pimi- Third person agreement differs from that of first and second persons in two ways: (i) there are no overt nominative or accusative agreement markers 5 and (ii) there is no singular/plural distinction in dative and benefactive.
The agreement markers have been referred to by various names in the literature. The nominative, accusative, and dative markers have been called, respectively, "subject-personal", "objective-personal", and "objective-possessive inseparable pronouns" (Byington 1870); "active", "passive", and "bound dative personal affixes" (Nicklas 1974); "agentive", "patientive", and "dative pronominal affixes" (Heath 1977); "actor", "patient", and "bound dative echoes" (Jacob, Nicklas, and Spencer 1977; Nicklas 1979); and "I", "II", and "III" affixes" (Munro and Gordon 1982, Munro 1984).6 As will become evident in the course of this study, the terminology adopted here is designed to facilitate cross-linguistic comparison. The agreement markers occur as prefixes in the verbal complex of the clause, with the exception of the first person singular nominative, -Ii, which occurs as a suffix. Benefactive agreement markers are not bound morphologically to. the following morpheme, although they are bound to the preceding nominative agreement marker if there is one (ct. (4a) below).
With many verbs agreement is straightforward: nominative agreement marks subjects, accusative agreement marks direct objects, dative agreement marks indirect objects, and benefactive agreement marks beneficiaries. This is illustrated in ( 2)-( 4).
(2) a. Chi-bashli -Ii -tok. 2ACC cut lNOM PST 1cut you. b. Ano is-sa-hottopali -tok. 1 2NOM lACC hurt PST You hurt me. b. Oka sa-banna -h. water lACC want PRED I want water. The object of the verb alikchi 'doctor' can trigger accusative (8a) or dative (8b) agreement. CHAPTER 1 b. Hattak -at holisso -t im-ihaksi -tok. man NOM book NOM 3DAT forget PST
The man forgot the book.
(13) a. Alia -t chim-iskali 1-kania -tok. child NOM 2POSS money 3DAT lose PST
The child lost your money.
-yat
The child lost your money.
In Chapter 5 these double nominative case marking facts are shown to follow from the Inversion structure, a structure in which each nominal bears the subject relation at a different level of structure.
The data in ( 12) and ( 13) point to an important aspect of Choctaw morphosyntax: the agreement system and the case marking system function independently. A nominal which takes nominative case marking need not determine nominative agreement. In (12), hattak 'man' is marked for nominative case yet determines a dative agreement marker'i. The same is true of alia 'child' in (13). As illustrated in (5b), repeated below, and as is shown at some length in Chapter 2, certain nominals that must be marked for nominative case determine accusative agreement markers.
(5) b. Anakosh sa-yimmi -h. l=FO=NOM lACC believe PRED I am the one who believes (it).
The fact that agreement and case pattern independently is illustrated at various points in the study and is discussed in detail in Chapter 8.
## Switch-reference Marking
Choctaw has a system of morphological marking which indicates whether or not pairs of clauses (linked by conjunction or embedding) have coreferent subjects. Following Jacobsen (1967) and later discussions of similar phenomena, we refer to such morphological marking as switch-reference marking.!! Same-subject (SS) markers or different-subject (DS) markers are suffixed to the predicate of the I For discussion of the classification of Choctaw in the Muskogean language family, see Haas (1941Haas ( , 1946Haas ( , 1973)).
2 Throughout this study I use the terms subject, direct object, and indirect object as pretheoretical labels to identify the arguments of a clause. The theoretical terminology to be used is introduced in Chapter 2.
3 Ulrich (1984) identifies four additional types of verbal agreement morphology marking oblique relations. These markers are not considered in the present study. 4 The allomorphs in the paradigms in (1) are phonologically conditioned. Cf. Nicklas (1974, 1975) for details. 5 Although it is customary in many discussions of Amerindian languages to denote absence of overt agreement morphology by 0, in the transcription of the Choctaw data I follow the tradition of the Choctaw literature and give no overt marking of third person nominative and accusative agreement. Predicates exhibiting no overt agreement morphology should be interpreted as having third person arguments unless explicitly noted otherwise. 6 Many of the cited studies make no mention of the series of benefactive agreement markers. Nicklas (1974, 1979) and Jacob, Nicklas, and Spencer (1977) refer to the benefactive series as the unbound dative. Ulrich (1984) uses the term benefactive but contends that they are morphologically bound to following material in the verbal complex. 7 The morpheme 0 in (3b) is glossed as CONTR, which stands for 'contrastive'. This construction, in which some nominal takes the contrastive morpheme, is referred to as the 'emphatic' construction by Nicklas (1974) and others because it places emphasis on the nominal. I mark this emphasis in the translation, by placing the emphatic nominal in italics. 8 Although there are no third person pronouns such as ano '1', pishno 'we',
Same-subject Marking as a Test for lHood

lgrsnf/A:/Springer/bok%3A978-94-009-4530-2.pdf

nexusstc/Choctaw Verb Agreement and Universal Grammar/db47a3305a208d7a86658ea106b96ad1.pdf

scihub/10.1007/978-94-009-4530-2.pdf

zlib/Reference/William D. Davies (auth.)/Choctaw Verb Agreement and Universal Grammar_2239557.pdf

Davies, William D.

D. Reidel Pub. Co. ; Sold and distributed in the U.S.A. and Canada by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Springer Science + Business Media BV

Springer London, Limited

Studies in natural language and linguistic theory ;, [v. 2], Dordrecht, Boston, Hingham MA, Netherlands, 1986

Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory Ser, Dordrecht, 1985

Softcover reprint of the original 1st ed. 1986, 1985

Springer Nature, Dordrecht, 2012

Netherlands, Netherlands

0

lg1070591

{"container_title":"Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory","edition":"1","isbns":["9027721424","9400945302","9789027721426","9789400945302"],"issns":["0924-4670"],"last_page":202,"publisher":"Springer Netherlands","series":"Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2"}

Bibliography: p. 192-196.
Revision of the author's thesis (Ph. D.--University of California, San Diego, 1981).
Includes index.

The Choctaw language, indigenous to the southeastern United States, now with its greatest concentrations ofspeakers in Missis sippi, Oklahoma, and Los Angeles, has in the main escaped the scrutinyoftheoreticallinguistics. ItisnotthatChoctaw isanintrin sicallyuninterestinglanguage- aquickglanceataclausewithfive agreement controllers and a mismatch between the caseofafree standingnominaland its agreement affix should dispelthat notion. Rather it is, I think, the question of what we can learn from a languageinwhichNPsdon'tmovearound, "WHs"don'tfront, and gaps simply arise from pronominalization. My hope is that the presentvolume, takentogetherwithagrowingliteraturespurredon by the workofPamMunro and her students atUCLA, will bring Choctawintothelightofdayand into the circleoflanguagescon sidered when constructing theories that define "possible human language". Thepresentstudy, arevisionofmy 1981dissertation(University ofCalifornia, SanDiego), focusesfirstandforemostontheChoctaw agreementsystem, takingthisasthekeytothestructureofChoctaw syntax. The immediate goal, then, is to provide a unified account ofthestructures and rules underlyingtheagreement system. Along the way a rangeofgrammatical phenomena is examined, taken as evidence for particular structural configurations, and incorporated into awell-integratedaccountofmorphologicaland syntacticfacts. The resultsbearon anumber ofcurrent issues, includingthe Un accusative Hypothesis, the existence of demotions, the nature of antipassive, disjunctive rule application, universals of causative constructions, and others. For these reasons Choctawdeserves the scrutinyoftheoreticians. The data forming the corpus for analysis represent a variety of Oklahoma Choctaw. They were collected from a nativespeaker in San Diego between 1978 and 1982 and from various speakers in Oklahoma during two extended visits to Broken Bow in 1980. I lX PREFACE x wishtothankthespeakerswhohelpedmebysharingtheirlanguage andencouragingmystudies. MyworkonChoctawwassupportedin partbyfundsfrom theNationalScienceFoundation(throughgrant numberBNS78-17498totheUniversityofCalifornia, SanDiego), theAmericanPhilosophicalSociety(throughaPhillipsFundgrant), andtheDepartmentofLinguisticsatUCSD

Front Matter....Pages i-xi
Introduction....Pages 1-13
Two Classes of Intransitive Predicates....Pages 14-39
Dative Beneficiaries and Dative Possessors....Pages 40-63
The Double Accusative Construction....Pages 64-85
Dative Subjects....Pages 86-109
Dative Direct Objects....Pages 110-146
A Proposal for Verb Agreement....Pages 147-173
The Interaction of Agreement and Case....Pages 174-191
Back Matter....Pages 192-202

2013-12-12