Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T06:51:27.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Condition C Effects in Nuu-chah-nulth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Henry Davis ,
Ryan Waldie  and
Rachel Wojdak
Henry Davis
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Ryan Waldie
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Rachel Wojdak
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia/University of Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nuu-chah-nulth presents a set of exceptions to Condition C of the Binding Theory that involves co-construal between certain R-expressions and a c-commanding pronoun. These exceptions to Condition C are not reducible to structural properties of the language, and are not confined to coreference anaphora, as they extend to bound variables without quantificational antecedents. Nuu-chah-nulth also shows strong crossover effects, and more generally obeys a strict c-command condition on variables bound by quantifiers. We account for these facts by distinguishing quantifier binding from other types of dependent reference, and parameterize the latter based on reverse dependency, where a pronoun may precede and/or c-command its antecedent. Reverse dependency reflects the non-presuppositional nature of Nuu-chah-nulth pronouns, which allows them to be introduced ahead of their descriptive content.

Résumé

Résumé

Le nuu-chah-nulth présente une série d’exceptions à la condition C de la théorie du liage qui implique une dépendance entre certaines expressions-R et le pronom qui les c-commande. Ces exceptions à la condition C ne sont pas réductibles aux propriétés structurales de la langue et ne sont pas restreintes à des contextes de coréférence anaphorique, puisqu’elles sont attestées avec des variables liées sans antécédents quantificationnels. Le nuu-chah-nulth présente aussi des effets de strong crossover et plus généralement il obéit à une condition stricte de c-commande sur les variables liées par quantifieur. Nous rendons compte de ces faits en distinguant le liage quantificationnel des autres types de référence dépendante et nous paramétrons cette dernière en termes de dépendance inverse, par laquelle un pronom peut précéder et/ou c-commander son antécédent. La dépendance inverse découle de la nature non-présuppositionnelle des pronoms en nuu-chah-nulth, ce qui leur permet d’être introduits avant leur contenu descriptif.

Type
Part III: Morpho-Syntactic and Syntactic Properties
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 52 , Issue 1-2: Southern Wakashan Languages , July 2007 , pp. 185 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, Mark. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Pronouns and repeated nouns. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2005. Binding Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Davidson, Matthew. 2002. Studies in Southern Wakashan (Nootkan) grammar. Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. 1994. A configurational pronominal argument language. In Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics 7. Fresno, CA: Department of Linguistics, California State University.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2004. VP ellipsis in Sáimcets and its implications. In University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 14: Papers for ICSNL XXXIX, the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, ed. Brown, J.C. and Peterson, Tyler, 117–140.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2006. The status of Condition C in Sáimcets. In MIT Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages 7: Studies in Salishan, ed. Bischoff, Shannon T., Butler, Lynnika, Norquest, Peter, and Siddiqi, Daniel, 49–92.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry, and Sawai, Naomi. 2001. Wh-movement as noun incorporation in Nuu-chah-nulth. In WCCFL 20: Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Megerdoomian, Karine and Bar-el, Leora Anne, 123–136. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida. 1997. Condition C. In Atomism and Binding, ed. Bennis, Hans, Pica, Pierre, and Rooryck, Johan, 51–88. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Elbourne, Paul D. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Gareth. 1980. Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 11:337–362.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert, and May, Robert. 1994. Indices and identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grodzinsky, Yosef, and Reinhart, Tanya. 1993. The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24:69–102.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1988. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1998. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart’s approach. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 25: The Interpretive Tract, ed. Sauerland, Uli and Percus, Orin, 205–246.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1983. Logical form, binding and nominais. Linguistic Inquiry 14:395–420.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16:547–593.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1995. Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A Minimalist Theory ofconstrual. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise, and Demers, Richard. 1994. Predicates and pronominal arguments in Straits Salish. Language 70:697–736.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2002. Pronouns and their antecedents. In Derivation and explanation in the Minimalist Program, ed. Epstein, Samuel David and Seely, T. Daniel, 133–183. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Koch, Karsten. 2006. Transitive word order in Nlhe7kepmxcin (Thompson River Salish). In University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers for the 41st International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, ed. Kiyota, Masaru, Thompson, James, and Yamane-Tanaka, Noriko, 192–220.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Scope or pseudo-scope? Are there wide scope indefinites? In Events in grammar, ed. Rothstein, Susan, 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1991. On the necessity of binding conditions. In Principles and parameters in Comparative Grammar, ed. Freidin, Robert, 7–28. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Felicia. 2003. Anaphoric R-expressions as bound variables. Syntax 6:84–114.Google Scholar
Levinson, Steven. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 1998. Determiner systems and quantificational strategies: Evidence from Salish. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 1999. On the interpretation of wide scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 7:79–134.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. In press. Presuppositions and cross-linguistic variation. In Proceedings ofNELS 36, ed. Davis, Christopher, Deal, Amy Rose, and Zabbal, Youri. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa, Davis, Henry, and Gardiner, Dwight. 1993. Coreference in Northern Interior Salish. Papers for the 28th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, 217–232. Seattle: University of Washington.Google Scholar
Ravinski, Christine. 2005. Grammatical possession in Nuu-chah-nulth. Master’s thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Ravinski, Christine. This volume. Possessor raising in Nuu-chah-nulth.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1997. Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy 20:335–397.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2006. Interface strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya, and Reuland, Eric. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24:657–720.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro . Linguistic Inquiry 17:501–557.Google Scholar
Rose, Suzanne M. 1981. Kyuquot grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Victoria.Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 2004. The syntax of (in)dependence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schlenker, Phillipe. 2005. Minimize restrictors! Notes on definite descriptions, Condition C, and epithets. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles and Institut Jean Nicod.Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret. 1991. Phrase structure in natural language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Stonham, John. 2004. Linguistic Theory and complex words: Nuuchahnulth word formation. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Tancredi, Christopher. 1995. Intricacies of identity. Ms., Yokohama National University.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 1995. IDs in syntax and discourse. Doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Winter, Yoad. 1997. Choice functions and the scopai semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 20:399–467.Google Scholar
Wojdak, Rachel. 2003a. PF incorporation: Evidence from Wakashan. Paper read at the 26th GLOW Colloquium, Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
Wojdak, Rachel. 2003b. Predicative lexical suffixes in Nuu-chah-nulth. In University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 11 : Papers for ICSNL XXXVIII, the 38th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, ed. Brown, J.C. and Kalmar, Michele, 275–289.Google Scholar
Wojdak, Rachel. 2005. The Linearization of Affixes: Evidence from Nuu-chah-nulth. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar