Open Collections

Abstract

A correlation between degree of sentience and number-marking is seen across languages (Corbett 2001), where some or all number-marking in a language is restricted to more sentient referents. It has also been observed that while number-marking typically tracks an atom/plurality contrast, some forms of number-marking seem to track a meaning distinct from cardinality based plurality (Moravcsik 2003). In this thesis, I propose that the two phenomena are linked: that sentience restrictions are fed by the structure and meaning of number, organized according to what I call group number. Where cardinal number is evaluated relative to a one-place property of atomicity or plurality, group number is true relative to a two-place relation which holds between members of a group. In so doing, it tracks whether an atomic or plural entity is an unassociated set, or organized under a group relation. Ktunaxa, an isolate spoken in the the Columbia River Basin, provides an ideal case study: its number-marking is restricted to sentient-referring predicates, forms groups rather than cardinal pluralities, and includes morphology which introduces relational meaning. By demonstrating that Ktunaxa number is a group number system, I account for the interpretation and distribution of number-marking in the language. Further, I show that sentience restrictions arise as a consequence of that structure: since groups are defined according to a relation which must hold among their members, the truth conditions of that relation may impose restrictions on the group it forms. I propose that Ktunaxa number-markers introduce an intentional group relation (as in Ritchie 2013), which only sentient entities are able to participate in. Besides providing a first in-depth analysis of Ktunaxa number and valency, this research gives a new framework for understanding number systems which show similar sensitivities. This has relevance for languages with restricted number-marking, especially ones with associative or collective meaning. It also provides a new way to interpret sentience restrictions in number-marking cross-linguistically. Rather than directly mapping number marking to sentience, group number allows intention or perception to mediate between the two domains.