguishes Warlpiri and English. InWarlpiri, the elements subject, object and verb can appear in any order, as illustrated:(AUX is restricted to second position.)(60) Kurdu-ngku ka^maliki wajilipi-nyi^SOVchild -ERG AUX:pres dog chase-NONPAST"The child is chasing the dog"(Hale 1981:1)Maliki^ka kurdu-ngku wajilipi-nyi^OSVMalild ka wajilipi-nyi kurdu-ngku OVSWajilipi-nyi ka kurdu-ngku maliki^VSOWajilipi-nyi ka maliki^kurdu-ngku^VOSKurdu-ngku ka wajilipi-nyi maliki^SVOIn English, by contrast, only SVO order is possible.(61) The child chased the dog^SVO*The dog chased the child *OVS(ungrammatical under this interpretation)*Chased the child the dog^*VSO*Chased the dog the child *VOS*The dog the child chased^*OS V22*The child the dog chased *SOVHowever, even the prototypical cases, such as Warlpiri and English, fail to be totally freeor totally fixed, respectively, in their constituent order. In Warlpiri, AUX must appear insecond position and there are certain ordering restrictions in non-finite clauses (Laughren1989:345). In English, on the other hand, elements such as PPs and adverbs showrelative freedom of ordering, as illustrated in the following example from from Haider(1989:189):21 Under this interpretation it is clearly distinct from the notion of discontinuous constituents, dealt with inthe next section. Schaufele uses the term "free phrase order" for what I am terming free constituent order.22 This order is acceptable only with particular intonation to indicate a contrastive focus.54(62) He argued with me about her.(63) He argued about her with me.Furthermore, orders other than SVO are exhibited in questions and topicalizationstructures, such as the following:(64) Whom does John like?^0(aux)SV(65) John, I really dislike. OSVA second problem with classifying languages as free or fixed in their constituent ordercomes from languages which seem to be intermediate between the extremes represented byEnglish and Warlpiri. For instance, Japanese is often classed as a free constituent orderlanguage. Nevertheless, although the ordering of subject, object and oblique is free, asillustrated in the following data set, the verb must be clause fnial.(66) John-go naihu-de^Bill-o sasita^S Obi 0 VJohn -nom knife-with Bill-acc stabbed"John stabbed Bill with a knife"John-ga Bill-o naihu-de sasita^S 0 Obi Vnaihu-de John-ga Bill-o sasita Obl S 0 Vnaihu-de Bill-o John-go sasita^Obl 0 S VBill-o John-go naihu-de sasita 0 S Obi VBill-o naihu-de John-go sasita^0 Obl S V(Saito 1985:23-4, taken from Muraki 1974:86)Many other languages also fall into this intermediate category. German exhibits relativelyfree ordering of nominals, but the position of the verb is fixed. In Finnish, the order ofelements SVO is free if no other elements are present in the sentence, but limited if, forexample, adverbials are added (van Steenbergen 1989:156). Italian is basically an SVOlanguage, but it allows subject inversion, giving an alternative surface VOS order (Speas1990).Freedom of constituent order thus seems to be a relative rather than an absolute property,and without a more precise definition it is difficult to classify languages as exhibiting freeor fixed order. Perhaps the most intuitively appealing attempt to formalize this notion is55due to Boeder (1989:160), who relates freedom of constituent order to whether or not agiven language codes grammatical relations (principally) by word order. Although eventhis definition is not very precise, it will still prove adequate for allowing us to classifyGitksan.ii. Order in GitksanIn this section I show that, given Boeder's criterion, it is clear that Gitksan should beclassed as fixed in constituent order. 23As the sentences below illustrate, the order of argument NPs in a Gitksan clause is not free,but tightly constrained. In this sentence, only VSO order is grammatical. A change in theorder of the nominals, as in (ii), necessarily results in a change in grammatical function, sothat (ii) is only grammatical with the meaning "The fish ate Mary".^(67) i. kwup - a = s^t= Mary = i hunV^S^0see -erg = case cn=Mary=cn fish"Mary ate the fish"gubis Maryhl hunii. *kwup - a = I hun =( s) t= MaryV^0^Siii. *(s) t= Mary =i kat kwup - a - t0^S Viv. *(s) t= Mary=i hun kwup - a - tS^0 Vv. *(i)hun kwup - a = s t= Mary0 V^Svi. *(s) t= Mary kwup - a =shunS^V^0There are only two types of exception to the strict VSO order. The first exception ariseswhen the object is a first or second person pronoun and the subject is a lexical NP. In23M will be shown in Section 4 of this chapter, adjuncts are freely ordered, as in English. However, underthe approach to free word order just outlined, this is irrelevant.56these cases the pronominal object normally precedes the lexical subject, resulting inapparent VOS order. 24(68) iamo: - a -j^n'u:m' t = MaryiV^(S) 0help -erg-3sg lpl^cn = Mary"Mary helped us" R 262hlimooyit inuu'm t MaryIn a sentence of this type it is the form and ordering of the person markers (underlined)which determines the grammatical relations which hold among the sentence constituents,rather than the position of the independent nominal "John". However, given the restrictedenvironments in which this order can occur, and the ordering constraints operative evenhere, this sentence type certainly does not constitute evidence that Gitksan is free inconstituent order.The only other type of exception to surface VSO order arises in questions and focusconstructions. In these cases, a single NP appears preverbally and the sentence showsspecial morphological marking (underlined in the given examples):(69) focus object:hun =^kwup - a =I kat0 Vfish = cn eat - erg-3=cn man"(It was) fish the man ate"hunhl gubihl gat24Younger speakers I have worked with do not seem to use this special order in independent sentences, andonly optionally in dependent sentences. Thus they will usually produce sentences such as the following,which exhibit normal VSO order:i. lamo: - = s^t = Mary n'u:m'help - erg = case cn = Mary lpl"Mary helped us" R 263hlimooyis Mary 'nuu'mka? -a = s^t = John n'i:y'see -erg=case cn = John lsgV^S 0"John saw me"ga'as John 'nii'yRigsby (1986:263/4) notes that even older speakers, while they consider the sentences such as (68) in thetext to be "better", admit to using sentences such as (i) also. More detailed discussion of such variation isgiven in Chapter 4.57(70) focus transitive subject:kat^2an - t kup =I hunS V^0man A.extr - 3 eat-3n fish"(It was) a man (who) ate the fish"gat ant guphl hun(71) focus intransitive subjectkat =1 yo:qxw - atS^Vmann eat - S.extr"(It was) the man who ate"gathl yookx-witOnce again, these cases do not constitute evidence for free constituent order, in view of thefact that such orders are associated with particular interpretations, and are marked byspecial morphology. Thus Gitksan unequivocally fails to show the property of freeconstituent order.2.1.2. Discontinuous expressionsi. Discussion of the propertyThe second typological property which Hale associates with non-configurational languagesis the occurrence of discontinuous expressions, in which different parts of what wouldnormally be considered a single syntactic constituent occur in non-adjacent positions in thesentence. Most discussion of this property in the literature on non-configurationality hascentred on discontinuous NPs, as illustrated by the following examples from Warlpiri.(Discontinuous phrases in are given in bold-face.)58(72) Wawirri kapi-ma panti-mi^yalumpukangaroo AUX spear NON PAST that"I will spear that kangaroo" (Hale 1983:6)(73) Kurdu - jarra - rut ka-pala^maliki wajilipi-nyi^wita-jarra-rluchild-DUAL-ERG AUX:pres-du dog chase-NONPAST small-DUAL-ERG"The two small children are chasing the dog" (Hale 1981:1)In (72), the demonstrative "yalumpu" is separated from the noun "wawirri" which itmodifies, and in (73) the adjective "wita" is separated from the noun "kurdu" which itmodifies. Evidence from AUX placement shows that such sequences potentially formconstituents, because they can occur together in pre-AUX position.(74) Wawirri yalumpu kapi-ma panti-mikangaroo that^AUX spear-NONPAST(Hale 1983:6)(75) kurdu wita-jarra-rlu^ka-pala^malild wajilipi-nyichild small-DUAL-ERG AUX:pres-du dog chase-NONPAST(Hale 1981:5)Again, English and Warlpiri differ in their behaviour with respect to this property. Englishdoes not allow discontinuity of this type between an adjective or determiner and the noun itmodifies:(76) *Kangaroo I will spear that.(77) *The two children are chasing the dog small.English does exhibit discontinuous NPs in certain construction types, as illustrated below.(78) and (79) are examples of rightward extraposition (taken from Rochemont (1992:373)),and (80) is an example of topicalization. Nevertheless, there appear to be many moreconstraints in English than in Warlpiri on which elements can be discontinuous, and wherethe discontinuous elements may occur.2525In GB style analyses, these are assumed to result from constraints on movement, such as subjacency,constraints on licensing of empty categories, such as the ECP, or constraints on interpretation, such as theComplement Principle (Rochemont and Culicover 1990).(78) A man came into the room who everybody recognized.(79) The construction has just begun of a new bridge over the bay.(80) This language I have read many articles about.Given the following examples, German appears to be more tolerant of discontinuent NPsthan English, but less free in this regard than Warlpiri. ((81) is from Haider (1989:192),(82) from Helmi Braches (p.c.)):(81) Fotos habe ich von ihr noch keine guten gemachtPhotos have I of her yet none good taken"I haven't yet taken any good photos of her"(82) *Foto habe ich von ihr das gute noch nicht gesehenphoto have I of her the good yet not seen"I haven't yet seen the good photo of her"As with the property of constituent order, then, whether or not a language allowsdiscontinuous constituents seems to be a relative property rather than an absolute one.While intuitively there does seem to be a fundamental difference between the relativelyconstrained types of discontinuities observed in English and German, and what Schaufeleterms the "gratuitous" discontinuities observed in Warlpiri, it is difficult to formalize thisintuition precisely.26 Therefore, in the discussion in the next section I will simply useWarlpiri and English as points of reference with which to compare Gitksan, assuming thatthey represent extremes in terms of allowing and disallowing discontinuous constituents.ii. Gitksan discontinuous constituentsA comparison of Gitksan with Warlpiri and English shows that Gitksan is very similar toEnglish in the extent to which it allows discontinuous constituents. Thus, in view of thediscussion above, I assume that Gitksan must be classed as not allowing discontinuousconstituents.26Schaufele (1990) suggests that the term "scrambling" be reserved for languages such as Warlpiri, Latinand Sanskrit, which show relatively unconstrained discontinuities.60As in English, noun phrases in Gitksan cannot be freely broken up. For example, in thefollowing sentences, the NPs /wilp=s t=John/ "John's house" and /kat t=xwist/ "that man"may not be broken up by any other sentence constituent:(83) ka2- a = s^t = Mary =1^wilp=s^t=John k'o:tssee-erg = case cn = Mary = cn house=case cn=John^yesterday"Mary saw John's house yesterday"ga'as Maryhl wilps John ky'oots*ka2- a -t = s t = Mary =1 wilp k'o:ts = s t = John(84) kat^t = xwist 2an - t kalxw =1^qan - y'man cn=that^A.extr-3 carve = cn pole - lsg"That man (focus) carved my pole"gat tust ant gahlxwhl ganiy'*kat 2an - t kalxw =1 qan - y' t = xwist*kat 2an - t kaixw =1 t = xwist qan - y'Under some circumstances Gitksan, like English, allows a relative clause to occurseparated from the noun it modifies. In (85), for example, the relative clause /laye:Xs-T-a-y' qu2=1 Terrace/ "that I visited in Terrace" occurs sentence finally, while thenominal it modifies /q'ay m'as-m hanaqy "the girl" occurs in the post verbal subjectposition. In (86), the relative clause /2an-t2ati kup=i smax/ "who don't eat meat" occurs insentence final position, while the rest of the NP, /kwilu:n=1 kat/ "three people", is insentence initial focus position.(85) eimis =1^q'ay m'as - m hanaq' lo: - y' lo ye:Xs - T - - y'qu2= i Terracewrite = cn still^grow - attr woman to -1 sg def visit - T- erg - 1 sgloc = cn Terrace"The girl I visited in Terrace wrote to me" 27t'imishl klay 'masim hanak' loo'y hliyeexscli'y go'ohl Terrace27In this particular example the relative clause can only be discontinuous if the IO is light, as here. If the10 is heavier, as in /?a=s negwo:t-t/ "to my father", then the relative clause must immediately followthanaq7.61(86) kwilu:n = I kat wila:x- a -y'^tan - t^2ati kwup = I smaxthree = cn man know -erg-lsg A.extr-3 not eat = cn meat"I know three people who don't eat meat"gwiluunhl gat wilaayi'y ant ati guphl smaxThe only other type of discontinuous constituent I have found in my data is illustrated in(87) - (88). In both these cases, what appears to be the second half of a conjunct appearssentence finally, separated from the first half of the conjunct.(87) k'an - m'i [pro]; t=xwin qan^t = n'i:nown-lpl^cn=this and/with cn= 2sg"This belongs to you and me/You and I own this"k'ani'm tun gant 'niin(88) ne: - tip; - ti:^[pro]; kwup =1 hun qan^t = Bill2 8not - 1pl - contr eat = cn fish and/with cn= Bill"Bill and I didn't eat the fish"needipdii guphl hun gan t BillIf these were indeed conjunct structures, then such data would show that Gitksan allowedmore types of discontinuous constituents than English, since conjuncts cannot be split inthis way in English:(89) *We/I ate the fish and Bill(90) *We/I own this and you.(Both are ungrammatical under the relevant interpretation.)However, what is translated into English as a conjunct is in fact an example of a Gitksanplural pronoun construction (Schwartz 1988) in which the initial pronominal in the NP isinclusive of the person and number value of the whole NP. What appears to be the secondhalf of the conjunct is actually an adjunct modifying the head N, with a structure asfollows:28Justification for the position of pro in these sentences will be given in Chapter 4.62(91)^NJ)(head) (adjunct)plural^pp29pronounThe examples in (87) - (88) thus involve a discontinuity between an NP and an adjunct,similar to the kind of English discontinuities illustrated in (79) above.I therefore conclude that Gitksan, like English, should be classified as a language whichdoes not show the property of discontinuous constituents.2.1.3. Frequent pro drop i. Discussion of the propertyThe third property which Hale suggests characterizes non-configurational languages is thatthey exhibit frequent pro drop. Again, English and Warlpiri differ sharply in this property.A Warlpiri sentence can be complete without any independent nominals or pronominals inthe sentence:(92) Panti - mi^kaspear -NON PAST AUX"He/she is spearing him/her/it"In a parallel sentence in English, however, both subject and object must be overtlyexpressed:(93) *is spearing(94) He/she is spearing itOnce again, though, it is difficult to divide languages neatly into two classes with respect tothis property. Even English allows empty pronouns in certain environments. For29The structure I propose is taken from Aissen 1989:523. It is not clear whether the adjunct phrase shouldbe analysed as a PP or some other phrase type in Gitksan.63example, empty pronouns can occur in the subject position of an untensed clause (95) andan imperative (96).(95) Mary wants e to leave](96) e close the door!In informal speech, empty pronouns (and contracted auxiliaries) can occur in the subjectposition of questions, as illustrated in (97) - (98) (taken from Akmajian et al. 1990:244-5):(97) e want some coffee?(98) e been sneaking to the movies again, haven't you?Finally, in recipe contexts empty objects occur, as in the following example (from Massamand Roberge 1989:135):(99) Remove e from oven and cool e.Other languages instantiate many intermediate stages between English and Warlpiri withrespect to the degree to which they allow pro drop. In Spanish and Italian subjectpronouns can be freely dropped 30; in Hebrew first and second person subjects in futureand past tenses, and possessors in construct state constructions can be dropped (Borer1983, 1986:392); in Irish (McCloskey and Hale 1984) and Turkish (Kornfilt 1984)subjects, possessors and prepositional objects can be dropped, but not the objects ofverbs.31 In Mohawk and Navajo, as in Warlpiri, both subjects and objects can bedropped.32In other languages, such as Chinese, Japanese and Korean (Huang 1984), virtually anyargument that can be identified with a discourse topic can be subject to pro drop. In30If clitic pronouns are analysed as functioning much like agreement, as in Roberge (1986), then Spanishand Italian would be analysed as being able to drop objects also. However, in this context I interpret theproperty of pro-drop conservatively, as meaning the absence of any pronoun, whether cliticized or not.31 Kornfilt notes that objects may be pro-dropped in certain discourse contexts, but not with the samefreedom as the other elements.32In all of these languages, the possibility of pro drop is linked to the presence of a licensing agreementelement in the sentence.64German, under similar discourse conditions, it is possible to drop either a subject or anobject, but not both (Huang 1984).Such variation in the constraints on pronoun drop show that making a clearcut decision onwhether a language shows "frequent" pro drop is far from simple. Again it seems to be agraded rather than a discrete property.For the purposes of this discussion, however, I will classify a language as displaying"frequent" pro drop if it allows both subject and object to be dropped in most sentencetypes.33 Under this definition, Warlpiri, Mohawk, Navajo, Japanese and Chinese wouldbe classed as showing frequent pro drop, while English, Spanish, Hebrew, Turkish, Irishand German would not.Gitksan and pro dropEven adopting the definition of frequent pro drop given above, classifying Gitksan withrespect to this property proves somewhat difficult, for two reasons. First, the extent towhich pro drop occurs varies according to clause type. Secondly, the degree to which thelanguage appears to show pro drop is, to a large extent, dependent on what status isassigned to the person marking affixes. However, under the analysis I assume, Gitksanwill be classed as showing frequent pro-drop.3433This seems to correlate with the predictions of most syntactic theories of non-configurationality - forexample, Jelinek (1984) and Hale (1983). However, it is a somewhat arbitrary cut off, since it is not clearthat there is any fundamental distinction between languages which can drop one vs more than onepronominal.34My assumptions about the status of person markers, and pro drop phenomena in Gitksan in general willbe examined in much more detail in Section 4 of this chapter.65pro can always occur in a nominal position which is coindexed with an agreementmorpheme. Thus, in independent sentences, pro can normally occur only in transitivesubject position, since this is the only position coded by agreement.(100) k"up - a- ti [pro]i. I huneat -erg-3^=en fish"S/he ate the fish"gubithl hunBased on the definition of "frequent" pro drop proposed above, such distribution wouldnot count as frequent.However, in dependent sentences, which are more frequent in discourse, and which exhibitricher agreement, pro can potentially occur in both subject and object position:(101) wil - ti [pro]i ka2 - yij [pro]jthat - 3^see - lsg"..that he saw me"wilt ga'a'y(102) wil paX - ti [pro]ithat run - 3"..that he ran"wil baitAs discussed in Section 1 of this chapter, under certain discourse conditions it is evenpossible for pro to occur in positions in which it is not coindexed with an agreementmorpheme. In such cases pro normally receives a default third person singularinterpretation, as in the following examples:(103) paX [pro]run"s/he ran"bas(104) ka2 -a =s^t = Billi [pro]jsee-erg = case cn=Bill"Bill saw him/her"ga'as Bill66Thus, overall, it seems appropriate to class Gitksan as having the property of frequent prodrop.2.1.4. No NP movementi. Discussion of the propertyThe fourth typological property which non-configurational languages are claimed to exhibitis a lack of NP movement. This is perhaps the most difficult of the properties to determine,since it is not something which can necessarily be determined from the surface form ofsentences.NP movement in English is commonly assumed to operate in syntactic constructions of thefollowing types:construction type(105) passive(106) unaccusative verb(107) raising verbs(108) existential (raising verb)35exampleJohn was hitA storm aroseJohn seems to like BillA mAn is in the gardenWithin GB theory, each of these sentences is analysed as involving movement of theunderlined NP into subject position. Evidence that this movement has occurred in thesecases comes from the fact that the subject NP occurs on the surface in a position in which itcould not have been theta-marked. In the passive and unaccusative constructions in (105)and (106), for example, this is because the subject bears a theme role, even though itsurfaces in a position to which only an agent theta role can be assigned. In the raising andexistential constructions in (107) and (108), evidence for NP movement comes from thefact that the verb adjacent to the subject - "seem" and "be" respectively - does not assign atheta role.35I follow Stowell (1978) and Heggie (1988) in assuming that "be" is a raising verb, but I classifyexistentials as a separate class for the purpose of cross-linguistic comparison.67While it is a relatively trivial matter to determine whether a language has constructionsparallel to these (i.e. whether it has passives, existentials, etc.), simply establishing thepresence of such constructions in a language cannot be taken as evidence that that languagehas NP movement. In GB theory, the NP movement in the above English sentences ismotivated by case/agreement requirements.36 However, in languages with differentcase/agreement properties, movement may not be required. For example, Baker (1987:356) argues that in Irish, Georgian and Ute, NP movement does not occur in passives.Furthermore, in a VS(0) language, such as Gitksan, there is no evidence from word orderto indicate whether a single post-verbal NP is in subject or object position.Thus, unless a language can be shown to lack all constructions parallel to those in (105) -(108) above, how it should be classified with respect to the property NP movement willnecessarily be dependent to some extent on particular theoretical assumptions and analysis.Such problems make this property rather unsatisfactory from a typological perspective.ii. NP movement in GitksanIn this section I review the available evidence, and conclude that Gitksan probably does notemploy (overt) NP movement to subject position in its grammar, since there is no clearevidence for it in any of the environments discussed above. However, given the problemsoutlined in the previous section, my conclusions remain somewhat tentative.A. PassiveGitksan does have a passive construction, but various types of evidence suggest that it is alexical rather than a syntactic passive and thus does not necessarily entail syntactic NP36In Chomsky (1981), the case requirements of the subject motivate the NP movement. In Chomsky(1992) it is the strength of the inflectional features of tense which forces overt movement.68movement. It should be noted, however, that these arguments are valid only against atotally syntactic approach to passive, such as that proposed in Baker.37 An approachwhich assumes that the attachment of the passive morpheme is lexical, but that NPmovement applies in the syntax, would still be compatible with the data I present.a. Form of the passiveThere are two passive suffixes which occur on transitive verb stems: the suffix /-s/ occurson stems ending in velars, and the suffix /-(t)xw/ occurs on stems ending in non-velars.The suffixes are illustrated in the following examples:(109) kwuxw - s t = Johnshoot-pass cn = John"John got shot"gukws t John(110) 2akwu wil^ho:x- s - twhat comp use - pass - 3"What is it used for?" R 304agu wil hookst(111) 2uwe - txw t = Mary qu2 = i^partyinvite -pass cn =Mary loc = cn party"Mary was invited to the party"u'wtxwt Mary go'ohl party(112) Xpa - kwu: - txw = i book = s^t = Kathyaway -take -pass = cn book=case cn = Kathy"Kathy's book was snatched away"xbiguutxwhl books KathyHowever, the passive morphemes show some idiosyncracies. For example, in thefollowing example, both allomorphs of the passive are realised, and the less productive /-s/allomorph appears outside the more productive /-(t)xw/ form:37Baker proposes that the passive morpheme is generated in Infl, and that the verb adjoins syntactically tothe Intl containing the passive morpheme.69(113) kwin ka2 - T - a - y' = i^wila tsap - xw.s = i^kwi:s qamm'alajuss see - T -erg - lsg = cn how make-pass.pass=cn blanket button"I showed how to make a button blanket"(lit: how a button blanket is made)gun ga'adi'yhl wila japxwshl gwiis gan 'malaSuch idiosyncracies suggest that passives in Gitksan are formed in the lexicon, rather thanin the syntax.b. Lexical exceptions and lack of productivity.Additional evidence that Gitksan passives are lexical comes from the limited productivity ofthis construction. Rigsby (1986:334 and 1989:255) notes that there are many transitiveverbs which do not have passive equivalents.38 Furthermore, when English verbs areincorporated into Gitksan sentences, as in the following example, they cannot bepassivized:(114) "type" - T - a - y' = i^"letter" laX "computer"type - T - erg - 1 sg = cn letter^on computer"I typed the letter on the computer""type"di'yhl "letter" la "computer"(115) *"type" - xw = i "letter" laX "computer"type - pass = cn letter^on computer"The letter was typed on the computer"Such idiosyncratic productivity is characteristic of lexical rather than syntactic processes.c. Idiosyncratic meaningsAnother argument that the passive should be treated lexically is due to Rigsby (1989:255),who notes that certain passive verbs have idiosyncratic meanings. For example, thepassive of the verb /kwup/ "eat" is /kwup-xw/ which has the meaning "be edible", as well as"be eaten".38He notes that more verbs have antipassive than passive forms.70d. Suppression of agent.It is not possible to express overtly the agent argument of the passive in Gitksan. Thisapparent complete suppression of an argument of the verb is certainly consistent with alexical treatment of the passive. However, it cannot be considered a strong argument forthe lexical treatment, since this pattern can also be accounted for in a syntactic analysis.Baker (1987:336), for example, argues that the agent theta role is assigned to the passivemorpheme in passive sentences, and that it is a lexical property of the passive morphemewhich determines whether the morpheme can transmit its theta role to another NP. In alanguage in which the passive morpheme cannot transmit its theta role, the agent will not berealised. Thus the failure of the agent role to appear in Gitksan passives is not necessarilyincompatible with a syntactic analysis of the passive.e. SummaryIn this section I have shown that the passive is somewhat unpredictable in form, is notproductive, is sometimes idiosyncratic in meaning, and does not allow the expression of anagent. Most of these characteristics are more consistent with a lexical than a syntacticanalysis of the passive, providing further support for the idea that NP movement is notinvolved in Gitksan passive constructions.B. Unaccusative verbs.A second environment in which NP movement might occur is with unaccusative verbs. Ifunaccusative and unergative verbs patterned similarly in certain respects, but distinctly inothers, this might provide evidence for an analysis in which the underlying structuraldistinction in the position of the single argument is resolved by NP movement during thecourse of the derivation. However, although there are many ways in which the twoclasses of verbs pattern similarly, I have been unable to find any ways in which they71pattern differently. In what follows, I illustrate the identity of the two classes of verbs withrespect to surface ordering, case-marking, person-marking, morphological marking ofextraction and plural-marking.a. Surface orderingThe single argument of an intransitive verb immediately follows the verb, regardless ofwhether it is an unergative or an unaccusative predicate, as is illustrated below:Unergative: 2alkaX "to speak"(116) 2a1kaX =^katspeak = cn man"A man is talking"algaxhl gatUnaccusative: si:pxw "to be sore"(117) si:pxw =^2an2un - y'^hurt = cn^hand - 1 sg"My hand hurts"siipxwhl an'oniy'Because the basic word order is VSO, however, these ordering facts fail to provide anyevidence either for or against the claim that the position of the subject in the unaccusativesentences is derived through movement.b. Case-markingCase-marking also fails to provide evidence of a distinction between unergative andunaccusative predicates. As illustrated below, the intransitive subject is marked by an /s/case-marker in a dependent sentence and is unmarked in an independent sentence,regardless of whether the predicate is unergative (118) - (119) or unaccusative (120) -(121).Unergative:Dependent(118) yukw =I litsXxw = s t = Johnprog = cn read = case cn=John"John is reading"yukwhl litsxxws John72Independent(119) limx t = Johnsing cn=John"John sang"lirnx t JohnUnaccusative:Dependent(120) ne: - ti:^n'a:le:q = s t=Johnnot-contr bald = case cn=John"John's not bald"needii 'naahleeks JohnIndependent(121) n'aie:q t =Johnbald^cn=John"John is bald"'naahleek t Johnc. Pronominal markingPerson markers also take the same form on unaccusative and unergative predicates. Inindependent clauses, Series III independent pronominals appear ((122), (124)) while independent clauses, Series II pronominal suffixes appear ((123), (125)). 39Unergative: Independent(122) limx n'i:y'sing lsg"I sang"limx 'nii'yDependent(123) yukw = i litsXxw - y'prog = cn read -lsg"I am reading"yukwhl litssxwi'y39Tarpent (1991) notes that there is a small class of verbs which take either independent pronominalsuffixes or independent pronouns in apparently independent sentences. However, this class is not equivalentto the unaccusative or unergative class of verbs. Furthermore, Tarpent notes that this apparent "dependent"behaviour in independent clauses can also be observed with certain transitive verbs. More discussion of thisphenomenon appears in Chapter 4.73Unaccusative: Independent(124) n'aie:q n'i:ybald^1 sg"I'm bald"'naahleet 'nil')'Dependent(125) ne: - ti:^n'a:ie:q - y'not-contr bald -lsg"I'm not bald"needii inaahleeka'yd. Morphological marking of extractionThe morphological marking of extraction from intransitive predicates does not appear to besensitive to whether the verb is unaccusative or unergative. With both types of predicatesthe connective /I/ occurs between the extracted element and the clause, and the suffix /at/appears on the predicate:Unergative: (126) na: = I litsXxw - atwho=cn count - S.extr"Who counted?"naahl litsxxwitUnaccusative: (127) kwi = I^n'i: - toq - at^laX ha - n'i: - tXo:qxwwhat=cn on - lie - S.extr on instr - on - eat"What is (lying) on the table"gwihl 'niidogat lax ha'niit,lookxwe. Plural markingAs has already been mentioned, plural marking on an intransitive verb, in both Gitksan(Rigsby 1986:361), and Nisgha (Tarpent 1987) can mark either the plurality of the nominalargument, or plurality of actions. Plural marking of both types appears to patternidentically on unaccusative and unergative verbs.The following examples illustrate plural marking indicating plural actions. Bothunaccusative and unergative verbs can be marked for this type of plurality.74Unergative:(128) n'a:^tas - t'is - a^n'itinto.view pl - hit - detrn 3sg"S/he knocked"'naa dist'isa 'nitUnaccusative:(129) tux" - t'akw = I 2an - lip'insxw - y'pl - twist =cn instr - sew -1 sg"My thread twisted (many times)"duxwt'akwhl anlip'insxwi'yPlural marking indicating the number of the subject nominal also occurs with bothunergative and unaccusative verbs. The following pairs with singular and plural subjectsillustrate this type of plural marking.Unergative:(130) 2alkaX = i kattalk = cn^man"A man is talking"algaxhl gat(131) 2a1 - 2a1kaX = i ha:naq'pl - talk = cn^woman.pl"Women are talking"al'algaxhl haanak'Unaccusative: (132) taw = I^2aksfrozen=cn water"The water's frozen"dawhl aks(133) tu: - taw = i^susi:t - xw - m'pl - frozen = cn potato - pass-lpl"Our potatoes are frozen"duudawhl susiitxwu'inf. ConclusionThe data presented in this section illustrate that the two classes of intransitive verbs patternidentically in many respects. The data are not necessarily inconsistent with an NPmovement analysis, since all the patterns described here may simply be ones which are notsensitive to D-Structure structural distinctions. Additionally, further research on the75language may reveal asymmetries of which I am unaware. What is clear, however, is thatnone of these data provide any evidence of NP movement in Gitksan.C. Raising to subject predicatesA third environment which might provide a test for whether Gitksan exhibits NP movementinvolves verbal or adjectival raising predicates. However, I have been unable to elicit anyexamples of raising constructions in Gitksan. Two examples of how English raisingconstructions may be translated into Gitksan are given in (134) - (135), and neitherinvolves raising. In (134), the meaning of the raising verb "seem" is expressed through theuse of non-predicative dependent markers and preverbals. In (135), the English raisingpredicate "difficult" is translated with a predicate adjective /haqetxw/. However, wordorder and case-marking indicate that the NP "Bill" has remained in the embedded clausewith the predicate /titalq/ "talk to" which theta marks it.(134) mo:tsi lild^wiii^lu: - 2ama - ti =^qu:ts = s^t = John ku:n'almost somehow around in - good- ? = cn heart =case cn =John now"John seems to be happy now"(lit: almost somehow happy in John's heart now.)mooji ligi 'wil luu'amadihl goots John gyuu'n(135) haqetxw ti: -t^titalq - xw = s^t = Billdifficult contr-3 ta1k.to - pass=case cn=Bill"Bill is difficult to talk to" (lit:?—difficult [Bill spoken to])40hagetxwdiit didaltxws BillWhile it would be possible for a language to lack raising verbs while still allowing NPmovement in other circumstance, the apparent absence of raising verbs in Gitksan providesfurther circumstantial evidence for the claim that Gitksan does not allow NP movement.zte'The presence of the ft/ agreement morpheme following the predicate adjective in this sentence isunexpected and I am not sure how to account for it.76D. ExistentialsThe fourth environment in which we might expect to find evidence of NP movement is inexistential constructions. The following are examples of Gitksan translations of Englishexistential clauses.(136) n'i: - ski: =1 "cup" laX ha - n'i: - yo:qxwon - lie = cn cup on instr-on - eat"There's a cup on the table" (lit. A cup is lying on the table)'niisgiihl cup lax ha'niiyookrw(137) w'il^wil = I kat qu2 =1 ts'im 2aksaround be = cn man loc = cn in^water"There's a man in the water"wiihl wilhl gat go'ohl ts'im aksI am unaware of any evidence in Gitksan which might indicate whether or not the subject ofthese sentences has undergone raising. The VS order is, of course, compatible with both amovement and a non-movement analysis.E. Conclusion regarding NP movementIn this section I have considered various constructions in which we might expect to findevidence of NP movement - passive, unaccusative verbs, raising predicates andexistentials. However, each construction has failed to provide any evidence that NPmovement has applied. While not conclusive, this dearth of evidence strongly suggeststhat Gitksan lacks NP movement of the type which occurs in English.2.1.5. No expletives i. Discussion of the propertyA fifth property claimed to distinguish configurational from non-configurational languagesis the respective presence or absence of expletives, elements in NP positions which bear notheta role and have no semantic content. Again, this property clearly distinguishes English,77which has the expletives "it" and "there", from Warlpiri, which has no such expletiveelements.In languages which do exhibit expletives, these elements are generally found in subjectpositions to which no theta role is assigned and to which no NP has raised, as in thefollowing English constructions:raising(138) It seems that John has leftunaccusative (139) There arose a storm.existential(140) There is a man in the garden.weather__ (141) h is raining.Some languages also allow expletives in the subject position of impersonal passives, as inthe following French example (Kayne 1975):impersonal passive (142) II a ete mange beaucoup de pommes hier soir"there were eaten many apples last night"If a language exhibits overt expletive elements in any of these environments, thenobviously that language does not lack expletives. Making the claim that a language doeslack expletives, however, is somewhat more difficult, given the possibility within GBtheory of phonetically empty expletives. Arabic , for example, is claimed to have an emptyexpletive subject in the following sentence type (Mohammad, 1989):(143) [e] yabduu^2anna al - banaat - i saafarnaseem.3.s.m that the-girls-acc departed.3.pl.f"It seems that the girls departed"Evidence that there is an expletive element in subject position, even though there is nophonetically realised subject, comes from the third person singular subject agreement on the78verb "yabduu". Similar agreement patterns with empty expletives are found in Hebrew(Borer, 1986).Since the existence of such empty expletives is a theoretical claim, it is unclear whether theyshould be considered when dealing with the purely typological question of whether alanguage lacks expletives. However, I will assume that in order for a language to beclassed as lacking expletives it must not only lack overt expletives but also must lack anyagreement which might be interpreted as identifying a phonetically empty expletive.ii. Expletives in GitksanIn order to test whether Gitksan shows the non-configurational property of lackingexpletives, I consider the range of environments in which we might expect to find them,and I show that Gitksan has neither overt nor phonetically empty expletive elements inthese environments. On the basis of this lack of positive evidence, I conclude that Gitksanprobably lacks expletives.A. PassivePassivized transitive verbs pattern just like regular intransitive verbs in case-marking andagreement, and, again like intransitive verbs, they do not allow any expletive subject.To my knowledge, in Gitksan, unlike German for example, it is not possible to passivize(unergative) intransitive verbs. An equivalent meaning is derived through the use of whatRigsby terms the impersonal pronoun /tix/. (Note that the passive morpheme does notsurface in these forms, so they cannot be interpreted as impersonal passives.)(144) limx - tixsing - one"There was singing"litnxdix79(145) yo:qxw - tix qu = s = xwineat(intr)-one loc = case = this"Someone has eaten here"yookxwdix gosun(146) hadiks - tix qu = s = xwinswim - one loc = case = this"Swimming is done here/Someone swims here"hadiksdix gosunB. Raising, unaccusative, existential and weather predicatesThe data below show that overt expletives fail to surface with raising, unaccusative,existential and weather predicates:Raising predicate(147) hagetxw = i tim wil^m'in - pats - xw^Xpi:st t = xwistdifficult = cn fut comp up - lift - pass = cn box cn = that"It is difficult to lift that box"hagetxwhl dim wil 'min batsxwhl thiist tutUnaccusative predicate(148) lukw'il 2am wil^w'itxw = s t = Johnreally good comp come =case cn = John"It's really good that John came"lukw71 am wil 'witxws JohnExistentials(149) helt =^pil'ust ts'im laX - ha gaXxwmany = cn star^in^in -sky last night"There were lots of stars in the sky last night"helthl bilust ts7m laxha galrw(150) w'ii^wil = I kat qu2 = I ts'im 2aksaround be = cn man loc = cn in^water"There's a man in the water"w'ihl wilhl gat go'ohl ts7m aksWeather verbs(151) m'isa:xdaylight"It is daylight" R 254'rnisaax(152) hasaq - y' tim w'is tsi - ku:n'desire-lsg fut rain ? - now"I want it to rain right now"hasaga'y dim 'wis jigyuu'n80Given that Gitksan does allow empty pronominals, it would be possible to claim that theseconstructions contain phonetically empty expletive NPs. There is evidence, however, thatthis analysis is untenable for Gitksan.Intransitive predicates allow a zero subject unlicensed by agreement only in independentclauses, such as (153) below:(153) paX [pro]run"s/he ran"ba,In a dependent clause, such as (154), an agreement morpheme always surfaces to licensethe empty subject:(154) yukW =1 paX - t i [pro]iprog = cn run - 3"s/he is running"yukwhl bast(155) *yukw = paXThus, if sentences such as those in (147) - (152) above contained empty expletive subjects,some agreement with these subjects should surface in dependent clauses of the same types.However, as the following data illustrate, no agreement surfaces on raising, unaccusative,existential or weather predicates even in dependent clauses. (Dependent markers in thefollowing sentences are underlined.)raising(156) ne: - ti:^gagetxw Urn wil^si:px" - tix 2a - wil^hat'aqxw laX - hanot-contr difficult fut comp sick - one prep-comp bad^in - sky"It's easy to get sick due to the bad weather"needii gagetxw dim wil siipxwdix awilharakxw laxhaunaccusative(157) ne: - ti:^tam = I^wil = s t = Peter wil - t^t'is = s^t = Billnot - contr good=cn do=case cn = Peter when - 3 hit = case cn = Bill"It's not good what Peter did when he hit Bill"neediT amhI wis Peter wilt riss Billexistential(158) ne: - ti:^wiii^wil = I ye:n^ts'im laX - hanot - contr around be = cn cloud in^in - sky"There are no clouds in the sky"needii 'wihl wilhl yeen ts'im lathaweather(159) yukw =I w'is = astprog = cn rain = interact"It's raining"yukwhl 'wisist(160) yukw = I ma:tim kaDCprog = cn snow outside"It's snowing outside"yukwhl maadim galxTo summarize, then, Gitksan does not exhibit overt expletives in any of the environmentsin which we might expect them to occur. Furthermore, there is no evidence fromagreement that Gitksan has phonetically empty expletives. Thus, I conclude that Gitksanshould probably be classed as patterning like a non-configurational language in lackingexpletives.2.1.6. Rich case systemi. Discussion of the propertyA sixth property which is claimed to hold of non-configurational languages is that theyshould have a rich case system, and this property again distinguishes Warlpiri fromEnglish. In a Warlpiri sentence, the case-marking of the nouns reveals their grammaticalrole, as illustrated:(161) ngajulu - rlu ka-rna-rla^karli-ki^warni-rniI-ERG^PRES-lsgNOM-3DAT boomerang-DAT seek-NONPAST"I am hunting a boomerang" (Hale 1973:335; cited in Jelinek 1984:54)In contrast, English nouns are generally unmarked for case. With respect to this property,however, it is not clear that English and Warlpiri represent the possible extremes. In82English, genitive case is marked on nouns, and nominative and accusative, as well asgenitive, are marked on pronouns, so that English does not entirely lack case-marking, andcertainly exhibits richer case-marking than a language like Chinese. On the other hand,there are languages which have richer case systems than Warlpiri. Absolutive NPs inWarlpiri are unmarked for case, which means that its case-paradigm is less morphologicallyrich than, for example, the paradigm in Latin. For most Latin noun declensions there is adistinct suffix for subject and object case, in addition to a range of other case markings.As the above discussion already illustrates, richness in case-marking is yet another propertywhich is graded rather than absolute, making the classification of individual languagesdifficult. However, as with the word order property, one can come to some kind ofclassification based on whether, in a given language, grammatical relations are coded(principally) by case-marking.Under this interpretation, Warlpiri and Latin would count as rich case-marking languagesand Chinese and English would not.ii. Case in GitksanUnder this (or probably any) interpretation of the notion of rich case, Gitksan must beclassed as lacking rich case, since its case system is quite impoverished. Only propernouns are morphologically marked for case, and even these nouns are case-marked only inlimited environments. This case-marking is realised by the /s/ morpheme, discussedearlier, and it certainly cannot be considered crucial to determining grammatical relations,since, depending on the sentence type, the same case-marking can appear on transitivesubjects (162), intransitive subjects (163) or objects (164).83(162) kwup - a = s^t = John = i huneat - erg = case cn=John = cn fish"John ate the fish"gubis Johnhl hun(163) ne: - ti:^w'itxw = s^t = Johnnot - contr come = case cn=John"John didn't come"needii 'witxws John(164) ne: - n - ti:^ka2 - a =s^t = Billnot-lsg-contr see - erg=--case cn=Bill"I didn't see Bill"neendii ga'as Bill/s/ case is also the case assigned by prepositions (165) and nouns (166):(165) 2a = s^t = Maryto = case cn=Mary"to Mary"(166) wilp = s t = Maryhouse=case cn=Mary"Mary's house"as Marywilps MaryThus Gitksan fails to meet the property of having a rich case system.2.1.7. Complex verb words or verb cum AUX systemi. Discussion of the propertyThe final typological property which is claimed to characterize non-configurationallanguages is that they should have complex verb words or verb/AUX systems. Thisproperty seems to be interpreted in different ways by different authors. Haider (1989)interprets it as complexity in terms of verb amalgamation, but I interpret it somewhat morebroadly as referring to the general morphological complexity of the verb/AUX elements.84In this regard, again, English and Warlpiri behave differently. In Warlpiri, AUX cancontain up to three person markers, as well as elements such as tense and negation, as inthe following example:(167) ngajulu-rlu ka-ma-rla-jinta^karli-ki^warn-miI-ERG^PRES-lsgNOM-3DAT-3DAT boomerang-DAT seek-NONPASTngarrka-kuman-DAT"I am looking for a boomerang for the man" (Hale 1973:336, cited inJelinek 1984:57)In addition, the main verb can carry inflections marking tense and aspect, and may bepreceded by a range of adverbial preverbs (Nash 1986).In English, both the verb and AUX are generally fairly simple from a morphologicalstandpoint. Tense and aspect are marked on the verb/AUX, but person marking is limitedto the /-s/ morpheme which marks a 3rd person singular subject in the present tense:(168) John likes cookiesThe Warlpiri verb/AUX thus appears to be more complex than the English one.As with most of the other properties discussed above, there is considerable variation amonglanguages with respect to how complex the AUX/verb may be. In order to classifyGitksan with respect to this property, I will simply compare it to English and Warlpiri,assuming that they diverge sufficiently with respect to this property to serve as appropriatepoints of reference .ii. Complex verb/AUX in GitksanThe complexity of the verb/AUX in Gitksan appears to be comparable to that of Warlpiri,and so I class Gitkan as exhibiting a complex verb/AUXAlthough I have not so far referred to an AUX constituent in Gitksan, the kinds of elementsusually associated with AUX, such as tense, negation and aspect, are all found preverballyin Gitksan, with most of them functioning as dependent markers. For the purposes of thisdiscussion I shall therefore consider these elements to constitute AUX. The verb and AUXthus occur together in clause-initial position.This verb/AUX component may contain a range of elements, including tense, aspect,negation, person markers, adverbials, agreement and transitivity markers. The followingsections briefly review these categories.i. Dependent markersDependent markers, which appear in preverbal AUX position, may indicate negation andaspect. Two examples are given below (dependent markers underlined):(169) lisxw =^tam/ = s^t = Michael = aperf =cn leave=case cn=Michael=inter"Has Michael left?"hlisxwhl da'whls Michaela(170) ne: - ti: - t^limo: = s^t=John^t=Peternot - contr - 3 help = case cn=John cn=Peter"John didn't help Peter"neediit hlimoos John t Peterii. Person markingAs already discussed, various person markers occur before and after the verb. The numberand type of person markers which can occur depends on the sentence type and thetransitivity of the verb. In a dependent clause, the more common type in discourse,86transitive and intransitive subjects are always marked on (or adjacent to) the verb, andtransitive objects usually are:41(171) yukw - t kipa - y'^t = Barbaraprog - 3 wait.for - lsg cn=Barbara"Barbara is waiting for me"yukwt giba'yt Barbara(172) ne: - ti:^w'itxw - y'not -contr come-lsg"I didn't come"needii 'witxwi'yThis pattern of person marking is clearly more complex than the English system, andappears comparable in complexity to the Warlpiri data.ill. PreverbalsAs discussed in Chapter 2, the verb is also often preceded by preverbals, which containadverbial information. Some examples appear below.(173) lu: saks - an - y'= i ts'im wilpin clean-trn-lsg = cn in house"I cleaned the house"luusaksini'yhl ts'im wilp(174) sa:^tsak = Isuddenly^faint = cnhanaq'woman"The woman suddenly fainted" R378saa jakhl hanak'These appear similar in nature to the Warlpiri preverbals, and also contribute to thecomplexity of the verb/AUX.41Whether the transitive object is marked on the verb/aux is dependent on whether the subject is lexical andon the person of the object. Details are given in Chapter 4.87iv. Verbal affixesThe verb itself often appears with a range of affixes, as discussed in Chapter 2. Theseaffixes include number marking, and transitivizing and detransitivizing affixes. Oneexample is given below.(175) k"in sak -saks -an -y' =i nu2^2a = s t=Maryjuss pl -clean -trn -lsg =cn dishes=cn prep=-case cn=Mary"I told Mary to wash the dishes"gun siksaksini'yhl no'ohl as Maryv. SummaryTo summarize this section, a much wider range of elements can potentially occur in theverb/AUX of a Gitksan sentence than in the verb/AUX of an English sentence. Thecomplexity of the Gitksan verb/AUX appears to be comparable to the Warlpiri verb/AUX.I therefore classify Gitksan as exhibiting a complex verb/AUX constituent.2.1.8. SummaryIn this section I have considered in some detail seven typological characteristics claimed todistinguish configurational from non-configurational languages, and determined howGitksan should be classified with respect to each of them. The results for Gitksan aresummarized below:configurational^non-configurational(176) free word order^ 0^+discontinuous expressionsfrequent pro-dropno NP movementno expletivesrich case systemcomplex verb words or verb cum AUX system^-Typologically, then, Gitksan seems to be neither strongly configurational, nor stronglynon-configurational.882 . 3 . Structural non-configurationalityIn the previous section, I considered whether Gitksan showed the properties of atypologically non-configurational language. The results were inconclusive, with Gitksanexhibiting some but not all of these properties.For any approach to non-configurationality that assumes a close relationship betweentypological and structural non-configurationality, this might appear to indicate that Gitksanwas of an unusual structural type. However, in fact, there appear to be relatively fewlanguages which pattern as consistently as English and Warlpiri with respect to theseproperties.On the one hand, many languages which have been claimed to be structurally non-configurational fail to show certain of the typological properties. For example, Navajodoes not exhibit free word order (Hale 1981, Speas 1989), German allows only restrictedtypes of discontinuous constituents (Schauefele 1991), does not have frequent pro drop butallows expletives and NP movement, and Mohawk does not have a rich case system(Baker 1991).On the other hand, there are languages which are commonly assumed to be configurationalwhich exhibit some of the typologically "non-configurational" properties. For example,Chinese allows frequent pro drop, Papago allows free word order (Hale 1981) anddiscontinuous dependencies (Speas 1990:143), and Chinese, Hebrew42 and Italian lackovert expletives.These examples illustrate that the typological properties considered in this section are notnecessarily a reliable diagnostic of structural non-configurationality, a problem which is42Borer (1986) notes that in nonstandard dialects there is an expletive /ze/.89noted by Hale (1981, 1989), Horvath (1984) and Speas (1990). In order to determinewhether Gitksan is structurally non-configurational, then, we will have to consider some ofthe more abstract syntactic properties which are predicted by GB theory to characterizestructurally non-configurational languages.The version of non-configurationality against which I will be testing Gitksan is a flatclausal structure which lacks a VP, following Hale (1982) and others. 43(177)V NP NPI assume, following Hale (1982), that such a structure could be generated if a language hadonly the following single PS rule:(178) X' -> X'* X (Hale 1982)Significantly, this rule expands only to a single bar level. Under the assumption that S is amaximal projection of V (=Nr), this precludes the possibility of a constituent which couldconfigurationally distinguish subjects from objects.A language with a structure such as (177) is predicted to show rather different structuralcharacteristics from a configurational language like English. In Section 3, I presentevidence that the nonconfigurational structure in (177) is not appropriate for Gitksan, andthat in fact Gitksan must have a VP constituent which structurally differentiates subjectsand objects. This is clearly a theoretically desirable result since it provides support for theclaim within GB theory that the basic structural representation of sentences does not varyfrom language to language.43In Section 4 of this chapter I address a rather different approach to the issue of non-configurationality -the pronominal argument approach outlined in Jelinek (1984).90Before turning in Section 3 to consider the evidence which supports a structurallyconfigurational analysis of Gitksan, however, I wish to justify briefly why I have chosento base my discussion of structural non-configurationality on the structure in (177), ratherthan on some of the other proposals which have been made in the syntactic literature.2.3.1. Motivation for adopting Hale's (1982) approach to structuralnon-configurationalitySeveral different proposals have been made in the literature concerning how structural non-configurationality should be defined. In this section I outline my reasons for choosing tobase my discussion of Gitksan on the proposal in Hale (1982).There is strong theoretical motivation for concluding that Gitksan is not non-configurational, and it therefore seems particularly important to make the best possible casefor analysing Gitksan as non-configurational before concluding that it is configurational.For this reason, my goal was to choose the representation of structural non-configurationality which was the most compatible with the Gitksan data. Since Gitksanshowed only a few of the typologically non-configurational properties discussed in the lastsection, any approach to structural non-configurationality which predicted that a structurallynon-configurational language should necessarily exhibit all the typological properties wouldautomatically categorize Gitksan as configurational. Hale's (1982) approach to structuralnon-configurationality does not seem to be particularly closely tied to the typologically non-configurational properties, and it thus seems appropriate to apply it to Gitksan.The approach to structural non-configurationality proposed in Hale (1981) is clearly notcompatible with the Gitksan data. It is suggested there that Warlpiri sentences lack allconfigurational structure, being generated by the following rule:91(179) E -> W*^(Hale 1981:2)According to this rule, an expression (E) consists simply of a series of words (W), andthus has no constituents larger than the word and no hierarchical structure. Hale has sincerejected this approach even for Warlpiri, and it is clearly not a plausible approach forGitksan either. It is non-controversial that Gitksan has constituents larger than the word.For example, there are clearly NP constituents, which function as units for ordering,movement and case-marking.Another approach to structural non-configurationality is presented in Hale (1983). In thispaper, Hale relates the difference between configurational and non-configurationallanguages to the relationship between two different kinds of representations: PhraseStructure (PS) and Lexical Structure (LS) - the argument structure associated with apredicate which is projected from the lexicon.44 He proposes that languages areuniversally configurational at LS, but may differ in whether their phrase structure isconfigurational, because the application of the projection principle is parameterized, asfollows:(180) Projection PrincipleIf a verb selects arg at Li, then verb selects arg at Li (where Li, Li range over"levels" LF, D- and S-Structure in syntactic representation.) (Hale 1983:25)(181) Configurationality ParameterIn a configurational language, the projection principle holds of the pair (LS,PS).In a non-configurational language, the projection principle holds only of LS.(Hale 1983:26)If, in a particular language, the projection principle does not hold of PS, then there is norequirement that the configurational structure of LS be reflected in PS. The various44 A similar idea of dual representations is proposed in Mohanan (1983).92typological properties of non-configurational languages can be derived from this parameter.Pro drop can occur, because there is no longer any requirement that all NP positions berepresented. Free word order and discontinuous expressions result, because there is noconstraint on the structural relationship between a head and its arguments. There will be noNP movement rules or expletives, since there will be no distinction between theta and non-theta positions in the syntax.There are a number of problems with this approach in general, and in particular in applyingit to Gitksan.A general problem with the approach, pointed out in Speas (1990), relates to the proposeddichotomy between LS and PS. Speas notes that simplicity dictates that such dualrepresentations should only be added to the theory if there are data that cannot be accountedfor without them. She addresses the strongest cases which have been made in favour ofthe dual representation, and proposes alternative accounts which use only a singlestructural representation.Secondly, without a very explicit universal theory of what kinds of processes apply at LSand what kinds at PS, the presence of a configurational LS in all languages makes it almostimpossible to argue against an analysis of any language as non-configurational at PS, sinceany processes which seem to exhibit asymmetries can be claimed to have applied at LS.Finally, a problem with this approach for Gitksan specifically, is that it predicts a strongcorrelation between structural (PS) non-configurationality and the typologicalcharacteristics of free word order and discontinuous constituents which Gitksan fails toexhibit.93Given these problems with this general approach to non-configurationality, I will beassuming that there is no dichotomy between PS and LS in Gitksan, and thus that anyevidence of a VP constitutes an argument in favour of syntactic configurationality.3. VP testsThe previous two sections have explored whether Gitksan should be consideredtypologically ergative or non-configurational. This section considers the classification ofGitksan as ergative or non-configurational from a structural standpoint, addressing thecrucial question of the status of the VP in Gitksan.The three possible (transitive) structures to be compared are schematized below. (I use Aand 0 to represent the agent and theme argument respectively, as I did in my discussion ofergativity in Section 1 of this chapter.)(181) i. structurally accusative45 ii. structurally ergative^iii. structurally non-configurational/S \NP^VP^VP^NP^V NP NPA^/ \ \ 0 A 0^V NP^V NP0 AIf Gitksan is a structurally accusative language then structural tests should show that theverb and 0 behave as a constituent, and that A is structurally higher than O. If, however,Gitksan is a structurally ergative language, in the sense of Marantz (1984), then testsshould show that the verb and A behave as a consitituent with 0 structurally higher than A.Finally, if Gitksan is a structurally non-configurational language, then tests should show45Note that the word order in this structure-is SVO, whilethe surface word order of GitIcsan is VSO. It isnot possible to generate VSO order directly in an accusative structure and so it is assumed to be derived byverb movement.94that neither argument alone forms a constituent with the verb and that neither argument isstructurally higher than the other.3.1.Tests supporting an accusative structureIn this section I consider three tests which support an accusative structure over either anergative or a non-configurational structure.3.1.1. VP ellipsisOne test which supports the accusative structure for Gitksan is a process of VP ellipsis.Consider the following comparative sentence:(182) q'ay k'a 2ayel paX = s t = John2a = I ti:^wil = s t = Billrather intns fast^run = case cn= Johnprep= cn contr do = case cn= Bill"John runs faster than Bill." (lit: than Bill does)/'ayk'a ayeehl bass John ahl dii wis BillIn the second clause (highlighted), the semantically empty verb /wil/ "do" replaces the verb/paX/ -rue . 46When the first clause in such a comparative construction contains a transitive verb, in thesecond clause the verb /wil/ replaces both the verb and 0 (/paX-an-1 kha:-txw-y'/ "drive mycar"), as illustrated:46,E in English, it is possible to represent this sentence in Gitksan without a full second clause, as in thefollowing example, in which a PP is used rather than a second clause:i. q'ay k'a^2aye:I paX = s t = John^2a =s^t = Billrather intns fast run =case cn = John prep - -ase cr=-Bilt"John runs faster than Bill."k'ayk'a ayeehl bass John as Bill95(183) q'ay k'a paX - an = s^t = John = I kha:-txw- y'2a =-I^ti:^wil = s^t = Bill rather intns run-trn= case cn= John= cn car -poss -lsgprep=cn contr do = case cn=Bill"John drives my car more than Bill"k'ayksa bahans John hi kaatxwi'y ahl dii wisBillThis process is easily explained under an accusative analysis as a process of VP ellipsis.The dummy verb /wiV replaces the VP (V+0).The data do not seem to be consistent with a structurally ergative analysis, however. Theverb and 0 do not form a constituent in the ergative structure, and so a dummy verb shouldnot be able to substitute for them. Note that crucially the dummy verb /wil/ cannot replace averb and its A argument, which form the VP in an ergative structure. (184), in which thedummy verb replaces the sequence /mukw - a - s John/ "John catches", is ungrammatical.47(184) *q'ay ka helt misu2 = I m'ukw - a - s^t= John2a =I ti:^wit (2a) = I 2e: qrather intns many sockeye=cn catch -erg= case cn=Johnprep=cn contr do (prep)=cn coho"John catches more sockeye than (he does) coho"(ungrammatical under this interpretation.)The data are also not consistent with a non-configurational analysis. Given the lack of anysubconstituents in a non-configurational structure, ellipsis of just the verb and 0 isunexpected.47 The interpretation of (184) can be rendered as follows:(i) q'ayka helt misu2 =^m'ukw - a = s t = John 2a = 16: wil - t 2a = 2e: qmore many sockeyen catch-erg=case cn=John prep-cn contr do - 3 prep =cn coho"John catches more sockeye than (he does) coho"k'ayk'a helthl miso'ohl 'mugwis John ahl dii wilt ahl eekThe structure of this example is, however, different from that of the (184), since there is no missingargument in the second clause. The agent is realised by the 3sg suffix on the intransitive verb twill, and thetheme is realised as an oblique. Thus, this sentence does not bear on the issue of which argument of theverb is VP internal.963.1.2. IncorporationData from noun incorporation also support a syntactically accusative structure.In transitive sentences in Gitksan, 0 may be incorporated into the verb. The derived verbform may consist simply of a Verb + Noun sequence, as in (185), or the verb may beaffixed with an /-m/ suffix, which is identical in form to the attributive suffix, as in (186) -(187). Preceding this /-m/ suffix, a detransitivizing suffix, such as passive or antipassive,frequently occurs, as in (187).(185) yukw =1^yu2ks - null - tprog = cn wash - dish -3"He is washing dishes"yukwhl yo'oks no'ohlt(186) yukw tim t'aixw - m ma:y' - m'prog fut pick - attr^berry - 1pl"We're going to pick berries"yukw dim t'aahlxwwn maa'yim(187) yukw = I^lu: - ma:ks - a2 - m tali:sx - y'prog = cn in - wash -detr-attr sock -1 sg"I am washing socks"yukwhl luumaaksa'am dahliisxi'yHowever, while 0 can be incorporated, A never can be, as illustrated by theungrammaticality of the following example.(188) *gup ((- a2) - m )- smax = I ma:y'eat detr - attr -bear^=en berries*"Bears eat berries"48Whether one takes a syntactic or a lexical view of noun incorporation, these constraints onwhich argument can be incorporated support an accusative structure for Gitksan.48Due to The fact that the word /smax/ can mean "meat" as well as "bear", the sentence has a potentialnonsense interpretation as "Berries eat meat", in which the incorporated NP is interpreted as the object ofthe verb.97In Baker (1988), noun incorporation is viewed as a syntactic movement process by which anoun adjoins to a governing verb. The fact that generally only objects and not subjects canincorporate follows, under his analysis, from the ECP, which requires that the trace of theincorporated noun must be properly governed. This is only possible if the noun moves to aposition from which it can antecedent-govern its trace. This requirement effectivelyrestricts incorporation to positions governed by the verb.The fact that in Gitksan only 0 can incorporate is consistent with the accusative structurefor the language, since in this structure only 0 is governed by the verb.49The restrictions on incorporation in Gitksan would be difficult to account for under anergative analysis. As Baker (1988:142) points out, in a syntactically ergative language wewould expect incorporation to take place only from A position and not from 0, since onlyA is governed by the verb. As illustrated by the data above, however, this predictionproves exactly wrong for Gitksan.The incorporation facts are also problematic for a non-configurational analysis. In a non-configurational structure both A and 0 are governed by the verb, and so incorporation fromboth positions would be expected (Baker 1988:427). Thus the constraint againstincorporation of A in Gitksan is unexplained if we adopt a structurally non-configurationalanalysis of the language.49Given that under the accusative analysis of VSO order the verb must raise to a position which governsthe subject, one might expect, under Baker's account, that in VS0 languages the subject (A) would be ableto incorporate also. However, this is not the case. Baker and Hale (1990) propose an analysis of this factin terms of relativized minimality.98A potential problem for this argument in favour of an accusative structure, however, is thatit is not clear that noun incorporation should be viewed as a syntactic process in Gitksan.Although there is some evidence suggesting the process is productive, and thus plausiblysyntactic, there is stronger evidence indicating that the process is lexical.Gitksan speakers are able to make up new incorporated forms, using English words, as inthe following cases:(189) sim xsaX litsX - xA - m "book" =1 ti:^tsap -(9)= s t = Johnreal only read -pass-attr book = cn contr do -erg=case cn=John"All John did was read books"sim xsax litsxxwum bookhl dii jabis (japs)John(190) wila:x - a - y' wil^n'it t = John=1 mo:tsapaX - an - sx-vi - m kha: - txw - atknow - erg-lsg comp 3sg cn=John=cn almostrun -trn -antip-attr car -pass- S.extr"I know it was John that almost drove the car"wilaayi'y wil 'nit Johnhl mooji bahansxwumkaatxwitThis apparent productivity is compatible with either a syntactic or a lexical view ofincorporation.However, a range of evidence seems to be more compatible with a lexical analysis. First,not all verbs have incorporated equivalents, as Rigsby (1989) points out. Secondly,incorporated forms may occur inside derived nominals, suggesting that they must beavailable in the lexicon:(191) ha - yats - a2 - m - litinstr-hit-detr-attr - ball"(base)ball bat"hayaja'am hlit99Finally, the idiosyncratic presence of detransitivizing suffixes in some incorporated forms,discussed above, would be unexpected in a syntactic process.However, a lexical analysis of incorporation must also explain why incorporation cannotaffect A. Rosen (1989), in a recent lexical analysis of incorporation, notes that in variouslanguages arguments other than the direct object may incorporate. For instance, she citescases of instrumentals (Nahuatl), means phrases (Niuean) and locatives (Samoan)incorporating. However, the constraint against "subjects" incorporating still holds in theselanguages. She entertains the possibility that this crosslinguistic constraint may beexpressed lexically, as a prohibition on the incorporation of external arguments.Under a lexical analysis of this type, the Gitksan incorporation facts are explained onlyunder an accusative analysis of the language. Since in an accusative structure A is theexternal argument, the lexical analysis correctly predicts that A will not be able toincorporate. If Gitksan were syntactically ergative, however, the lexical analysis wouldincorrectly predict that 0 could not incorporate, since 0 is the external argument. Finally,if Gitksan were structurally non-configurational the lexical analysis would incorrectlypredict that either 0 or A could incorporate, since there is no external argument. Thus, alexical analysis of Gitksan incorporation also supports the claim that Gitksan is structurallyaccusative.3.1.3. Weak crossoverAnother potential VP test comes from the phenomenon of weak crossover (Postal 1971).In English there are subject/object asymmetries regarding the coreference possibilitiesbetween fronted wh words and possessive pronouns, as illustrated:100(192) Whoi ti loves hisi mother?(193) *Whoi does hisi mother love ti?In (192), in which the possessive pronoun is part of the object, coreference is possible, butin (193), in which the possessive pronoun is part of the subject, coreference is notpossible. Koopman and Sportiche (1982) propose the Bijection Principle to account forthese asymmetries:(194) Bijection PrincipleEvery operator must locally bind exactly one variable, and every variable mustbe bound by exactly one operator.Under this account, the data in (192) - (193) are explained as follows. In (192), theoperator "who" locally binds only the subject trace. The pronoun contained in the objectNP is bound by the trace in subject position. This satisfies the Bijection Principle. In(193), however, the operator "who" is the only local binder available for both thepossessive pronoun in the subject NP, and the trace in object position. This bindingrelation violates the Bijection Principle, because one operator binds more than one variable.This analysis of weak crossover crucially hinges on the fact that the subject in English is ina structurally higher position than the object, so that a subject trace can bind a variableinside the object, but not vice versa. Thus, the analysis provides a potential test todifferentiate accusative languages from ergative and non-configurational languages.In a syntactically ergative language, sentences parallel to (193) should be grammatical,while sentences parallel to (192) should be ungrammatical, as illustrated:101(195) i. Who does his mother love?^ii. Who loves his mother?whoi^SVPV XV^his mother*whoiVPV^‘tihisi MotherIn (i), the Bijection Principle is not violated, because "who" binds its trace, and the trace inturn binds the possessive "his". (ii), however, violates the Bijection Principle because"who" locally binds both the trace and the possessive.Finally, in a non-configurational language, sentences parallel to both (192) and (193)should be grammatical, as illustrated:(196) i. Who does his mother love?whoiIV^his motherii. Who loves his mother?whoiV^tj^hisi motherIn both (i) and (ii), the trace c-commands the possessive pronoun, and "who" binds onlyits trace, thus conforming to the Bijection Principle.The following chart summarizes the predictions of the Bijection Principle for the three typesof languages.(197)^ accusative^ergative^non-configurationalWhoi loves his mother?^ok okWho does hisi mother love? ok^okBelvin (1984) shows that in Nisgha, weak crossover data support an accusative analysisfor that language. The data I have found appear to support this conclusion for Gitksan102also. However, eliciting the relevant data and being certain of the interpretation is moredifficult for this test than for any others I have applied.Sentences parallel in structure to (192) are acceptable in Gitksan:(198) na: 2an - t^titalq = s^lip - nuX - twho A.extr - 3 speak.to = case self-mother-3"Who spoke to his own mother'?"naa ant didalks lipnoxtIt is difficult to elicit sentences such as (193), given that the English gloss is ungrammaticalunder the relevant interpretation but grammatical under an irrelevant interpretation.However, the following potential translation of the sentence was rejected:(199) *na:i = I titalq - a= s^lip-nuX - tiwho=cn talk.to -erg=case self-mother-3"Who did his own mother talk to?"In this example, the presence of the prefix /lip/ "self, own" on the noun /nuX/ "mother"seems to ensure coreference between the wh-element and the possessor, and thus thesentence constitutes a weak crossover violation.Assuming the Bijection Principle account of weak crossover effects, the grammaticality of(198) and the ungrammaticality of (199) support an accusative analysis of Gitksan. Asshown in (197), if Gitksan were a structurally ergative language, then (199) should begrammatical, and (198) ungrammatical. If Gitksan were a structurally non-configurationallanguage, then both (198) and (199) should be grammatical.3.2. Inconclusive tests with bindingIn the previous section I considered a number of tests which supported an accusativestructure for Gitksan, rather than an ergative or a non-configurational structure. Another103area in which one might expect to find evidence about the VP is binding. However, as Ishow in this section, evidence from binding is inconclusive in Gitksan.3.2.1. Binding Condition CIn this section I show that the distribution of R expressions in Gitksan is governed not bythe structurally based Binding Condition C, but rather by a precedence condition, and thattherefore the distribution of R-expressions fails to provide evidence about the structure of aGitksan clause.Condition C, which governs the distribution of R-expressions, is formulated as follows inChomsky (1981:188):(200) Condition CAn R-expression is free.A NP is free if it is not c-commanded by a coreferential NP. This condition thus predictsthat an R-expression cannot cooccur in a clause with a coreferential expression, if thatexpression c-commands it. Thus, in an accusative language, an R-expression cannot occurin 0 position with a coreferential A, since A c-commands O. In an ergative language, anR-expression should not occur in A position with a coreferential 0, since 0 c-commandsA. In a non-configurational language, an R-expression should be ruled out if any matrixargument is coreferential with it, since 0 and A are in a relationship of mutual c-command(Mohanan (1983), Whitman (1987) and Speas (1990)).According to the predictions of Condition C, then, the equivalents of the followingsentences, which are grammatical in an accusative language like English, should beungrammatical in an ergative or non-configurational language.104accusative ergative non-config(201) Maryi saw herselfi ok^*^*(202) Maryi's mother helped heri ok * *(203) The man who knows Johni helped himi ok * *In fact, the equivalent of each of these sentences is grammatical in Gitksan:(204) q'uts - a = s^t = Mary lip - n'itcut -erg= case cn = Mary self-3sg"Mary cut herself'Lofis Mary lip'nit(205) limo: -a = s nuX = s^t = Maryi n'itihelp - erg = cn mother= case cn = Mary 3sg"Mary's mother helped her"hlimooyis nods Mary 'nit(206) limo: - 9 =1 kat Ian - t^wila:x = s^t = Johni^n'itihelp -erg= cn man A.extr - 3 know = case cn = John 3sg"A man who knows John helped him"hlimooyihl gat ant wilaaxs John 'nitThe grammaticality of these sentences appears to provide support for an accusativestructure for Gitksan. However, the data only constitute an argument in support ofGitksan's accusativity if Condition C can be shown to be the optimal way of stating theconstraints on the distribution of R-expressions. In what follows, I show that aprecedence condition is (also) required to account for the Gitksan data. As a result, thegrammaticality of (204) - (206) fails to provide evidence about the structure of the Gitksanclause.Mohanan (1983:120) proposes for Malayalam the following precedence condition whichgoverns the relationship between R-expressions and pronouns.(207) A pronoun must not precede its antecedent.This condition is compatible with the Gitksan data presented in (204) - (206). Since ineach sentence the pronoun follows its antecedent, (207) correctly predicts that (204) - (206)105should be grammatical. Thus, with respect to (204) - (206), the precedence conditionmakes the same prediction as Condition C combined with an accusative structure.However, with respect to other sentence types, the two make different predictions, asillustrated schematically below:Condition C Precedence(accusative^(any structure)structure)(208) Hisi mother helped Johni^ok(209) A man whom he knows helped Johni^okInterestingly, the equivalent Gitksan sentences are judged ungrammatical, in line with thepredictions of the precedence condition.i. Possessor(210) *limo: - a = s nuX -ti^t = Maryihelp -erg= case mother-3sg cn = Mary(Heri mother helped Maryi)5°(211) *hats - T - a = 2us - ti t = Johnibite -T - erg= cn dog - 3sg cn = John(Hisi dog bit Johni)Relative clauses(212) *iimo: - a =I^kat 2an - t^wila:x - t t = John51help -erg= cn man A.extr - 3 know -3sg cn = John(A man who knows him helped John)The following sentences, in which the NP precedes its antecedent, were provided by myconsultant as the grammatical equivalents:50 The judgements in all these cases were very clear. For example, the speaker noted that this sentencewould be acceptable, if Mary were replaced by the pronoun in'it/ (3sg), giving the equivalent of "Her motherhelped her".51 Gitksan also shows a strong preference for extraposing relative clauses, so the presence of the relativeclause before the object may contribute to the ungrammaticality of this sentence. However, the fact that(215) below is grammatical shows that the position of the relative clause alone is not sufficient to accountfor the judgement.106(213) limo: - 9 = s^nuX = s^t = Mary n'ithelp - erg = case mother=case cn = Mary 3sg"Mary's mother helped her"hlirnooyis noxs Mary 'nit(214) hats - T - a=I 2us = s^t = John n'itbite - T - erg = cn dog = case cn = John 3sg"John's dog bit him"hatsdihl os John 'nit(215) limo: - a = I^kat 2an - t wila:x = s t = John n'ithelp -erg= en man A.extr-3 know =case en =John 3sg"A man who knows John helped him"hlimooyihl gat ant wilaaxs John 'nitThe importance of S-Structure precedence is reinforced by the fact that, under focusing,precedence still holds, as is illustrated in the following data. ((216) and (217) form aquestion/answer pair, but (218) is not a possible answer to (216).)52(216) 2o:, limo: - = s^t = Mary t = nuX - t^k'o:ts = ahelp -erg=case en = Mary en = mother-3sg yesterday = inter"Oh, did Maryi help heri mother yesterday?"oo hlimooyis Mary t nog ky'ootsa(217) ne: nakwo:t = s t = Mary =i^ti:^limo:- a - tno father = en cn=Mary = en contr help - erg - 3sg"No, it was heri father that Mary i helped"literally: "No, it was Maryi's father that she helped"nee, negwoots Maryhl dii hlirnooyit(218) *ne: nakwo:t - t = I^ti:^limo:- a = s^t = Mary53no father -3sg = en contr help - erg =case cn=MarySuch data strongly support positing a precedence condition to govern the distribution of R-expressions in Gitksan. Since a precedence condition makes no reference to structural52The grammaticality judgements of sentences (216) and (217) are the opposite of the judgements inEnglish. For example, an English sentence equivalent to (217) is ungrammatical:(i) *It was Maryps father that shei helped.One account of this appeals to reconstruction of wh-moved elements into their original positions. Oncereconstructed, the pronoun "she" in (212) would c-command "Mary", and thus violate condition C. TheGitksan data, however, clearly require a different account.53 Again the speaker noted that the sentence would be grammatical if the subject were pronominal.(i) ne: nakwo:t - t = I^ti:^limo: - a - tno father - 3sg = cn contr help - erg - 3sg"No it was her father that she helped"nee negwootthl dii hlimooyit107conditions, the data presented in this section fail to provide evidence about the structure of aGitksan clause.3.2.2. Binding Condition AIn the previous section I showed that restrictions on the distribution of R-expressions inGitksan failed to provide evidence about the structure of a Gitksan clause. In this section Ishow that the restrictions on the distribution of anaphors fail to provide evidence aboutGitksan clause structure for the same reason.Chomsky (1981:188) proposes the following condition to govern the distribution ofanaphors:(219) Condition AAn anaphor must be bound in its governing category.For the purposes of this discussion, the governing category is assumed to be the minimal Sdominating the anaphor. The relevant notion of binding is A-binding, which is defined asfollows, based on Chomsky (1981:184):(220) A-Bindinga is A-bound by if and only if a and 13 are coindexed, [3 c-commands a,and [3 is in an A-position.This condition appears to make the following predictions regarding the distribution ofanaphors in simple transitive clauses in accusative, ergative and non-configurationallanguages:108(221) accusative^ergative non-configurationalanaphor in A position^*^ok^okanaphor in 0 position ok * okConsider the distribution of anaphors in the following data from Gitksan. (The Gitksanreflexive pronoun consists of the prefix /lip/ followed by a Series III pronoun.)54(222) q'uts - a = s^t = Mary lip - n'itcut -erg= case cn = Mary self-3sg"Mary cut herself'lojis Mary lip nit(223) *q'uts - a (= I)^lip - n'it t = Marycut -erg (=case) self-3sg cn = MaryAs Belvin (1984) observes for parallel data from Nisgha, these data appear to support anaccusative analysis - the clause with the anaphor in A position is ungrammatical, but theclause with the anaphor in 0 position is grammatical. As the chart in (221) shows, onlythe accusative analysis makes this prediction.In fact, however, the data cannot be interpreted so simply. (223) is predicted to beungrammatical independently of condition A, by the precedence condition (207), since the(reflexive) pronoun precedes its antecedent. Thus, the distribution of anaphors also provesto be inconclusive with respect to clausal structure.54Tarpent (1988) has claimed that data such as those in (222) above are unnatural sentences, reflectinginfluence from English, and that the unmarked way of forming reflexive sentences involves the use of thedetransitivizing preverbal element /kuxws/ and the passive suffix. It is certainly true that reflexives can beformed morphologically in Gitksan, as in the following sentence:i kuxws^q'uts - xw t =Marybackwan.l cut -pass crMary"Mary cut herself'guxws &otsxw t MaryHowever, as Rigsby (1986;373-4) points out (and speakers I have consulted confirm this), the meaning ofsentences formed with /lcuxws/ is different from sentences such as (222) in which a reflexive pronoun isused. The morphological reflexive indicates deliberate rather than unintentional action. Thus in (222),Mary cut herself by accident, while in (i) she cut herself intentionally. This suggests that in Gitksan it isnot the case that the lexical reflexive is more natural than the syntactic reflexive, but rather that the twocoexist and perform different functions.1093.3.SummaryIn this section I have considered evidence regarding the status of the VP in Gitksan. Iprovided evidence from VP ellipsis, incorporation and weak crossover which supported theaccusative structure for Gitksan over either the ergative or the non-configurational. Forcompleteness, I showed in the last section that binding provided no structural insights,since it was governed by precedence rather than structurally based conditions.4. Is Gitksan a pronominal argument language?The goal of this chapter has been to determine what kind of structural representation shouldbe assigned to a Gitksan clause. So far in this chapter, I have examined the question ofwhether the syntax of Gitksan should be viewed as ergative, non-configurational oraccusative, and I have concluded that the evidence supports an accusative analysis.However, one other area of potential controversy in the analysis of Gitksan clause structureremains to be addressed, namely, the question of whether independent nominals or boundperson markers serve as arguments in the clause. This final section addresses thisquestion.4.1. IntroductionJelinek (1984) proposes that there is a class of languages, called pronominal argumentlanguages, in which only person marking affixes may function as arguments, and nominalsare optional adjuncts. In this section I consider whether Gitksan should be classified as apronominal argument language, as has been proposed for Nisgha in Jelinek (1986) andTarpent (1988).Jelinek (1984) has further claimed that pronominal arguments languages are structurallynon-configurational. Given this claim, the evidence presented in the previous section110showing that Gitksan is configurational might seem to obviate the possibility of analysingGitksan as a pronominal argument language. However, while it may be true that apronominal argument language shows many of the typological characteristics of non-configurationality, it has been shown by Bresnan and Mchombo (1987) for Chichewa andby Baker (1991) for Mohawk that a language may be a pronominal argument languagewithout being structurally non-configurational. Thus, the evidence used earlier to arguethat Gitksan is structurally configurational does not provide evidence about whether or notthe language is a pronominal argument language. The evidence considered in this section istherefore related specifically to determining whether nominals are arguments or adjuncts.I conclude that nominals in Gitksan function as arguments not adjuncts, and that thereforeperson-marking affixes function as agreement. Thus Gitksan should not be classed as apronominal argument language.4.2. The dataI begin by considering the Series II person markers, whose behaviour is crucial to the issueof whether Gitksan is a pronominal argument language.(224) Series II person markerssing plural1 -y'^-m' -'m2 -n^-sim'^-n^-si'm3^-t^-ti:t -tThe distribution of these person markers is illustrated in (225) through (230) using the 1stperson singular suffix /-y'/. Attached to a noun, as in (225), the suffix indicates thepossessor. Attached to a preposition, it may realise an oblique argument of a verb, as in111(226), or the object of a preposition, as in (227). Attached to a verb it may indicate either asubject, as in (228) - (229), or an object, as in (230). 55(225) wilp - y'house - lsg"my house"wilbi'y(226) kan'am - a - t = I 2ana:x lo: - y'give - erg-3 = cn bread prep - lsg"S/he gave me the bread"gi'namithl anaax loo'y(227) w'itxw t = John qu2 - y'come cn = John loc - lsg"John came to my place"(228) kup - a - y' = i huneat - erg-lsg= cn fish"I ate the fish"(229) ne: - ti:^w'itxw - y'not -contr come - lsg"I didn't come"(230) ne: - ti: - t^ka2 - y'not -contr - 3 see - lsg"S/he didn't see me"'witxwt John go'o'ygubi'yhl hunneedii 'witxwi'yneediit ga'a'yDistributional evidence seems to suggest that these suffixes serve the same function as fullNPs. First of all, they occur immediately after a lexical head, occupying the same stringpositions as nominals with the same grammatical function. This can be seen by comparing(225) - (230) with (231) - (236) below, which have nominal arguments.55 In these cases, whether the suffix realises the subject or object is not freely variable, but depends on thetype of sentence. An analysis of this phenomenon is given in Chapter 4.112(231) wilp = s^t = Maryhouse = case cn = Mary"Mary's house"wilps Mary(232) kan'am - a - t^2ana:x 2a56 = s^t = Marygive - erg- 3 = cn bread prep = case cn = Mary"S/he gave Mary the bread"grnamithl anaax as Mary(233) w'itxw t = John qu2 = s^t = Marycome cn = John loc = case cn = Mary"John came to Mary's place"'witxw t John go'os Mary(234) kwup - a = s^t = Mary =^huneat - erg= case cn = Mary= cn fish"Mary ate (the) fish"gubis Maryhl hun(235) ne: - ti:^w'itxw = s t = Marynot -contr come = case cn = Mary"Mary didn't come"needii 'witxws Mary(236) ne: - ti: - t^ka2 = s^t = Marynot -contr - 3 see = case cn = Mary"S/he didn't see Mary"57neediit ga'as MaryFurthermore, in almost all environments the person-marking suffixes are in complementarydistribution with full nominals.58 This is illustrated in the possessive NPs in (237) - (239).In (237) the possessor is realised by 3rd person suffix /t/, while in (238) the possessor isrealised by the nominal "John". It is ungrammatical for the /t/ suffix and the nominal tocooccur, as in (239).56 In the unmarked case, the preposition /7a/ is used before nominals, while /lo:/ occurs beforepronominals, as in (226).57 This sentence has an alternative interpretation "Mary didn't see him/her". A contrast in stress patterndifferentiates between the two interpretations. cf . Tarpent (1982) for further discussion.58 This is only observable with 3rd person arguments. Thus, in the remainder of this section, mydiscussion focuses on sentences with 3rd person arguments.113(237) wilp - thouse - 3"his/her house"(238) wilp = s^t = Johnhouse = case cn = John"John's house"(239)wilptwilps John*wilpts John59Similar distributional restrictions can be observed with the arguments of verbs. In (240)and (243) the subject is realised by the /t/ suffix, while in (241) and (244) it is realised by afull nominal. It is ungrammatical for the suffix and the coreferential nominal to cooccur, asin (242) and (245).(240) la mo: -a-ti t = Peterjhelp - erg - 3 cn = Peter"S/he helped Peter"hlimooyit t Peter(241) lamo: - a = s^t = John; t = Peterjhelp - erg = case cn = John cn = Peter"John helped Peter"hlimooyis John t Peter(242) *hlimooyits John t Peter(243) naks - xw - a - ti^t = Johnjspouse-pass-erg-3 cn = John"S/he married John"naksxwit t John(244) naks - xw - a = I hanaq' t = xwasti t = Johnjspouse-pass-erg= cn woman cn = that cn = John"That woman married John"naksxwihl hanak' tust t John59 Since I ultimately assume that both the person marker and the nominal are present in the underlyingrepresentation of forms such as these, I give only the surface form here.114(245) *naksxwithl hanak' tust t JohnThe only exception to this distributional pattern is noted in Tarpent (1988). She observesthat in sentences containing postverbal evidential enclitics, person markers and coreferentialnominals cooccur. This is illustrated in (246) - (248) below. (The enclitics areunderlined.)(246) lamo: - a - ti - iat = s^t = Kathyi t = Johnhelp -erg - 3 -rep = case cn = Kathy cn = John"Apparently Kathy helped John"60hlimooyitgats Kathy t John(247) naks - xw - a - ti - qat  =^hanaq' t = xwasti t = Johnspouse-pass-erg- 3 - rep = cn woman cn = that^cn = John"Apparently that woman married John"naksxwitgathl hanak' tust t John(248) ne: - ti:^ye: - ti - ama = s^t = Johni qu2 =I Vancouvernot -contr go - 3 - dub = case cn = John loc = cn Vancouver"John probably didn't go to Vancouver"needii yeedimas John go'ohl Vancouver4.3. Tarpent's analysisThe contrast between, on the one hand, sentences such as (242) and (245), in which anominal may not cooccur with a coreferential suffix and, on the other, sentences such as(246)-(248), in which a nominal must be accompanied by a coreferential pronominalsuffix, clearly presents an analytical problem. The complementary distribution of personmarkers and nominals could be accounted for by claiming that they are generated in thesame structural positions, with the person-marking affixes subsequently undergoingphonological incorporation onto the preceding head.61 Anderson (1982) proposes such an60 Speakers vary in how they translate the evidential clitics. Rigsby (p.c.) notes that alternativetranslations of sentences such as (2445) - (247) would be "They say Kathy helped John" and "They say thatwoman married John" respectively, indicating that the speaker's knowledge comes from another person'sverbal report, while an alternative translation of (248) would be "Maybe John didn't go to Vancouver".61 This is reminiscent of early accounts of French clitics, such as Kayne (1975), in which the clitics aregenerated in argument positions and then cliticized to the verb by a syntactic movement transformation.115analysis of the Breton person markers. 62 However, such an analysis would be unable toaccount for the cooccurrence of person marking and nominals illustrated in (246) - (248).Alternatively, we might explain the cooccurrence of person markers and nominals in (246)- (248) by claiming that they are generated in different structural positions. This analysis,however, faces the problem of accounting for the apparent complementary distributionillustrated in (237) - (245).A solution to this problem, which I adopt in principle, is proposed by Tarpent (1988).Tarpent's analysis is based on data from Nisgha. However, the essentials of the analysiscan also be applied to Gitksan, since, except where noted, the languages behave identicallyin the relevant respects.Tarpent claims that the /t/ suffix is always present underlyingly when there is 3rd personnominal argument. Under this analysis, surface forms such as those in (246)-(248), inwhich the suffix cooccurs with the nominal, pattern as expected, and it is sentences such as(242) and (245), in which the suffix does not surface, which pose a problem. Tarpentattributes the absence of the /t/ suffix in such sentences to a phonological process of /t/deletion, which can be represented informally as follows:(249) t-deletion rule63t->0/_t IHowever, Gitksan differs from French in that the linear position of the person markers is the same as thatof the full nominals. Thus there is less motivation for an analysis in terms of syntactic movement.62 See Stump (1984) for a different account of the Breton facts.Tarpent (1988) refers to this as a deaffrication rule. However, since the /t/ and the following /s,4/belong to separate morphemes, I assume that they do not have the phonological structure of affricates.116My data suggest that this deletion process is more restricted in Gitksan than in Nisgha,applying obligatorily only when the /t/ is the 3rd person morphemem. Thus I modify therule to encode this restriction:(250) Revised t-deletion rulet->0/_ =01[3]^SUnder this analysis, the underlying representations of sentences such as (241) and (244)are the following:(251) lamo: - a - = s^t = Johni t = Peterjhelp - erg - 3 ase cn=John cn = Peter"John helped Peter"(252) naks - xw - a - IL=^fhanaq' t = xwasth^t = Johnsmany-pass-erg- 3 = cn woman cn = that^cn = John"That woman married John"The /t/ person markers (underlined) are present underlyingly, but do not surface becausethe /s/ morpheme in (251) and the /11 morpheme in (252), which follow the /t/ suffix,trigger t-deletion.Two features of Nisgha and Gitksan morphosyntax conspire to ensure that this rule almostalways operates to delete a It/ person marker when it is coreferential with a following64 Certain other /Vs delete optionally before /s/ only. For instance, in the following examples the finalin the morpheme /qat/ may optionally delete before the following /s/, as in (i), but does not delete before afollowing /4/, as in (ii): (Phonetic representations of the underlined portions are given to the right.)(i.) naks - xE - a -t= qat = s^t = Kathy^t=Billmany- pass-erg-3sg = rep = case cn = Kathy t=Bill"Apparently Kathy married Bill"^[nalcsxwitGas] [naksxwitGats](ii.) naks - xE -^t. qat = 4 hanaq' t=xwist t=Billmany-pass-erg- 3 = rep = cn woman cn=dem cn=Bill"Apparentl that woman married Bill"Taipent's data show that in Nisgha the deletion process is much more widespread.117nominal. First, a nominal which is coreferential with a person suffix is always precededby either a case-marking morpheme which has the form /s/ or by a connective which hasthe form N. Secondly, no phrasal constituent may intervene between a lexical head, whichhosts person affixes, and its nominal arguments. As a result, in almost all cases in whicha /t/ person suffix cooccurs with a coreferential nominal, the suffix is immediately followedby a /s/ or N, and the suffix is thus deleted by (250).The crucial feature of sentences such as (246) - (248) which allows the /t/ suffix to cooccuron the surface with a coreferential nominal is the presence of the postverbal evidential clitics- the reportive /qat/ in (246) and (247), and the dubitative /a ma/ in (248). 65 Clitics of thistype are the only elements which can intervene between a person marking affix and afollowing coreferential nominal, and thus block the application of the t-deletion rule. As aresult, sentences containing such clitics are the only ones in which doubling of the personaffix and the nominal is apparent on the surface.Thus, with minimal modification, Tarpent's analysis of the distribution of the personmarkers in Nisgha can be adopted in the analysis of Gitksan to account for the apparentcomplementary distribution of nominals and person markers.4.4. Pronominal vs. nominal argument analysisAn important consequence of adopting Tarpent's analysis is that it entails that personmarkers are obligatorily present in (at least some) sentences, while nominals are optional.Tarpent (1988) argues on this basis that Nisgha is a pronominal argument language (Jelinek65 T UIT. I - .1^fib'^I - 1in other environments. This suggests that the process which normally blocks the cooccurrence of the affixand the nominal in contemporary Nisgha/Gitksan was previously less pervasive.118(1984))66, in which person affixes function as arguments67, while nominals are optionaladjuncts.68The fact that a language has obligatory person marking and optional nominals does notnecessarily mean that it is a pronominal argument language, however. An alternativeinterpretation is that the person affixes function as agreement, while the nominalsargument positions. Belvin (1990), for example, has suggested that this is the appropriaterepresentation for certain person affixes in Nisgha.69 I shall refer to this approach as the"nominal argument" analysis. Under this type of analysis, argument positions can befilled either by independent nominals (or pronominals), or by the empty pronominal pro,licensed and identified by agreement.In the remainder of this section I argue that Gitksan is a nominal argument language.Evidence for this claim comes from the syntactic behaviour of nominals, and from certainproblems with Tarpent's t-deletion rule.66Jelinek (1986) proposes that Nisgha is a partially pronominal argument language. However, her claim isbased on a more restricted set of data than is considered by Tarpent, and so I do not explicitly address herproposal here.67 Baker (1991), in his analysis of Mohawk, has a slightly different interpretation of the pronominalargument hypothesis. He maintains the claim that nominals are adjuncts, but interprets the person markingas occurring in agreement rather than in argument position. However, for the purposes of this paper, thisdifference is not relevant. My arguments focus on the status of nominals, and once it is shown thatnominals are arguments, then the status of person markers as agreement is not at issue.68 Note that even in a language which is not a pronominal argument language, structures can arise inwhich a pronominal is in argument position and a nominal in adjunct position, for instance through left orright dislocation. ("That guy, I really like him." "I really admire him for his courage, that politician.")What distinguishes a pronominal argument language is that nominals can only be in adjunct position.Belvin's analysis differs from the one presented in this thesis in that he claims that third person /t/ canfunction either as agreement or as an argument, while the other members of the person marking paradigmfunction as arguments, because they cannot double with nominals. However, I attribute the apparentconstraint a ainst doublin of 1nominals, and consider that all the person marking suffixes have the same status, functioning as agreementmarkers.. I^I $ $.'^II II^II"^1111194.4.1. Adjunct / argument asymmetriesThe first set of arguments against an analysis of Gitksan as a pronominal argumentlanguage stems from the existence of adjunct / argument asymmetries. Such asymmetriesshould not exist in a pronominal argument language, since all elements except boundperson markers should behave as adjuncts.4,4.1.1 Word orderCertain elements of the Gitksan sentence are freely ordered. This is illustrated in (253) -(254), which show that the adverb /taw%' "today" can occur either before or after the PP/qu2 = I Hazelton/ "in Hazelton":(253) ka2 - a - y'^t = John [qu2 = I Hazelton] [taw'I]^PP^advsee -erg- 1 sg cn = John loc = cn Hazelton today 7°"I saw John in Hazelton today"ga'a'y t John go'ohl Hazelton da'whl(254) ka2 - a - y'^t = John [taw'}] [qu2 = I Hazelton]adv^PPsee - erg - 1 sg cn = John today^loc= cn Hazelton"I saw John today in Hazelton"ga'a'y t John da'whl go'ohl HazeltonAs discussed earlier, however, other sentential elements are subject to tight orderingconstraints. The ordering of the subject, verb and object is strictly VSO.Under the nominal argument analysis, this asymmetry with respect to ordering restrictionsis not unexpected, since it correlates with the distinction between adjunct and argumentpositions. It is a standard characteristic of adjuncts that they are freely ordered, and inGitksan the elements that are freely ordered are indeed the adjuncts. The strictly orderedelements, on the other hand, are arguments.70 Rigsby (p.c.) notes that this word has the more literal meaning "a short time ago".120These ordering facts are problematic for the pronominal argument analysis of Gitksan,however. Since in a pronominal argument language all NPs are adjuncts, all NPs shouldbe freely ordered in such a language. This is true, for instance, of Warlpiri (Jelinek(1984)) and Mohawk (Baker (1991)), which are claimed to be pronominal argumentlanguages. Thus, word order constraints in Gitksan constitute one argument against apronominal argument analysis of the language.4.4.1.2 Long distance extraction asymmetriesFurther evidence against a pronominal argument analysis of Gitksan comes from anadjunct/argument asymmetry with respect to extraction out of subordinate clauses,illustrated in (255) - (257).(255) na: = I ha - n'i: - qu:t - n^tsa^2an - t kup -t =^hun .who= cn instr - on - heart-2sg comp A.extr-3 eat -3= cn fish"Who do you think ate the fish?"naahl ha'niigoodin ji ant guphl hun(256) n'it t = John= I^hasaq - y' tim 2an - t kup -t= I^hun3sg cn =John = cn desire -lsg fut A.extr-3 eat -3= cn fish"It's John I want to eat the fish"'nit Johnhl hasaga'y dim ant guphl hun(257) *t = Mary =I ta:Vi t = John qu2 = I Hazeltonus m'in - ku: - T - a - tcn = Mary= cn leave^cn = John loc= cn Hazeltonafter up -take - T - erg -3sg(*It was Mary John went to Hazelton after he picked up.)Under the nominal argument analysis, the extraction facts can be characterized as follows.In (255) - (256), in which the subordinate clause is an argument, extraction out of theclause is possible. However, in (257), in which the subordinate clause is an adjunct,extraction out of the clause is barred. Huang's (1982) Condition on Extraction Domains(CED), which claims that extraction is only possible out of properly governed domains,121provides an account of these facts.71 The embedded clauses in (255) - (256) arearguments, properly governed by the verb, and thus extraction is possible. However, theadverbial clause in (257), being an adjunct, is not properly governed, and thus extraction isbarred.This explanation of the extraction facts would not be possible under the pronominalargument analysis. If only pronouns can be arguments, then the subordinate clauses in theabove sentences would have to be analysed as adjuncts. If all subordinate clauses areadjuncts, the CED predicts that extraction from them should consistently be barred. Thegrammaticality of the extractions in (255) - (256) thus provides a second argument againstthe pronominal argument analysis of Gitksan. 7271 Note that in Chomsky (1986a), the CED is subsumed under subjacency.72 The force of this argument against the pronominal argument analysis is weakened by a recent analysis ofMohawk (Baker 1991). Baker claims that Mohawk clauses can be (S-Structure) arguments but nominalscannot. One type of evidence he adduces for this claim comes from CED effects. The predictedargument/adjunct extraction asymmetries hold with respect to extraction out of clauses, but not with respectto extraction out of nominals, which is always ungrammatical.The possibility that such an analysis could also be appropriate for Gitksan makes the clausal extractionfacts in Gitksan less conclusive. That is, while the asymmetries illustrated in (255)-(257) are consistentwith the nominal argument analysis, they might also be compatible with a Baker-style pronominalargument analysis. Furthermore, in Gitksan, as in Mohawk, extraction out of nominals is ungrammaticalin all circumstances.i *na:^titiy'^- (a) - n^noX - atwho =cn look.after -erg - 2sg mother -S.extr"Whose mother did you look after?" lit = Whosei did you look after ti mother?ii *na: = 4 titiy'^- (a) = s^noX - at^t = Johnwho = cn look.after -erg =case mother-S.extr cn=John"Whose mother looked after John" lit = Whosei looked after ti mother John?iii *na = 4 ski =4 k"ila - at laX ha - n'i:-wan- astwho =cn lie =cn blanket-A.extr on instr-in-sit -interact"Whose blanket is lying on the floor?" lit = Whosei is lying ti blanket on the floor?The only way to render these questions grammatical is to front the whole NP, rather than just moving the^possessor. The ungrammaticality of (i -^might be interpreted as evidence in favour of the pronominalargument analysis, since we would expect extraction out of nominals to be impossible if they were inungoverned adjunct positions. However, there are other possible explanations of the ungrammaticality ofthe above sentences, such as that nominals are not proper governors. In view of the fact that there is otherstrong evidence that Gitksan nominals are arnot pronominal argument languages have restrictions on extraction out of nominals, I do not consider thefailure of extraction out of nominals to be a serious problem for my analysis.I I ' I^. 1 1^I -1224.4.2. Case-related asymmetriesThe second set of arguments against the pronominal argument analysis of Gitksan comesfrom asymmetries in the morphological marking of nominals. Since in a pronominalargument language all independent nominals have the same status, serving as adjuncts,such asymmetries are unexpected if Gitksan is a pronominal argument language. In thissection I show, however, that a nominal argument analysis can provide an account of theseasymmetries.4.4.2.1 Presence of obliquesThe preposition /2a/ appears obligatorily before certain NPs in a Gitksan sentence. As thefollowing sentences illustrate, the semantic role of the NP following /2a/ varies widely, sothat the function of the preposition seems to be grammatical rather than semantic.(258) kan'am -a -t=s t= John = I^23na:x 2a = s^t = Marygive - erg -3 = case cn = John = cn bread prep = case cn = Mary"John gave the bread to Mary"gi'namis Johnhl anaax as Mary(259) kin -a -t =s t= Clara. ^ikwu:ixw-t 2a = I^ts'al^= kagive-erg-3 = cn cn = Clara = cn child -3 prep= cn half.smoked.salmon=distr"Clara gave her child half-smoked salmon"ginis Clarahl hlguuhlxwt ahl ts'algi(260) kwin kaldy' - T - a -s t = John= i^tk'ilxw 2a = s^t= Maryjuss look.after-erg= case cn = John = cn child^prep= case cn = Mary"John told Mary to look after the children"gun gigi'ydis Johnhl tk'ihhw as Mary(261) q'uts -a -t=s t=Tom=i^smax 2a = I t'u:ts'xwcut -erg-3 = case cn = Tom = cn bear prep= cn knife"Tom cut the meat with a knife"k'ojis Tomhl smax ahl t'uuts'xwUnder the nominal argument analysis, the class of NPs which must be preceded by /2a/may be characterized as any arguments other than subject or object. A principled uires at .1 nommals.1 • I.^01 II^I.123in argument positions be assigned abstract Case in order to be visible for theta marking(Chomsky 1986b). It appears that in Gitksan, as in many Romance languages, theverb/Infl can assign structural case to the subject and at most one object argument. Thisleaves any additional arguments without Case. The only way for these NPs to be assignedCase is by the insertion of the Case-assigning preposition /'2a/.Such an explanation of the function of /2a/ is not available under the pronominal argumentanalysis, however. Adjuncts do not need to be Case-marked because they are not theta-marked, and so the pronominal argument analysis predicts that NPs should not requireCase. Therefore, under this analysis, it would be difficult to explain the presence of theprepositions in sentences such as (258) - (261).The distribution of the preposition /2a/ is thus another aspect of Gitksan syntax whichseems to be better accounted for under the nominal argument analysis.4.4,2.2 Morphological marking of extractionSubjects and objects also behave differently from other elements in the sentence withrespect to extraction.Extraction of any element except subject and object is consistently marked by the presenceof the complementizer /wil/ between the fronted element and the remainder of the clause, asillustrated in (262) - (264):(262) k'o:ts^wit^ne: - ti: - t^iamo: - t = s t = John t = Maryyesterday comp not -contr - 3 help - 3 = cn cn = John cn = Mary"It was yesterday that John didn't help Mary"ky'oots wil neediit hlirrzoos Johnt Mary(263) qu2 = I^California wit - ti:^taw' - t = s^t = Kathy^lo: - tloc = en California comp - contr go - 3 = case cn = Kathy to 3sg(cmph)"Kathy went to California"go'ohl California wildii da'whls Kathy loot124(264) t = Barbara^wil - t^kan'am - t = s t = Kathy =1^matsaciale:cn = Barbara comp - 3 give - 3= case cn = Kathy =cn flowers"It was Barbara Kathy gave the flowers to"t Barbara wilt gi'namis Kathyhl majagaleeHowever, extraction of subject and object arguments is never marked by /wil/, but by otherspecial morphology between the fronted NP and the remainder of the clause. Plant/ marksextraction of transitive subjects (265) , /V marks extraction of transitive objects (266), and11/ accompanied by the verbal suffix /at/ marks extraction of intransitive subjects (267).(265) t = John /an - t ne: - ti: - t^lamo: - t = s t = Mary k'o:tscn = John A.extr-3 not - contr - 3 help- 3 = case cn = Mary yesterday"It's John who didn't help Mary yesterday"t John ant neediit hlimoos Mary ky'oots(266) t = John =1^lamo: - a - t = s^t = Mary k'o:tscn = John = cn help - erg- 3 = case cn = Mary yesterday"It's John Mary helped yesterday"t Johnhl hlimooyis Mary ky'oots(267) t = John =1^w'itxw - atcn = John= cn come - S.extr"It's John who came"t Johnhl 'witxwitUnder the nominal argument analysis, this distinction can be captured descriptively as adistinction between extraction from positions structurally Case-marked by the verb/Infl andextraction from positions which are licensed in other ways. 73Under the pronominal argument analysis, however, according to which nominals areadjuncts and therefore not Case-marked, such a characterization of the asymmetry is notavailable. Thus, this asymmetry also argues against the pronominal argument analysis.73 Note that this characterization of the asymmetry would not he available even miller a Baker stylepronominal argument analysis, since a central feature of his analysis of Mohawk is that Case cannot beassigned to any argument positions.1254.4.3.^Problems with the t-deletion ruleA further potential problem for the pronominal argument analysis of Gitksan relates to the t-deletion rule discussed above, and repeated here.(268) Revised t-deletion rulet->0/_ 1.11[3]Recall that this rule serves to delete a /t/ person suffix when it immediately precedes aconnective with the phonological shape /s/ or /ii, as in the following example, in which the/t/ suffix (underlined) is not phonetically realised:(269) m'ats -a-I =I ikwa-^=^ha - n'i: - quyp'aX 2a =i 1u2phit - erg - 3 = cn small - child = cn instr - in - light^prep= cn rock"The child hit the window with -a rock"'madzihl hIgutkThlxwhl ha'niigoyp'a.x ahllo'opA problem for any analysis which adopts this rule is that there is a class of consistentexceptions. In sentences with both a 3rd person pronominal subject and a lexical object,the /t/ subject suffix is immediately followed by the Al connective of the object nominal, andyet the deletion rule fails to apply, as is exemplified in (270):(270) m'ats -a-t=I ha - n'i: - quyp'aX 2a =1^1u2phit - erg - 3 = cn instr - in - light^prep= cn rock"S/he hit the window with a rock"'madzithl hainiigoyp'ax ahl lo'opThe descriptive generalization seems to be that the It/ suffix deletes in the relevantphonological environment only if it is also coreferential with the following NP. In (270),the phonological environment is met, but the It/ suffix fails to delete because it is notcoreferential with the following NP /han'i:quypiaXi ("window"). Since phonologicalrules should not be able to access coreference information, sentences such as (270) appear126to be problematic for both the nominal argument analysis and the pronominal argumentanalysis. However, I propose that under the nominal argument analysis the apparentexceptions to the deletion rule can be accounted for in a principled way.Under a nominal argument analysis, sentences such as (269) and (270) have ratherdifferent S-Structures, and I claim that this difference in structure is responsible for theirdifferent behavior with respect to the t-deletion rule. Under the structure I propose inChapter 4, sentences such as (270) have the following structure, with pro in subjectposition, licensed under agreement with the It/ suffix on the verb:(271) proi m'ts -0 - t i [vp^[Aspp‘eAsp/v [VP t v = han'i:quyp taXj]]lIn this structure, the /t/ suffix is syntactically quite distant from the connective associatedwith the object NP, even though they are adjacent on the surface.A sentence such as (269), however, has the structure given in (272), in which the /t/ suffixis syntactically close to the connective of the following NP, which in this case is thesubject.(272) m'ats - a - t i [VP = I ikwa-tleilxw [AspP t Asp/V [VP t v = I hanti:quypiaXj]]]It appears that t-deletion occurs only if the /t/ suffix is syntactically close to the connectivewhich triggers the deletion.The necessary structural restriction might be incorporated into the phonological analysis of/t/ deletion in a number of different ways. One possibility would be to impose agovernment condition on the rule, of the type proposed in Kaisse (1985). Alternatively,the rule might be made sensitive to phonological phrasing, following proposals in work127such as Selkirk (1984) , Nespor and Vogel (1986) and Hayes (1989). Under this approachthe syntax cannot be directly referred to in phonological rules, but can have indirect effectsin determining certain aspects of prosodic structure.A solution of this type is not available under the pronominal argument analysis. If Gitksanis a pronominal argument language, the structural relationship between the person-markingsuffix and any following NP should always be the same, since all NPs are adjuncts:(273) [Mats - a - t i] S [ =^Ji [ =^han'i:quyplaX] j(274) [m'ats - a - t ii S [ = I han'i:quypiaX]iIn each case the following NP is an adjunct to the sentence containing the /t/ suffix,regardless of whether that NP is thematically related to the subject or object pronominal.Thus, under this approach it is difficult to account for why the /t/ suffix deletes in (269) andnot in (270).7474Tarpent (1991) proposes that Nisgha sentences of this problematic type have a rather different structure,which she suggests might account for the deletion facts. She claims that in sentences of the type underdiscussion, the so-called independent sentences, the "object" nominal is in fact a clefted element.Translating this proposal into structural representations, the sentences (i) and (ii) would presumably beassigned structures something like the following:i [0 j [nfats -a -ti ej [S] [ = 1^ha - n'i: quyp'aXj]hit - erg - 3^= cn instr - in - light(loose translation: "What s/he hit was the window")ii [ 0 j [treats -a -ti ej Js [ =^ikwa -^1]^[.^ha - n'i: - quyp'aXj]hit - erg - 3^= cn small - child^= cn instr - in - light(loose translation: "What s/he hit, the child, was the window")Given this analysis, the syntactic distance between the /t/ person-marker and the object NP /i han'i:quyp'aX/would indeed be greater than the distance between the It/ person-marker and the subject NP /1 ikwo-tk'iixw/,since A lkwa-tklixw/ would be adjoined within the same S. while A han'i:quyp'aX/ would be adjoined to ahigher S. However, althou h there •types of syntactic evidence suggest that the representations in (i) and (fi) are not appropriate for Gitksan.This issue is discussed in detail in Chapter 4.•^• II • II III •^. '^• .1 ii1284.4.4. Positions not realised by a pronominal affix.Another serious problem for the pronominal argument analysis of Gitksan is the fact that incertain sentence types there are arguments which are not associated with any personmarkers. This would be unexpected under a pronominal argument analysis, which ispredicated on the assumption that all arguments are realised by person markers. Considerthe following examples of independent sentences in which there is no person marking affixcoreferential with the noun phrase which is associated with the absolutive argument.(275) paX =^kat t = xwi nrun = cn man cn = this"This man ran"baxhl gat tun(276) kup - a - y' =^huneat -erg-lsg = cn fish"I ate the fish"gubi'yhl hunUnlike the cases considered earlier in this section, the absence of a person marker in thesesentences cannot be explained by the t-deletion rule. Even when the deletion environmentis not met, as in the presence of the postverbal clitic /qat/, no person marker surfaces:(277) w'itxw = qat t = John k'o:ts^(*Witxw - t - qat - t John k'o:ts)come = rep cn = John yesterday 3"Apparently John came yesterday"switxnatt John ky'ootsUnder the nominal argument analysis, the absence of person markers in such sentences isunsurprising, since it is not uncommon crosslinguistically for heads to show agreementonly with certain argument positions. In English, for example, the verb/Infl showsagreement only with the subject.129However, this lack of person markers seems to be a serious problem for the pronominalargument analysis. One might try to save the analysis by proposing that there is a series ofphonetically null person markers coreferential with the absolutive arguments in these cases.However, while it is not uncommon for an agreement paradigm to have some zeromembers, or to be zero in some environments, a series that is zero for every person andnumber value in every environment would seem to pose learnability problems.The lack of person marking in these sentences is thus another aspect of Gitksan whichseems incompatible with the pronominal argument analysis.4.5. Independent pronominalsIn the preceding sections we have seen various arguments that NPs in Gitksan should beanalysed as arguments and that consequently person markers should be analysed asagreement. However, I have not yet discussed the status of independent pronouns, whichmight further complicate our analysis. In this section I give evidence that independentpronomina1s should be considered to have the same argument status as nomina1s.Positions which are not associated with a bound person marker receive a pronominalinterpretation through the use of a Series IR independent pronoun, as is illustrated in thefollowing sentences:75(278) paX n'i:y'run lsg"I ran"bas 'nii'yAs discussed previously, the pronoun can be omitted altogether, in which case the argument will receivea default 3sg interpretation (Rigsby 1986, Tarpent 1988).130(279) ka2 - a - t^n'i:y'see - erg - 3 lsg"S/he saw me"ga'at 'nii'yGiven that Series III pronouns occur just in positions that are not referenced by boundperson markers, one might propose that they have the same status as these affixed personmarkers. However, two types of evidence suggest that this assumption is incorrect.First, unlike the person affixes, independent pronouns never double with lexical nouns, asis illustrated by the ungrammaticality of the following example:(280) *paX n'iti t =John;run 3sg cn = John"John ran"Secondly, independent pronominals may be syntactically conjoined with other nominals(281), while person-marking affixes cannot (282): 76(281) ka2 - a - y'^n'i:n qan t = Billsee -erg- lsg 2sg^and cn = Bill"I saw you and Bill"ga'a'y Win gan t Bill(282) *ka2 -a - n^qan t = Bill t = Johnsee - erg - 2sg and cn = Bill cn = John"You and Bill saw John"In both these respects, then, independent pronouns behave just like nominals. Since undermy analysis nominals are arguments, it is plausible to assume that independent pronominalsshould also be analysed as occurring in argument position.76 Following Livingston's (1989) analysis of parallel facts in Nisgha, I distinguish syntactic coordination,in which both parts of the conjunct have equal syntactic status, from so-called "plural pronoun"constructions (Schwartz 1988) in which the first element of an apparent conjunct subsumes the person andnumber of the whole NP, and the second element has ad'unct sp^pronoun constructions. (cf. Chapter 3, Section 2.1.2 (ii) for examples and discussion of thisconstruction.)• (_^ r ► • 1-131The only potential problem for this analysis of independent pronouns relates to doublingwith agreement. As we have seen, independent nominals may double with the agreementsuffixes:(283) ka2 - a - t = qat = s^t = Bill t = Johnsee -erg-3 = rep = case cn = Bill cn = John"Apparently Bill saw John"ga'atgas Bill t JohnHowever, there is never doubling of independent pronouns with agreement:(284) *ka2 - a - t = qat n 'it t = Johnsee - erg - 3 = rep 3sg cn = John"Apparently s/he saw John"An NP position licensed by agreement can only be a nominal, as in (283) above, or beempty (contain pro, under my analysis):(285) ka2 - a - t = qat pro t = Johnsee -erg - 3 = rep^cn = John"Apparently s/he saw John"ga'atgatt JohnThis clearly represents an asymmetry between independent pronouns and nominals, and itis unexpected if pronominals and nominals have the same argument status. However, thefact that overt pronouns fail to surface in Gitksan when their content is recoverable throughcontext or agreement is not unusual. Many other languages, such as Chamorro (Chung1982), prohibit pronouns from cooccurring with agreement. The preference shown invarious languages for silent rather than overt pronouns is captured in Chomsky (1981) andJaeggli (1981) by the "Avoid Pronoun Principle". This principle seems to be operative inGitksan. Further discussion of this property is given in Chapter 4.1324.6. ConclusionIn this section, I have examined various kinds of evidence pertaining to the status of personmarking elements, independent nominals and independent pronominals in Gitksan.Evidence from word order, extraction and Case-marking supports the conclusion thatnominals fill argument rather than adjunct positions in this language, and thus that affixedperson markers should be analysed as agreement elements. This supports the claim thatGitksan is not a pronominal argument language, a conclusion bolstered by my analysis ofexceptions to the phonological rule of "t deletion", and by the fact that certain argumentpositions are not referenced by any person marking elements. Finally, I showed thatindependent pronominals function like independent nominals (i.e. as arguments), ratherthan like the bound person markers (i.e. as agreement).5. Summary of Chapter 3 This chapter has been concerned with establishing an appropriate representation for theGitksan sentence. The overall conclusion of the chapter is that a Gitksan clause has thesame basic syntactic structure as more familiar languages.In Sections 1 and 21 considered typological features of Gitksan related to ergativity andnon-configurationality as potential sources of evidence for determining whether Gitksanshould be assigned a non-standard structural representation. I showed that Giticsan'sergative patterns were morphological rather than syntactic, and that its non-configurationalfeatures were not overwhelming. These results suggested that Gitksan might be compatiblewith a standard accusative structural representation. In Section 3 I provided syntactic evidence which further su II • -A !I 4133I considered the question of whether Gitksan was a pronominal or a nominal argumentlanguage, and I concluded that it was a nominal argument language.134Chapter 4: Agreement and Case in Gitksan^0.^Introduction In the previous chapter I considered, and rejected, possible analyses of Gitksan assyntactically ergative, non-configurational or pronominal argument, concluding instead thatGitksan was an accusative configurational language in which independent nominalsfunctioned as the arguments of the verb. In this chapter I propose an analysis of thevarious agreement and case patterns in the language, assuming a particular structuralinstantiation of this accusative structure.The chapter begins in Section 1 with a discussion of the status of independent vs.dependent clauses in Gitksan, which is a necessary preliminary to the discussion ofagreement and case patterns in Section 2. Finally, Section 3 considers in detail previousanalyses of the /a/ suffix, showing how the behaviour of this morpheme is compatible withthe analysis of agreement and case in Section 2.^1.^Independent vs. dependent clauses1.1. Major differences between independent and dependent clauses:As discussed briefly in Chapter 2, there are two distinct clause types in Gitksan, which arecommonly referred to as dependent and independent. Independent clauses are restricted tomatrix clause position, and in an independent clause, the verbal complex is the first elementin the sentence. Dependent clauses may occur as matrix or embedded clauses, and arenormally characterized by the presence of certain types of elements preceding the verb. Irefer to these elements as dependent markers. The presence of the dependent markers is135associated with different patterns of verbal morphology, case marking and agreement fromthose which appear in independent clauses.1The exact nature of the differences between independent and dependent clauses depends onthe transitivity of the verb.(1) -(2) illustrate the two major differences between dependent and independent transitiveclauses.(1) independent transitive clausestil^-a-t=s^t = John t=Peteraccompany-erg - 3 =case cn=John cn=Peter"John accompanied Peter"sdilis John t Peter(2) dependent transitive clausene: - ti: =t stil - t = s^t = John t=Peternot -contr =3 accompany-3=case cn=John cn=Peter"John did not accompany Peter"neediit sdils John t PeterThe first difference is that an independent clause such as (1) contains a verbal suffix /a/which does not appear in a dependent clause. The second difference is that a dependentclause such as (2) contains a preverbal ergative person marker (ft/ in this instance) which isnot present in the independent clause.2In clauses containing intransitive verbs, the differences between independent and dependentclauses relate to the realisation of pronominal subjects, the case-marking of the subject, andthe occurrence of a person-marking suffix on the verb. In an independent intransitiveclause such as (3) the subject is not marked with the /s/ case-marker and no person-marking1There are also some more complex differences in the realisation of pronouns. These will be dealt with indetail in Section 2 of this chapter.2(1) also contains a person marking affixes which has the form iti. However, it is from a different person -marking paradigm (Senes 11), and occurs post-verbally rather than preverbally. More detailed discussion ofthese person-marking paradigms is given in Sections 2.6-2.7 of this chapter.136suffix appears on the verb. Furthermore, a pronominal subject in such a sentence will berealised by an independent pronoun (4). In a dependent intransitive clause, such as (5), theIs/ case-marking appears on the subject and a person marking suffix appears on the verb.If the subject is pronominal in a clause of this type it will be realised only by a personmarking suffix, not by an independent pronoun (6):intransitive independent clauses(3) w'itxw t = Johncome cn=John"John came"'witxw t John(4) w'itxw ^come^1 sg"I came"'witxw 'nii'yintransitive dependent clause(5) ne: - ti:^w'itxw - t =1^t=Johnnot-contr come - 3 =case cn=John"John didn't come"needii 'witxws John(6) ne: - ti:^w'itxw - y'not-contr come - 1 sg"I didn't come"neediiThese differences are summarized below:(7) Major differences between independent and dependent clausesindependent^dependent-verb-initial -dependent marker-initialTransitive clauses:^-/a/ verbal suffix^-preverbal ergative person-markerIntransitive clauses: -no /s/ case to subject-independent pronoun forpronominal subject-/s/ case to subject-person suffix forpronominal subject1371.2. Dependent markersA range of elements can function as dependent markers.3 The following list is notexhaustive, but gives representative examples from my data of the different classes ofdependent markers.1.2.1. Certain intransitive verbsAmong the elements which can introduce a dependent clause is a small number of wordswhich can function both as dependent markers and as intransitive verbs. Examples of theiruse as verbs and dependent markers are given below:- as intransitive verb (to finish)(8)^ia^lisxw - t = s^t=John 2a = i^se - kofi - tincept finish - 3 = case cn=John prep=cn pfx-coffee - 3"John has finished making coffee"hlaa hlisxws John ahl sikofit- as dependent marker (perfective)(9)^iisxw = taw' - t = s^t = Michael = aperf =en leave - 3 ase cn=Michael=inter"Has Michael left?"hlisxwhl da'whIs MichaelaYukw- as intransitive verb (to work)(10) hi - yukw t=Mary 2a = I^tsam - hundur-work cn=Mary prep=cn cook-fish"Mary's busy cooking fish"hiyukw t Mary ahl jamhun- as dependent marker (progressive)Intransitive predicate(11) yuk"=I litsX - xw - t = s^t = Johnprog = cn count - pass - 3 =case cn = John"John is reading"yukwhl litssxws John3See Rigsby (1986:272-4) and Tatpent (1987) for more extensive lists of dependent marking elements.138Transitive predicate(12) yukw - t kipa - t = sprog - 3 wait.for - 3 =case"John is waiting for Mary"t= John t=Marycn=John cn=Maryyukwt gibas John t Maryiii. ne:-as intransitive verb (to be absent, not exist)(13) ne: = I^hunnot.exist=cn fish"There are no fish"neehl hun-as dependent marker (negative)(14) ne: - t limo: - t = s^t=Margaret^t=Kathy = anot-3 help - 3 = case cn=Margaret cn=Kathy=inter"Did Margaret help Kathy?"neet hlimoos Margaret t Kathya/ne:/ used alone as a dependent marker, as in (14), generally indicates a (polite) question.To indicate a negative declarative, it combines with the morpheme /ti:/ (contrastive), as in(15) below.(15) ne:ti:ne: - ti: - t^limo: - t = s^t=John^t=Peternot - contr - 3 help - 3 = case cn=John cn=Peter"John didn't help Peter"neediit hlimoos John t Peteriv. 2aq- as intransitive verb (to be impossible, to lack, to be non-existent)(16) 2aq = I ta:lalack =cn money"Money is lacking"akhl daala- as dependent marker (cannot)(17)^2aq^na =wila q'uts - a - t = i 2ana:x ; ne: - ti:^t'u:tsxw - y'unable 1 sg = how cut -erg - 3=cn bread not-contr knife -1 sg"I cannot cut the bread - I don't have a knife"a/ nuwila Lojihl anaax; nee dii t'uutsxwi'y139Morphologically, this class of dependent markers is distinguished from the others by thepresence of the /I/ morpheme between the dependent marker and a following intransitiveverb, as in (9), (11) and (13) above.1.2.2. Temporal / aspectual particlesA second class of elements which function as dependent markers have temporal/aspectualmeanings, as illustrated in (18) - (22). Unlike the dependent markers discussed in theprevious section, they function only as dependent markers, never as intransitive verbs.Examples are given below. In each of these examples it is clear that the clause isdependent, because the intransitive subject is marked with /s/ casei. hla: (right now, inceptive, already)(18)^la:^w'itxw - t = salready come - 3 =case"John has already come"t= Johncn=Johnhlaa 'witxws Johnq'ay (just)(19) q'ay kuksxw - t = s^t=Martinjust awake - 3 =case cn=Martin"Martin just woke up"Lay gyuksxws Martinqas - ti: (finally)(20) qas - ti:^kuksxw - t = s^t=Martinfinally-contr awake - 3 =case cn=Martin"Martin finally woke up"gasdii gyuksxws Martiniv. wilk'i (right away),(21) wilk'i^haw' - t = s^t =Kathyright away go.home - 3=case cn=Kathy"Kathy went home right away"wilk'i ha'ws Kathy140v. haw'en (ti:) (not yet)(22) haw'en - ti:^ie:qxw - t = s^t = Johnnot.yet -contr finish.eating - 3=case cn=John"John hasn't finished eating yet"haw'endii hleekxws JohnAlthough these elements appear to be adverbial in nature, their distribution differs from thatof other Gitksan adverbial elements. Note that in (18) - (22) above, the temporal/aspectmarker occurs preverbally. In contrast, true adverbial phrases normally appear after theverb and its arguments, as in (23), and can appear preverbally only if they are fronted, forfocusing or questioning, as in (24). This is not the case in (18) - (22), however, becausewhen an adverbial is fronted, a complementizer must occur between the adverbial and therest of the clause, as in (24). No such complementizer occurs in (18) - (22).(23) ka2 - a - t = s^t = Peter t= Mary k'o:tssee-erg - 3 =case cn=Peter cn=Mary yesterday"Peter saw Mary yesterday"ga'as Peter t Mary k'yoots(24) k'o:ts^tiswil = t ka2 - t = s t=Peter t=Maryyesterday comp=3 see - 3 =case cn=Peter cn=Mary"It was yesterday that Peter saw Mary"ky'oots diswit ga'as Peter t MaryThe temporal/aspectual markers in (18) - (22) also differ from the preverbals discussed inChapter 2. Although preverbals may be adverbial in nature, like /yalki/ in the followingexample, they do not trigger dependent morphology. This is illustrated in the followingsentence, where the intransitive subject surfaces as an independent pronoun, rather than asa person suffix. This fact provides evidence that the sentence is independent in form:(25) tim yalki kii^n'i:y'fut early lie.down lsg"I'll go to bed early" R 381dim yalgi giihl 'nii'y1411.2.3. ConjunctionThe clausal conjunction /2i:/ "and then" also has the effect of making the following clausedependent in form. This suggests that it should probably be viewed as a subordinatorrather than a true coordinator.(26) tsam-hun t=John^2i: sa - 2ana:x - t = s^t=Mary^lo: - tcook-fish cn=John and pfx-bread - 3 =case cn=Mary prep-3"John cooked fish and Mary made bread"jamhun t John ii sa'anaaxs Mary loot1.2.4. SubordinatorsIn addition to clauses introduced by the elements listed above, all subordinate clauses aredependent in form. Subordinate clauses are usually introduced by a complementizer suchas /wil/ (27) - (28), which is roughly equivalent to English "that" in some contexts, and to"when" in others, and /tsa/ (29) - (30), which is often used when the subordinate clauseexpresses uncertain or non-factual information.(27) mai -T= a - t = s t=John lo: - y' wil - t ka2 - t = s t=Bill^t=Marytell-T-erg-3=case cn=John prep-lsg comp-3 see - 3=case cn=Bill cn=Mary"John told me that Bill saw Mary"mahldis John loo'y wilt ga'as Bill t Mary(28) ka2 - a - t =s^t = John t=Bill qan t = n'i:y' wil w'itxw - tqu2 = I Vancouversee-erg - 3=case cn=John cn=Bill and cn=lsg comp come-3sgloc=cn Vancouver"John saw Bill and me when he came to Vancouver"ga'as John t Bill gan t 'nii'y wil 'witxwtgo'ohl Vancouver(29) ha - n'i: - qut - t = s^t = John tsa^tawl - t = s^t=Peterinstr-in-heart - 3 =case cn=John comp leave - 3=case cn = Peter"John thinks that Peter left"ha'niigoots John ji da'whls Peter(30) ne: - m wila:x tse = t ka2 - t = s^t=Mary =i tu:s = aneg-2sg know comp=3 see - 3 =case cn=Mary=cn cat = inter"Do you know if Mary saw the cat?"neem wilaax fit ga'as Maryhl duusa142The subordinator /wil/ also occurs when any element in the sentence except the subject orobject is wh-moved, as in (31) - (32). Note that the resulting sentences are dependent inform, as illustrated:4(31) qu2 = I nda^wil tsuq - t = s^t= Peterloc=cn where comp live - 3 =case cn=Peter"Where does Peter live'?"go'ohl nda wil joks Peter(32) stu2ks - y' wil^t'a: - t = s^t=Kathybeside-lsg comp sit - 3 =case cn=Kathy"Kathy sat beside me"sto'oksi'y wil t'aas Kathy1.3. Syntactic characterization of differences between two clause types.The preceding section outlined the differences between independent and dependent clauses,and presented a typology of the kinds of elements which mark a sentence as dependent inform. In this section I consider how the two clause types might be structurally orsyntactically characterized.It is not uncommon for languages to exhibit different syntactic and morphological patternsin different clause types. In English and many other languages, there are differencesbetween main and embedded clauses and between tensed and infinitival clauses. In thissection I consider to what extent the difference between the two clause types in Gitksanparallels such well-established distinctions between clause types, since if parallels exist, itmight be possible to use the same theoretical machinery to explain the Gitksan facts. Ishow, however, that the difference between independent and dependent clauses cannot beequated with these other clause type distinctions. I conclude the section by proposing a4When a subject or object is wh-moved, s ial mo sholoappears . - any tinction between dependent and independent clauses, since the presence or absence of adependent marker does not cause any change in the morphology of the clause.• II 0,".„.1 11 ' I^I ".^• 0^•^•143basically descriptive generalization about the nature of the difference between the twoGitksan clause types.1.3.1. Main vs. embedded clauses?Given that independent clauses are restricted to root contexts, I first consider whetheraccounts of main vs. embedded clause distinctions in other languages can be applied to theGitksan facts.In many Germanic languages there are particularly clear differences between root andembedded clauses, related to the position of the verb. In root clauses the verb is in secondposition, while in other clauses the verb is clause-final. Standard accounts of thesephenomena relate them to the interaction of verb movement and the presence or absence ofmaterial in the complementizer position (e.g. Koopman 1984, Travis 1984 i.a.). Undersuch accounts the complementizer position in matrix clauses is empty, allowing or forcing(depending on the language and the construction) the verb to move to fill this position. Inembedded clauses, on the other hand, the presence of a complementizer blocks raising ofthe verb.The Gitksan data resemble the Germanic data in that it is the presence or absence of asentence initial element which seems to be correlated with the distinction between the twoclause types. However, the analysis of the Germanic facts cannot be directly applied to theGitksan data, since in Gitksan, unlike Germanic, the same VSO word order occurs in both144dependent and independent clauses, suggesting that the verb occupies the same position inboth clause types.5 61.3.2. Independent clauses vs. infinitives?Another possible approach to explaining the differences between independent anddependent clauses is to try to correlate the features of independent clauses with those ofinfinitival clauses. However, this approach also proves problematic.The crucial feature of an infinitival clause is that it lacks tense (and possibly agreement).However, while independent clauses do lack one type of agreement (the Series I ergativeperson marker), they can show overt tense marking, as in the following example, in whichthe morpheme /tim/ indicates future tense.(33) tim haw'^t=Johnfut go.home cn=John"John will go home"dim ha'w t JohnAs a result, independent clauses cannot be identified with infinitival clauses.Another difference between infinitival and independent clauses has to do with theirdistribution. As noted above, independent clauses are possible only as matrix clauses,never occurring in embedded position. This is exactly the opposite of the distribution ofinfmitives, which, at least in English, are restricted to embedded environments. InEnglish, this restriction is due to the problem of assigning Case to the subject of the clausein the absence of tense or agreement. Case assignment also plays some role in5This is true of Gitksan word order under the assumption that the preverbal Series I person markers aretreated as agreement or clitics rather than arguments, as under my analysis. (cf. Rigsby (1986) for adifferent view.)6 As noted by Koopman and Sportiche(1991), VSO languages usually have the same word order re. ardlecsof whether or not mere is a complementizer in the clause. This fact is the basis for the assumption thatverb movement in these languages is to Infl rather than Comp.145distinguishing dependent and independent clauses in Gitksan, in that morphological case isassigned to an intransitive subject only in a dependent clause. However, a Gitksanindependent clause, unlike an infinitival clause, can stand alone, and so, unlike aninfinitival clause, it must have some mechanism for licensing its subject.It thus appears that the features of independent clauses cannot be explained by equatingthem with infinitival clauses.?1.3.3. A structural generalizationSo far I have shown that the distinction in Gitksan between independent and dependentclauses cannot be equated with the distinction between root and embedded clauses or withthe distinction between tensed and infinitival clauses. Although ultimately it may bepossible to relate the difference between the two clauses types in Gitksan to phenomenaanalysed in other languages, in this section I simply propose the following structuralgeneralization about what distinguishes a dependent from an independent clause:(34) A clause is dependent if and only if the verb is governed by a lexically filledfunctional head.In recent approaches to clause structure within GB theory (Pollock (1989), Chomsky(1992), Carstens and Kinyalolo (1989) and others), functional elements such as negatives,aspectuals, auxiliary verbs and complementizers are assumed to head their own syntacticprojections which dominate the VP. 8 Interestingly, these classes of elements correspondclosely to those which cannot occur in Gitksan independent clauses. Based on thisobservation, I propose that the crucial feature distinguishing independent from dependent?The differences noted above between independent and infinitival clauses - the distributional restrictions andthe possibility of overt tense marking - also argue against equating independent clauses with small clauses.8Tense is also generally included in this set of functional heads. However, since the minimal marg m^sM-G11.11 appears to ave no syntactic effects, I assume that this is not a functional head inGitksan clause structure.146clauses is that in independent clauses these functional projections are empty, or missing,while in dependent clauses at least one of these projections is filled.Multiple dependent markers may cooccur in a single clause, providing us with a potentialsource of information about the ordering of the various functional projections within theGitksan clause structure. However, I have found it difficult in elicitation to get consistentdata regarding the ordering and cooccurrence restrictions on these elements. I willtherefore represent them as instantiations of a generic functional projection: FP.This proposal about the structural distinction between independent and dependent clausesentails the claim that the intransitive verbs which can introduce dependent clauses (Section1.2.1 above) are not functioning as the heads of separate VPs when they are used asdependent markers. This seems appropriate for at least two reasons. First, as illustratedabove, these verbs have a different meaning when they are functioning as independentpredicates from when they are functioning as dependent markers. A second differencerelates to the marking of tense. When these verbs are functioning as main verbs, they canbe marked for tense, as in (35), where the future tense marker /tim/ precedes the main verb/yukw/.(35) tim hi-yukw n'i:y' 2a =I^tsam - hunfut dur-work lsg prep=cn cook - fish"I'm going to be busy cooking fish"dim hiyukw inii'y ahl jamhunHowever, when the same verb functions as a dependent marker, it cannot be preceded bythe tense marker, as illustrated in (37). Instead the tense marking immediately precedes themain verb (36).(36) yukw tim lisxw - y'incept prog^fut finish - lsg"I'm very close to finishing" hlaa yukw dim hlisxwi'y147(37) *la:^tim yukw lisxw - y'1.3.4. Dependent clauses without dependent markersAn apparent problem for this description of the difference between dependent andindependent clauses are clauses which are dependent in form, but which lack a dependentmarker. Two types of sentences have this character. The first type is imperatives,described briefly in Chapter 3, which exhibit the person-marking associated withdependent clauses, but which lack dependent markers, as illustrated:(38) paX - nrun - 2sg"Run!"bahan!(39) sim = kapa - m'2p1= wait -1p1"Wait for us" R 310sim giba'rnTarpent (1987:238-9) suggests that imperatives of this type may be viewed as beingtruncated versions of full dependent clauses. In a more polite command form, whichRigsby (1986:313) terms a "periphrastic directive", the command appears as a clauseembedded under the predicate adjective /tam( "good", as in the following examples:(40) 2am =1^tim t'a: - ngood=cn fut sit-2sg"Sit down!" R 313amhl dim t'aan(41) 2am (ma) tim sim = kapa - ti:tgood (2sg) fut 2p1= wait -3p1"Wait for them" (plural agents) R 314am (mi) sim gibadiitTarpent suggests that the more direct imperative is a truncated form of this periphrasticform. Note that if the introducto elements /2am ..t^are trunc148sentence is dependent in form just like the imperatives in (38) - (39).9 This provides apossible explanation of why imperatives appear to violate the generalization in (34).Even if such an analysis of imperatives ultimately proves to be incorrect, however, I do notconsider the imperatives to constitute a significant counterexample to (34), since it is socommon cross-linguistically for imperatives to be exceptional in form.A second apparent exception to (34) comes from a sentence type discussed in Tarpent(1987: 237-8; 1991). Tarpent notes that sometimes, in informal conversation, sentencesoccur which are dependent in form, but lack a dependent marker. The following examplesfrom Nisgha are taken from Tarpent (1991:5).(42) liskw - y'finish-lsg"[I am] finished"hlisgwi'y(43) na^qaks lisa2an-t1S.ERG finally finish.s-3"[I] finally finished it"na gaks hlisa'antTarpent uses these data to support her claim that the crucial difference between dependentand independent clauses is not the presence of the dependent marker.I have been unable to elicit in Gitksan transitive clauses parallel to (43), but it is possible tofind intransitive examples parallel to (42) in Gitksan, as illustrated below:9 I use the term "truncated" in a purely descriptive sense, not  implying any particular theoretical analysis.149(44) le:qxw - y'finish.eating-lsg"I'm finished (eating)" 10hleekxwi'y(45) 2e2 lisxw - y'yes finish-lsg"Yes, Fm finished" 11e'e, hlisxwi'yHowever, although sentences of this type are possible with certain verbs, the constructiondoes not seem to be productive. There are many verbs which cannot occur in suchconstructions. For example, my speaker rejected parallel sentences constructed with theintransitive verbs /yo:qxw/ "eat", /hatiks/ "swim", r/ixw/ "fish", /yel/ "lie" and /ts'in/"enter". The sentences were judged to be ungrammatical unless a dependent marker wasadded to the clause, as illustrated:(46) *hatiks - y'swim-lsg(47) yukw = i hatiks - y'prog=cn swim-lsg"I'm swimming"yukwhl hadixsi'y14These verbs can also be used in sentences exhibiting the pattern which is normal for independentsentences, as follows:(1) ie:qxw^n'i:y'^finish.eating^1 sg"I'm finished (eating)"hleekxw 'nii'y(2) iisxw^n'i:y'finish^lsg"Fm finished"hlisxw 'nii'y11 This sentence was given as an answer to the following question:(3) haw en lisxw - n = anot.yet finish-2sg=interAre you tuushed?"ha'wen hlisxwina150This suggests that sentences such as those in (44) - (45) above are exceptional, and thusshould not be expected to fall out directly from the general analysis.13Z. A theoretical account of Agreement and Case in GitksanThis section proposes a theoretical account of agreement, case and the distribution of overtand silent pronouns in Gitksan. I begin with a detailed examination of number agreementin Gitksan, a discussion which leads me to make a specific proposal about the structure of aGitksan clause. Subsequent sections then show how this structure, in conjunction with theagreement framework of Chomsky (1992), allows an elegant account of agreement,morphological case patterns and pronoun distribution in Gitksan.2.1. Verbal Number AgreementIn this section I present facts about the number agreement marking on the predicate inGitksan.2.1.1. Absolutive number agreementAs discussed in Rigsby (1986:268-9), the verb in Gitksan agrees in number with theabsolutive argument. This is illustrated in the following data. In (48) - (50), theabsolutive is singular and so the verb appears in its singular form. If the absolutive is madeplural, as in (51) - (53), the verb is also plural.13They can perhaps also be viewed as truncated dependent clauses, similar to truncated English sentenceslike "Finished!" "Done it!". In English, as in Gitksan, the truncated forms are possible onl  in informal ^. •^ s^I.*"Swum!", *"Opened it!".e ungramma c. fly o orrns such as *"Eaten!",151singular absolutive, singular verb(48)^ts'i:p^n'i:y'close.eyes(sg) 1 sg"I closed my eyes"ts'iip 'nii'y(49) ne: - ti:^paX - y'not - contr run(sg)- lsg"I didn't run"needii baha'y(50) ts'i:kw =1 ha - 2aks^t = xwinleak(sg) = cn instr-water cn = this"This pail leaks"ts'iikwhl ha'aks tunplural absolutive, plural verb(51) tsap - ts'i:p^n'u:m' qan t = Kathypl - close.eyes 1pl^and cn =Kathy"Kathy and I closed our eyes"jipts'iip 'nuu'm gant Kathy(52) ne: - ti:^qul^- m'not -contr run(pl) - 1pl"We didn't run"needii goli'm(53) w'alqa tsax - ts'i:kw =1 ha - 2aks^tip = xwinall^pl - leak =cn instr-water cn(pl) = this"All these pails leak"'walga jixts'iikwhl ha'aks dipun2.1.1.1. Invariant nouns and verbs The agreement pattern just outlined appears to be quite pervasive, although number is notalways morphologically realised on both the noun and the verb. The reason is that somenouns and verbs in Gitksan do not have a distinct singular and plural form (Rigsby1986:90-91). 14The sentence pairs in (54) - (57) are representative examples of invariant nouns inabsolutive position. In these examples, it is the form of the verb which determines whether14There appears to be some inter-speaker variation in which verbs and nouns are invariant.152the absolutive argument receives a singular or plural interpretation. (The invariantabsolutiye is underlined.)(54) n'i: - maq - T - a- y' = I^laX ?an - lakxwon - put(sg) - T - erg -lsg.---cn fuel^on place-fire"I put (one piece of) wood on the fire"Iniimakeyhl lakxw lax anlakxw(55) n'i: - t'ai - T - a- y' = I^lakx-w laX 2an - lakxwon - put(p1)- T - erg -lsg=cn fuel^on place-fire"I put (more than one piece of) wood on the fire"'niit'ahldi'yhl lakxw lax anlakxw(56) 2alkaX = I kattalk = cn man"A man is talking"algaxhl gat(57) ?al - 2alkaX = kat15pl - talk = cn man"People are talking"al'algaxhl gatThe sentence pairs in (58) - (61) are examples of invariant verbs with singular and pluralabsolutive arguments. (The verb is underlined.)(58) ye:Xs - T - a - y' t=Mary qu2 =i Vancouvervisit - T - erg - lsg cn=Mary loc =cn Vancouver"I visited Mary in Vancouver"yeexsdry t Mary go'ohl Vancouver(59) ve:Xs -T - a- t^n'iti:t qu2 =i Vancouvervisit - T - erg - 3 3p1^loc=cn Vancouver"She visited them in Vancouver"yeexsdit 'nidiit go'ohl Vancouver(60) yukw^ac2A-, - y'prog =cn fish -lsg"I'm fishing"yukwhl iwi'y15Rigsby (p.c.) points out that the word /kat/ "man" in fact has two plural forms, but with specializedmeanings. The reduplicated plural /ki-kat/ means "peoples", as in /?alu: - ki - kat/ "aboriginal peoples",and the suppletive plural /?i:w'xwt/ means "men (masculine, not generic, reading)" 153(61) yukw .1^n16prog =cn fish -1p1"We're fishing"yukwhl iwu'm2.1.2. Iterative pluralAs well as indicating number agreement with the absolutive argument, however, pluralmarking on the verb in Gitksan can also have another interpretation, indicating pluralactions, as Rigsby (1986:269) also points out. 17 This is illustrated in the followingexamples:(62) his - yats - ti:t = I^qanpl - beat - 3p1 =cn tree"They banged on the tree (repeatedly)"hisyatsdiithl gan(63) his - yats - a - y'= I^qanp1- beat -erg -1 sg=cn tree"I banged on the tree (repeatedly)"hisyaji'yhl ganIn both of these sentences the verb form is plural but the absolutive argument is singular.In these cases the plural marking on the verb indicates that plural actions were performed.In particular, it indicates that each participant performed plural actions. As an illustration,consider the meaning contrast between (63) above and (64):(64) yats - ti:t = I qanbeat -3p1 =cn tree"They banged on the tree (once each)"yatsdiithl ganIn (64), plural actions were performed, since the tree was hit many times, but the singularverb indicates that each person hit the tree only once. The plural verb in (63) indicates that16It is possible to make this, and most verbs, plural with the distributive plural prefix Ma/ but thedistributive reading is inappropriate in this sentence.17Tarpent (1987:723-4 ch 11) notes similar data in Nisgha.154each person hit the tree many times. I shall refer to this use of plural marking as theiterative plural.Only certain verbs are compatible with an iterative plural interpretation. For example, thefollowing examples, in which the absolutive argument is clearly singular, are judged to beungrammatical, thus showing that an iterative plural interpretation is not permitted.(65) *yuk" = i tux" - t'ax" - asx" = s t = Johnprog = en pl - sweep - antip = case cn = John*"John is sweeping (repeatedly)"(66) *qul^n'i:y'run(p1) lsg*"I ran (repeatedly)"(67) *has - 2isx" = i hunpl - stink = en fish*"The fish stinks (repeatedly)" (grammatical with the interpretation: "Thefish (plural) stink")The generalization which seems to emerge from the data is that the iterative plural is onlypossible with verbs which have a "delimiteci"(Tenny 1987) or "telic"(Comrie 1976)interpretation - that is, those verbs which are compatible with an adverbial such as "in anhour" rather than "for an hour". Expressions which are inherently non-delimited or atelic,such as "sweeping" (65), "running" (66) and "stinking" (67), cannot be viewed asiterating, leading to the ungrammaticality of the above sentences.Thus, in sentences with non-delimited or atelic predicates, plural marking on the verb canonly indicate the plurality of the absolutive argument.2.1.3. Interaction patternsThe data presented so far illustrate that in Gitksan the same morphological marking on theverb can potentially serve to indicate either number agreement with the absolutive argument155or iterative actions. An interesting question is how these two functions interact. Any offour combinations might logically be expected to occur in a single sentence:(68) singular absolutive / singular actionplural absolutive / plural actionsingular absolutive / plural actionplural absolutive / singular actionIn this section I investigate the verbal marking which results from each of thesecombinations.2.1.3.1. Number of absolutive and number of actions are the sameIn sentences in which the absolutive is singular and the number of actions performed is alsosingular, the verb is singular, as might be expected, and no special marking is required.(69) ts'i:p^n'i:y'close.eyes(sg) 1sg"I closed my eyes"ts'iip 'nii'y(70) n'i: ski^- ti: t n'i:y' laX ha - n'i: - ki:ion lie(sg) - 3p1 1 sg^on instr-on-lie.down"They placed me on the bed"'nii sgidiit 'nii'y lad ha'niigiihl(71) yats - a - y' = I^qanbeat -erg -lsg = cn tree"I banged on the tree (once)"yaji'yhl ganWhen the absolutive is plural and plural actions are performed, the verb is marked plural,but only once, as in the following sentences:(72)^qa s - guts - ti:t = I Ia - qa - Lags - ti:tpl - cut - 3p1= cn^pl - dist-nail - 3p1"They cut their nails"gasgotsdiithl hlagahlaksdiit156(73) 19X - lags - ti:t =1^hai - ha:1Xanpl - scratch - 3p1= cn pl - wall"They scratched the walls" (multiple scratches)hlaxhlaksdiithl hahlhaahlxan(74) saqayt gap - qa:p - a - t =1 t = xwis - attogether pl - gather-erg-3=cn cn = that - S.extr"She gathered together her things"sagayt gapgaabithl tosit(75) tuxw - t'akw =1^2an-1ip'insxw - y'pl - twist =cn instr-sew -lsg"My threads twisted (many times)"duxweakwhl anlip'insxwi'y2.1.3.2. Number of absolutive and number of actions are differentWhen the absolutive is plural but the number of actions performed is singular, the verb ismarked plural, as shown by the following examples.(76) tax - t'ak - a -y' =1 qa - hu - wa - sim'pl - forget -erg-lsg=cn distr-pl - name - 2p1"I forgot your names"dixt'agi'yhl gahuwasi'm(77) kwat - kw'o:t - an - y' =1^tXa: n'itxws =1 ha - q'aq - y'pl - lose^-trn -lsg =en all^= cn instr-open - lsg"I lost all my keys (at one time)"gwitkw'oodini'yhl exaa'nitxwshl hak'aga'y(78) mai - mil - T - a - y' =1^saw'nsxwpl -burn-T - erg - lsg =cn paper"I burned up the papers (all at once)"mihImihldi'yhl sa'wnsxw(79) ne: - ti: - t^xsa ta - qul - t =s^t = John =1^k'upa^tk'ilxwnot - contr-3 out trn-run(p1) - 3=case cn = John = cn small(p1) child"John didn't run out with the kids" (based on Walsh 1988)neediit xsi digols Johnhl k'uba teihlxw(80) yukw - t sil -291 - 2allcaX - t = s^t = Mary tip John qan t = Fredprog -3 with-pi-angry - 3 = case cn = Mary cn John and cn=Fred'Mary didn't get angry with John and Fred"(based on Walsh 1988)yukwt sil'al'algaxs Mary dip John gant Fred157intransitive(81) hil - yalx" =1^ts'aw'aXs - y'p1- slippery =cn shoe - lsg"My shoes are slippery"hihlyahlxwhl ts'a'waxsi'y(82) hix - hix =1 mu:s ku:n'pl - fat = cn moose now"The moose are fat now"hixhixhl muus guu'n(83) has - 2isxw =1 hun tip = xwin = sapl - stink = cn fish cn(pl) =this =evid"These fish stink"has'isxwhl hun dipunsaWhen the absolutive is singular but plural actions are performed, the verb is also markedplural, as illustrated in the following data:Plural verb, singular absolutive, plural actionsintransitive(84) n'a:^tas - t'is - a^n'itinto.view pl - hit -detr 3sg"S/he knocked"'naa dist'isa 'nit(85) tax'' - t'akw = i tan-lip'insxw - y'pl - twist =cn instr - sew -lsg"My thread twisted (many times)"duxwt'akwhl anlip'insxwi'ytransitive(86) qas - q'uts - a- y' =1^halt'?p1 -cut -T - erg-lsg=cn material"I cut up the material (into pieces)"gasLoji'yhl hahlo'o(87) has - hats -T-a-t=1^gas - 2us =1 tu:s = kapl - bite - T - erg - 3 = cn pl - dog = cn cat = dist"The dogs bit the cat" R 269hashatsdihl as'ushl duusgi(88) laq - imp - ti:t =1^haiXanpl - scratch -3p1=cn wall"They scratched the wall" (multiple scratches)hlakhlaksdiithl haahlxan158(89) his - yats - ti:t = I qanpl - beat -3p1 =cn tree"They banged on the tree"hisyatsdiithl gan2.1.3.3. Summary and discussion In the above data, the following combinations have been illustrated:(90) number of absolutive number of actions^verbal markingsingular^singular^singularplural plural pluralsingular plural pluralplural^singular^pluralThe most interesting cases are those in which the number of the absolutive is not the sameas the number of actions. As summarized in the chart above, the data show that in theseinstances, the marking of plurality consistently takes priority. Further evidence of thiscomes from the ungrammaticality of the following forms.(91) *kw'o:t - an - y' =^tXa: n'itxws =1^ha - q'aq - y'lose -trn -lsg =cn all^= cn instr-open - lsg*"I lost all my keys (at one time)"(92) yats - a - y' = I^qanbeat -erg -lsg =cn tree*"I banged on the tree repeatedly" (ungrammatical under this interpretation)(91) shows that if the absolutive is plural, it is not possible to use a singular form of theverb to indicate that only a single action occurred. (92) illustrates that if the number ofactions is plural, but the absolutive is singular, then the verb must be plural. If not, theinterpretation of plural actions is lost.Since both the iterative plural and the absolutive number agreement plural are marked with the same morphology, I assume that the are the realisa •^•^.^I^I mo.^•159feature [+/- plural]. That is, they are in competition for the same slot in the morphologicalfeature matrix of the verb.The priority of plural over singular marking suggests that only the feature [+plural] is activein the agreement system which supplies the verb with its number marking. This can berepresented if we assume that some kind of underspecification holds of the numbermarking system, with only [+plural] being marked, and [-plural] being supplied by defaultin the absence of plural marking. Either a plural absolutive or iterative aspect may supplythe verb with plural marking. If neither does so, then the verb will surface in its singularform.2.1.3.4. Exceptional verbsThe above generalizations cover the majority of sentence types in Gitksan. However,there is a small class of verbs which can appear in their singular form even when theirabsolutive argument is plural. Examples are given in (93) - (95):(93) ia:^k'atsxw - ti:tincept arrive(sg) - 3p1"They have arrived/docked (in one boat)"^(based onTarpent (1987))hlaa k'atsxwdiit(94) ne: - ti:^haw' - sim'^qan t = John kaXxwnot - contr go.home(sg)-2p1 and cn = John last.night"You and John didn't come home last night"neediit ha'wsi'm gan t John gaxxw(95) tsuq^n'u:m qu = s = xwinlive(sg) 1pl^at = case=this"We live here - in one building"jok 'nuu'm gosunThese cannot be analysed as instances of invariant verbs, since they do have plural forms,as in (96) - (98) below. However, the use of the plural form changes the meaning of thesentence, as indicated in the translations provided.160(96)^ia:^kas - k'atsxw - ti:tincept pl - arrive - 3p1"They have arrived/docked (in several boats)" (based onTarpent (1987))hlaa gisk'atszwdiit(97) haw - haw' = I katpl-go.home=cn man"People are leaving (in groups and/or at different times)"18hawha'whl gat(98) tsaX - tsuq n'u:m qu = s = xwinpl - live^lpl^at = case=this"We live here - in different buildings"jasjok 'nuu'm gosunRigsby (p.c.)These examples show that the plural in such sentences cannot be interpreted as beingiterative, since in none of these instances is iterative action implied.I suggest that in these exceptional cases, the verb is exhibiting agreement with an implicitargument - that is, one which is logically present but not overtly expressed. Thus, theverb /leatsxw/ "to dock, arrive" agrees with the number of boats or cars arriving, /tsuq/ "tolive" agrees with the number of buildings lived in and /haw'/ "to go home" agrees with thenumber of groups in which people are leaving. Since this agreement pattern isexceptional, I suggest that it must be specially marked in the lexical entry of these verbs.2.2. ASPP (Travis (1992))In this section I consider how the data regarding number agreement and iterative aspectdescribed above can be accounted for.Interaction between the morphological marking of plurality and aspect such as that justdescribed is not unique to Gitksan. Travis (1992) discusses a similar phenomenon in18 Rigsby (p.c.) notes that speakers vary in whether they accept this form. For some speakers /haw7 is aninvariable verb.161Tagalog. She notes that in Tagalog, reduplicative plural marking may indicate eitherprogressive aspect or the plurality of a derived (non-actor) subject. She suggests that pluralmarking of this type should be associated with an aspectual head positioned between twoVP projections in a Larson (1988) style VP, as follows:(99) VP/ \NP^V'(agent) / \^V^ASPPASP'/\ASP VP/\NP V'(th)^\VTravis proposes for the Tagalog data that "reduplication is represented in Aspect and eitherindicates verbal plurality (progressive aspect), or it shows nominal plural agreement with asubject NP that has passed through the SPEC of Aspect position (i.e., a non-Actor)."(Travis 1992:343)On the surface, the Gitksan data appear to differ from the Tagalog data in two ways. Onedifference is that the aspectual plural marking on the verb in Gitksan indicates repeatedactions rather than progressive aspect. However, as Travis, citing Cowper (1992), pointsout, for at least certain verbs there is a clear correlation between progressive aspect and aniterative interpretation, as in the following English example:(100) The light was flashing.A second difference between Gitksan and Tagalog plural marking relates to the agreementunction of plural. The Gitksan agreement is with the absolutive argument rather than with162a derived subject. However, ignoring for the moment the intransitive pattern in Gitksan,the agreement in both languages is with (deep) objects not subjects. As Travis (p.c.)notes, the structure in (99) in fact prevents aspectual agreement from being with a deepsubject, since this would require lowering of the subject into the spec of ASP position.19In spite of some surface differences, then, there are clear parallels between the Tagalog andGitksan data, and so I propose to adopt in principle Travis's account of verbal pluralmarking, and employ for Gitksan a structure in which an aspectual head is generatedbetween two VP projections.2.3. ASPP and Gitksan number agreement2.3.1. Feature Strength and AgreementThe framework for agreement which I follow in this and the following sections is basicallythat of Chomsky (1992). I review here the main features of this approach to agreement.As mentioned briefly in Chapter 1, Chomsky (1992) assumes that the marking ofinflectional features, such as plural, person, number and case, takes place in the lexicon.In the course of the derivation these features must be licensed through a process ofchecking, or matching, under identity with a feature on another element within thestructure. This checking can take place between a head and a NP, via spec head agreement,or between two heads, when one head adjoins to the other. After features are checked,they disappear.Chomsky claims that checking cannot take place within a lexical projection. As a result,heads and arguments must move to a functional projection if their features are to be1.- v- .1. 1r ant tjects rat er than subjects) is also found in range of other languages, asnoted in Travis (1991). This provides further support for this analysis of ASP.163licensed. This movement may take place at either S-Structure or LF, with the so-called"strength" of the features involved in checking determining when this process must occur."Strength" appears to be related in some way to the richness of the morphologicalrealisation of a given feature. Precisely how this notion should be defined is discussedbelow.Overt movement (i.e. movement which takes place at S-Structure) occurs only if thefeatures to be checked are strong. This follows from Chomksy's dual claims that (1)features are not legitimate PF objects (Chomsky 1992:37) 20, and (2) strong features arevisible at PF. Thus, if strong features are not checked and hence eliminated from therepresentation prior to PF, the derivation will be ill-formed. Weak features, on the otherhand, are invisible at PF, and so their presence at this level will not cause the derivation tofail. In fact, Chomsky claims that the checking of weak features will always occur later inthe derivation (at LF), due to a principle of procrastination (Chomsky 1992:43) whichensures that movement takes place as late as possible. Thus, the movement will be covert(i.e. at LF) unless forced to occur overtly (i.e. at S-Structure) by the presence of strongfeatures.In the analysis which follows, I will be appealing extensively to this distinction betweenweak and strong features, so in this section I want to make explicit my assumptions abouthow these terms are to be interpreted.When Chomsky introduces the terms "weak" and "strong", he cites Pollock (1989), whomakes reference to the morphological richness of agreement in determining whether or notverb raising can apply. This suggests that the notion of feature strength is related to the 2 I '4 • ..^.^'^so , are no cons' s ered to be legitimate PF objects because11 .^' .they do not have "a uniform language independent interpretation". (Chomsky 1992:37)164notion of morphological richness. However, Chomsky, unlike Pollock, generally fails tomake any reference to the richness of the morphological realisation of a feature in hisclassification of that feature as weak or strong. Rather, in most of the examples hediscusses, the strength of a particular feature is determined solely by whether or not itmotivates overt movement.There are two problems with this purely movement-related use of the notionsstrength/weakness. First, it causes the definition of strength to become circular - strongfeatures motivate overt movement, while features are strong if they motivate overtmovement. Secondly, in languages in which surface word order does not reveal whethermovement has occurred, there is no way to classify features as strong or weak. For boththese reasons, it is clearly preferable to have some independent morphological evidence tosupport the classification of a feature as strong or weak.Chomsky's failure to explicitly discuss the relationship between PF strength andmorphological richness does not necessarily imply that the notions cannot be related.Rather, this problem seems to derive from Chomsky's focus in this paper on languageswhich provide little data which might help elucidate the relationship. The only facts hediscusses which potentially bear on this issue come from Arabic. Since this case is ofparticular relevance for my discussion of Gitksan, I will consider it in more detail in thenext section.In the discussion that follows, I shall use the term "PF-strong/weak" to refer to Chomsky'sabstract notion of feature strength, to prevent potential confusion with my use of the term"morphological strength/weakness" which refers to whether the overt realisation of thefeatures is morphologically rich / impoverished.1652.3.1,1. Word Order in Arabic and morphological richnessGiven the syntactic structures assumed in Chomsky (1992), the difference between an SVOand a VSO language is that in an SVO language the subject raises overtly to spec 'FP (tensephrase), while in a VSO language the subject remains in the VP until LF. Chomsky claimsthat the difference in the position of the subject follows from the PF-strength of theinflectional features in T. In an SVO language like English, the NP feature of T is PF-strong, and so subject raising is forced in order to check these features overtly at S-Structure. In a VSO language like Irish, however, the NP feature of tense is PF-weak, sothat overt subject raising does not occur.In discussing these cases, Chomsky gives no morphological justification for this claimregarding the relative PF-strength of features in TP. However, in his discussion ofArabic, Chomsky suggests that the morphological richness of verb inflection is somehowrelated to the need for subject raising. Arabic exhibits both SVO and VSO order, with SVOorder occurring in conjunction with morphologically rich inflection (person/numberagreement with the subject), and VSO order cooccurring with morphologically weakinflection (default 3sg agreement)2I. Chomsky's suggestion is that the rich agreementcounts as PF-strong, thus forcing subject raising, and yielding SVO order. Themorphologically weak agreement, on the other hand, counts as PF-weak, so that subjectraising does not occur, yielding VSO order.Implicit in Chomsky's analysis of Arabic is the notion that morphological richness and PF-feature strength are somehow related. The exact nature of this relationship, however, is leftunexplored. The Arabic facts indicate that the relevant generalization is not entirelytads of th—e—ffiffbelce tween rich and weak agreement in Arabic are not given in Chom sky (1992),but are taken from Koopman and Sportiche (1991), who cite Mohammad (1989).166straightforward: person and number features occur in both the weak and strongmorphological paradigms, so that these features cannot be classified as being consistentlyPF-weak or PF-strong.The Gitksan data which I consider in the remainder of this chapter present some of thesame difficulties for the analysis of agreement as those encountered in Arabic, in that thereseems to be some relationship between morphological richness and the PF-strength offeatures, but the correlation is somewhat indirect. In particular, person and numberfeatures sometimes function as PF-weak and sometimes as PF-strong. In order to accountfor this data, I will argue that the PF-strength or weakness of person/number agreementfeatures can be predicted based on the morphological richness of the morpheme to whichthey are linked:(101) PF-Strength (Gitksan)A feature is PF-strong if and only if it is associated with a morphologically richagreement morpheme.I define morphological richness as follows: 22(102) Morphological Richness (Gitksan)If an agreement morpheme overtly encodes both person and number features, it ismorphologically rich.2.3.2. Feature checking of verbal plural markingIn this section I consider how the approach to agreement just outlined can be used toaccount for Gitksan verbal number agreement.Like all inflectional features, the feature [plural] on the verb in Gitksan must be checked inthe syntax. It appears that it may be checked in two different ways.22Ultimately it would be desirable to have a broader notion of morphological richness which could be usedto predict the strength or weakness of other features such as  case^I . I-^.^- e is s a corre lion ► tween feature strength and morphological realisation for thesefeatures, as I show later, but it does not provide adequate evidence for a precise definition.167ASPPASP'ASPZ`\ASP V(103)VP2.3.2.1. Feature checking with ASPIf ASP has a [+pl] feature (i.e. aspect is iterative), then the verb's plural feature can bechecked, and thus licensed, when it raises to ASP, as illustrated23 : (I indicate the checkingby coindexing here.)NP^V'tv2.3.2.2. Feature checking with the objectHowever, as we have seen, a Gitksan verb may be plural even when the aspect is non-iterative (and thus not plural), provided the object is plural. An alternative licensing of theplural feature of the verb is thus via spec head agreement with the object NP. As illustratedin the following tree structure, both the verb and the object raise into the ASP projection toallow checking to take place. 24, 2523As outlined below, I assume that the verb always raises through ASP on its way to a higher projectionTrP.24In Chomsky's framework, when checking takes place between a head and a NP, the head features to bechecked may originate either on the functional head itself, or else on a lexical head adjoined to thatfunctional head. In (104), it is the verb which supplies the features to be checked with the object NP.25That the object raises to spec ASPP to under :o this a i eement is •^. • I^. .... • ,e speci e ec o i env• a o ects and subjects, since these are NPs which would also appear in, or passthrough, this spec position.168(104)^ASPPNP^ASP'[+pl]iASPZNNASP V[4-pfliVPtNPtv2.3.2.3. Strong vs. weak number agreementWhether the raising of the object to spec ASPP and the subsequent checking of its featureswith the verb takes place at S-Structure or LF depends on whether the feature [plural] isPF-strong or PF-weak. However, it is not possible in sentences of this type to determinefrom the surface word order whether the object has raised overtly, and hence whether ornot the feature [plural] is PF-strong. As I argue below, the verb raises to a projectionabove the higher VP in every clause, so that the word order will be VSO regardless ofwhether the object remains in the lower VP (105) or raises to spec ASPP (106):(105) V [vp NP [ASPP^[VP NPSubj^Obj(106) V kip NP [ASPP NPiSubj^ObjHowever, it is possible to determine the PF-strength of this agreement feature using thestrength metrics given in (101) - (102) above. Since the number agreement paradigm, byits very nature, encodes only the feature [plural], it must be classified as a morphologicallyweak paradigm, both on nouns and verbs. The feature [plural] realised by this agreementparadigm must therefore be classified as PF-weak. As a result, the raising of the object to169spec ASPP for checking its [plural] feature must take place only at LF. At S-Structure theobject will remain in the VP, in a structure such as (105).262.3.3. Underspecification of [plural]As outlined in the previous section, the verb can agree in number with either of twoelements - ASP or the absolutive argument. Since both types of agreement are incompetition for the same agreement morphology on the verb, there appears to be potentialfor feature clashes. However, as I illustrated earlier, it is always the marking of plural that"wins out" when there is disagreement between the number of the aspect and the number ofthe absolutive. I propose that this result can be accounted for if it is assumed that only thefeature value [+plural] is lexically marked, and that non-plural elements are unmarked forplural, which I represent as [0 plural].27 As under unification theory, I assume that thevalue [oplural] is compatible with the value [-Fplural].In all Gitksan sentence types the verb will automatically check its features with both ASPand the NP in specifier position. However, although both ASP and the NP may be markedfor plurality, no feature clashes will occur under this approach. If both elements are[A-plural], then the verb's [+plural] feature will be compatible with both. If both elementsare [oplural], then the verb's [oplural] feature will be compatible with both.26Given that already at S-Structure the verb will have moved to a higher projection than ASPP, thequestion arises of how exactly this LF checking in ASPP takes place. I assume that the trace of ASPencodes the features of the verb which adjoined to it. Alternatively, the verb might move back to ASP atLF.27This suggestion is consistent with the fact that, on regular verbs, it is plurality rather than singularitywhich is overtly marked by the morphology. In cases of su sletion it is n.) • I .1 •rm w ic is more mar ed. However, cases of suppletion are in the minority, and arestill compatible with the approach to features outlined here.170If one element is [plural] and the other [+plural], the (+plural] will check the [+plural] onthe verb, and the (oplurall will be compatible with this. The four permissiblecombinations are spelled out in the following chart:(107)^ASP^absolutive^verbal marking+pl +pl^=>^+plop'^op'^=>^opl+pl 00^=>^+plop'^+pl^=>^+pl2.4. Agreement in intransitive clausesThe analysis outlined in the previous section provides an account of number agreementbetween a transitive verb and either an aspectual head or an object NP. In this section Iconsider how this account can be extended to account for agreement in intransitive clauses.As in transitive clauses, number agreement on an intransitive verb can indicate iterativeaspect or plurality of the absolutive argument. Iterative aspect on intransitive verbs can beaccounted for with the same head/head agreement process between the verb and theaspectual head which was illustrated in (103) above. Providing an analysis of numberagreement with the single absolutive argument of the intransitive verb is somewhat moreproblematic.When this single argument is a theme, agreement can clearly be accounted for in the sameway as in the earlier transitive examples, through raising of the argument from a positioninside the lower VP to spec ASPP.171ASPPNP(theme)^ASP'[+pl]iASPNASP V^VP[-FAtNP^vtV(108)However, the situation is complicated by the fact that intransitive verbs also agree innumber with agent arguments. If intransitive agents are generated in the higher VP, in thesame position as transitive agents, as we might expect, then number agreement with thisargument could not occur within ASPP, since, as noted earlier, this would entail lowering:(109) VPNP(agent)^V^ASPPASP'/ \ASP VPThe agreement facts therefore suggest that the intransitive agent must be generated in aposition lower than the ASP projection. I propose that this position is the spec of thelower VP, as in the following tree:172(110)^ASPPASP'/\ASP VP/\NP V'(ag)^\VAgreement can then proceed in the same way as it did for the objects of transitive clauses,through raising of both the verb and its NP argument into ASPP.The discussion in this section suggests that no structural distinction should be madebetween the agent and theme arguments of intransitive verbs in Gitksan. Thisgeneralization is consistent with the evidence presented in Chapter 3 showing thatunaccusative and unergative verbs consistently pattern identically.2.4.1. Theoretical ImplicationsA consequence of the proposal that intransitive agent arguments are generated in the sameposition as theme arguments, in the VP dominated by ASP, is that the structure of transitiveand intransitive clauses will now be rather different from each other.First, the higher VP projection which is required in a transitive clause is not needed in anintransitive clause, and thus, by economy, is presumably not generated. This is consistentwith the general approach of Larson (1988) which assumes that the higher VP projection isgenerated only if the number of arguments of the verb requires it. 28 Otherwise, only asingle VP is generated.28 Under Larson's approach, the higher VP is required only when the verb has more than two arguments,since he assumes that two arguments can be included within a single VP projection. My assumptionsdiffer from his in that I assume only one argument is generated per VP projection.173A second difference between transitive and intransitive structures under my proposal relatesto the position of the agent argument. The agent argument of a transitive verb is generatedin the higher VP dominating ASPP while the agent argument of an intransitive verb isgenerated in the VP dominated by ASPP. However, the claim that elements with the sametheta role (namely, transitive and intransitive agents) are not always generated in the samestructural position is not without precedent. In Larson (1988), agents of ditransitive verbsare generated in a higher VP, while agents of verbs with fewer arguments are generated inthe lower (and only) VP. Similarly, Belletti and Rizzi's (1988) analysis of psych verbsassumes that the D-structure position of a NP cannot be predicted solely on the basis of itstheta role. They claim that experiencer arguments can be projected to two differentpositions, motivating their analysis with evidence that experiencers do not all pattern alikesyntactically. The same claim can be defended for agent arguments in Gitksan. As shownin Chapter 3, agents of intransitive verbs pattern more like theme arguments than like theagent arguments of transitive verbs.Perhaps a more fundamental issue raised by the different structures I propose for Gitksanintransitive and transitive clauses, though, is whether the same structural difference shouldalso be allowed (or even required) in accusative languages such as English. If we assumethat a general principle of structural economy forces the intransitive agent to be generated inthe lower VP in Giticsan, then the same constraint should hold of English. However, thisassumption seems less plausible for English than for Gitksan, since English intransitiveagents behave like transitive agents rather than like themes.This apparent problem can be resolved by invoking Chomsky's approach to thenominative/ergative parameter. Chomsky (1992:13) proposes that the difference betweenergative and accusative languages lies not in different D-Structures, but rather in the relative"activity" or "inertness" of the functional projections AGRs and AGRo. He suggests that174in ergative languages AGR o is active, which means that its specifier position must be filledduring the course of the derivation. In accusative languages, on the other hand, it is AGR swhich is active. Thus, in his model, the single argument of an intransitive verb must moveto spec AGRs in an accusative language and to spec AGRo in an ergative language.Under my approach, there are no AGR projections. However, the functional projectionsASP and Tr29 serve a parallel function. If we claim that ASP is active in ergative languagesand that Tr is active in accusative languages, then we can account for why intransitivesubjects in ergative and accusative languages behave differently, despite the fact that theyare generated in the same position. In an accusative language like English, the intransitiveargument will move to spec Tr, the same position as a transitive subject. In an ergativelanguage like Gitksan, the intransitive argument will move to spec ASP, the same positionas a transitive object.2.5. Structure above VPThe structure proposed for the Gitksan VP in the previous section allowed astraightforward account of the number agreement facts, and will be assumed in theremainder of this chapter. In this section I consider what structure dominates this VP, inorder to examine the other agreement paradigms in Gitksan, and the licensing of thetransitive subject.In the recent syntactic literature, various proposals have been made regarding what kinds offunctional categories dominate VP and are relevant for the licensing of the subject. Aprojection of tense (TP) (Pollock 1989, Chomsky 1991), a subject agreement phrase29Tr is a "transitive phrase", a construct which is discussed and motivated below.175(AgrsP) (Chomsky 1991), or a projection of the feature [transitive] (TrP) (Murasugi 1992)are some of the suggested phrase types.Tense in Gitksan, unlike in English, plays no syntactic role and has minimal overtrealisation. Only future tense is overtly indicated, by the preverbal element /tinil, and thepresence of this tense marker does not affect the syntax of the clause in any way.Furthermore, this morpheme occurs in the same position in the clause as other adverbialelements which also occur preverbally without obvious syntactic effects. For these reasonsit does not seems plausible to accord tense its own syntactic projection in the Gitksanclause.In contrast, various types of subject (ergative) agreement do occur in Gitksan, so that it ismore plausible to propose that the language has an AgrS node. However, I followCarstens and Kinyalolo (1989) in considering that agreement should be the result of a spechead relationship rather than a phrase in itself.Instead of an AgrS phrase, I will therefore adopt TrP to represent the functional projectionwhich dominates VP in Gitksan. As I show in the next section, there appears to be goodevidence that [trans] is an independent feature in Gitksan, not derivable from argumentstructure or case features. However, while there is evidence to support the choice of TrPas the projection dominating VP in Gitksan, it should be noted that this choice is ultimatelynot crucial to my analysis of the Gitksan agreement patterns presented in later sections.2.5.1. Motivation for TrPThis section provides explicit motivation for the presence of a TrP in the Gitksan clause.176The syntax and morphology of Gitksan clearly distinguish between transitive andintransitive verbs. First, as illustrated in the discussion of ergative phenomena in Chapter3, transitive and intransitive verbs assign distinct case and agreement markers to theirsubjects. Secondly, transitivity alternations in Gitksan are clearly morphologically marked,with a range of prefixes and suffixes. Thus transitivity has more dramatic morphologicaland syntactic effects in Gitksan than it does, for example, in English, where many verbsmay function as either transitive or intransitive with no apparent syntactic or morphologicalchanges.Furthermore, verbs taking clausal arguments show conclusively that it is not possible topredict based on argument structure whether or not a verb is transitive. Some verbs withclausal objects pattern as transitive, and others as intransitive. 30 This is clear from the caseand agreement marking of the subject and from the verbal morphology, as illustrated:Intransitive verbs with clausal complements 31(111) pisxw n'i:y'^[tim w'itxw - t = s^t = John ]hope^1 sg^fut come - 3 = case cn = John"I hope John will come"bisxw 'nii'y dim 'witxws John(112) 2e:2sxw t =John^[tim - t stil - y']promise cn =John fut-3 accompany-lsg"John promised he'd accompany me"ee'esxw t John dimt sdili'y30It is interesting that verbs in Niuean, another ergative language, show a similar pattern, as discussed inLevin and Massam (1985).31Note that an alternative analysis of these intransitive cases as having nominal predicates is not possible.For instance, (112) cannot be analysed as "John's promise was that ...." Such predicates do exist inGitksan, but show different case-marking properties, as illustrated in the following example with thenominal predicate /hasaq/ "want":(1) hasaq = s t = John^(tim - t^ka? - y']want =case cn= John fut - 3 see - lsg"John wants to see me" (lit: John's want/desire is that he see me)hasaks John dimt ga'a'yNote that in this case, unlike a sentence such as (112), the NP "John" receives /s/ case-marking.177Transitive verbs with clausal complements(113) 2am - qu: - T - a - t = s^t = John [tim - t limo: - n]remember- T -erg - 3 = case cn = John [fut - 3 help - 2sg]"John remembered to help you"amgoodis John dimt hlimoon(114) ta2aqxw -a -t=s t= Robyn [tim hatiks - t]able - erg - 3 = case cn = Robyn [fut swim - 3]"Robyn can swim"da'akrwis Robyn dim hadikst(115) t'ak - a- t = s^t =John^[tim - t limo: - n]forget-erg-3=case cn =John fut-3 help-2sg"John forgot to help you"t'agis John dimt hlimoonIn (111) the subject appears as an independent pronoun, in (112) the subject is unmarkedfor case, and in both (111) and (112) the verb has no /-a/ suffix, all characteristicsassociated with intransitive verbs. In (113) - (115), however, the subject receives themarked /s/ case, and the /-a/ suffix appears on the verb, characteristics associated withtransitive verbs. Which verbs with clausal arguments pattern as transitive and which asintransitive seems to be unpredictable, and thus transitivity cannot always be derived fromargument structure.It is also difficult to see how transitivity could be predicted based on the case assigningproperties of the verb. Although it seems plausible that this could hold true in anaccusative language, where the transitivity of a verb is associated with the ability to assignaccusative case, the relationship is less clear for ergative languages. Since absolutive casein an ergative language is assigned in both transitive and intransitive sentences, absolutivecannot be the case associated with transitivity. Ergative case is associated with transitiveverbs only, but since it is assigned to subjects, it seems in principle less likely to beassociated with the verb than with some functional category. This is true, for example, inLevin and Massam's (1985) analysis which assumes that ergative case is assigned by Infl.178I ultimately claim that in Gitksan both transitive and intransitive verbs are case-assigners,so that under my analysis transitivity could not be predicted based on case-assigningproperties.Thus, I conclude that there is good evidence for positing a TrP in the Gitksan clause.Transitivity has clear syntactic and morphological effects, and the feature transitivity cannotbe predicted based on either argument structure or case features.2.5.2. Deriving VSO orderUnder the assumptions outlined above, a transitive clause will have the following structure,with a TrP dominating the higher VP projection:(116)^TrPTr'Tr/VPNP^V'(ag) / \V ASPPASP'/\ASP VP/\NP V'(th)^\VThe surface word order of a Gitksan clause is consistently VSO, which shows that the verbmust always raise at S-Structure to the pre-subject head Tr, as indicated. Under theassumptions of Chomsky's framework, such overt verb movement can only be motivatedby the need to check the transitivity feature of the verb with that of the Tr head. Thissuggests that the Tr feature on the verb must be PF-strong.179It would be desirable to be able to propose some clear correlation between the PF-strengthof the [trans] feature and the richness of its morphological realisation, as we did earlier foragreement. Unfortunately, the Gitksan data do not provide adequate evidence to make aconclusive claim about what constitutes morphologically rich transitivity marking.However, it does seem clear that the marking of transitivity in Gitksan must fall toward therich end of the scale, since it is always possible to tell from the morphology associated witha verb whether or not it is transitive.32 The apparent morphological richness of themarking of transitivity, coupled with the fact that the [transitivity] feature functions as PF-strong in motivating overt movement suggests once again that that there is a relationshipbetween the PF-strength of a feature and the richness of its morphological realisation.The structure of an intransitive clause will also include a TrP, associated with a [-trans]feature. The full intransitive clause structure is the following:(117)^TrPTr'Tr^ASPP[-trans]^\I.___("S\IASP VP/ \NP V'V[-trans]In the derivation of an intransitive sentence the verb will again raise to Tr, just as in thetransitive clause. In this instance, though, the verb will be checking its [-trans] feature.Following Chomsky's notion of the ergative parameter, mentioned earlier, I assume that Tr32The presence of a /a/ suffix or a Series I agreement marker indicates that a verb is transitive, as discussedbelow.180is "inert" in Gitksan, so that in an intransitive clause the specifier position of the Trprojection is not filled during the derivation.2.6. Series II agreement markersIn this section I consider the distribution of Series II person marking. Recall from thediscussion in Chapter 3 that Series II person markers take the following forms:(118) Series II (Rigsby 1986:413)^sg^pl^1 -y'^-m'^ -'m2 -n^-S91111 -n^-si'm^3 -t -ti:t^-t -diitThese markers may occur on any type of lexical head, indicating the person and number ofthe possessor of a noun, the object of a preposition, or the subject or object of a verb. Thediscussion in this section will concentrate on their occurrence on verbs. They may license acoreferential pro (119) or, in the third person only, they may cooccur with a lexicalargument (120): 33(119) tsal - ti:t; [pro]; =i^susi:teat.up-3p1^= cn potato"They ate up the potatoes"jahldiithl susiit(120) nim naks - xw - a - t; = qat = s t = Mary; t= Johnwant marry-pass-erg-3=rep=case en= Mary cn = John"Apparently Mary wants to marry John"nimnaksxwitgas Mary t John2.6.1. Strength of Series IIIn order to account for the syntactic properties of sentences containing Series II suffixes, itis necessary to determine whether the features associated with these agreement morphemes33Recall from the discussion in Chapter 3, Section 4, that the Series II agreement is not normallyphonetically realised when it doubles with an overt NP, due to the effects of a phonological deletionprocess.181are PF-strong or PF-weak. This can be established based on the morphological richness ofthe Series II agreement morphemes.Given the definition of morphological richness for agreement in (102) above, it is clear thatthe first and second person Series II morphemes are morphologically rich, since theseforms overtly realise both person and number features. However, in the third person, theclassification is less clear.As Tarpent (1988) first notes for Nisgha, when the Series II morpheme appears doubledwith an overt argument, it takes the form /t/ regardless of whether the doubled NP issingular (121) or plural (122):(121) us =I^naks - ti - ama =s^[t = John}already=cn marry-3-probably=case cn = John"John probably got married already"hlishl naksdimas John(122) iis = i^simim-naks- ti -ama = s^[tip John qan t = Mary]jalready=cn tog-marry-3-probably=case cn John and cn = Mary"John and Mary probably got married already"hlishl simimnaksdimas dip John gan t MaryIn these instances the /t/ morpheme is not morphologically strong, since it encodes only thefeature [3rd person] and not the feature [plural] .However, when the Series II morpheme appears licensing a pro, it has two distinct thirdperson forms - /-t/ in the singular (123) and /ti:t/ in the plural (124):(123) ka2 - a - ti [pro]j t = Johnsee-erg-3^cn=John"He saw John"ga'at John182(124) ka2 - ti:ti [pro]i n'isim'see -3 p1^2p1"They saw you"ga'adiit 'nisi'mIn this case both /t/ and /ti:t/ are morphologically rich, since they encode both person andnumber features. 34I therefore propose that there are two distinct Series II paradigms, as illustrated: 35(125) Series II markersmorphologically rich paradigm^morphologically impoverished=> PF strong features^paradigm => PF weak features-y'^-m'-n^-sim'-t -ti:t^-tThe person and number features associated with the morphemes in the rich paradigm arePF-strong, and must therefore be checked at S-Structure. The person feature associatedwith the single member of the impoverished paradigm is PF-weak, and therefore requireschecking only at LF.In the following section I show how this classification of the Series II markers leads to anaccount of the distribution of Series II markers and the NPs with which they agree.34As discussed earlier, Tarpent (1988) suggests that It/ is the 3rd person Series II marker, unmarked fornumber, and that the /ti:/ part of the 3p1 morpheme is historically a separate indefinite personal suffix withplural or collective meaning. Synchronically, however, it seems unlikely that the 3p1 morpheme is analysedin this way by speakers (Rigsby p.c.).35An alternative is to claim that there are in fact two different /-t/ morphemes, one of which has thefeatures [3rd person, singular] and the other of which has only the feature [3rd person].1832.6.2. Word order and agreement with Series II2.6.2.1. The mechanism of Series II agreementSince Series II morphemes appear on the verb and reflect the person (and number) of anargument of the verb, I assume that they originate on the verb, and check the person (andnumber) of an NP in the spec of the functional projection to which the verb has adjoined,as illustrated: (F = functional head)(126) FPXNPi^F 'V[(#), person jiThis feature checking can potentially take place either in ASPP, with the object, or in TrP,with the subject. In all the examples discussed in this section, feature checking occurs inTrP.Movement in Chomsky's framework is subject to the following "Greed Principle"(127) The Greed Principle"Move a applies to an element a only if morphological properties of a itself are nototherwise satisfied. The operation cannot apply to a to enable some differentelement 13 to satisfy its properties." (Chornsky 1992:47)Thus, the movement of the NP to spec FP must be motivated by the need of the NP tocheck its own features, rather than by the licensing needs of the verbal head. This notionis important in accounting for the distribution of the two Series II agreement paradigms inGitksan.1842.6.2.2. Agreement with overt lexical arguments. Surface word order shows that feature checking between an overt NP and a Seriesagreement morpheme occurs only at LF. The relevant evidence comes from the stringposition of overt arguments, which always follow, rather than precede, the verb whichbears the agreement morpheme. The following partially labelled bracketing of (120) showsthat since the verb is in Tr at S-Structure, the post-verbal position of the subject "Mary" canonly be explained if it is assumed that "Mary" is still in the VP at S-Structure.(128) S-Structure[TrP nim naks-xw-a-ti =qat=s^[VP t =Maryi [ASPP [VP t =John fillverb^ subj^objwant many-pass-erg-3=rep=case cn =Mary cn=John"Apparently Mary wants to many John"If "Mary" raised to spec TrP to check its features at S-Structure, the ungrammaticalordering illustrated in (129) would surface.(129) *[Trp t_.=Matiyi [Tr nim naks-xw-a-ti =qat=s [vpti [ASPP [vpt =John]]]]]subj^ objThe fact that overt NPs do not raise to check their features overtly shows that the personand number features associated with an overt NP must be PF-weak. If its features werePF-strong, overt raising such as that illustrated in (129) would need to take place, in orderto allow these features to be checked at S-Structure.That overt NPs have PF-weak features is consistent with the fact that they never cooccurwith agreement from the rich Series II paradigm, as illustrated by the ungrammaticality ofthe following sentence:185(130) *iis = 1^simim-naks- ti:ti -a ma = s^[tip John qan t=Mary]ialreadyn tog.-marry-3p1-probably=case cn John and cn=Mary"John and Mary probably got married already"The derivation of a sentence such as this would fail to converge for the following reason.The PF-strong features associated with the Series H agreement morpheme need to bechecked at S-Structure, while the PF-weak features on the NP need to be checked only atLF. According to the Greed Principle, the requirements of the agreement on the headcannot force the NP to raise. Therefore the NP would raise only at LF, and the PF-strongfeatures on the Series 11 agreement would fail to be licensed at S-Structure. The derivationwould therefore fail to converge.2.6.2.3. Agreement with pro argumentsIn the previous section I claimed that overt NPs had PF-weak inflectional features, basedinitially on their surface ordering. The PF-strength of features associated with pro,however, cannot be determined in this way, since it is not possible to deduce the surfaceposition of the phonetically empty element pro from the surface form of a sentence.However, given the Greed Principle, it is possible to claim, based on the form of theagreement which licenses pro, that its features must be PF-strong. The argument runs asfollows: the Series II agreement which appears on a verb with a pro argument is alwaystaken from the rich paradigm. If the person and number features associated with pro werePF-weak, then pro would not raise to check its features until LF. This would mean that thePF-strong features on the verb would fail to be licensed at S-Structure, and so thederivation would fail to converge. If, however, the features associated with pro are PF-strong, then this problem does not arise, pro will raise at S-Structure to check its PF-strong features with the PF-strong features of the verb, and the derivation will converge.186Under this analysis, the S-Structure of a sentence such as (123) above will be thefollowing, with the subject pro having raised from within the VP to the spec position ofTrP to check its features:(131) S-Structure^[TrP [Pr]i [Tr ke - 9 - ti [VP tj [ASPP [VP t = Johnsee-erg-3^cn=John"He saw John"This claim about the PF-strength of features associated with pro is consistent withChomsky's observation (Chomsky 1992:14) that the licensing of pro normally requires thatit be in a spec head relation to strong agreement.362.6.3. Morphological strength of NPsIn the previous sections I made the following claim about the PF-strength of person andnumber features associated with pro and overt NPs:(132) PF-strong features^PF-weak featurespro^ overt NPsThis classification was based both on surface ordering facts, and on the PF-strength of theassociated Series II agreement features. Such a classification of NPs does not seem to fitparticularly well, however, with our proposal that the PF-strength of a feature shouldcorrelate with the morphological richness of the morpheme with which it is associated.Intuitively, pro seems totally morphologically impoverished since it does not overtly realiseany of its features, while overt NPs seem morphologically richer, since they normallyrealise both the values 3rd person and singular or plural.36 The full quotation is the following: "pro is licensed only in the SPEC-head relation to [AGR a AGR],where a is [4-tense] or V. AGR strong or V = V*." (p 14) I ignore for the purposes of this thesis licensingof pro by V*, since it does not seem to play any role in Giticsan.187However, there does seem to be some morphological motivation for the distinction betweenpro and overt NPs that is proposed here. Overt NPs are capable of phonetically realisingtheir own features, and thus do not need to check them overtly with any other head in orderfor them to be realised at PF. However, the features of empty NPs, such as pro, will notbe phonetically realised at all unless they can be overtly realised on some agreeing head.Thus, the requirement that the features of pro must be checked at S-Structure while thefeatures of overt NPs must be checked only at LF does correlate in a logical way with themorphological properties of the NPs concerned.2.6.4. Subject or object agreement?An interesting feature of Series II agreement is that it may potentially agree with either thesubject (133) or the object (134): (Series II morpheme underlined)(133) yim - a - =I^hunsmell - erg-lsg=cn fish"I smelled the fish"yimi'yhl hun(134) ne: - ti:^- t 2u:w' -not -contr - 3 invite - 1 sg"S/he didn't invite me"neediit uu'wi'yI therefore assume that the features that are ultimately spelled out as Series 11 suffixes maybe checked either in ASPP, in which case the suffixes will be coreferential with the object,or in TrP, in which case the suffixes will be coreferential with the subject. 37 The factorswhich determine where the Series II agreement is checked in a given sentence are discussedin Section 2.8.2.37Note that this is different from the number agreement which must be with the absolutive argument, andthus take place in ASPP.1882.6.5. SummaryIn this section I proposed an analysis of Series II agreement in Gitksan. The followingtable summarizes the salient features of the analysis.(135)Agreement paradigm Features encoded^PF-strength of^NP typesfeatures^licensed Strong Series II^person and number^strong^proparadigmWeak Series II^person^weak^overt NPsparadigm2.7. Series I agreement markersThe previous section has outlined a theoretical framework which allows the distribution ofSeries II agreement to be accounted for. In this section I consider the Series I agreementparadigm, and show how the data from this paradigm can be explained under the same setof assumptions.2.7.1. The form and position of Series IThe paradigm for Series I agreement is given below:(136) Series I person markers (Rigsby 1986:412)sg^P1na tap^ni, na, nu^dipma^ma ^ SG M^mi, ma, mu^mi ... simt t t^tRecall that these Series I markers are clitics which occur preverbally and indicate agreementwith a transitive subject. Like the Series II markers, they may license a coreferential pro(138) or, in the third person only, cooccur with a lexical argument (137). Unlike the SeriesII suffixes, Series I agreement markers take the same form regardless of whether thecoreferential argument is lexical (137) or pro (138):189(137) ne: - ti: - ti kup - t = snot-contr-3 eat - 3 = case"Peter doesn't eat potatoes"(138) ne: - ti: - ti kuxw [pro]inot-contr-3 shoot"He didn't shoot the bear"t=Peteri =^susi:tcn=Peter=cn potatoneediit gups Peterhl susiit=I smax=cn bearneediit guxwhl smaxSeries I agreement occurs in transitive dependent clauses, and is in complementarydistribution with the /a/ suffix which occurs in transitive independent clauses. I proposethat both the /a/ suffix and the Series I agreement morphemes should be regarded asrealisations of a [+trans] TrP. This proposal accounts for the fact that the Series I markersare in complementary distribution with /a/, and for the fact that both the Series I markersand /a/ occur only with transitive verbs.A [+trans] TrP thus has two different possible realisations - as Series I agreement in adependent clause or as the /a/ suffix in an independent clause. 38 As discussed earlier inthis chapter, the relevant descriptive generalization concerning the difference between thetwo clause types is the presence or absence of a higher governing head. We can thereforemake the following parallel generalization about the realisation of Tr: Series I agreementsurfaces in Tr if a higher governing head is present in the clause; otherwise the /a/ suffixsurfaces. I assume that the higher governor serves in some way to license an agreementrelationship between Tr and its specifier, which is realised as Series I agreement. 39 The /a/suffix is a default realisation of the [+trans] Tr head, and surfaces only if there is no380ne possible theoretical account of this somewhat strange alternation in the form of the Tr head betweenSeries I agreement and the /a/ suffix is that Tr is in fact an empty head. In accordance with the ECP, anempty head can only be licensed if it is lexically governed. Thus, only in the presence of a highergoverning head can the empty Tr be licensed. In the absence of a head governor, the Tr head must be filled,and the default filler is the /a/ suffix. Under this analysis, the Series I agreement marker is simply therealisation of spec head agreement in the Tr projection. Only the empty head, however, and not the defaultfiller /oh is capable of realising spec head agreement.39The idea that government by a higher (functional) head can affect the Case assigning properties of a headis not totally new. For example, Larson (1988:360) proposes that V can assign Case only if it is governedby Infl. A similar proposal is developed in Li (1990:409).190governing head present in the clause to license the spec head agreement process. I encodethis generalization in the following statement:(139) Series I agreement licensingSeries I agreement between Tr and its specifier is licensed if and only if Tr isgoverned by a higher head.Under this analysis, Series I agreement is unlike Series II agreement in that it is generatedon a functional head rather than on the verb. The fact that Series I agreement usuallysurfaces adjacent to the verb results from the fact that when the verb moves to check itstransitivity feature, it adjoins to the Tr head which contains the Series I agreement.2.7.2. Strength of Series I agreementAs with the Series II markers, it is necessary to determine whether the features associatedwith Series I markers are PF-strong or PF-weak, in order to account for their distributionand the distribution of the NPs with which they agree. Note from the above paradigm thatSeries I agreement shows person and number distinctions in the first and second person.Thus, according to the definitions in (101) and (102) above, the 1st and 2nd person SeriesI agreement markers are morphologically rich and are thus associated with features whichare PF-strong. In the 3rd person, however, the Series I markers appear to encode onlyperson values. This suggests that these morphemes are morphologically impoverished, andthus that the features associated with them are PF-weak.(140) Feature strength of Series I person markers - version 1na^tap^morphologically richma MG ^ SG M^=> PF -strong featurest morphologically impoverished=> PF-weak features1912.7.3. 1st and 2nd person pro argumentsSince the features of 1st and 2nd person Series I agreement morphemes are PF-strong,these morphemes can serve to check the PF-strong features of pro arguments, as in thefollowing sentence, in which the Series I agreement morpheme (underlined) agrees with aphonetically empty 1st person subject :(141) yukw DAL yo:q - an - t =I "baby"prog lsg feed - trn- 3 = cn baby"I'm feeding the baby"yukw niyooginhl babyAs illustrated in the following bracketed representation of this sentence, the pro subjectraises at S-Structure to spec TrP so that its features, which are PF-strong, can be checkedagainst the strong features of the Series I agreement.40(142) yukw [TrP PIA [Tr 'lei^yo:q - an - t = i [vP‘ [ASPP[vP baby] ] ] l lsubj Series I verb obj2.7.4. 3rd person pro argumentsAlthough this analysis of Series I agreement seems to work well for 1st and 2nd person proarguments, a potential problem is posed by third person pro arguments. If the 3rd personSeries I agreement has the feature [person], but not the feature [plural], it should not bepossible for Series I agreement to license 3rd person pro arguments, since their [plural]feature could not be checked. This is in fact the correct prediction for 3rd person pluralpro. It cannot be licensed by a Series I agreement alone, as illustrated by theungrammaticality of the following example: (The It/ affix is the Series I morpheme)40Again, of course, as was pointed out in connection with series II agreement, there is no overt evidencethat this movement has occurred, but the theory predicts that such movement must take place.192(143) *ne: - ti:^[TrP [Pro3p1]i [Tr - ti ka2 -^[VP^[not-contr - 3 see - lsg*"They didn't see me"41However, this analysis appears to make the incorrect prediction when the pro in this samesurface form is interpreted as 3rd person singular. Under this interpretation the sentence isgrammatical:(144) ne: - ti:^[TrP [Pro3sg[i [Tr - ti^ka2 - y' [VPnot-contr - 3^see - lsg"S/he didn't see me"neediit ga'a'yContrary to our prediction, 3rd person singular pro can be licensed by Series I agreementeven though the agreement morpheme appears to be associated only with the feature [3rdperson]. Our expectation was that this morpheme would not be capable of checking boththe person and number features of pro.I propose that these facts can be accounted for if we assume that there are in fact twodifferent N agreement markers in the Series I paradigm. One of these, which cooccurswith overt NPs, is specified only [3rd person], with no value for number. This constitutesa morphologically impoverished agreement paradigm which is associated with PF-weakfeatures. The other N morpheme is specified [3rd person, singular], and is thus amorphologically rich agreement morpheme associated with PF-strong features. Under thisanalysis, the appropriate representation of Series I agreement is as follows:41 In the next section I consider how Gitksan expresses this meaning through the use of doubled series I andII agreement.193(145) Feature strength of Series I person markers - revisedmorphologically richparadigm => PF-strongperson and number featuresmorphologically impoverishedparadigm => PF-weak personfeatureno^tapma IIla ^ samt t The lack of a morphologically rich 3rd person plural agreement marker in this paradigmexplains the ungrammaticality of (143) above. This sentence contains no Series Iagreement morpheme which could check both the person and number of a 3rd person pluralpro. The presence of a morphologically rich 3rd person singular agreement marker, onthe other hand, explains the grammaticality of (144), since the person and number featuresof this morpheme can check both the person and number features of the 3rd person singularpro.(146) ne: - ti: [TrP [PrO3sgli [Tr - ti^ka2 - y' km^III[3sg]2.7.5. Overt NP argumentsUnder the analysis of Series I agreement just presented, the interaction of Series Iagreement and overt NP arguments will work as follows. Since overt NPs are associatedwith PF-weak features, they can only be checked by agreement morphemes with PF-weakfeatures. Therefore, overt NPs must cooccur only with the It/ morpheme from themorphologically impoverished paradigm.Consider the following sentence in which a Series I agreement morpheme (N) agrees withan overt NP ("Peter"):194tN^V'(147) ne: - ti: - ti^kup - t = s^t =Peteri =^susi:tnot-contr- 3 eat - 3 = case cn =Peter=cn potato"Peter doesn't eat potatoes"neediit gups Peterhl susiitThe partially bracketed representation of this sentence is given below.(148) S-Structurene: - ti: [TrP - ti kup - t = s [up t =Peter; = [ASPP [VP susi:t ]]The overt subject NP "Peter" remains in the VP at S-Structure. This is expected since, aswe claimed above, the features of overt NPs are PF-weak, and thus do not require overtchecking. Since this Series I agreement morpheme is also associated with PF-weakfeatures, the result is a well-formed PF representation .Feature checking between the Series I agreement morpheme and the overt subject will thusoccur at LF, when the subject will raise to spec TrP.(149) LF:TrP/NPi^Tr'Peter / •Tr^VPTri V /\A prediction of this analysis is that the morphologically impoverished Series I agreementmorpheme should be able to occur with either singular or plural overt NPs, since it isunspecified for the feature [plural]. This prediction proves correct. As well as agreeingwith singular NPs, as in (147), the weak Series I morpheme can also agree with pluralNPs, as in the following example:195(150) ne: - ti: - ti ka2 - y' [tip Peter qan t = John]1 k'o:tsnot -contr-3 see -lsg en Peter and en = John yesterday"Peter and John didn't see me yesterday"neediit ga'a'y dip Peter gan t John k'yoots2.7.6. Series I agreement paradigm - summaryIn this section I have argued that the Series I agreement paradigm should be represented asfollows:(151) Feature strength of Series I person markers - revisedmorphologically richparadigm => PF-strongperson and number featuresmorphologically impoverishedparadigm => PF-weak personfeaturena^tapMO MG ^ SG Mt t Morphemes from the rich agreement paradigm are associated with PF-strong person andnumber features, and thus can license the PF-strong person and number features of proarguments. The morpheme in the impoverished paradigm is associated with a PF-weakperson feature, and thus can only license the PF-weak features of singular or plural overtNPs.2.8. Agreement Interactions in Transitive ClausesIn the previous sections I have presented an analysis of the distribution and use of numberagreement, and the Series I and II agreement paradigms. In this section I consider howthese different agreement patterns interact in various sentence types.In transitive sentences, verbal number agreement is always with the object, while Series Iagreement is always with the transitive subject As mentioned earlier, however, Series IIagreement is sometimes with the subject (i.e. licensing an NP in TrP) and sometimes with196the object (i.e. licensing an NP in ASPP). Since the verb must move to TrP in all sentencetypes to check its transitivity feature, and thus always passes through ASPP, there shouldbe no difference in complexity between a derivation in which Series II agreement takesplace in ASPP and one in which this agreement takes place in TrP. One might thereforeexpect the location of the Series II agreement process to vary freely. In fact, however,most sentence types exhibit no such free variation. The main focus of this section is onestablishing what factors determine where Series II agreement takes place.2.8.1. Series II Agreement in Independent ClausesIn independent clauses, Series II agreement is always with the subject rather than theobject, as in the following examples (Series I morphemes underlined):(152) yim - a - =1^hunsmell - erg-lsg= cn fish"I smelled the fish"yimisyhl hun(153) ka2 - a - - qat = s t= John^n'i:y'see -erg-3-rep=case cn = John lsg"Apparently John saw me"ga'atgas John 'nii'yThis means that in an independent clause Series II agreement always takes place in TrP,with the subject which has raised to spec TrP, rather than in ASPP. I propose that this isbecause of the lack of any other agreement morphology to check the features of the subject.In independent sentences, the Tr head has only the default /a/ realisation, which has no NPagreement function. Thus, if the Series II agreement took place in ASP instead of in Tr,there would be no element available to check the features of the subject, and so thederivation would not converge. As a result, Series II agreement in independent transitiveclauses always takes place in TrP, licensing the subject. As in all clauses, the object checksits features via number agreement with the verb.197(154) Agreement in independent transitive clausessubject^object Series II agreement^number agreementon verb (TrP) on verb (ASPP)2.8.2. Agreement in Dependent ClausesIn dependent sentences, Series I agreement is available to check the features of the subject,and number agreement is available to check the features of the object. Thus, one mightexpect more flexibility in whether Series II morphemes agreed with the subject or with theobject In fact, however, which argument the Series II morpheme agrees with in dependentclauses seems to depend on whether the subject is pro or a lexical NP. With a fewinteresting exceptions, which will be discussed later, if the subject is lexical, Series IFagreement in dependent sentences is with the subject (i.e. it occurs in TrP). In contrast, ifthe subject is pro, Series II agreement is with the object (i.e. occurs in ASPP). This patternis schematized in the chart in (155) and is illustrated by the data in (156) - (159).(155) Summary of distribution of Series II agreementsubject^object^agreement with - inlexical^pronominal =>^subject - TrP42lexical^lexical^=>^subject - TrPpro^lexical^=>^object - ASPPpro^pronominal =>^object - ASPP(156) Lexical subject, pronominal objectne: - ti: - t^ka2 - ti = s^t = Peter; n'iti:tnot-contr-3 see - 3 = case cn=Peter^3p1"Peter didn't see them"neediit ga'as Peter 'nidiit42See discussion below regarding inter-speaker variation on this point, and the role of a person hierarchy.The generalization given does, however, hold for all speakers if the object pronominal is third person.198(157) Lexical subject, lexical objectne: - ti - t^limo: - ti = snot-contr-3 help-3ase"John didn't help Peter"t = John; t = Petercn = John cn= Peterneediit hlimoos John t Peter(158)pro subject, lexical objectmo:tsa - [pro] tip stil - ti = s^t = Peter;almost-^1pl accompany-3=case cn = Peter"We almost went with Peter"mooji dip sdils Peter(159) Pronominal subject, pronominal objectne: - ti: - [pro]i ti 2uw' - m'j [pro]jnot-contr-^3 invite-lpl"He didn't invite us"neediit u'wu'm2.8.2.1. Determining the reference of the It/ suffix Before continuing with discussion of these results, it is important to justify my claim that independent sentences such as (157), in which both arguments are third person, the Seriesagreement marker is coreferential with the subject rather than the object. In sentences ofthis type, the form of the agreement does not show whether it is reflecting the features ofthe subject or the object, since both arguments are 3rd person. Tarpent (1988) argues thatin Nisgha the Series II /t/ suffixed to the verb in sentences such as (157) is in factcoreferential with the object, thus providing support for her claim that Nisgha is apronominal argument language. I claim, however, that evidence from the distribution ofthe case marking morpheme /s/ shows that the It/ suffix is coreferential with the subject insentences of this type.Recall that /s/ case is only assigned to NPs in certain environments. One condition on theassignment of /s/ case is that the NP must be adjacent to a lexical case assigning head.However, this in itself is not a sufficient condition to ensure that a NP receives /s/-case-199marking, as illustrated by the following sentences, in which the bold-faced NP is adjacentto the verb, but still fails to be marked with /s/ case.(160) ka2 - a - ti t = Johnjsee-erg- 3 cn=John"S/he saw John"ga'at t John(161) ka2 - ti:ti = qat t = Maryjsee - 3p1= rep cn = Mary"Apparently they saw Mary"(162) ne: - ti: - t^stil - y'inot-contr-3 accompany-lsg"John didn't accompany me"(163) ne: - ti: - t^stil - ti:tinot-contr-3 accompany-3p1"They didn't go with John"(164) w'itxw t = John qu2 - m'come^cn = John loc-lpl"John came to our place"ga'adiitgat t Maryt = Johnjcn = Johnneediit sdili'y t Johnt = Johnjcn = Johnneediit sdildiit t John'witxw t John go'o'mCommon to all sentences in which /s/ case fails to be assigned to a post-verbal NP inGitksan is the absence of a coreferential Series II suffix on the verb. Either the suffixrefers to a non-coreferential NP, as in (160) - (163), or there is no Series II suffix, as in(164). Descriptively, then, an additional condition on the assignment of /s/ case to an NPis that the NP must be coreferential with the Series II suffix on the adjacent lexical head.For ease of reference later, I state this condition as follows:(165) /s/ case-assignment condition/s/ case is assigned to an NP if and only ifa. it is adjacent to a lexical headand^b. it is coreferential with the Series II suffix on that head.The condition in (165) allows us now to explain why the verbal suffix in (157) must referto the subject. In (157) the subject is marked with Is/case. According to (165), this is200only possible if it is coreferential with the Series II suffix on the verb. Thus, I concludethat in (157), the Series II suffix and the immediately following NP must be coreferential.2.8.2.2. Restricting Series II agreementIn this section I propose how the agreement patterns summarized in (155) can be accountedfor.An important generalization in table (155) is that if the subject is pro then it is not licensedby Series II agreement. Recall that, except in the 3rd person plural, the features of prosubjects in dependent clauses can be checked by Series I agreement. Thus, Series IIagreement is clearly not needed for checking the features of the subject. However, giventhat Series II agreement can check the features of a subject, nothing in the frameworkproposed thus far will prevent it from doing so in a sentence with a pro subject. This is aproblem, given that sentences in which both Series I and Series II agreement is with a prosubject are definitely ungrammatical:(166) Pro subject, lexical object*mo:tsa - [pro] tipi stil - m'j^t = Peterjalmost-^1pl^accompany-lpl cn = Peter"We almost went with Peter"(167) Pro subject, pronominal object*ne: - ti: - [pro] ti^2uw' - ti^n'u:m'not-contr-^3^invite-3sg^1pl"He didn't invite us"In order to account for such data, I propose the following principle:(168) One strong agreement principle (OSAP) (Gitksan)The features of an NP can be checked at most once by strong features.201This principle accounts for the ungrammaticality of the sentences in (166) - (167) above.In each of these sentences the features of the pro subject are checked by two sets of strongfeatures - one set associated with the Series I morpheme, and one set associated with theSeries H morpheme. Thus these sentences violate the OSAP.A second generalization in table (155) is that when the subject is an overt NP, its featuresare checked by Series II agreement as well as Series I agreement. First, note that suchsentences are not in violation of the OSAP, since the Series I and Series II agreementmorphemes which cooccur with overt subjects are associated with weak features.However, this does not explain why Series II agreement in such sentences must always bewith the subject rather than the object. Series I agreement alone should be adequate tocheck the features of the subject NP. I therefore invoke the following condition governingwhere agreement should take place.(169) Highest Projection Agreement (HPA)Check features at the highest projection possible.This will ensure that, unless some other principle such as (168) intervenes, Series IIagreement will always take place in TrP, rather than in ASPP.43, "43 The following alternative set of conditions to the HPA and OSAP might also be proposed.(1) Check features at the lowest projection possible(2) Lexical arguments must check their features with lexical heads.(1) would force agreement to take place in ASPP, unless some other condition such as (2) intervened. Forthe sentences considered up to this point, these conditions appear to derive exactly the same results as theconditions I propose. I adopt the HPA and OSAP instead, however, because they account somewhat moreneatly for the sentences with 3rd person plural pronominal subjects dealt with in the following section.In searching for some motivation for the HPA, it is tempting to claim that it must be more economicalfor LF agreement to take place in TrP, because the verb has already raised to this projection by S-Structure,and that for the verb to agree at LF in ASPP would entail some extra mechanism such as lowering.However, since number agreement on the verb must occur in ASPP at LF, whatever mechanism isresponsible for this could presumably also handle Series II agreement in the same projection.2022.8.2.3. Application of the HPA and OSAP The following examples illustrate how these principles apply to derive the appropriatesurface distribution of Series II agreement.2.8.2.3.1.^Dependent clause with lexical subject(170) is an example of a clause with a lexical subject.(170) ne: - ti: - ti limo: - ti = s^t =Johni t= Peternot-contr-3 help-3=case^cn= John cn= Peter"John didn't help Peter"neediit hlimoos John t PeterAt S-Structure, this clause has the following structure: (I, II, given below the sentence,indicate the position of Series I and Series II agreement, respectively.)(171) S-Structurene:-ti:- [TrP^[Tr ti limo: - ti = s [vpt=Johni [ASPP [vp t=Peterj]]]]]^I^II^subj^objThe subject NP, being overt, is associated with PF-weak features, and so at S-Structure itdoes not move for feature checking, but remains in the VP. At LF, however, the subjectraises to spec TR, deriving a structure such as the following:(172) LF^ t „ne:-ti:- [TrP 1=JOnni [Tr ti urnO: - ti = s^[ASPP [VPt =Peterj 1111subj^I^II objFeature checking occurs between (1) the subject, and (2) each of the Series I and Series IIagreement morphemes in TR. This does not violate the OSAP, because the features onboth these agreement morphemes are PF-weak. The fact that Series H agreement is withthe subject (i.e. in TR) rather than the object (i.e. in ASP) is forced by the HPA.2032.8.2.3.2.^Clause with pro subjectThe following is an example of a clause with a pro subject.(173) Pro subject, lexical objectmo:tsa - tipj stil - ti = s^t = Peterialmost- 1p1 accompany-3=case cn = Peter"We almost went with Peter"moojidip sdils PeterThe S-Structure of this clause is the following:(174) S-Structuremo:tsa -[TrP Pro [Tr tipj^stil - ti = s [VP [ASPP [vpt Peterisubj^I H^ objSince pro is associated with PF-strong features, it raises at S-Structure to spec TrP, and itsfeatures are checked with the PF-strong features of the Series I agreement morpheme /tip/.If the pro subject were also licensed by Series LE agreement in this structure, this wouldviolate the OSAP, since it would be licensed by the PF-strong features of both the Series Iand the Series II agreement. Thus Series II agreement is with the object. Since the objectis lexical, it has PF-weak features, and requires checking only at LF. Thus the LFrepresentation of the above clause is the following:(175) LFmo:tsa -[TrP Pro j (Tr tipi stil - ti = s [vP[ASPP t Peteri tAsp/vi [VP]]subj^I^II^objThe object has raised to spec ASPP and checks its features against those of the Series IImorpheme on the verb, encoded in the trace which remains in ASP.2.8.2.4. Extensions In this section I consider how the conditions proposed above allow us to account for someadditional data, which were not included in table (155).2042.8.2.4.1. Third person plural pronominal subjectsAs discussed earlier, there is no 3rd person plural Series I agreement morpheme to checkthe features of a 3rd person plural pro in subject position of a dependent clause. However,this does not mean that it is impossible to have a 3rd person pro subject in a dependentsentence. Rather, in order to license such a subject, Series I agreement is supplemented bya coreferential Series II agreement, as in the following example:(176) ne: - ti: - ti^stil - HA;^t=Johnj^I II objnot-contr-3 accompany-3p1 cn=John"They didn't go with John"neediit sdildiit t John(177) ne: - ti ka2 - ti:ti n'u:m'j = aI^II objnot - 3 see - 3p1 1pl^= inter"Did they see us?"neet ga'adiit 'nuu'maThis pattern is exactly what is predicted by the above conditions. The OSAP will not beoperative in this sentence type, because this particular Series I agreement marker ismorphologically impoverished, and thus associated with weak features. As a result, theverb will be forced by the HPA to raise and agree in Tr with the subject. Thus, both SeriesI and Series II agreement will be with the subject argument, as illustrated below:(178) TrP---------- .. Tr'NPTr/\[person:3]i VI^[person: 3]i[plural: i]jHpro[person:3]i[plural: +]j2052.8.2.4.2. Lexical subject, 1st or 2nd person pronominal object.The only sentence types remaining to be accounted for are sentences in which the subject islexical and the object is a 1st or 2nd person pronominal. In such instances, there is inter-and intra-speaker variation regarding which argument the Series II morpheme agrees with,as illustrated:(179) ne: - ti: - tinot-contr-3"John didn't(180) ne: - ti: - tinot-contr-3"John didn'tstil - ti = s^t = Johni n'i:y1jaccompany-3ase cn= John^lsgaccompany me"neediit sdils John 'nii'ystil - yli^t = Johni^(propaccompany -lsg cn = Johnaccompany me"neediit sdili'y t JohnIn (179), the Series II verbal suffix agrees with the lexical subject, "John", while in (180)the Series II suffix agrees with a 1st person singular pro object.Sentence (179) patterns as predicted by the principles proposed so far. The Series IIagreement is with the subject (i.e. in TrP), as predicted by the HPA. Since both the SeriesI and the Series lil agreement which check the features of the subject are associated withPF-weak features, no violation of OSAP occurs.The agreement pattern in (180), however, appears to violate the HPA. The S-Structure treebelow shows the derivation of such constructions. Since pro is associated with PF-strongfeatures, the pro object raises at S-Structure to spec ASPP for feature checking. The verbraises to ASP, and the Series II agreement on the verb checks its PF-strong features againstthose of the pro object. The verb then raises to Tr. (At LF, the overt subject raises tospec Tr and is licensed by Series I agreement.)206tN(181) S-StructureTrPNTr'Tr VPSeries Ij^/NP'^V'(ag)ASPPproi^ASP'NASP^VPV\ASP ViSeries IIThe problem is that Series II agreement has taken place in ASPP, with the object pro, eventhough the HPA should force the verb to agree with the subject in the higher TrPprojection. I will refer to sentences of this type as "subject-final", to reflect the fact thatthere is no overt object following the subject.According to Rigsby (1986:263-4), subject-final sentences are used by older speakers, andare considered to be more correct 45 , while younger speakers are more likely to use formssuch as (179), with the object pronoun following the subject.Jelinek (1986), in discussing similar data in Nisgha, proposes that there is a personhierarchy operative in the language, which requires that 1st and 2nd person elementsprecede lexical arguments.46 The effects of such a surfacing ordering principle might be45Similar data occur in Nisgha (Tarpent 1987: 253).46Thjs is consistent with the fact that for older speakers, the same subject-final pattern appears inindependent sentences with a lexical subject and 1st or 2nd person object, as illustrated:(1) iamo: - a - ti n'u:m' Maryihelp - erg-3 1pl cn = MaryV ',tv207able to force agreement to take place in ASPP rather than TrP, thus accounting for whythese sentences violate the HPA.Another possibile explanation is that the Avoid Pronoun Principle (Chomsky (1981),Jaeggli (1981)) is operative in this construction.(182) Avoid Pronoun PrincipleAvoid pronoun if PRO is possible.° (Jaeggli 1981:42)According to this principle, silent pronouns (such as pro) are preferred to overt pronouns.Note that in the subject-final form (180), no overt pronoun is required, because the objectagreement licenses a pro in object position. In (179), however, an overt object pronoun isneeded because there is no strong object agreement. The variation exhibited by youngerspeakers between the subject-final forms and the object-fmal forms might be accounted forby the competition between the HPA, which motivates agreement in TrP, and the AvoidPronoun Principle, which, in this case, motivates agreement in ASPP.An apparent problem for this approach is that this variation occurs only with non-3rdperson objects. With 3rd person pronominal objects, Series II agreement always takesplace in TrP, agreeing with the subject, as predicted by the HPA. However, this canperhaps be explained by the relative freedom of occurrence of 3rd person pro. As"Mary helped us" R 262hlimooyit 'nuu'm t MaryForms such as these are actually rejected by younger speakers I have worked with. I have no account ofhow such forms should be derived, given that the subject does not actually seem to have been extraposed,since it still precedes all other verbal arguments, as in the following example:(2) kin - a - ti^n'i:y' t = Mary ?a =1^hon k'o:tsgive(to eat)-erg-3sg lsg cirMary prep=cn fish yesterday"John gave me fish to eat yesterday"ginit 'nii'y t Mary ahl lion ky'oots47The use of PRO rather than pro in the statement of this principle is not significant. At the time thisprinciple was proposed, PRO was assumed to be the only phonetically empty pronoun.208discussed briefly in Chapter 3, a 3rd person pro can occur in absolutive position in asentence, where it is apparently licensed only by number agreement." This is illustrated inthe following question/answer pair:(183) nta^= I kwala - y'where = cn blanket-lsg"Where's my blanket?"ndahl gwila'y(184) kin'am - a - y' pro 2a = s^t = Billgive -erg-lsg^to =case cn=Bill"I gave it to Bill"gi'nami'y as BillSuch patterns are also possible in dependent sentences with lexical subjects, as in thefollowing example:(185) ne: - ti: - ti lu: - maq - T - ti = s^t= Peteri pro ts'im kha:not -contr-3 in - put (sg)- T - 3 = case cn= Peter^in^car"Peter didn't put it in the car"neediit luumagas Peter ts'im kaaNote that the Series II agreement here is with the subject. Such sentences obey both theHPA, since agreement is in TrP, and the Avoid Pronoun Principle, since no overt pronounappears. Thus, the lack of variation in sentences with 3rd person pronominal subjects canperhaps be attributed to the fact that both the HPA and the Avoid Pronoun Principle can besatisfied in one sentence pattern.48Such cases appear to pose a problem for the analysis of pro as requiring licensing by PF-strong features.This issue is addressed in Section 9 of this chapter.2092.9. SummaryIn this section I have proposed an analysis of agreement licensing in transitive sentences. Ibegan with the following two assumptions about the relationship between PF-weak / strongfeatures and the morphological richness of individual agreement morphemes:(186) PF-Strength (Gitksan)A feature is PF-strong if and only if it is associated with a morphologically richagreement morpheme.(187) Morphological Richness (Gitksan)If an agreement morpheme overtly encodes both person and number features, it ismorphologically rich.These assumptions led me to the following classification of verbal number agreement,Series I agreement and Series II agreement:(188)Agreement paradigm Features encoded^PF-strength of^NP typesfeatures^licensedVerbal number^number^weak^overt NPsagreementStrong Series II^person and number^strong^proparadigmWeak Series II^person^weak^overt NPsparadigmStrong Series I^person and number^strong^pro (except 3p1)paradigm^(except 3p1)Weak Series I^person^weak^overt NPsparadigmI have analysed the distribution of the three agreement paradigms as follows:210(189) realisation of featuresassociated with:checks features in: checks featuresof:Verb numberagreementV ASP transitive objectSeries I Tr Tr transitive subject(dependent clause)Series IIobjectV Tror ASPtransitive subjecttransitiveBased on the distribution of agreement, I have proposed that NP types in Gitksan must beclassified with respect to the strength of their person and number features as follows:(190) PF-strong features^PF-weak featurespro^ overt NPsThe above assumptions allowed me to account for agreement patterns in all types oftransitive clauses. The various types are summarized below: (V # refers to verbal numberagreement.)211(191) Summary of agreement patterns in transitive clauses- independent sentencesForm of subject^Form of object^Subject agreement^Object agreementany^any^Series II^V #- dependent sentencesForm of subject^Form of object^Subject agreement^Object agreementlexical^lexical NP or^Series I and II^V #3rd personpronominallexical^pronominal^Series I and II^V #(non 3rd person)OR Series I^V#andSeries IIpronominal^lexical^Series I^V # and(not 3p1) Series IIpronominal^any^Series I and II^V #(3p1)pronominal^pronominal^Series I^V # and(not 3p1) Series IIThe following conditions specific to Gitksan have been invoked to account for thesedifferent patterns.(192) One strong agreement principle (OSAP) (Gitksan)The features of an NP can be checked at most once by strong features.212(193) Highest Projection Agreement (HPA)Check features at the highest projection possible.(194) Series I agreement licensingSeries I agreement between Tr and its specifier is licensed iff Tr isgoverned by a higher head.2.10. Overt pronominals in transitive clausesThe discussion so far has focused on the licensing by agreement of lexical NPs and pro. Inthis section I consider how the same principles can be used to account for the distributionof overt pronominals.In addition to person marking suffixes, Gitksan has the following set of independentpronouns:(195) Independent pronominals (Rigsby 1986:413)sing plural1 n'i:y' n'u:m' 'nii'y 'nuu'm2 n'i:n n'isim' 'ni:n 'nisi'm3 n'it n'idi:t 'nit 'nidiitIn transitive clauses, overt pronominals may occur only in the restricted environments listedbelow:(196) Distribution of overt pronominals in transitive clauses-object of independent clause (197)-object of dependent clause with lexical subject (198)-object of dependent clause with 3rd person plural pronominal subject (199)The distribution is illustrated in the following data:(197) independent clause objecttitiy' - a- t^n'i:y'look.after-erg-3 1 sg"He looked after me"didi'yit 'nii'y213(198) dependent clause object (lexical subject)ne: - ti: - t ka2- t = s^t = Peter n'iti:tnot-contr-3 see - 3 =case cn=Peter 3p1"Peter didn't see them"neediit ga'as Peter 'nidiit(199) dependent clause object (3p1 subject)ne: - ti: - t^ka2 - ti:t^n'isim'not -contr-3 see - 3p1 2p1"They didn't see you"neediit ga'adiit 'nisi'mA comparison of this distribution with the chart in (191) above reveals the interestinggeneralization that the positions in which overt pronominals occur are exactly thosepositions licensed solely by verbal number agreement. They never occur in positionslicensed by either Series I or Series II agreement. This distributional restriction can, Iclaim, be easily accounted for by conditions already proposed.I assume on morphological grounds that the person and number features associated withovert pronominals must be PF-weak. This is because overt pronominals, like overtnominals and unlike pro, can realise their own person and number features.(200) PF-strong features^PF-weak featurespro^ overt NPsovert pronominalsThis classification of overt pronominals is consistent with the fact that they can be licensedby number agreement alone, since the features associated with number agreement are PF-weak.I attribute the fact that the distribution of overt pronouns is much more restricted than thatof overt nouns to the Avoid Pronoun Principle, cited above. We have seen in previoussections that pro can occur in positions licensed by Series I and Series II agreement, andovert pronouns never occur in these environments. These facts are exactly what we would214predict, given the Avoid Pronoun Principle. Overt pronouns can only occur in positions inwhich a silent pronoun (pro) cannot occur. The only positions in which overt pronouns canoccur are those licensed by number agreement. pro cannot occur in these positionsbecause number agreement is associated with PF-weak features. The only pronominalswhich can occur in these positions are therefore overt ones.An apparent exception to this generalization, mentioned previously, is that a 3rd personovert pronoun can be replaced by pro if its reference is clear from context. For example, inthe following sentence either pro or an overt pronoun may occur in object position.(201) ka2-a-t=s^t = Bill^pro/n'itsee - erg - 3 = case cn = Bill 3sg"Bill saw him/her"ga'as Bill ('nit)The fact that pro can occur here is unexpected, since this position is licensed only by thePF-weak number feature on the verb. In order to account for the fact that pro can occur inthis environment, I am forced to assume that there must be an optional default rule addingthe feature [3rd person] to the verbal number agreement paradigm. Once the agreementparadigm has both person as well as number features, its features will count as strong, andwill thus be able to check the PF-strong features of the pro. The fact that only the feature[3rd person] can be added explains why non-3rd person pro cannot be licensed in thisposition.2.11. Morphological Case-marking in GitksanThe previous sections presented a detailed discussion of the distribution of morphologicalagreement in Gitksan. In this section I consider the distribution of morphological case.2152.11.1. Form and Position of Is/ case-markingAs already mentioned, I classify the /s/ morpheme which occurs before proper nouns incertain sytactic environments as a case-marker. In transitive sentences, /s/ case-markingoccurs before proper nouns in the following environments:(202) /s/ case-marking in transitive sentences-subject of independent sentence-subject of dependent sentence (except, variably, if object is 1st or 2nd personpronominal)-object of dependent sentence (unless subject is a 3rd person pluralpronominal)These environments are illustrated in the following data (/s/ underlined):(203) independent clause subjectkin'am - a - ti =1 t = Johni =^t'u:tsxw lo: - y'give -erg- 3 =case cn = John=cn knife^prep-lsg"John gave me a knife"gi'namis John hi t'uutsxw loo'y(204) dependent clause subjectne: -^- t^ka2 - a - ti =1 t = Peteri n'iti:tnot -contr-3 see-erg-3 =case cn = Peter 3p1"Peter didn't see them"neediit ga'as Peter 'nidiit(205) dependent clause objectne: - tip - ti:^stil - ti = a^t = Peterinot-lpl-contr accompany-3=case cn = Peter"We didn't go with Peter"needipdii sdils PeterAs was claimed in (165), the descriptive generalization concerning the distribution of /s/case-marking is that it is licensed in a position adjacent to a lexical head, provided the headis suffixed with a coreferential Series 111 agreement marker. In transitive sentences, theenvironments which meet these conditions are just those listed in (202). Proper nouns inother environments are unmarked for case.216Note that the Series II agreement which licenses a lexical NP is the /t/ suffix from the weakSeries II paradigm, which is marked only for person, and not for number. Since an /s/case-marked NP is always licensed by this particular agreement morpheme, I suggest thatthe feature [case] is lexically linked to that agreement morpheme on the verb, asschematized below:(206) /t /(Series II)[ 3rd person][case]2.11.2. Weak vs. strong case featureGiven the fact that there is only one type of morphological case-marking in Gitksan, it isnot possible to defend a principled distinction between strong and weak case features basedon the Gitksan data. However, as discussed in Chapter 3, the morphological realisation ofcase-marking in Gitksan is rather impoverished. First, it surfaces only on proper nouns,while other nouns are unmarked for case. Secondly, even proper nouns get the overt /s/case-marking only in certain contexts, and in other contexts are unmarked for case. Thesefactors make it reasonable to assume that the case feature on nouns in Gitksan should beclassed as PF-weak.Furthermore, the claim that the case feature associated with nouns is PF-weak is consistentwith the word order facts. As illustrated in the following partially bracketed representationof the S-Structure of (203), the /s/ case-marked subject NP "John" does not undergo overtraising to spec Tr for feature checking, but instead remains in the VP:217(207) S-Structure[TrP Idn'am-g-ti [VP= s t = Johni = I [ASPP [vp t'u:tsxw lo: - y' ]]]]give-erg-3^=case cn =John=cn^knife^prep-1 sg"John gave me a knife"If the case-feature of the subject NP were PF-strong, then the NP would need to raise at S-Structure for feature checking. The same argument can be made about the case featureassociated with the verb. If it were PF-strong, then an S-Structure such as (207) should beill-formed, since the PF-strong case feature of the verb would fail to be checked. The factthat (207) represents a well-formed sentence, however, indicates that the case feature of theverb must be PF-weak.Although morphological case is marked in the relevant environments only on proper nouns,I assume that other nouns in the same environments also have a case feature which can bechecked at LF. However, on these nouns, the feature receives no overt realisation.2.11.3. SummaryIn this section I have claimed that the feature [case] in Gitksan is a PF-weak feature on bothnouns and verbs. I proposed that the case feature on the verb is lexically linked to the weakSeries II agreement morpheme, since only NPs licensed by weak Series 11 agreementmarkers receive morphological case-marking.2.12. Agreement and Case in Intransitive clausesA complete account of agreement and case in transitive clauses has now been presented. Inthis section I consider how the same approach can be used to explain the patterning ofagreement and case in intransitive clauses.218Recall that Series I agreement does not occur in dependent intransitive sentences. Asmentioned previously, this is because, in an ergative language, the [-trans] Tr head is"inert", and so has no agreement features to license its specifier position.2.12.1. Agreement and case in dependent intransitive clauses2.12.1.1. overt subjectIn dependent intransitive clauses, a Series II agreement morpheme appears on the verb,agreeing with the single NP argument, and the single NP argument receives /s/ case-marking.(208) w'itxw - ti = s t = Johniincept come - 3 =case cn = John"John has arrived"hlaa 'witxws JohnGiven the analysis presented earlier, we know that the features associated with the overtNP are PF-weak. Furthermore, we know that the Series II morpheme which agrees withan overt NP also has PF-weak features, including a case feature. The S-Structure of thissentence will thus be the following, with the subject NP remaining in VP and the V raisingto Tr to check its PF-strong transitivity feature.(209) TrP2'r' ASPP/\^\Tr ASP/V[-tr] [ -tr]^ASP't ASP/V VP^NP^V'tv219At LF, the subject NP will raise to spec ASPP, checking its person and case features withthose of the Series II morpheme on the verb, encoded on the trace in ASP.2.12.1.2. pro subjectDependent intransitive clauses also allow pro to occur in subject position, as in thefollowing example:(210) yukw = I hatiks - ti^proiprog = cn swim - 3"He's swimming"yukwhl hadixstAgain, we know from the earlier analysis that both the pro subject and the Series IImorpheme which agrees with it have PF-strong features. Thus, pro will raise to specASPP at S-Structure to check its features with the Series II morpheme on the verb, whichpasses through ASP on its way to Tr. Thus, the S-Structure of (210) will be the following:(211) yukw =^TrP hatits - tj [ASPP Pr2i VITVP prog = cn^swim - 3"He's swimming"As one would predict, overt pronouns are not licensed in the subject position of thissentence type:(212) *yukw = I hatiks (- to^n'itprog = en swim (- 3sg) 3sg"He's swimming"Since the presence of the Series II agreement morpheme with its PF-strong features canlicense pro in the subject position of this sentence type, the Avoid Pronoun Principle rulesout the possibility of using an overt pronoun.2202.12.2. Agreement and case in independent intransitive clauses2.12.2.1. Absence of Series II agreementIndependent intransitive clauses behave somewhat differently from dependent intransitiveclauses in that Series H agreement does not appear on the verb, as illustrated (verbunderlined):(213) fla.;.^t = Mary^sqapti - m'^qan t = Johnsit(sg) cn = Mary between- lpl and cn = John"Mary sat between John and me"t'aa t Mary sgapdi'm gan t John(214) linix n'i:y'sing 1 sg"I sang"limx 'nii'yThe absence of Series II agreement morphemes in these clauses is somewhat surprising.We know from the behaviour of dependent clauses that Series II agreement can potentiallyoccur on intransitive verbs. Descriptively, its absence in independent intransitive clausescorrelates with the absence of a dependent marker. It appears therefore that the presence ofa higher governing head serves in some way to license Series II agreement on theintransitive verb, just as the higher head serves to license the presence of Series I agreementin transitive clauses. I encode this generalization in the following statement:(215) Series II agreement licensing - intransitive verbs (preliminary version)Series II agreement between an intransitive verb and its subject is licensedif and only if a higher governing head is present in the clause.This generalization also applies to nominal predicates, as illustrated by the following pair ofexamples:(216) sim'o:kit t = nakwo:t - y'^chief^cn = father - 1 sg"My father is chief"si'moogit nigwoodi'y221(217) ne: - ti:^sim'o:kit - t = s^t = nakwo:t - y'not-contr chief -3 = case cn = father - lsg"My father is not the chief'needii si'moogits nigwoodi'yThus the condition in (215) might be expanded to include all intransitive heads, as follows:(218) Series II agreement licensing - intransitive verbs (revised version)Series II agreement between an intransitive head and its subject is licensed ifand only if a higher governing head is present in the clause.2.12.2.2. Lexical and overt pronominal subjectsDespite the absence of Series II agreement in independent intransitive clauses, lexical andovert pronominal subjects are still licensed in these clauses. Consider examples (219) -(220), repeated from the previous section (subject underlined):(219) t'a:^t = Mary sqapti - m' qan t = Johnsit(sg) cn = Mary between-lpl and cn = John"Mary sat between John and me"t'aa t Mary sgapdi'm gan t John(220) limx jaL12.sing 1 sg"I sang"limx 'nii'yThe intransitive subject of such clauses is licensed only by the weak number agreement onthe verb.Since the features associated with overt pronouns and lexical NPs are PF-weak, theirfeatures will be checked against the PF-weak number agreement features of the verb only atLF. Thus the S-structures of sentences such as (219) - (220) are the following:222(221) [ TrP t'a:^[As PP [VP t = Mary sqapti - m' qan t = John ] ] ]^V subject(222) [ TrP litnx [ASPP [VP 112i.L.Y1 1] ]^V^subjectThe verb raises overtly, as always, to check its PF-strong transitivity feature with that ofthe Tr head. The subject remains in the VP, raising to spec ASPP for feature checking onlyat LF.2.12.2.3. pro in independent intransitive clauses Under the assumptions of the prior analysis, the fact that independent pronouns can occurin the intransitive subject position of an independent clause suggests that generally pro willnot be permitted in this environment. As in the case of transitive objects, this proves to betrue except in the case of 3rd person pro, which can occur in this environment if itsreference is clear from context, as in the following question/answer pair:(223) kwi = I^tsap - a - t = s^t = Bill k'o:tswhat = cn make -erg- 3 =case cn=Bill yesterday"What did Bill do yesterday?"gwihl jabis Bill ky'oots(224) ye: pro qu2 =1 Terracego^loc = cn Terrace"He went to Terrace"yee go'ohl TerraceAs argued earlier, I assume that the possibility of having a 3rd person pro in thisenvironment, in which the only available agreement is the PF-weak number agreement onthe verb, derives from the availability of a default rule supplying the feature [3rd person] tothe agreement on the verb. This default rule enables the PF-strong features of the pro to bechecked.2232.12.3. SummaryIn this section I have proposed an analysis of case and agreement in intransitive clauses.The different patterns exhibited in intransitive clauses are summarized in the followingchart.(225)Summary of Agreement Patterns- independent sentencesForm of subject Subject agreement^/s/ case assigned?lexical NP, overt^V #^ nopronominal oror 3rd person pro- dependent sentencesForm of subject^Subject agreement^/s/ case assigned?lexical NP^Series II (weak paradigm) and V #^yespro Series II (strong paradigm) and V #^noThe absence of Series I agreement in intransitive clauses is because Gitksan is an ergativelanguage and thus the [-trans] Tr head is inert (Chomsky 1992). The fact that Series IIagreement occurs only in dependent intransitive clauses is encoded in the followingstatement:(226) Series II agreement licensing - intransitive verbs (revised version)Series II agreement between an intransitive head and its subject is licensed ifand only if a higher governing head is present in the clause.2.13. ConclusionThis section of the dissertation has considered the distribution of number agreement, SeriesI and II agreement markers, morphological case-marking, and overt and silent pronominalsin Gitksan. An analysis of the complex interactions among these different elements has224been presented, using the notion of strong and weak features (Chomsky 1992). That thisapproach to features has been able to account for the rather complex facts providessupport for the general approach. However, the Gitksan data have also led me to proposesome elaboration of the theory, in particular related to the interaction between featurestrength and morphological realisation of features.3. The suffix /91In this final section I consider in some detail the verbal suffix /a/, which occurs ontransitive verbs, in complementary distribution with Series I agreement. In my analysisof transitive clauses in Section 2 of this chapter, I proposed that the /a/ suffix was thedummy realisation of a [+trans] Tr head. In this section I present various arguments tosupport this analysis. First, I argue that this analysis of it provides a better account of itsdistribution than an analysis of it as a transitivizing suffix. Secondly, I argue, followingTarpent (1987), that the suffix is consistently present in independent transitive clauses,even when it is not phonetically realised. Finally, I argue against Tarpent's analysis of thesuffix as a marker of object relativization.3.1.^Distribution of the suffix /a/Recall that the suffix /a/ occurs on transitive verbs in independent clauses, as illustratedin the following example:(227) independent transitive clausestil^-a - t=s^t= John t=Peteraccompany-erg - 3 =case cn=John cn=Peter"John accompanied Peter"sdilis John t PeterThe suffix also appears in clauses in which the object has been preposed, regardless ofwhether a dependent marker is present, as in the following example:225(228) susi:t =1 ti:^ne: - ti:^kup -^- t = s^t=Johnpotato =cn contr not - contr eat-erg - 3 =case cn=John"Potatoes John doesn't eat" (reply to "What does John not eat?")susiithldii needii gubis JohnIn both of these environments the suffix is in complementary distribution with Series Iagreement.3.2. /0/ and transitivizing suffixes.Rigsby (1986:340) refers to /a/ as a transitivizing suffix, in a section of his grammardiscussing transitive verbs. Although he does not explicitly argue for this analysis of thesuffix, he makes the important observation that the /a/ suffix does not cooccur with thetransitivizing suffix /(t)an/. Such data seem to suggest that /a/, like /(t)an/, could have atransitivizing function. This would be unexpected, however, under my analysis of thefunction of the /a/ suffix. If this suffix is a realisation of a [+trans] Tr head, it should onlysurface on verbs which are lexically marked as [+transitive], and should not beresponsible for changing the transitivity of a verb.In this section I argue against analysing /a/ as a transitivizing suffix on the basis of itsdistribution. I show that its absence after the transitivizing /(t)an/ suffix can be accountedfor phonologically in Gitksan, as in Nisgha (Tarpent 1987). The surface absence of the/a/ suffix after the transitivizing suffix thus does not force a reanalysis of its function.3.2.1. Distributional description of /(t)an/The suffix /-(t)an/ ((t)2n in Nisgha) can be added to predicates to form transitive verbs."The suffix takes the form/tan! when following a vowel or resonant, and /an/ whenfollowing an obstruent.48Rigsby (1986) and Tarpent (1987) refer to the suffix as a causative. It does resemble a causative in thatin most cases it adds an agent argument. However, it is not semantically causative in the usual sense of thisterm and I shall use the neutral term "transitivizer".226Some examples of intransitive stems and their transitivized counterparts are given in(229):(229) Intransitive predicates^Derived transitive predicateslagsla/cspaXbaxts'ints'inwawa"to wash o's body""run""to enter""be called"laqs-an^"to bath s.o."laksinpaX-an^"to drive st"bahants'in-tan^"to admit, let in"ts'indinwa-tan^"to name s.o."wadinIn each of these cases the stem is an intransitive (unaccusative) verb. However, the suffix/-(t)an/ can also attach to stems which seem to be unmarked for transitivity. In thefollowing examples, /-(t)an/ is added to stems which take the middle suffix /-(t)xw/ intheir intransitive forms (Rigsby (1986:342). (s = someone/something)(230) Intransitive predicateskw'o:t-xw^"to be lost"kw'ootxwhat'aq-xw^"to be bad"harakxwIis-xw^"to be finished"hlisxwmit-xw^"to be full"mitxwsaks-xw^"to be clean"saksxwt'akwan-txw "to drop,fall "t'igwantxwyo:q-xw^"to eat (sg)"yookxwTransitive predicateskw'o:t -an^"to lose s"kw'oodinhat'aq-an^"to forbid, tell so off"hat'aganits-an^"to finish s"hlisinmit-an^"to fill s"midinsaks-an^"to clean s"saksint'akwan-tan "to drop s"t'igwandinyo:q-an^"to feed so(sg)"yooganThe suffix /-(t)an/ can also be added to certain nouns to form related transitive verbs:227(231)^Nounm'o:t'ixs "milk"'mooeixs?ayukws "crest"(e.g. on button blanket)ayukwsTransitive verbm'o:t'ixs-an "to breast feed"inoorixsin?ayukws-an "to dress"ayukwsinNow, as Rigsby points out, the suffix /a/ does not surface on verbs which end with the/(t)an/ suffix in either of the expected environments - independent transitive sentences(232) and object preposed structures (233): 49 (The starred forms given in the orthographyshow that surface forms in which the /-a/ suffix is pronounced after the /-(t)an/ suffix areungrammatical.)(232) independentkwat - kwto:t - an - t = s t=Mary = ipl - lose - trn - 3 =case cn=Mary=cn"Mary lost all her keys"tXa n'itsxw = i^ha-q'aqa - tall^=cn^inst-open-3sggwitkw'oodins Maryhl aaa 'nitsxwhl hak'agat(*gwitkw'oodinis)(233) object preposedkwi = 1^kwias-an - t = s^t=Johnwhat = en break - trn - 3 = case cn=John"What did John break?"gwihl kw'asins John(*kw'asinis)3.2.2. Differences between /a/ and the causativeThis apparent complementary distribution of the suffix /-(t)an/ and the suffix /a/ suggeststhat the two suffixes have the same function. However, there are some importantdistributional differences between /a/ and /(t)an/ which make such an analysisproblematic.First of all, as Tarpent (1991:4) notes, an important difference between the /a/ suffix andtransitivizing affixes is that while the /a/ suffix is missing in dependent clauses,491 ultimately argue that /a/ is present in such forms, following /-an/, so the morphological analysis of theforms given here will actually be /kw at - kw'o:t- an - a = s/ and /kw'as - an - a = s/ respectively.228transitivizing affixes such as /(t)an/ appear consistently in all clause types, includingdependent clauses, as illustrated below (dependent markers underlined):(234) mo: - tsa - t^kw'as-on - t = s^t=John=1^?an - lu: - quyp'aXalmost-comp-3 break - trn - 3 = case cn=John=cn instr - in - light"John almost broke the window"moojit kw'asins Johnhl anluugoyp'ax(235) yukw - t lu: - saks - on-t=s^t = John =1^wilp - tprog - 3 in -clean -trn - 3 =case cn = John = cn house-3"John is cleaning his house"yukwt luusaksins Johnhl wilptThis regularity of appearance is what we would expect of a transitivizing suffix, whichpresumably must be present to provide an additional theta role. The fact that /a/ is notpresent in all clause types undermines the claim that it is a transitivizer.A further difference between /a/ and /Wan/ is that while /(t)an/ consistently attaches tostems which are intransitive (229) or unmarked for transitivity (230), /a/ normally onlyattaches to inherently transitive stems, such as the following:(236) kup^"to eat s"^guptsap "to make s" jappis^"to tear s" bisq'uts "to cut s" dotsts'al^"to slice up s"^ts'alt'is "to hit s" t'isw'a^"to find s" 'wastil "to accompany s"^sdilwila:x^"to know s" wilaaxThese verbs have no (unsuffixed) intransitive form.3.2.3. /e/ and transitivizing prefixesAnother argument against analysing /a/ as a transitivizing affix is that it cooccurs (in thetwo sentence types in which it is licensed) with transitivizing affixes other than /-(t)an/,229as pointed out in Rigsby (1986: 344-8). For example, verbs transitivized with theprefixes /ta-/("with") and /siV("with") take the /a/ suffix, as illustrated:(237) to - weitxw - - t =s^t = Kathy =^?ana:xwith - come - erg - 3 =case cn = Kathy = cn bread"Kathy brought bread"di'witxwis Kathyhl anaax(238) sil^ma?us - xw - 9 - t n'u:m'with play -pass-erg-3 lpl"S/he played with us"sil ma'usxwit 'nuu'mIf /a/ is a transitivizer, we would not expect it to be needed if another transitivizeroccurred on the verb.3.2.4. Phonological to/ deletionThe lack of parallelism in the distribution of /a/ and /(t)an/ and the fact that /a/ mustcooccur with other transitivizing affixes makes it unlikely that the two suffixes serve aparallel function, and suggests that the absence of /a/ in the environment of the /(t)an/suffix should be accounted for in some other way.Tarpent (1987:613&817) claims that in Nisgha the /a/ suffix is present underlyinglyfollowing /(t)ani, but is deleted by phonological rule. I propose that the same rule appliesin Gitksan as in Nisgha. The rule can be stated as follows: 505°The rule is not formalized in Tarpent (1987). Reference to stress is necessary, since the rule does notapply in cases such as the following, where the verb stem ends in a stressed vowel followed by a resonant.(1) kin -a - t= s^t=Mary t= John ?a =I hun^[gInIs] *[gins]give- erg - 3 =case cn=Mary cn=John prep=cn fish"Mary gave fish to John (to eat)"ginis Mary t John ahl hunReference to a resonant is necessary since the rule does not apply after an unstressed vowel followed by anon-resonant, as in the following example:(2) loitaq - a - t = s t=John^t=Mary kwi =^he: - nask-erg 3 = case cn=John cn=Mary what=cn say-2sg"John asked Mary what you said"gidagas John t Mary gwihl heenI have left the righthand environment of the rule unspecified. Although the rule's effects are only visible when an obstruent consonant occurs to the right, it is not possible to get evidence of whether /a/ is deleted ifa resonant follows, since vowel epenthesis would apply anyway in such an environment. Furthermore, to230(239) /a/ deletion/a/ -> / V R[-stress]-longUnder this analysis, a surface form such as [kw'asins] (233) will have the followingunderlying representation:(240) / kw'as - an - a - t = s /Since the suffix /-an/ is unstressed, the /a/ suffix will be deleted by the rule in (239),giving the surface form [kwIsins].If the deletion rule applied only to delete the /a/ suffix on stems ending with the /-an/suffix, it might seem implausible to propose a phonological account. However, in thefollowing sections I provide justification for this rule by showing that it applies in otherenvironments in Gitksan, just as the corresponding rule does in Nisgha.3.2.4.1. VR final stemsOne way in which Tarpent supports the phonological account of the absence of /-a/ afterthe suffix /-(t)an/ is by showing that in Nisgha the /a/ suffix fails to appear not only afterthe /-(t)an/ suffix, but also after other verb roots which end with the appropriate VRsequence. Since the vast majority of verbal roots (in both Nisgha and Gitksan) arestressed on the final (or only) syllable, such examples are rare and the following twomy knowledge, there are no appropriate suffixes which would allow us to test what happens when anothervowel follows. The rule does not apply across clitic boundaries, as illustrated by the following form:(3) kwi=1^tsap - a- nstwhat =cn make-erg-2sg=interact"What are you making"gwihl jabinist^(*jabinst)231examples are the only ones I have found in Gitksan.51 They are, however, consistent withthe generalization, since the /a/ suffix fails to be phonetically realised:(241) se:win - G - t^lukw - tpack - erg - 3 bag - 3"She packed her/his bags" (based on Tarpent)52seewint lukwt(*seewinit)(242) kw'6:t - 1 - a - t = s^t=John tip Marylose - completive - erg - 3 =case cn=John cn Mary"John lost sight of Mary and them" 53kw'oodils John dip Mary(*kwtoodilis)3.2.4.2. -at suffix.A second type of evidence supporting a phonological rule of /-a/ deletion comes from thebehaviour of a different inflectional suffix. In Gitksan the suffix /-(a)t/ attaches tointransitive predicates and nouns when their single argument is preposed. Normally thesuffix takes the surface form [Vt]54 after consonants (including resonants) and [t] aftervowels: 5551With the exception of a few non-productive derivational suffixes, suffixes are never stressed. The stressis normally on the last (long) vowel of the root.52This example was cited in Tarpent (1987) and has the same form in Giticsan. Given that this verb stemalso ends with the sequence [-in], one might propose that this is another instance of the /-(t)an/ suffix. Theonly evidence in GitIcsan that this is not the case is the failure of speakers to be able to identify anymeaningful root */se:xw/ to which the transitivizing suffix could have added. (If the root were /se:w/, thenthe form of the causative would have to be [din], not [in] as here.) However, in Nisgha there is strongerevidence against the /-on/ being analysed as a transitivizing morpheme, as Tarpent points out. Thetransitivizing morpheme in Nisgha has the form /?n/, which results in glottalization of the precedingconsonant. Since the [w] in the form [se:win] is not glottalized in Nisgha, this form cannot be analysed as atransitivized verb. (Tarpent 1987:665)53The epenthesis rule discussed in chapter 1 supplies an epenthetic vowel before the /1/ suffix, which thusprovides the appropriate environment for the /a/ deletion rule to apply.54 V represents [a] coloured by consonantal environment55This suffix is phonologically exceptional in that in post-vocalic environments the vowel of the suffix deletes rather than motivating the application of the y-epenthesis rule. However, the crucial point for thepresent argument is its behaviour after resonants.232(243) after consonantssi:pxw + at^[si:pxwlt]"sore"hilin + at^[hilinIt]"lonely"?an?On + at^[?an?OnIt]"hand"(244) after vowels- at"rifle"ski-at"be on, belong to"[cfabalti:t][sgft]However, I have observed that when this suffix occurs after a resonant preceded by anunstressed vowel, it surfaces as [t] rather than [Vt]:(245)^?a:pxin + at^[?a:pxint]"be light (weight)"q'ala:Xan + at^[q'ald:Xant]"fence"qanscf6:tsXan + at^[Gansq'O:tsXant]"shadow"ha:1Xan + at^[ha.:1Xant]"wall"?tipan + at [?tibant]"pregnant"This alternation in the form of the suffix between the forms in (243) and (245) isstraightforwardly accounted for if we assume the operation of the same /a/ deletion ruleproposed above. This shows that the /a/ deletion rule is not limited in its domain to the/a/ suffix, but applies more generally to other (inflectional) suffixes.3.2.5. ConclusionThis section has argued that the suffix /-a/ should not be analysed as a transitivizingsuffix, despite the fact that it does not cooccur on the surface with the transitivizing suffix/-(t)an/. First of all, the distribution of the /a/ suffix is unlike that of a transitivizingsuffix in that it occurs only in transitive independent and object fronted clauses, and cancooccur with transitivizing affixes other than /(t)an/.233Following Tarpent (1987), I explained the surface absence of/-9/ by appealing to anindependently motivated phonological process which deletes /-a/ after a sequence of anunstressed vowel followed by a resonant.56 This account allows us to maintain our claimthat /a/ is not itself a transitivizing suffix, but surfaces only on verbs which are alreadymarked [+trans].3.3. T-verbs.In the previous section, I showed that the absence of the /a/ suffix after the transitivizingsuffix /-(t)an/ can be accounted for without modifying my analysis of /a/ as the dummyrealisation of a [+trans] TR head.Perhaps a more serious challenge to the generalization about the distribution of the /a/suffix comes from a subclass of transitive verbs which I shall refer to, following Tarpent'sglossing, as the T class. These verbs differ from all the verbs discussed previously in thesuffixes that they take. In the environments in which regular transitive stems take thesuffix /a/ - in independent clauses (246) and object fronted clauses (248) - T verbs takethe suffix /ta/, as illustrated in (247) and (249):56The /a/ suffix also fails to surface in two other environments. As noted in Tarpent (1987:817) the/alsuffix fails to surface after stems which end in a short stressed vowel followed by a glottalized resonant.Since this absence of /a/ is clearly phonologically conditioned, it does not pose any challenge to theanalysis of/a! presented here.Another environment in which the /a/ suffix fails to surface is with the third person plural Series II person-marking suffix /ti:ti, as illustrated:(4)^kup - ti:t =^hun^*(gupadi:t1, *[gupdi:(y)at]eat - 3p1 = cn fish"They ate the fish"gupdiithl hunRigsby (1986:340) suggests that its absence here should be viewed as morphologically conditioned ratherthan phonologically conditioned, triggered by the particular 3rd person plural morpheme. Tarpent (1987,1991) proposes that the suffix is underlyingly present in these forms, between the /ti:/ plural marker and the/t/ 3rd person suffix, and that it is deleted by phonological rule. Which analysis ultimately proves to becorral is not important eih re. Tile only crucial feature is that the absence of the suffix is not syntacticallyconditioned, and thus is not problematic for my analysis of its function.234(246) independent clause with regular verbkup - t = s^t = John=1 smaxeat -erg - 3 =case cn=John=cn meat"John ate the meat"gubis Johnhl smax(247) independent clause with T verb:?i:ts - to - m' =1^hunfry -^-1p1=cn fish"We fried the fish"iitsdi'mhl hun(248) object wh-moved clause with regular verbkwi = I^kup-a-t=s^t=Johnwhat=cn eat-erg - 3 =case cn=John"What did John eat"gwihl gubis John(249) object wh-moved clause with T verbnda =I ?alp'a m'al tim ku:- to -sim'wh =cn exactly canoe fut take-^-2p1"Which canoe are you guys going to take?"ndahl alp'a 'mal dim guudisi'mIf the /ta/ suffix were simply a morphological variant of the /a/ suffix, we would predictthat /ta/, like /a/, should be in complementary distribution with Series I agreement, andshould therefore not surface in dependent clauses.57 However, the T verbs behaveunexpectedly in this respect. While the complete /ta/ suffix does not generally surface independent clauses, T verbs generally appear in dependent clauses suffixed with a /a/, asin the following data:(250) yukw = tip ?i:ts - 9 - t^honprog = 1pl fry - - 3 =cn^fish"We are frying fish"yukwdip iijihl hon(251) ne: - ti: = t^?isi^Bats^- t = s^t=John=I^kofi-tnot - contr=3 accidentally pour- ? - 3=case cn=John=cn coffee-3"John didn't spill his coffee"neediit isi gajis Johnhl kofit57Recall that this follows under m anal sis because a is anal sed as the dumm  SI •^Ihead. In dependent clauses /a/ does not surface because agreement between Tr and its specifier is licensedand so the Tr head surfaces as Series I agreement.235The suffixes normally found on the two classes of verbs are summarized in the followingtable:58(252)^regular verbs^T verbsindependent clause^- a - tadependent clause^0^- gThe fact that the /a/ — 0 alternation and the /ta/ — /a/ alternation both seem to becorrelated with the difference between the two clause types suggests that their analysisshould be unified. However, the fact that a /a/ suffix is present at all in the dependentclauses seems problematic, since I have claimed that in dependent clauses the Tr headshould be realised by Series I agreement, not by /a/.3.3.1. Characterizing the T verbsOne way to approach the problem posed by this class of verbs is to consider whether ornot they share any phonological or semantic characteristics which might be used toexplain their behaviour.Rigsby (1986:339-40) notes that the class of T verbs includes the stems which end in along vowel59, but otherwise, which verbs belong to this class seems to be unpredictableon phonological grounds. Furthermore, as the list below illustrates, the verbs do not seemto form any coherent semantic class.58As I show later, this is actually a simplification of the suffix pattern exhibited by T verbs in dependentcl us s. 59The stem limo:/ "to help" is an exception, since although it ends in a long vowel it does not take the /T/suffix.236(253) Examples of verbs belonging to the T class/hane:q/^"smell"/hats/ "bite"/ku:/ "to take"/lu: - litixs/^"wash"flu: - maks/ "wash"(pl /1u:lagiks/)/maq/^"put"(pl Kal,f)/mai/ "tell"/pats/^"pick up"/pts'ay'/ "comb"/qats/ "to spill, pour"/su:/^"to fetch"/tsakw/ "kill"/ye:Xs/ "visit"/?ama-ka?/^"look after"/?amqu:/ "to remember"/?its/^"fry"haneekhatsguuluulidixsluumaks, luulagiksmak, t'ahlmahlbatspts'a'yBatssuujakwyeexsamaga'aamgooitsI assume, therefore, following Rigsby (1986), that verbs such as these must be lexicallymarked.60In addition to verbs which inherently belong to the T class, verbs may become T verbsthrough the addition of certain preverbals. Among the preverbals which have this effectare /n'a:/ "into view", /Xsi/ "out", /his/ "pretend", /tXa/ "all", and /?ama/ "well". Twoexamples of such alternations are given below:/kup/ "eat"(254) kup -A - t = s^t=Mary=i^huneat-erg - 3 =case cn=Mary=cn fish"Mary ate the fish"gubis Maryhl hun(255) ?am his^kup - 61 - t = s^t=Mary=I^hunonly pretend eat-^- 3 =case cn=Mary=cn fish"Mary only pretended to eat the fish"am his gupdis Maryhl hun60Tarpent (1987:623) notes that some verbs may alternate between the T class and the regular class, withthe T verb having "a more definite meaning". I have been unable to fmd any such examples in Gitksan.237/t'is/^"hit"(256) t'is - a - t = s^t=Mary^t=Johnhit-erg - 3 =case cn=Mary cn=John"Mary hit John"t'isis Mary t John(257) n'a:^tis - t'is - to - t = s t=Mary=i^?a:ts'apinto.view pl-hit- - 3 =case cn=Mary=cn door"Mary knocked on the door"'naa dist'isdis Maryhl aats'apAgain, however, such examples do not appear to reveal any semantic or phonologicalcoherence among the T verbs.3.3.2. Tarpent's analysis of T verbsOn the surface, then, the T verbs appear to be problematic for my analysis of the /a/suffix. However, Tarpent (1987) proposes a phonological analysis of largely equivalentdata in Nisgha, which I adopt in principle, and which allows me to maintain my analysisof the /a/ suffix.Tarpent proposes that /ta/ is not a unitary suffix, but rather consists of two suffixes. The/a/ is the same as the /a/ which appears with all regular transitive stems in independentclauses. The It/ is the realisation of a separate suffix which she represents as T andglosses as the "definite medial suffix".61 Its phonological realisation alternates between/t/ (phonetically [d]) and /a/.Under this analysis, the only special characteristic of T verbs is that they select the Tsuffix. With respect to the /a/ suffix, they behave just like other verbs. The underlyingrepresentation of an independent clause such as (246) above will thus be the following:6ISee Tarpent (1987:619-641 chapter 3A) for extensive discussion of the various functions and meaningsof the T suffix.238(258) ?i:ts - T - a - m' = I hunfry - T -erg-lpl=cn fish"We fried the fish"iitsdi'mhl hunIn dependent clauses, the /a/ suffix is absent, as usual, but the T suffix still appears, sothat the underlying representation of a sentence such as (250) is the following:(259) yukw = tip ?i:ts - T - t =1^hunprog = 1pl fry - T - 3 =cn fish"We are frying fish"yukw dip iijihl hunThe problem now, of course, is accounting for why the T suffix surfaces as [d] insentences such as (258), but as a vowel in sentences such as (259). Tarpent proposes aphonological account which can be schematized as follows:(260) Realisation rules for T suffixT -> a /C _ C^(usually in dependent clauses)T -> t62 / _ V^(usually in independent clauses)Under this account, the fact that the two different realisations of the suffix normallycorrelate with the two different sentence types is merely an epiphenomenon, derivablefrom the fact that the phonological environment of the suffix is different in the twodifferent sentence types. That is, in an independent clause the T suffix is followed by the/a/ suffix. Thus, in this clause type it is prevocalic, and hence takes the form /t/ ([d]), asillustrated in the following example. The derivation of the surface form of the verb isgiven below.62The /t/ is of course ultimately voiced, since it appears in prevocalic position.239(261) ?i:ts - T - - ms = I^hunfry - T -erg-lpl=cn fish"We fried the fish"iitsdi'mhl hun(262) Phonological derivation of the verb:T realisation rulesa realisation rulesprevocalic voicing/ ?i:ts - T- a - m'?i:ts - t - a - m'?i:ts - t - i - m'?i:ts - d - i - m'[?i:tsdimlIn dependent clauses, however, the T suffix is normally followed by a consonant - therealisation of a person marker or a connective - and thus will usually surface as a vowel,as in the following example:(263) yukw = tip ?i:ts - T - t =1 hunprog = lpl fry - T - 3 =cn fish"We are frying fish"yukw dip iijihl hun(264) Phonological derivation of the verb/ ?i:ts - T - t =I/t deletion rule63^?i:ts - TT realisation rules^?i:ts - a^=ia realisation rules^?i:ts - i^=1prevocalic voicing^?i:dz - iA phonological alternation between an alveolar stop and [a] may not seem very natural.Nevertheless, it genuinely does seem to be phonology rather than clause type whichdetermines how the suffix surfaces, since the T suffix will take its /t/ form even independent clauses if it is followed by a vowel.Examples of this occur when the verb is suffixed with one of the sonorant person markers- /y/ (lsg), /n/ (2sg) or /m7 (1p1). When these suffixes are added to a consonant final63This rule is discussed in chapter 3, section 4.240stem, they motivate the application of the vowel epenthesis rule discussed in chapter 1.(The T-final stem counts as consonant final for this rule.) Thus, in just this type ofdependent sentence, the T surfaces as [d], as illustrated.(265) ne:-tim-ti: = t ye:Xs-T - n t = Marynot -fut-contr= 3 visit- T-2sg cn=Mary"Mary is not going to visit you"needimdiit yeexsdin t Mary(266) Derivation of verb form/ ye:Xs - T - n /vowel epenthesis^ye:Xs - T - a nT realisation rules^ye:Xs - t - a na realisation rules^ye:Xs - t - i nprevocalic voicing^ye:Xs - d - i n[ye:Xsdin]Further support for this analysis comes from an alternant form of this sentence, in whichthe 2nd person object is realised as an independent pronoun instead of as a suffix.M Asshown by (267), the suffix T reverts to its vocalic form in this sentence, giving conclusiveevidence that it is phonological environment rather than clause-type that is responsible forthe alternation:(267) ne:- tim - ti:= t^ye:Xs - T - t = s t=Mary^n'i:nnot - fut - contr = 3 visit- T - 3 =case cn=Mary 2sg"Mary is not going to visit you"needimdiit yeexsis Mary 'niin(268) Derivation of verb form/ ye:Xs - T - t = s /t-deletion^ye:Xs - T^= sT realisation rules^ye:Xs - o^= sa realisation rules^ye:Xs - i^= sprevocalic voicing[ye:Xsis]3.3.3. ConclusionThe overall analysis of the T suffix involves many more phonological intricacies,discussed in detail in Tarpent (1987). For our purposes, however, the crucial observation64Discussion of alternations of this type is given in part 2 of this chapter.241is that the superficially problematic T verbs do not in fact constitute an exception to theclaim that the /a/ suffix is the default realisation of the functional head Tr.3.4.^/a/ is not a marker of object relativizationSo far, I have largely followed Tarpent (1987) in arguing that the /a/ suffix is consistentlypresent on transitive verbs in independent clauses, and absent in dependent clauses, evenwhen this is not obvious from the surface form of the verb. However, I do not followTarpent's (1991) analysis of the suffix as an object relative marker. In this section Ioutline Tarpent's analysis, and then show some problems with it.3.4.1. Tarpent's (1991) analysis of the /a/ suffixAs already mentioned, the /a/ suffix appears on transitive verbs in two apparently distinctenvironments. First of all, it appears between the verb and the ergative argument in anindependent transitive clause (269), and secondly it appears in clauses which couldplausibly be analysed as object-fronted - object relative clauses (270), object questions(271) and object focus constructions (272):65(269) kup - a - t =s^t=John =1^huneat - erg - 3 =case cn=John = cn fish"John ate the fish"gubis Johnhl hun(270) n'i:-maq-T-a-y' = I^ts'ak'= I kin'am-a -t=s^t=Maryon-put-T-erg- 1 sg=cn plate=cn give-erg-3=c ase cn=Marylo: - y' = ki^laX ha - n'i: - tXo:qxwprep-lsg=distr on instr - on - eat"I put the plate Mary gave me on the table"iniimaidi'yhl tssak'hl gi'namis Mary loo'y giha'niit2cookxwI do not address in this dissertation whether such clauses actually involve movement of the object NP orwhether they involve an empty operator.242(271) kwi =1^kup - co = s t=John^k'o:tswhat= cn eat - erg = s cn=John yesterday"What did John eat yesterday?"gwihl gubis John k'yoots(272) hun = mo: - tsa^?a - kup - a - t =s t=Johnfish=cn almost-comp neg-eat-erg - 3 =case cn=John"John almost never eats FISH" (Answer to"What does John almost nevereat?)hunhl mooji agubis JohnIn an interesting attempt to unify the two apparently dissimilar environments in whichthis suffix occurs, Tarpent proposes that the /a/ suffix always marks object relativization.It does not seem implausible to propose that the /a/ suffix has some such function insentences (270) - (272), since in all of these sentences the canonical object position isphonetically empty, and the NP interpreted as the object of the verb appears in clause-initial position.However, Tarpent proposes that the suffix also marks object relativization in independenttransitive sentences such as (269). Rather than being simple a VSO sentence, Tarpentsuggests that such a sentence should be viewed as involving a headless relative clause(RC) in a predication relation with a noun phrase. Under this analysis, a sentence such as(269) has the following structure:(273) [kup - a - t = s John]RC [ = hun]NPIf the sentence indeed has this structure, then a more literal translation of it would be as apseudocleft: "A fish is what John ate".Tarpent's analysis is superficially consistent with the surface form of this sentence. Inneither Nisgha nor Gitksan is there an overt independent object relative pronoun, asillustrated in (270) above. Similarly, neither language displays an overt copula (274)(data from Gitksan):243(274) sim'o:kit t =Peterchief^cn=Peter"Peter is the chief"si'moogit t PeterFurthermore, headless relative clauses, based on both subjects and objects, do occur inNisgha and Gitksan. In the following examples, headless relative clauses serve asarguments: ((275) - (277) are Nisgha examples taken from Tarpent (1991) and (278) -(280) are Gitksan examples.)Nisgha(275) transitive subject relativizedla:^w'itkw - [t] = I^[t ?an w'o? - n]now come-[3] = NC 3ERG E.REL call.s - 2sg"The one who called you has come back"^(T 1991:6)Hlaa 'witkwhl t an 'wo'on(276) intransitive subject relativizedla:^pakw^- [t] = I^[qa - ?a:t - at]now come.back- [3] = NC pl - fish - S.rel"The fishermen are back" (lit: the ones who fished/were fishing areback)^(T 1991:6)Hlaa bakwhl ga'aadit(277) transitive object relativized?aq =^[kip - a - yt]non-existent =NC eat.s-OREL-lsg"I have nothing to eat" (lit: What I eat is non-existent.) (T 1991:10)Athl gibi'yGitksan(278) transitive subject relativizedka? - a- y' [?an = t tsakw - T =1 smax]see-erg-lsg erg=3 kill-T=cn^bear"I saw (the one) who killed the bear"ga'a'y ant jagwihl smax(279) intransitive subject relativized[t'u:ts'xw - at^= I^ka? - y'black - subj =cn^see-1 sg"I saw black ones" (ones which are black)t'uuts'xwithl ga'a'y(280) transitive object relativizedka? - a - yt = I [tsap - a - t]see-erg-lsg=cn make-erg-3"I saw what s/he made (his/her work)"ga'a'yhl jabit244Tarpent's proposal is clearly at odds with my analysis of the structure of independenttransitive sentences, and of the function of the /a/ suffix. In the following sections Iconsider in more detail the implications of her proposal, and show why it is problematic.3.4.2.^Interpreting Tarpent's analysisIn order to evaluate Tarpent's proposal and compare it with my analysis of the function ofthe structure of independent transitive clauses, it is necessary to translate her proposalinto the syntactic framework I am assuming.3.4.2.1.^Specificational vs predicational pseudocleftThe translations Tarpent gives to illustrate her interpretation of the structure of sentencessuch as (269) are pseudoclefts. However, it is not clear from her paper whether theNisgha sentences should be viewed as predicational or specificational pseudoclefts, adifference which has crucial implications for determining how her proposal should bestructurally interpreted. Before exploring this issue in the next section, I will first reviewthe differences between the two types of pseudoclefts.The distinction between the two types of pseudoclefts is illustrated in the followingexamples from Higgins (1979):(281) Specificational pseudocleftWhat Johni is is proud of himselfi.(282) Predicational pseudocleftWhat Johni is is important to himi.In a specificational pseudocleft, the "what" clause identifies the domain under discussion,and the remainder of the sentence, which I shall call term the "coda", following Heycock(1991), identifies some member of that domain. The coda of a specificational pseudocleft245receives a focus interpretation. In a predicational pseudocleft, there is an equativerelationship between the two components of the sentence.In English, the two types of pseudoclefts can be distinguished by a number of syntactictests. For example, only predicational pseudoclefts allow the quantifier "whatever" in thewh-position:(283) Specificational pseudocleft*Whatever Johni is is proud of himselfi.(284) Predicational pseudocleftWhatever Johni is is important to himi.Bresnan and Grimshaw (1978) show that it is a diagnostic of free (headless) relatives inEnglish that the free relative pronoun can be suffixed with -ever. Thus, as pointed out inHeggie (1988:284), in English only the predicational pseudocleft contains a free relativeclause.Further syntactic tests reveal another structural difference between the two types ofpseudoclefts. Specifically, in a predicational pseudocleft, the wh-clause acts as thesubject, while in a specificational pseudocleft, the wh-clause is the predicate. Heggie(1988) summarizes a range of tests which illustrate this difference. One such test, basedon small clauses, comes from Williams (1983):(285) Specificational pseudocleftI consider [important to hirnselfi] [ what Johni is]*I consider [ what John i is] [important to himselfi](286) Predicational pseudocleft*I consider [ important to himi] [what Johni is]I consider [what Johni is] [ important to himi]The above data can be explained as follows. The verb "consider" selects a small clausecomplement, which does not allow inversion, so that the subject of the small clause must246precede the predicate. Therefore, in a specificational pseudocleft it is the coda which isthe subject, while in a predicational pseudocleft it is the wh-clause which is the subject.Another test which reveals the difference between the two types of pseudoclefts comesfrom raising structures. Since only subjects may raise, in specificational pseudocleftsonly the coda can raise, while in predicational pseudoclefts only the wh-clause can raise.(287) Specificational pseudocleftImportant to himself seems to be what John is.*What John is seems to be important to himself.(288) Predicational pseudocleftWhat John is seems to be important to him.*Important to him seems to be what John is.The following chart summarizes the distinction between the two types of pseudoclefts.(289) Differences between predicational and specificational pseudocleftspredicational^specificationalsubject^headless relative^codapredicate^coda^wh clausefocus properties no inherent focus^coda focusedinterpretation3.4.2.2.^Application to Tarpent's analysisAssuming that the classification of pseudoclefts presented above holds of Nisgha andGitksan, then in order to derive a structural interpretation of Tarpent's analysis ofindependent clauses, it is first necessary to determine which type of pseudocleft structureis appropriate.247Independent transitive sentences, such as (269), repeated below, do not have anyparticular focus properties.66(290) kup - a =s^t=John =^huneat - erg=case cn=John = cn fish"John ate the fish"gubis Johnhl hunMore specifically, the object /hun/ is not focused, with the result that (291) is not apossible answer to the following question:67(291) kwi =^kup - a - t = s t=John^k'o:tswhat= cn eat - erg - 3 = s cn=John yesterday"What did John eat yesterday?"gwihl gubis John k'yootsAn appropriate answer to this question would require the NP /hun/ to be in clause-initialposition. This suggests that if sentences such as (290) are indeed pseudoclefts, they canonly be analysed as predicational pseudoclefts, since, as discussed above, specificationalpseudoclefts imply focus on the coda. If Nisgha and Gitksan pseudoclefts are likeEnglish ones, this means that the headless relative clause is the subject and the codafunctions as predicate, as below:(292) independent sentence as predicational pseudocleft (version 1)^[ Nip[ ej [ kup - a - t = s John tj^[hurl]]SUBJECT^PREDICATEThis cannot be correct, however, since in all other Gitksan sentence types the suffix /at/ isadded to an intransitive predicate when this predicate is preceded by its subject, as in thefollowing example:6866Tarpent (1987) calls such clauses "predicate-focused", but she gives no explicit evidence for this claim.The fact that sentences such as these are commonly used in isolation (eg in elicitation) supports the claimthat they do not have any particular focus properties.67Tarpent (1991) also notes this property of these sentences. However, she is somewhat inconsistent in herdiscussion of focus properties. While she notes that the object is focused only in the preverbal position inNisgha, she gives translations for VSO sentences which have an object focus interpretation in both theEnglish and French versions - "The coat is what Mary bou  ht" and "Le man^ I-  -Marie" (p12).681 assume that the /at/ suffix marks the extraction of an intransitive subject.248(293) n'i:y' =1^sim'o:kit - etlsg = cn chief-S.extr"I'm the chief" (focus on "I") 69'nii'yhl si'moogiditHowever, it is ungrammatical for this suffix to appear on /hun/, as shown below.(294) *kup - a - t = s^t=John = I^hun- eteat - erg - 3 = case cn=John = cn fish-extr"John ate the fish"This suggests that the coda /hun/ "fish" cannot be the predicate in this sentence.The only way to maintain Tarpent's analysis of this sentence type as a pseudocleft is toclaim that the structure differs from the predicational pseudocleft in English in that theheadless relative clause is the predicate and the coda is the subject:(295) independent sentence as predicational pseudocleft - revised structure[ Np[ ej [ kup a - t = s John tj^[hurl]PREDICATE^SUBJECTThis appears to be the most plausible structural interpretation of Tarpent's analysis ofthese clauses as pseudoclefts. In arguing in the next section against the cleft analysis ofthese constructions I shall therefore rely on this interpretation of Tarpent's claim.69Compare the unfocused version of the same sentence, which has the opposite word order and nopredicate suffix:(1) sim'o:kit n'i:y'chief^lsg "I'm the chief'si'moogit 'nii'y2493.4.3.^Problems for a pseudocleft analysis of independent clauses.3.4.3.1. Adverbial positionIf Tarpent is correct in proposing that an independent transitive sentence such as (269)contains a headless relative clause, then it should be possible to have adverbials containedin that clause, as in the following parallel example from English:(296) [what John bought at the beach] was a towel.However, Gitksan does not allow such constituents to occur within the putative headlessrelative clause, as illustrated by the following example:(297) *[d:kw - a - t = s^t=John qu?=1 Hazelton] = I hunbuy -^- 3 =case cn=John at=cn Hazelton]=cn fish"John bought fish in Hazelton" (What John bought at Hazelton was fish)/hun/ must immediately follow "John" in such constructions, and any adverbials mustfollow /hun/. This is illustrated by the following grammatical version of the samesentence:(298) Id:kw - a - t = s t=John =^hun qu?=1 Hazeltonbuy - - 3 =case cn=John =cn fish at=cn Hazelton"John bought fish in Hazelton"giigwis Johnhl hon go'ohl HazeltonUnder Tarpent's analysis, this restriction on the distribution of adverbials is unexplained.3.4.3.2. Asymmetry between object and subject headless relativesUnder the interpretation of Tarpent's analysis which I assume, headless object relativeclauses can occur as predicates. This seems to predict that headless relative clauses basedon subject position should also be able to occur as predicates. However, as illustratedbelow, such sentences are ungrammatical.250(299) transitive subject headless relative*[?ant kup - t = i hun] t= JohnA.extr eat - 3 = cn fish cn = John"John was the one who ate the fish" (lit "who ate the fish was John")(300) *[baX - at] t = Johnrun -S.extr cn=John"John was the one who ran" (lit "who ran was John")This apparent asymmetry is unexplained under Tarpent's analysis.iii. Complementary distribution of /a/ and dependent markersSince dependent markers can occur inside relative clauses, another apparent prediction ofTarpent's analysis is that it should be possible for a dependent marker to appear inside theheadless relative clause functioning as a predicate. However, the following exampleshows that this is not possible:7°(301) *[ile: - ti: (-t)^kup - a - t = s^t=John] = i^hunnot - contr (-3) eat -erg - 3 =case cn=John =cn fish"Fish is what John doesn' t eat"Furthermore, it is should be possible for a sentence with a headless relative clausepredicate to appear in a subordinate clause. However, this too is ungrammatical:(302) *wila:x - a - y' [ wil (t) [kup - a - t = s^t=John] = i^hun ]know -erg-1sg^comp (3) eat-erg - 3 =case cn=John=cn fish"I know that fish is what John doesn't eat"These restrictions on the distribution of independent clauses are unexplained if weassume that they have a headless relative clause as predicate.iuBoth (301) and (302) can be made grammatical either by focusing "hun" or by removing the /a/ suffixand adding ergative agreement after the dependent marker.2513.5.^Advantages of a non-pseudocleft analysisThis section has discussed a number of problems which arise under Tarpent's analysis ofindependent clauses as containing headless relative clause predicates. All of thesedifficulties disappear if these clauses are viewed as simple VSO clauses, as under myanalysis.Under my analysis, an independent sentence contains only a single clause, and so theungrammaticality of a sentence such as (297), which contained an adverbial in medialposition, can be explained on the grounds that the adverbials are adjuncts and thus mustoccur at the periphery of the clause. My analysis also avoids the probem of the apparentasymmetry in the distribution of object and subject relative clauses, illustrated by thecontrast in grammaticality between the ungrammatical (299) - (300) and the grammatical(269). Instead, the data can be accounted for by claiming that no headless relative clausecan serve as a regular nominal predicate. Finally, the usual failure of clauses containingthe /a/ suffix to occur in dependent clause contexts, as in (301) - (302), follows from theclaim, outlined earlier, that the presence of a dependent marker licenses the appearance ofthe Series I agreement marker in the position where /a/ would otherwise occur.The problems encountered by Tarpent's analysis of independent clauses call into questionher analysis of the /a/ suffix as an object relative marker. If independent clauses do notcontain object relative clauses, then the /a/ suffix cannot be functioning as an objectrelative marker.A remaining potential problem for my analysis, though, is why the /a/ suffix consistentlyappears in object fronting constructions. Note that this holds true even when the object-fronted clause contains a dependent marker, as in (303), and thus would be predicted252under my analysis to exhibit Series I agreement rather than the /a/ suffix (dependentmarker underlined):(303) hun =1 jno: - tso^?a - kup - o - t =s^t=Johnfish=cn almost-comp neg-eat-erg - 3 =case cn=John"John almost never eats FISH" (Answer to"What does John almost nevereat?)hunhl mooji agubis JohnRecall that under my analysis, the presence of a dependent marker in a transitive clauselicenses spec head agreement in TrP, with the result that the Tr head is realised by SeriesI agreement, rather than by the /a/ suffix. In a sentence such as (303), spec headagreement in Tr has clearly been prevented from occurring, forcing the /a/ suffix ratherthan Series I agreement to surface. A possible explanation of this phenomenon is thatwhen the object moves, it adjoins to TrP and thus blocks the government relationshipbetween the dependent marker and the Tr head. In the absence of government by thedependent marker, agreement between Tr and its specifier is blocked, and thus the /a/suffix surfaces instead of Series I agreement. Without a full account of wh-movement inGitksan such an explanation necessarily remains tentative, but it suggests that thepresence of the /a/ suffix in clauses such as (303) does not pose an insurmountableproblem for my analysis of the function of this suffix.253Chapter 5: ConclusionsThe overall aim of this dissertation has been to establish an appropriate structuralrepresentation for the Gitksan clause, and to show how various syntactic andmorphological patterns in the language can be accounted for by assuming this structure. Inthis chapter I review the main claims of the dissertation and briefly consider to what extentthey may be applicable beyond the specific analysis of Gitksan.Various typological and structural claims have been made regarding the type of clauseexhibited by Gitksan and the closely related language Nisgha. I therefore began myinvestigation into Gitksan clause structure in Chapter 3 by considering in detail threeprevious proposals - that Gitksan is syntactically ergative, that it is non-configurational andthat it is a pronominal argument language. I argued against all three analyses, concludingthat there is not good evidence for assigning a non-standard structure to the Gitksan clause,and that it should instead be assigned an accusative configurational structure in whichindependent nominals function as arguments. The main claims of the chapter aresummarized briefly below.I began by considering the fairly extensive ergative patterning in Gitksan, which might beinterpreted as an indication that the language should be assigned a syntactically ergativestructure in which the agent argument rather than the theme is inside the VP, and the themeargument is in a structurally higher position than the agent. However, I providedtypological and structural evidence against adopting this proposal for Gitksan. I showedthat typologically the ergative patterns in the language are morphological rather thansyntactic in nature, and provided structural evidence from various VP tests to show that thetheme argument rather than the agent argument functions as part of the VP.254I next addressed the proposal that Gitksan might be a non-configurational language, andagain I considered typological and structural evidence bearing on this question. I illustratedthat the language shows only a subset of the surface properties commonly associated withnon-configurational languages, so that in this case the typological evidence wasinconclusive - typologically, the language seems to be neither strongly configurational norstrongly non-configurational. However, structural tests indicating the presence of a VPprovided evidence against assigning a non-configurational structure to the Gitksan clause.Finally, I considered the possibility that Gitksan might be a pronominal argument language,with pronominal affixes rather than independent nominals functioning as arguments.However, various kinds of evidence argued against this analysis. Asymmetries amongindependent phrases with respect to ordering, extraction and case-marking suggested thatnot all phrases have the same status as adjuncts, but rather that there is a distinctionbetween adjunct and argument phrases. Furthermore, I argued that a phonological deletionrule is sensitive to structural differences which would not be present if all phrases wereadjuncts. Finally, I showed that not all arguments are associated with bound personmarkers. For all these reasons, I concluded that Gitksan is not a pronominal argumentlanguage.The discussion of clause structure in Chapter 3 is specific to Gitksan, in that it is basedsolely on Gitksan data. However, the kinds of typological and structural arguments usedin the discussion may well be applicable in testing clause structure in other languages forwhich it is not obvious that a standard clause structure is appropriate. Furthermore, thegeneral conclusion of the chapter - that Gitksan does not appear to differ from geneticallyand typologically unrelated languages in the type of clause structure it requires - doesprovide indirect support for the more general claim in GB theory that clausal structure• II •^•^• .1 •^- •^I^•^.1^i .255Having addressed in Chapter 3 the basic issue of the kind of structure that should beassigned to the Gitksan clause, I proposed in Chapter 4 a particular instantiation of theaccusative, configurational clause structure for the language. I then showed how theinteractions of agreement and case-marking with the distribution of nominals andpronominals can be accounted for within this structure, assuming the framework ofChomsky (1992).The clausal structure I proposed for Gitksan has two somewhat unusual features - first, theinclusion of an aspect phrase between two VP projections (based on Travis 1992), andsecondly, a transitive phrase dominating the higher VP (based on Murasugi 1992). Thereappears to be good motivation within Gitksan for both of these assumptions, and it ispossible that such a clause structure may ultimately prove appropriate for the analysis ofother languages. However, with only minor modifications, the remaining aspects of theanalysis in Chapter 4 could be made compatible with a more standard structure, such as thatassumed in Chomsky (1992).The major focus of Chapter 4 was a specific proposal concerning the relationship betweenthe richness of morphological marking and feature strength, a topic which is brieflytouched on by Chomsky (1992). Chomsky posits a distinction between strong and weakfeatures, claiming that this distinction has crucial implications for when a given featuremust be checked during the course of a derivation. While he suggests that there is arelationship between the abstract notion of feature strength and morphological richness,Chomsky makes no specific proposal about the nature of this relationship.Chapter 4 used data from Gitksan to support a particular claim about how feature strength •••^••^t ••••^•• It^IA II^1^Ir256features in Gitksan depends on the kind of morpheme to which they are attached, asformalized by the following two principles:(1) PF-Strength (Gitksan)A feature is PF-strong if and only if it is associated with a morphologically richagreement morpheme.(2) Morphological Richness (Gitksan)An agreement morpheme is morphologically rich if and only if it overtly encodesboth person and number features.Together, these two principles allowed a straightforward account of the interaction of thethree Gitksan agreement paradigms with nominals and pronominal arguments.The distribution of pro in Gitksan provided support for this general approach todetermining feature strength. pro in Gitksan coocurs only with PF-strong features,indicating that it can only be licensed by strong features. Interestingly, this fact isconsistent with earlier claims in GB theory that the licensing of pro in many languagesrequires rich agreement.An interesting question for future research, then, is whether the claims about featurestrength embodied in (1) and (2) might be applicable to languages other than Gitksan. Incontrast, however, some of the proposals in Chapter 4 are clearly specific to Gitksan.Consider the following two principles:(3) One strong agreement principle (OSAP) (Gitksan)The features of an NP can be checked at most once by strong features.(4) Highest Projection Agreement (HPA)Check features at the highest projection possible.These principles were motivated by a specific feature of Gitksan morphology: Gitksan hasthree agreement paradigms available to license just two NP arguments, and any satisfactory257analysis of the language must somehow account for how the locus of the extra agreement isto be determined. These principles are unlikely to be needed in other languages.As mentioned above, the overall goal of Chapter 4 was to show how the fairly intricateinteractions of person marking, case, word order and the distribution of nominals, andovert and silent pronominals can be explained using an elaboration of the theoreticalmachinery proposed in Chomsky (1992). The fact that this proposal was able to provide aconsistent account of the complex data with relatively few stipulations providesconsiderable support for the general framework.Obviously, this thesis has been able to address only a portion of the intricate syntax ofGitksan. By showing that there is no reason to assign a marked clause structure to thelanguage and by showing how some of the major morphosyntactic patterns can beexplained within a standard clause structure, however, I hope to have prepared the way forfuture theoretical work on the language.258ReferencesAissen, J. (1989) "Agreement Controllers and Tzotzil Conlitatives," Language 65, 518 -536.Akmajian, A., R. Demers, A. Farmer and R. Harnish (1990) An Introduction to Languageand Communication, 3rd edition, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Anderson, S. (1976) "On the Notion of Subject in Ergative Languages," in C. Li (ed.),Subject and Topic, Academic Press, New York.Anderson, S. (1982) "Where's Morphology?," Linguistic Inquiry 13, 571 - 612.Baker, M. (1988) Incorporation:: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing,University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Baker, M. (1991) "Some Subject/Object Non-asymmetries in Mohawk and theirTheoretical Implications," Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 537 - 576.Baker, M. and K. Hale (1990) "Relativized Minimality and Pronoun Incorporation,"Linguistic Inquiry 21, 289 - 297.Belletti, A. and L. Rizzi (1988) "Psych Verbs and Theta Theory," Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 6, 291 - 352.Belvin, R. (1984) Nisgha Syntax and the Ergativity Hypothesis, M.A. Thesis, Universityof British Columbia.Belvin, R. (1990) "Person Markers and Patterns of Case Assignment in Nisgha," Papersfor the 25th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages,Vancouver, B.C.Boas, F. (1902) Tsimshian Texts, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 27,Government Printing Office, Washington.Boas, F. (1911) "Tsimshian," Handbook of American Indian Languages, Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology, Bulletin 40, Government Printing Office, Washington.Boeder, W. (1989) "Verbal Person Marking, Noun Phrase and Word Order in Georgian,"in Maracz, L. and P. Muysken (eds.).Borer, H. (1983) Parametric Syntax: Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages,Studies in Generative Grammar 13, Foris, Dordrecht.Borer, H. (1986) "I Subjects," Linguistic Inquiry 17, 375 - 416.Bresnan, J. and S. Mchombo (1987) "Topic, Pronoun and Agreement in Chichewa,"Language 63, 741 - 782.Bresnan, J. and J. Grimshaw (1978) "The Syntax of Free Relatives in English,"Linguistic Inquiry 9, 331 - 391. a • II. :. • .^ .. e e^: • ir"^•I- •ms., Cornell University and UCLA.259Chomksy, N (1991) "Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation," in R.Freidin (ed.), Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, MIT Press,Cambridge, Massachusetts.Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Chomsky, N. (1982) Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Governmentand Binding, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 6, MIT Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts.Chomsky, N. (1986a) Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Chomsky, N. (1986b) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use, Praeger,New York.Chomsky, N. (1992) A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory, MIT OccasionalPapers in Linguistics, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT,Cambridge, Massachusetts.Chung, S. (1982) "On Extending the Null Subject Parameter to NPs" In D. Flickinger etal. (eds.), Proceedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics,Stanford, California.Comrie, B. (1978) "Ergativity, " in W.P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic Typology: Studies inthe Phenomenology of Language, University of Texas Press, Austin.Comrie, B. (1976) Aspect, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Cowper, E. (1992) "Inner Tense in English: Perfect and Progressive," talk given at theWorkshop on Lexical-Syntactic Relations, McGill University.Dixon., R. (1979) "Ergativity," Language 55, 59 - 138.Dunn, J. (1979) A Reference Grammar for the Coast Tsimshian Language, CanadianEthnology Service Paper no. 55, National Museum of Man Mercury Series,Ottawa.Dunn, J. (1987) "A preliminary note on Tsimshian oblique subjects," Papers for the22nd International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, Victoria,B.C.Grimshaw, J. (1990) Argument Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts.Guilfoyle, E., H. Hung, and L. Travis (1992) "Spec of IP and Spec of VP: Two Subjectsin Austronesian Languages,"Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, 375 -414.Haider, H. (1989) "Theta-tracking Systems -- Evidence from German," in Maracz, L. andP. Muysken (eds.).Hale, K. (1973) "Person Marking in Walbiri," in S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.), A • 1^ Nil - . 1^.1 • - W •r260Hale, K. (1980) "Remarks on Japanese Phrase Structure: Comments on the Papers onJapanese Syntax," in Y. Otsu and A. Farmer (eds.),Theoretical Issues in JapaneseLinguistics, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 2, Department of Linguisticsand Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Hale, K. (1981) On the Position of Warlpiri in a Typology of the Base, IndianaUniversity Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Indiana.Hale, K. (1982) "Some Preliminary Remarks on Configurationality," in J. Pustejovskyand P. Sells (eds.), Proceedings of the Northeastern Linguistic Society 12.Hale, K. (1983) "Warlpiri and the Grammar of Non-configurational Languages,"Natura/Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 5 - 47.Hale, K. (1989) "On Nonconfigurational Structures," in Maracz, L. and P. Muysken(eds.).Hayes, B. (1989) "The Prosodic Hierarchy in Meter," in P. Kiparsky and G. Youmans(eds.), Rhythm and Meter, Academic Press, Orlando.Heggie, L. A. (1988) The Syntax of Copular Structures, Doctoral dissertation, Universityof Southern California.Heycock, C. (1991) "Specificational Pseudoclefts and Predication," talk presented at theannual meeting of the Linguistics Society of America, Chicago.Higgins, F. (1979) The Pseudo-Cleft in English, Garland, New York.Hindle, L. and B. Rigsby (1973) "A Short Practical Dictionary of the Gitksan Language"Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 7, 1 - 60.Horvath, J. (1984) "Remarks on the Configurationality Issue," in W. Abraham and S. deMeij (eds.), Topic, Focus, and Configurationality, Linguistik Aktuel Band 4, JohnBenjamins, Amsterdam.Huang, C.-T. J. (1982) Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar,Doctoral dissertation , MIT.Huang, C.-T. J. (1984) "On the Distribution and Reference of Empty Pronouns,"Linguistic Inquiry 15, 531-574.Hunt, K. (1987) "Case Assignment in Gitksan," ms. University of British Columbia.Hunt, K. (1991) "The Status of Glides in Gitksan," ms. University of British Columbia.Jaeggli, O. (1982) Topics in Romance Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.Jelinek, E. (1984) "Empty Categories, Case and Configurationality," Natural Languageand Linguistic Theory 2, 39 - 76.Jelinek, E. (1986) "The Ergativity Hypothesis and the Argument Hierarchy in Nisgha,"Papers for the 21st International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, Seattle, Washiripon..261Johns, A. (1987). Transitivity and Grammatical Relations in Inuktitut, Doctoraldissertation, University of Ottawa.Kaisse, E. (1985) Connected Speech: The Interaction of Syntax and Phonology, AcademicPress, Orlando.Kayne, R. (1975) French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle, MIT Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts.Koopman, H. (1984) The Syntax of Verbs, Foris, Dordrecht.Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche (1982) "Variables and the Bijection Principle," LinguisticReview 2, 139 - 160.Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche (1991) "The Position of Subjects," Lingua 85, 211 -258 .Kornfilt, J. (1984) Case Marking, Agreement, and Empty Categories in Turkish, Doctoraldissertation, Harvard University.Kuroda, Y. (1988) "Whether We Agree or Not: A Comparative Syntax of English andJapanese," Linguisticae Investigationes 12, 1 - 47.Larson, R. (1988) "On the Double Object Construction," Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335 -392 .Laughren, M. (1989) "The Configurationality Parameter and Warlpiri," in Maraez, L. andP. Muysken (eds.).Levin, B. (1983) "On the nature of ergativity," Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Levin, J. and D. Massam (1985) "Surface Ergativity: Case/Theta Relations Reexamined,"in S. Berman (ed.), Proceedings of the Northeastern Linguistic Society 15.Livingston, E. (1987) "Pronominal Suffixes in Nisgha," Papers for the 22nd InternationalConference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, Victoria, B.C.Livingston, E. (1989) "Conjoined Arguments in Nisgha," Papers for the 24th InternationalConference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, Steilacoom Tribal CulturalCenter.Maracz, L. and P. Muysken (eds.) (1989) Configurationality: The Typology ofAsymmetries, Foris, Dordrecht.Marantz, A. (1984) On the Nature of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts.Massam, D. and Y. Roberge (1989) "Recipe Context Null Objects in English," LinguisticInquiry 20, 134-139.McCloskey, J. and K. Hale (1984) "On the Syntax of Person-Number Inflection inModem Irish," Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 487 - 533.262Mohammad, M. (1989) "The Problem of Subject Verb in Arabic: Towards a Solution," inMushira Eid (ed.), Perspectives in Arabic Linguistics, Benjamins, Amsterdam.Mohanan, K. P. (1983-84) "Lexical and Configurational Structures," The LinguisticReview 3, 113-139.Mulder, J. (1988) Ergativity in Coast Tsimshian (Sm'algyax), Doctoral dissertation,UCLA.Muraki, M. (1974) Presupposition and Thematicization, Kaitakusha, Tokyo.Murasugi, K. (1992) "Crossing and Nested Paths: NP Movement in Accusative andErgative Languages," ms., Memorial University of Newfoundland/McGillUniversity.Nash, D. (1986) Topics in Warlpiri Grammar, Garland, New York.Nespor, M. and I. Vogel (1986) Prosodic Phonology, Foris, Dordrecht.Pollock, J.-Y. (1989) "Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP,"Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365 - 424.Postal, P. (1971) Cross-Over Phenomena, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Powell, J. and R. Stevens (1977) Gitxsanim,x- Gitksan Language Book 1, KispioxBand, British Columbia.Pye, C. (1990) "The Acquisition of Ergative Languages," Linguistics 28, 1291 - 1330.Rigsby, B. (1975) "Nass-Giticsan: An Analytic Ergative Syntax," International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics 41, 346 - 54.Rigsby, B. (1986) Gitksan Grammar, ms. prepared for the Linguistics Division, BritishColumbia Provincial Museum.Rigsby, B. (1989) "A later view of Gitksan syntax," in M. Key, and H. Hoenigswald(eds.), General and Amerindian Ethnolinguistics: In Remembrance of StanleyNewman, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.Roberge, Y. (1986) The Syntactic Recoverability of Null Arguments, Doctoraldissertation, University of British Columbia.Rochemont, M. (1986) Focus in Generative Grammar, John Benjamins, Philadelphia.Rochemont, M. (1992) "Bounding Rightward A'-Dependencies," in Goodluck, H. andM. Rochemont (eds.), Island Constraints, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Rochemont, M. and P. Culicover (1990) English Focus Constructions and the Theory ofGrammar, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Rood, D. (1977) "Against Artificial Tree Branches: Another Look at Nass-GiticsanSyntax," International Journal of American Linguistics 43, 218 - 24.263Rosen, S. (1989) "Two Types of Noun Incorporation: A Lexical Analysis," Language65, 293 - 317.Saito, M. (1985) Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications,Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Saxon, L. (1986) The Syntax of Pronouns in Dogrib , Doctoral dissertation, UCSD.Schaufele, S. (1991) "A Note on the Term 'Scrambling'," Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 9, 365-368.Schwartz, L. (1988) "Asymmetric Feature Distribution in Pronominal 'Coordinations'," inM. Barlow and C. Ferguson (eds.), Agreement in Natural Language, Center for theStudy of Language and Information, Palo Alto.Selkirk, E. (1984) Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure,MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Silverstein (1976) "Hierarchy of Features and Ergativity," in Dixon, R. (ed.),Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Australian Institute of AboriginalStudies, Canberra.Speas, M (1990) PhraseStructure in Natural Language, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Speas, M. (1989) "The Position of Navajo in the Configurationality Debate," in Maracz,L. and P. Muysken (eds.).Stowell, T. (1978) "What was There Before There was There" in D. Farkas et al. (eds.),Proceedings of the 14th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society.Stowell, T. (1981) Origins of Phrase Structure, Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Stump, G. (1984) "Agreement vs Incorporation in Breton," Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 2, 289 - 348.Tarpent, M-L. (1981) "Major Features of Nisgha Syntax," ms. University of Victoria.Tarpent, M-L. (1982) "Ergative and Accusative: A Single Representation of GrammaticalCategories Based on Evidence from Nisgha," Working Papers of the LinguisticCircle of Victoria.Tarpent, M-L (1983) "Morphophonemics of Nisgha plural formation: A Step TowardsProto-Tsimshian Reconstruction," in Studies in Amerindian languages II, KansasWorking Papers in Linguistics 8, 123 - 214.Tarpent, M-L. (1986) "Nisgha Possessives," Papers for the 21st International Conferenceon Salish and Neighbouring Languages, Seattle, Washington.Tarpent, M-L. (1987) A Grammar of the Nisgha Language, Doctoral dissertation,University of Victoria.Tarpent, M-L. (1988) "Below the Surface of Nisgha Syntax: Arguments and Adjuncts,"Papers for the 23rd International Conference on Salish and NeighbouringLanguages, Eugene, Oregon.264Tarpent, M-L. (1991) "The Morpheme -a - and the Mysteries of Nisgha Syntax," Papersfor the 26th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages,Vancouver, B.C.Tenny, C. (1987) "Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness," Doctoral dissertation,MIT.Travis, L. (1984) Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation, Doctoral dissertation,MIT.Travis, L. (1991) "Derived Objects, Inner Tense and the Structure of VP," talk presentedat NELS.Travis, L. (1992) "Inner Tense with NPs: the Position of Number," in Cahiers deLinguistique de l'UQAM, 1:1.van Steenbergen, M. (1989) "Finnish: Configurational or Not?," in Maracz, L. and P.Muysken (eds.).Walsh, L. (1988) "Number Agreement in Nisgha and the Mirror Principle," ms.University of British Columbia.Walsh, L. (1990) "Syllable Structure in Interior Tsimshianic: A Preliminary Report,"ms., University of British Columbia.Williams, E. (1983) "Semantic vs. Syntactic Categories," Linguistics and Philosophy 6,423 - 446.Whitman, J. (1987) "Configurationality Parameters," in T. Imai and M. Saito (eds.),Issues in Japanese Linguistics, Foris, Dordrecht.265

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.831.1-0098804/manifest

Comment

Related Items