Two Types of External Argument in Karuk Elango Kumaran University

Two types of external argument in Karuk

Elango Kumaran University of Southern California

1 Introduction Recent work has argued that some languages place the external argument of unergative verbs syntactically lower than the external argument of true transitive verbs (Niuean, Massam 2009; Tsez, Tongan, Polinsky 2016; Samoan, Tollan 2018; Algo- nquian languages, Tollan & Oxford 2018). This paper proposes that Karuk (isolate, California) is such a language. Section 2 is a brief introduction to the Karuk language. Section 3 looks at the distribution of the verbal plural/mass marker -naa. I ﬁnd that -naa cross-references external arguments of unergative verbs and internal arguments, but not external arguments of true transitive verbs (‘ergative subjects’). To account for this, I propose in Section 4 that unergative subjects occupy a lower syntactic position than ergative subjects. Beyond accounting for the distribution of -naa, this proposal is also consistent with apparent constraints on deverbal noun formation and on verb stem alternations. Section 5 discusses one data point that suggests a meaning difference between the ergative-subject and unergative-subject constructions: the culminativity entailment associated with a telic verb is not enforced in the unergative-subject construction. Section 6 concludes.

2 Karuk A northern California isolate, Karuk is a head-marking, polysynthetic language with radical pro drop and highly variable word order. It is often classiﬁed as a Hokan language, but the validity of this grouping is unclear – see Campbell 1997:295 for discussion. Starting with the mid-19th-century Gold Rush, a hos- tile settler society has enacted policies aimed at eliminating the Karuk language and culture, and today there are few ﬁrst-language speakers; revitalization efforts are active (Garrett et al. 2020). The most extensive resources for linguists are the Ararahih’urípih corpus and dictionary (linguistics.berkeley.edu/∼karuk) and Bright’s 1957 grammar. I rely entirely on data from these sources and other published work. With speakers focused

This work has beneﬁted from feedback and suggestions from Samir Alam, USC’s Syntax+ group, Audrey Li and her Fall 2019 intro to syntax class, Hagit Borer and her 2019 From Morpheme to Meaning class, and the anonymous reviewers of this CLS 56 submission and a rejected WCCFL 38 submission. I rely on data from the Ararahih’urípih corpus and other published work on the Karuk language, and I gratefully acknowledge the work of Karuk elders over the years to produce these datasets and make them available to the public. I am supported by a USC Dana and Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences/Graduate School Fellowship for Incoming Students. on revitalization work, there is currently no opportunity for grammatical elicitation (Davis et al. 2020). Examples from Ararahih’urípih are cited using codes in gray, e.g. (WB_KL-30) or (lexicon ID #5744). Some glosses have been altered. I use Karuk orthography throughout; see Sandy 2017:14 for sound correspondences. Verbal agreement pre- ﬁxes are glossed subject>object, so e.g. 3PL(>3SG) means 3rd person plural subject + 3rd person singular object or no object. For an overview of the Karuk language and Karuk linguistics, see Garrett et al. 2020.

3 Two types of external argument: evidence from the suffix -naa The verbal suffix -naa (also realized as -vunaa / -vanaa in some environments; see Bright 1957:112) is an optional plural/mass marker1 which can cross-reference Themes and some but not all Agents/Experiencers. The set of plural/mass arguments able to license -naa is has previously been described in two different ways, shown in (1). (1) a. -naa cross-references the object of ‘transpersonal’ verbs and the subject of ‘personal’ verbs, as defined in (2) (Bright 1957:112) b. -naa cross-references transitive direct objects and intransitive subjects (Bright and Gehr 2005; lexicon ID #4298) (2) Bright’s (1957:59) ‘transpersonal’ vs. ‘personal’ verbs: a. ‘transpersonal’ verbs are compatible with agreement morphemes corresponding to objects of any person and number, and allow objects to be animate b. ‘personal’ verbs only allow agreement morphemes compatible with 3SG objects, and do not allow inanimate objects Neither description is strictly correct. (3) seems to be a counterexample to (1b) since -naa apparently cross-references a transitive subject. (The object is not plural, since the agreement prefix used is not compatible with a plural object; and a mass interpretation seems unlikely to me here.2) (3) pa- mukun- ’ápxaan tá kun- víik -vunaa the- their- cap PFV 3PL(>3SG)- weave -naa ‘They were weaving their caps.’ (i.e. each was weaving a cap) (WB_KL-30) (4) seems to be a counterexample to (1a), since in (4a) -naa cross-references the subject of a verb which is compatible with 1SG object agreement (shown in (4b)). (4) a. káruk iinâak káan tá kun- ’áam -vunaa upriver indoors there PFV 3PL(>3SG)- eat -naa

1It is very possible that -naa is not actually an optional plural/mass marker, but instead is used to express some particular meaning which happens to only be compatible with plural/mass arguments. In referring to -naa as ‘optional’, I just mean that its use depends in part on unknown factors beyond those that I focus on here. 2A clearer counterexample to (1b) (and to (1a)) will be provided in section 5. ‘Upriver they ate there in the living house.’ (WB_KL-02a) b. kári xas sápxiit ú- paanik pa- yáv îin ná- ’aam then then steelhead 3SG(>3)- say C- good OBV SG>1SG- eat -tih -eesh -DUR -PROSP ‘Then Steelhead said: "A good person will eat me."’ (JPH_KT-07) But even if the descriptions in (1) are not entirely correct, there is a correct insight in each. These are in (10). (10)a 0. There is one class of verbs for which -naa cannot cross-reference a subject, and another class for which it can b0. Verbs of the first class do not appear in intransitive constructions; verbs of the second class often appear in intransitive constructions (10) is consistent with the data in the Ararahih’urípih corpus, shown in Table 1. More specifically, the pattern is that -naa can cross-reference subjects of unaccusative and unergative verbs, as shown in (5), but cannot cross-reference ergative subjects (i.e. transitive subjects of verbs which require an internal argument, e.g. mah ‘see, find’, áharam ‘follow, chase’).3 There is a single exception to this pattern (marked ‘(!)’ in Table 1), which will be discussed extensively in section 5. (5) a. koovúra nu- ’áasishrih -inaa all 1PL- lie.down -naa ‘We are all lying down.’ (VS-35a) b. koovúra kun- víik -vunaa all 3PL(>3SG)- weave -naa ‘They were all weaving.’ (WB_KL-31) Table 1: Distribution of -naa / -vunaa / -vanaa in the Ararahih’urípih corpus. (Continued on the next two pages.) Empty cell = zero instances. ‘SG’ = count singular; ‘PL’ = plural or mass; subject>object. Column labeled just ‘PL’ = plural or mass intransitive subject.

VERB MEANING SG>PL PL PL>SG PL> PL ikvíitha sleep, fall asleep, be sleepy 6 ákoo club, hit 2 iykar beat, kill, catch (ﬁsh) 1 1 (!) 3 sar carry, get, bring, take, put (PL objects) 1

3Since Karuk allows object pro-drop, I rely on Ararahih’urípih dictionary entries and English translations of sentences to classify verbs as requiring an internal argument or not. For instance, Maier (2016) reports the translation in (i) provided by a consultant (utterance presented to the consultant without context), which suggests to me that mah is a true transitive verb. (i) u- mah 3SG(>3)- see ‘He seen it.’ (Maier 2016:(14d)) The availability of object pro-drop also makes it hard to determine whether a clause is intransitive or not. For Table 1, I classified clauses without an overt object as intransitive unless there was some evidence to the contrary – either from object agreement on the verb, or from the English translation and surrounding sentences. ithyúrurishuk pull out 1 chúupha speak, talk, (rooster) crow 4 paratánmaahpa turn back 1 pakúriihva sing songs 9 ikyéeh make for, gather for, bring to (a person) 1 ikyamîichva play non-athletic games 3 íchunva hide oneself 3 imúusti look at, watch 3 ixvíipha be angry 1 chuphunishkoo talk to 1 yunyúunha be crazy, be insane 3 ihmar (PL) run 3 áasish lie down, go to bed 1 ímuutarahi be pregnant 1 paríshriihva twine, i.e. make string 1 áharam follow, chase (game) 5 amkúufha give off smoke or steam 1 íinva burn, be a forest fire 1 ákunva hunt 1 ikvúuhva howl, (cow) moo, (car) blow its horn 1 xuriha be hungry 4 vuhvúha do the deerskin dance or jump dance 5 ixtíivpu play athletic games 1 áhachak withhold (something) from (someone), 2 hold out on apúnkoo (sorcerer) cast a spell on (someone), be- 2 twitch or ‘devil’ (someone) masmáahva do the dance performed by a shaman 1 when curing a patient ikfúukiraa grab, grab at 1 áahka set fire to (something), burn (something), 1 burn down (as a house) ikyáviichva work 1 imtháatva play the “stick game” 3 ûupva dig (edible roots) 3 kúha be sick 1 ixáx cry 1 pâakuha pick or gather acorns 1 áathva be afraid 1 tátapva trap animals 1 páatva bathe, wash (e.g. one’s face) 2 píshmaar finish drinking 1 kuníihva shoot arrows 1 vûuksaha have a work contest, as in shelling acorns 3 ikshúupka point at 1 ihúk do the flower dance 6 ikyav make, make into, do, fix, prepare, gather, 3 1 4 acquire, twine av eat 1 2 ishxay fish with a hook and line 1 iktir hit by throwing a hard object 3 mah see, find 4 iváxrah be dry 1 árihish sing 1 ikxúrik mark, decorate, write 1 ih dance 1 ithtit gamble, play ‘Indian cards’ 6 píimshav (person) be cold, freeze 1 ipêer say to, tell, call 7 patánvish ask a question (of someone) 1 âanvath paint (someone’s) face 1 imship cool off, (fire) be extinguished 1 pákurih sing 1 ipáhariith catch up with (someone) 1 asimáchish put to sleep 1 ákih give (things or a mass of something) (to 1 someone), feed vik weave 1 1 tákuk clean out (a basket) 1 taxrat flake arrowheads 1 ífik pick up (e.g. acorns) from the ground 2 2 inish do (something) with, do (something) to 1 imúsar go to see, visit 2 pakxuuyvávath rub medicine on 1 vathiv fight 1 pikshayvûunish tell lies to, lie to, deceive 1 ish drink 1 tháruf peel sticks for basketry 3 thivtap do a war dance 1 ishtuk pick, pluck (flowers, stems, leaves) 1 pikvah tell stories, tell myths 1 ishriv shoot at targets, shoot mark 1 vut cut (grass stems), mow 2

4 Proposal: high ergative subjects, low unergative subjects 4.1 The proposal In section 3 I identiﬁed two types of external argument: ergative subjects and unergative subjects. Internal arguments and unergative subjects can be cross-referenced by -naa, and ergative subjects cannot. To account for this, I propose that unergative subjects are lower than ergative subjects, as has recently been proposed for a number of languages. For instance, in the Samoan data in (6), the subject of build has ergative case, whereas the subject of dance has absolutive case. This holds even if an object is added to dance as in (8c). (6) Samoan (Tollan 2018:2) a.S a¯ fau [e le tamaloa]¯ [le fale]. PAST build ERG DET man DET house.ABS ‘The man built the house.’ b.S a¯ siva [le teine]. PAST dance DET girl.ABS ‘The girl danced.’ c.S a¯ siva [le teine] [i le siva]. PAST dance DET girl.ABS ACC DET dance ‘The girl danced a/the dance.’ Accordingly, Tollan (2018, following Massam 2009 on Niuean) proposes that ergative case is inherent case associated with the speciﬁer of Voice, while unergative subjects are lower, in spec,vP. Tollan and Oxford (2018) argue that Algonquian languages (which lack case) have the same structure, taking reduced verbal agreement morphology in unergative verbs as evidence for the lack of a Voice head. And Polinsky’s (2016:chapter 2:(47d)) book on ergativity lists this as one of the possible structures of unergatives crosslinguistically, citing Tsez and Tongan as examples. I propose that Karuk has the same structure, with -naa positioned in between v and Voice so that it can scope over internal arguments and unergative subjects but not ergative subjects:

(7) unergative-subject construction: ergative-subject construction: naaP VoiceP

(-naa) vP ergative subj. Voice0

unergative subj. v0 Voice naaP

v VP (-naa) vP

(int. arg.) V v VP

int. arg. V

Beyond its accounting for the distribution of -naa, my proposal is also motivated by two other main factors which I address in the remainder of this section.

4.2 No good alternative One possible alternative analysis would posit that ergative subjects bear ergative Case, which somehow blocks the dependency between -naa and the subject. An issue with this proposal is that the only element resembling an ergative marker in Karuk is the postposition ’îin, which Macaulay (2000) analyzes as an ergative+obviative marker – but this notion of ergative is not the same as the one I have defined here, as ’îin seems able to mark transitive external arguments of any verb, including what I have been calling ‘unergative’ verbs (see (4b), where I gloss it as OBV). A perhaps bigger issue is that the dependency between -naa and the subject does not seem to be a syntactic agreement dependency, since -naa draws a line between count SG on one side and PL/mass on the other, whereas elsewhere in Karuk’s rich agreement system the line is instead drawn between SG and PL. The use of -naa to cross-reference a controller of SG agreement is demonstrated in (8). The dependency is therefore probably better thought of as a semantic scope relation, to which Case should be irrelevant. (8) a. koovúra ik pa- ’íshaha u- váxraah -vunaa -vish all must the- water 3SG(>3)- be.dry -naa -PROSP ‘All the water must dry up.’ (WB_KL-04) b. xás pa- ka’- má’ninay pá- ’aah koovúra ú- then the- upriver- high.mountain.country the- fire all 3SG(>3)- msiip -vunaa cool.off -naa ‘Then all the fire went out in the upriver mountains.’ (WB_KL-10) Another possible alternative analysis would posit that -naa is semantically incompatible with ergative subjects. But there does not seem to be any particular meaning associated with the ergative subject position which is incompatible with the unergative subject position. It seems that all the ergative subjects in the corpus are animate, which is not true of all unergative subjects; but -naa is able to cross- reference animate unergative subjects, so animacy cannot be what prevents -naa from cross-referencing ergative subjects. In section 5 I will suggest that the ergative subject position enforces culminativity of telic verbs whereas the unergative subject construction does not; but unergative subjects are not incompatible with a culminative meaning (see e.g. (8)), so culminativity cannot be the semantic factor blocking -naa. Generally, the problem with this potential analysis is that no meaning compatible with the ergative subject position seems to be incompatible with the unergative subject position, because – to borrow what Tollan (2018) says about Samoan – Karuk unergative subjects seem to "encompass a subset of the semantic properties of full-fledged transitive" subjects.

4.3 Three other facts consistent with my proposal Bright (1957:87) identiﬁes four singular-dual pairs of verb stems for which the (count) singular stem begins with ik- and the dual stem begins with ith-. These verbs are all intransitive, and three of them are unergative. I have found corresponding plural (= 2+) / mass forms beginning with ih- for each (with suppletion of the root in 3 of 4 cases):

count SG DU PL / mass ‘swim’ ikpuh ithpuh ihtak (9) ‘run’ ikvip ithvip ihmar ‘fly’ ikxip ithxip ixip ‘fall’ ikyiv ithyiv ivrar Although Macaulay (1993) provides evidence from reduplication showing that the first syllables of these stems are separate morphemes (rather than ‘submorphemic’, as Bright claims), they do seem to occupy a very low syntactic position, as they are always strictly adjacent to the root, and outside of reduplication and a set of ‘minimally productive ... highly lexicalized’ suffixing contexts, they prosodically pattern like they are part of the root (Sandy 2017:Chapter 7.2). (And Macaulay’s consultants have the same intuition as Bright: when directly asked whether words like ikxip have more than one part, they say no.) The presence of unergative verbs in (9) therefore suggests that unergative subjects are low, since the low prefixes are sensitive to them. (Aside: Tyler (2020) identifies similar data in Choctaw, but involving apparently non-decomposable roots, e.g. baliili ‘run.SG’/ tilhaaya ‘run.DU’/ yilhiipa ‘run.PL’. Following e.g. Harley 2014, Tyler takes this as evidence that the subject of these verbs is an internal argument, despite being an Agent and bearing ergative case (instead of absolutive case, which true unaccusative subjects bear). But Borer (2014) argues, convincingly I think, that such root alternations need not be conditioned by material directly selected by the root. Assuming these alternations are limited to a particular syntactic domain, it is possible that this domain in Choctaw is actually, for instance, vP, and these ‘ergative-marked internal arguments’ are actually what I have been calling low unergative subjects.) Another fact consistent with my analysis is that nominals formed by attaching -ar to predicates cannot denote the predicate’s ergative subject. There are 174 of these nominals listed in the Ararahih’urípih dictionary (lexicon ID #504), and they mostly denote Instruments, but can also denote unergative Experiencers or Agents4 as in (10) – but crucially not ergative subjects. (Although the Agent in (10b) may seem ergative, it is actually unergative, since the verb can be used intransitively as in (11).) (10) a. tatkunuhpíithva -r go.around.stoop.shouldered -ar ‘fisher (mammal) Martes pennanti’ literally: ‘one that dances around stoop-shouldered’ (lexicon ID #5744) b. arar- éep- toor -ar human- ITER- count -ar ‘census taker’ literally: ‘person-counter’ (lexicon ID #540) c. xúriha -r be.hungry -ar (a woman’s name) literally: ‘hungry one’ (lexicon ID #6926) (11) chími nu- tôor -i soon 1PL- count -OPT ‘Let’s count.’ (lexicon ID #6123) This pattern seems to fit well with the assumption that there is some syntactic domain, say vP, which excludes ergative subjects but includes unergative subjects, Instruments, and internal arguments. My proposal is also consistent with the distribution of the prefix iru- in the Ararahih’urípih corpus. In section 3 I focused on the suffixal forms of -naa (-naa

4Moorman (2014:15) states that agentivity is actually ruled out, with the attested Agent-denoting nominals ‘hav[ing] undergone lexicalization, and hav[ing] effectively lost their underlying meaning due to entrenchment’, but no evidence is provided, and it is unclear to me what underlying non- agentive meaning is supposed to have been lost e.g. in the words in (10a-b), which appear transpar- ently agentive to me. / -vunaa / -vanaa), but Bright (1957:113) also identifies a prefixal allomorph iru-, which appears only if the suffixal form’s templatic slot is blocked by another suffix. The prefix appears 42 times in the corpus, and only ever cross-references a subject. None of the verb roots are true transitive verbs. The set of suffixes able to block -naa includes applicative suffixes, and in contexts with a count singular applied object, iru- is able to cross-reference the subject, as in (12). (12) kári xás káan u- máh akvaat ípaha kun- ’iru- kûun then then there 3SG(>3)- see raccoon tree 3PL(>3SG)- iru- sit -takoo -on ‘And there he saw raccoons, they were sitting in a tree.’ (WB_KL-05) This is consistent with my proposal for two reasons. First, examples like (12) val- idate the idea that whether -naa/iru- can cross-reference an external argument depends solely on the verb stem, not on intransitivity of the clause the verb happens to appear in. Second, there are no instances of -naa/iru- cross-referencing an applied object, but given the small amount of data it is not clear whether this is actually ruled out. But since my proposal is just that -naa/iru- is between v and Voice and scopes over everything it c-commands, this can straightforwardly account for either possibility: assuming Karuk applicative heads are also between v and Voice (following Macaulay 2005; see also Maier 2016), they could be either higher or lower than -naa/iru-.

5 A meaning difference I have argued that in Karuk, choice of the ergative-subject vs. the unergative-subject construction is determined on the basis of the verb’s inherent argument structure: the ergative construction is used only for verbs which obligatorily take an internal argument. This is different from what has been proposed for other languages, e.g. Samoan ergative has been claimed to be used to mark agentivity (Tollan 2018) or self-directed initiation (Collins 2020). This does not seem to be the case in Karuk: e.g. the ergative subject of áharam ‘follow’ would not seem to be any more of an agent or self-directed initiator than the unergative subject of av ‘eat’. But there is one data point in the Karuk corpus that suggests that a meaning difference does exist between the two constructions. The verb iykar means ‘beat’, ‘kill’, or ‘catch (ﬁsh)’. There are 45 total occurences of iykar in the corpus. 44 of them denote the successful (not just attempted) beating, killing, or catching of a Theme. Two clear examples are (13) and (14). (13) xás kári yuuxmachmahánach u- piip yôotva nini- vassan then then a.type.of.very.small.lizard 3SG(>3)- say hurray! my- enemy tá ni- ykar PFV 1SG(>3)- kill ‘And Lizard said, “Hurray! I’ve killed my enemy!”’ (WB_KL-34) (14) Xás púyava kun- p- ákunvan -va kúkuum. Púra fâat then you.see 3PL(>3SG)- ITER- go.hunting -PLURACT again nothing iykár -at. kill -PAST ‘Then they went hunting again. They didn’t kill anything.’ (WB_KL-53) This is a true transitive verb, so if my analysis of -naa is right, we expect that -naa should never cross-reference a subject of iykar. This prediction is borne out in all 44 instances of iykar with a success entailment. But strikingly, the one exceptional instance of iykar which lacks a success entailment, shown in (15), is also an exception to the ban on subject-cross-referencing -naa (and the only such exception attested across all true transitive verbs).5 (15) xás âanaxus t -óo naa pa- ’áraar kun- iykára -naa then weasel PFV -3SG go.uphill the- human 3PL(>3SG)- kill -naa -ti âanaxus -DUR weasel ‘Then Weasel went upriver, the people were killing (i.e. trying to kill) Weasel.’ (WB_KL-20) The use of the unergative construction to cancel the culminativity entailment associated with iykar is surprising given that telicity of verb roots in Karuk is inde- pendent of (un)ergativeness (see Maier 2016). I can present one speculative expla- nation, in the spirit of Jacobs’s (2011) analysis of Skwxwu7mesh ‘limited control’ predicates.6 I propose that the ergative Voice head asserts culminativity only when combined with a telic verb root. In the unergative-subject construction, no such assertion is made regardless of the root. Since the unergative construction is not usually used with true transitive verbs, its use in (15) pragmatically implicates that the intended meaning of (15) is incompatible with the usual ergative-subject construction, i.e. it implicates non-culminativity.

6 Conclusion I have looked at the interaction between verbal morphology and argument structure in Karuk. The facts suggest that subjects of unergative verbs are syntactically lower than subjects of true transitive verbs. Past work proposing this for other languages has claimed that true transitive subjects come with a strong agentivity entailment absent in unergative subjects; but no such association with agentivity seems to exist in Karuk. There does, however, seem to be some sort of meaning difference: unlike the true transitive construction, the unergative-subject construction seems not to enforce the culminativity entailment associated with a telic verb.

5The translation, including the parenthetical statement, is reproduced exactly as provided in the corpus (and in Bright 1957). The sentence is part of a story, and in subsequent parts of the story Weasel is indeed still alive. 6I thank an anonymous WCCFL 38 reviewer for pointing me to Jacobs 2011. Jacobs proposes that (non)agentivity inferences associated with two different transitive constructions pragmatically arise from (non)assertion of event initiation and culmination. I will end with a brief speculative thought about how this analysis of Karuk may generalize to other languages. Tollan (2018) proposes that the ergative subject position in Samoan is associated with more agentivity entailments than the unergative subject position. This might not be correct. Collins (2020) points out that by Tol- lan’s criteria for agentivity, e.g. the absolutive subject of fesoasoani ‘help’, which is effortful and volitional and affects the object, is no less agentive than the ergative subject of su‘e ‘search’, which is effortful and volitional but need not affect the object. And Tollan & Oxford (2018) propose that in Algonquian languages, Agree- ing v heads fail to appear in unergative-subject constructions because Agreeing v heads have agentive semantics incompatible with the non-agentivity of unergative subjects. But Agreeing v heads fail to appear not only in unergative-subject constructions, which Tollan & Oxford analyze as lacking a Voice layer, but also in (agentive) ditransitives, where v is separated from Voice by Appl (Hamilton 2016), so it seems that adjacency to Voice, rather than agentivity, determines whether v can Agree. I have proposed that Karuk has a high/low external argument split which is not about agentivity. Are high/low external argument splits ever really about agentivity in any language?

References

Ararahih’urípih: A Dictionary and Text Corpus of the Karuk language. A collaboration between the Karuk Tribe and UC Berkeley. linguistics.berkeley.edu/∼karuk. Borer, H. 2014. Wherefore roots? Theoretical Linguistics 40(3-4):343-359. Bright, W. 1957. The Karok Language. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bright, W., & S. Gehr. 2005. Karuk dictionary. Happy Camp: Karuk Tribe. Expanded version at linguistics.berkeley.edu/∼karuk. Campbell, L. 1997. American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America. New York: Oxford University Press. Collins, J. N. 2020. Mapping meaning to argument structure: The case of Samoan case. Polynesian Syntax and Its Interfaces, edited by L. Clemens & D. Massam, to appear. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davis, C. (S.), V. Smith, N. Super (née Jerry), P. Super, Sr., C. Thom, Sr., & L. Mikkelsen. 2020. Forms and functions of backward resumption: the case of Karuk. Language, to appear. Garrett, A., S. Gehr, E. H. Maier, L. Mikkelsen, C. Richardson, & C. S. Sandy. 2020. Karuk. The Languages and Linguistics of Indigenous North America: A Comprehensive Guide, edited by C. Jany, M. Mithun, & K. Rice, to appear. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Hamilton, M. D. 2016. The relation between phase heads and non-phase heads: Algonquian languages vs. Miyagawa 2010. Poster, GLOW 2016. Harley, H. 2014. On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40(3-4):225-276. Jacobs, P. W. 2011. Control in Skwxwu7mesh. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia. Macaulay, M. 1993. Reduplication and the Structure of the Karuk Verb Stem. International Journal of American Linguistics, 59(1), 64-81. Macaulay, M. 2000. Obviative Marking in Ergative Contexts: The Case of Karuk ’îin. International Journal of American Linguistics 66(4):464-498. Macaulay, M. 2005. On the Karuk Directional Sufﬁxes. Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Meet- ing of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on the Morphology of Native American Languages, edited by M. Ettlinger, N. Fleisher, & M. Park-Doob, 85-101. Maier, E. H. 2016. Above or Below: Modeling a Telicity Restriction on Karuk Directional Applica- tives. NELS 46: Proceedings of the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, edited by C. Hammerly & B. Prickett, 2:317-330. Massam, D. 2009. The Structure of (Un)ergatives. Proceedings of AFLA 16, edited by S. Chung, D. Finer, I. Paul, & E. Potsdam, 125-135. Moorman, K. 2014. Polyfunctionality of -ara in Karuk. Honors thesis, UC Berkeley. Polinsky, M. 2016. Deconstructing Ergativity: Two Types of Ergative Languages and Their Features. New York: Oxford University Press. Sandy, C. S. 2017. Prosodic Prominence in Karuk. Doctoral dissertation, UC Berkeley. Tollan, R. 2018. Unergatives are different: Two types of transitivity in Samoan. Glossa 3.1.35. Tollan, R., & W. Oxford. 2018. Voice-less Unergatives: Evidence from Algonquian. Proceedings of WCCFL 35, edited by W. G. Bennett, L. Hracs, & D. R. Storoshenko, 399-408. Tyler, M. 2020. Ergative-marked internal arguments in Choctaw. Proceedings of WSCLA 24, to appear.