Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T07:15:03.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Oblique marked relatives in Southern Interior Salish: Implications for the movement analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

John Lyon
John Lyon*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines relativization strategies in Southern Interior Salish, and focuses specifically on an analytical problem introduced by a subset of Okanagan relative clauses which are introduced by the oblique marker t. I first show that Okanagan relative clauses, like those in Northern Interior Salish languages, are formed by movement of a clause-internal DP or PP to the left-periphery of the relative clause CP. As such, the particles which introduce an Okanagan relative clause code the relation of a clause-internal gap to the relative clause predicate. For some relatives introduced by the oblique marker t, however, the oblique marker does not code this relation, and so by hypothesis cannot have undergone movement. These problematic cases can be explained if clause-internal movement in Southern Interior Salish targets a higher structural position than in Northern Interior Salish. This analysis also potentially explains the DP-internal “prepositions” characteristic of Southern Interior Salish.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article étudie des stratégies de relativisation dans le salish de l’intérieur Sud et se concentre spécifiquement sur un problème d’analyse occasionné par un sousensemble de propositions relatives en okanagan qui sont introduites par le marqueur oblique t. Je montre d’abord que les propositions relatives de l’okanagan, comme celles des langues salish de l’intérieur Nord, sont formées par le mouvement d’un SD ou d’un SP au sein de la proposition vers la périphérie gauche du SC de la proposition relative. Comme tel, les particules qui introduisent une proposition relative en okanagan codifie la relation entre un trou au sein de la proposition et le prédicat de la proposition relative. Pour certaines relatives introduites par le marqueur oblique t, cependant, celui-ci ne codifie pas cette relation et donc, par hypothèse, ne peut pas avoir subi un mouvement. Ces cas problématiques peuvent s’expliquer si le mouvement au sein de la proposition en salish de l’intérieur Sud cible une position structurale plus élevée que dans le salish de l’intérieur Nord. Cette analyse est également susceptible d’expliquer les «prépositions» au sein d’un SD caractéristiques du salish de l’intérieur Sud.

Keywords

syntaxrelativesSalishOkanaganhistoricalsyntaxerelativessalishokanaganhistorique
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 58 , Issue 2: The syntax of relative clauses La syntaxe des propositions relatives , July 2013 , pp. 349 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2013

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

Baptiste, Maxine. 2001. WH questions in Okanagan. Master’s thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2002. Headed relative clauses in generative syntax. Glot International 6:197–204.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria and Hale, Ken. 1996. The structural determination of case and agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 27:1–68.Google Scholar
Camp, Kelsi Marie. 2007. An interlinear analysis of seven Kalispel texts from Hans Vogt. Master’s thesis, University of Montana.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On Wh-movement. In Formal Syntax, ed. Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2004. Locative relative clauses in St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish). In UBCWPL 14: Papers for the 39th Annual International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages (ICSNL), ed. Brown, J.C. and Peterson, Tyler, 83–116. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. 2010. A unified analysis of relative clauses in St’át’imcets. Northwest Journal of Linguistics 4:1–43.Google Scholar
Doak, Ivy Grace. 1997. Coeur d’Alene grammatical relations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Gardiner, Dwight. 1993. Structural asymmetries and preverbal positions in Shuswap. Doctoral dissertation, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
Gibson, James A. 1973. Shuswap grammatical structure. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Gillon, Carrie. 2009. The semantic core of determiners: Evidence from Skwxú7mesh. In Determiners: Universals and variation, ed. Ghomeshi, Jila, Paul, Ileana, and Wiltschko, Martina, 177–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. 1978. How does a language acquire gender markers? In Universals of human language, vol. 3, ed. Greenberg, Joseph, Ferguson, Charles, and Moravcsik, Edith, 48–82. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward. 1985. Relative clauses. In Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 2, ed. Shopen, T., 141–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koch, Karsten. 2006. Nominal modification in Nie?kepmxcin (Thompson River Salish). In Studies in Salishan, ed. Bischoff, S., Butler, L., Norquest, P., and Siddiqi, D., 127–158. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages, vol. 7.)Google Scholar
Kroeber, Paul. 1997. Relativization in Thompson River Salish. Anthropological Linguistics 39:376–422.Google Scholar
Kroeber, Paul. 1999. The Salish language family: Reconstructing syntax. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Kuipers, Aert H. 1974. The Shuswap language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lyon, John. 2010. Nominal modification in Upper Nicola Okanagan: A working paper. In UBCWPL 27: Papers for the 45th Annual International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages (ICSNL), ed. Dunham, Joel and Lyon, John, 199–233. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Lyon, John. 2011. The semantics of determiner phrases in Okanagan. In UBCWPL 30: Papers for the 46th Annual International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages (ICSNL), ed. Dunham, Joel and Lyon, John, 194–266. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Mattina, Anthony. 1973. Colviile grammatical structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Mattina, Nancy. 2002. Notes on determiner phrases in Moses-Columbia Salish. In UBCWPL 9: Papers for the 37th Annual International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages (ICSNL), ed. Gillon, Carrie, Sawai, Naomi, and Wojdak, Rachel, 261–286. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Mattina, Nancy. 2006. Determiner phrases in Moses-Columbian Salish. International Journal of American Linguistics 72:97–134.Google Scholar
Thompson, Laurence C. and Thompson, M.Terry. 1992. The Thompson language. Missoula: University of Montana (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics, vol. 8.)Google Scholar
Vogt, Hans. 1940. The Kalispel language: An outline of the grammar with texts, translations, and dictionary. Oslo: Norske Videnskap-Akademi.Google Scholar
Willett, Marie Louise. 1996. Some patterns of ‘wa’ in Nxa?amxcín (Moses-Columbia Salish). In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Northwest Linguistics Conference, ed. Bianco, Violet, Hopkins, Paul, McKercher, Dave, Warbey, Maggie, and Willett, Marie Louise, 139–149. Victoria: University of Victoria (University of Victoria Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 13.)Google Scholar
Willett, Marie Louise. 2003. A grammatical sketch of Nxa’amxcin (Moses-Columbia Salish). Doctoral dissertation, University of Victoria.Google Scholar