Topics in the Nez Perce Verb PDF
Preview Topics in the Nez Perce Verb
TOPICS IN THE NEZ PERCE VERB A DissertationPresented by AMYROSE DEAL SubmittedtotheGraduateSchool ofthe UniversityofMassachusettsAmherstinpartial fulllment oftherequirementsforthedegreeof DOCTOROF PHILOSOPHY May2010 Linguistics UMI Number: 3409565 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI 3409565 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 !c CopyrightbyAmyRose Deal 2010 AllRightsReserved TOPICS IN THE NEZ PERCE VERB A DissertationPresented by AMYROSE DEAL Approvedas to styleandcontent by: Rajesh Bhatt, Co-chair AngelikaKratzer, Co-chair KyleJohnson,Member PhillipBricker, Member JohnJ. McCarthy,Department Head Linguistics Iandthismysteryherewe stand. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This little artifact stands for a process. I would like to express my thanks to many peoplewhohavecontributedalongtheway. I am grateful to my Nez Perce teachers Cecil Carter, Florence Davis, Bessie Scott and VeraSonneck, withoutwhomthisdissertationwouldnotexist. Workingwiththesefriends and teachers, and with Lapwai (and Clarkston) friends Harold Crook, Anne McCormack and Angel Sobotta, has been an immensely gratifying experience on many levels. I am sure I cannot sufciently thank the Nez Perce community for allowing me to share their languageandtheirelders’precioustime. Allthesame: himeeq’isqe’ciyew’yew’,’oykaloo! I am grateful to my committeemembers and teachers Rajesh Bhatt, Phil Bricker, Kyle Johnson and Angelika Kratzer. Their great patience and masterful teaching have shaped me and this document through and through. I thank Rajesh and Angelika, my co-chairs, fortheirguidancethroughthisprocess,andfortheirexibilityasthetopicsofinvestigation for the thesis evolved. I thank Kyle for his careful reading and insightful questions which cut to the heart of many (unsolved) matters. I thank Phil for reminding me of the joys of metaphysics,and forhiswillingnesstodebatewithmeuntilInally understood. IshouldalsorecognizetheimmensecontributiontothisworkofCathyO’Connor,who taught me to be a eldworker. While her name does not appear on the signature page, throughoutthisprocessshehelpedmebringempiricalandtheoreticalstrandstogether,and tomakethecrucial issuesclearer andmoreaccessible. Manyfriendsandcolleagueshelpedinintellectualandpersonalwaystomakeprogress on this project more possible. I would like to thank my wonderful classmates Maria Biezma, Chris Davis, Annahita Farudi, Masashi Hashimoto, Karen Jesney, Kathryn Pruitt v andAynatRubinstein;inspirationalfellowlinguistsJanAnderssen,AnaArregui,Shai Co- hen, Ilaria Frana, Meg Grant, Misato Hiraga, Patrick Jones, Jillian Mills, Keir Moulton, Florian Schwarz, Anne-Michelle Tessier and Matt Wolf; my friends in the philosophy de- partment(pastandpresent)HeidiBuetow,SamCowling,BarakKrakauer,ChrisMeacham, JonathanSchaffer,andKellyTrogdon;theintrepidKathyAdamcyzkandSarahVega-Liros; and my colleagues Michael Becker, Gennaro Chierchia, Jim Huang, Jay Jasanoff, Masha Polinsky and Jeremy Rau for their encouragement and support. I thank audiences at UC SanDiego,Harvard,Stanford,theCUNYSyntaxSupper,SULA4,theErgativityResearch Seminar at MIT and the 2008 LSA meeting in Chicago, as well as Henry Davis, Mar- cel den Dikken and an anonymous NLLT reviewer for feedback on the material presented in chapters 5-8. The material in chapters 2-4 benetted from comments on presentations at Stanford, SALT 18, SULA 5, the 2009 LSA meeting in San Francisco, and at Angelika Kratzer’sBirthdayWorkshop;manythankstotheseaudiences,andinparticulartoMichael Becker, Cleo Condoravdi,Harold Crook, LisaMatthewsonand RogerSchwarzschild. I am grateful to several sources of nancial support. Fieldwork for this project was fundedbytheNationalScienceFoundationunderagraduateresearchfellowship,GrantNo. BCS-0418311toBarbaraH.ParteeandVladimirBorschev,andDissertationImprovement grant BCS-0843905, as well as by theAmerican PhilosophicalSociety viaa PhillipsFund grant. Members of my family deserve special acknowledgment for their understanding and encouragement. Thanks to my parents Bruce and Debby Deal, and to my sisters Beth and Lindy. Barak Krakauer has my immense gratitude for his patience, love and unfail- ing optimism, the causal role of which in the completion of this document should not be underestimated. vi ABSTRACT TOPICS IN THE NEZ PERCE VERB MAY2010 AMYROSE DEAL B.A., BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY Ph.D., UNIVERSITY OFMASSACHUSETTS AMHERST Directedby: ProfessorRajesh Bhatt andProfessor AngelikaKratzer Thisdissertationinvestigatesseveraltopicsinthemorphology,syntaxandsemanticsof theNezPerce verb andverbal clause. The rst part ofthedissertationfocuses on themorphologicalsegmentationof theNez Perce verb and on the semantic description of the verb and clause. Chapter 1 provides a grammar sketch. Chapter 2 discusses the morphology, syntax and semantics of verbal sufx complexes for tense, space, aspect and modality. Chapter 3 investigates the modal sufxo’qa,whichisvariouslytranslatedcan,could(have),would(have),should,may,and must, and used to makecircumstantial, deonticand counterfactual claims. I argue that this sufx has only a non-epistemicpossibilitymeaning, and that apparent necessity meanings are artifacts of translation. Chapter 4 investigates the future sufx u’, generally translated will. Based on evidence from truth-value judgment tasks, conjunctions of u’ sentences describing incompatiblestates of affairs, and negation,I argue that u’ sentences havenon- vii modaltruthconditions. Ialsodiscusschallengestothisanalysisfromfreechoicelicensing and fromcertain acceptable conjunctionsofincompatibleu’sentences. The second part of the dissertation explores the syntax of the verb and clause as re- vealed by the system of case-marking. Nez Perce case follows a tripartite pattern, with no case on intransitivesubjects,and bothergativeand objectivecases in transitiveclauses. Transitive clauses may alternatively surface with no case, however. I show that caseless transitive clauses in Nez Perce come in two syntactically and semantically distinguished varieties. In one variety, the subject binds a possessor phrase within the object. Chapter 6 takes up this construction together with possessor raising, which I analyze as involving movementtoaθ-position. Iarguethattheabsenceofcaseunderpossessor-bindingreects an anaphor agreement effect. In the other variety of caseless clause, the object is a weak indenite. Chapter 7 concludes that such objects are not full DPs. In chapter 8, I propose a morphological theory of case-marking which captures the cased/caseless distinction for transitiveclauses. Both ergativeand objectivecases are analyzed as morphologicalresults ofthesyntacticsystemofagreement. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................... v ABSTRACT ..............................................................vii LIST OFTABLES. ........................................................ xv LIST OFFIGURES ...................................................... xvi CHAPTER INTRODUCTION.......................................................... 1 PART I. MORPHEMES, MEANING AND STRUCTURE 1. A SKETCH OF NEZPERCE GRAMMAR ............................... 14 1.1 Phonemicinventoryand orthographicrepresentation ..................... 15 1.2 Majorphonologicalprocesses inbrief ................................. 15 1.3 Typologicalbackground ............................................. 18 1.3.1 Morphologyand morphologicaltypology........................ 18 1.3.2 Order ofsententialconstituents ................................ 21 1.3.3 Argumentdrop.............................................. 22 1.4 Nominals ......................................................... 23 1.4.1 Word orderin nominals....................................... 25 1.4.2 Numberand classication..................................... 27 1.4.3 Inection ofnominals ........................................ 31 1.4.4 Pronouns................................................... 34 1.5 Indeterminatepronouns ............................................. 37 1.6 Relativeconstructions............................................... 43 1.7 Thestructureoftheverb............................................. 53 ix
The list of books you might like
