On the External and Internal Syntax of Menominee Negation
MEREDITH JOHNSON AND BRYAN ROSEN University of Wisconsin–Madison
INTRODUCTION1
The purpose of this paper is to account for the syntax and morphosyntax of Menominee negation. Menominee is unique among the Algonquian lan- guages because of the presence of a separate NEGATIVE order, exempli ed in (1) below. The negative order is characterized both by the negative particle kan and the negative suf x -an.2
(1) a. Kan nekÓs-nëminan Kan nae-kÓs-nÓmi-n-an NEG 1-PST-dance.AI-AN-NEG ‘I didn’t dance.’ (Macaulay 2003:220)
1. We are grateful to Marie Floring (MF), the late Margaret King (MK), Larry Tomow (LT), and the late Lavina Shawano (LS) for providing the data used in this paper. We would also like to thank Monica Macaulay and two anonymous PAC reviewers for valu- able feedback and comments on this paper; and the Menominee Language and Culture Commission for their guidance. 2. The following abbreviations are used: 1, 2, 3 = rst, second, third person; AI = animate intransitive; AN = animate; AOR = aorist; CONJ = conjunct; CTR = contrast; EPIS = epistemic; EX = exclusive; FUT = future; HAB = habitual; II = inanimate intransitive; IN = inclusive; INAN = inanimate; INC = incompletive; LCL = local; NEG = negation; OBV = obviative; PL = plural; POSS = possessive; PROX = proximate; PST = past; TA = transitive animate; TH = theme sign; TI = transitive inanimate. ߧEߨ represents a morphophoneme used by Bloom eld (1962) that usually surfaces as [e]. The following source codes represent stories from Bloom eld 1928: BOM = Birth of Maeqnapos; BOY = A Boy is Blessed by Mosquitos; CRCW = The Childhood of Red Cloud Woman; HIC = How to Stop Hiccoughs; MIF = The Menomini Indian Fair; MW = How a Menominee Woman Earns Money; NTM = Nehtsiwihtuk as a Trencherman; RS = Red Swan. BM is the code for Bead Man, which is a story found in Bloom eld’s notes in the National Anthropological Archives at the Smithsonian Institution, translated and analyzed by Monica Macaulay and Marianne Milligan.
174 ON THE EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SYNTAX OF MENOMINEE NEGATION 175
b. WÁpanow kan okÓs-aw n nan ot hsaeh WÁpanow kan o-kÓs-awÁN-Á-n-an o-ëhsaehs Waubano NEG 3-PST-take.away.with.TA-TH-AN-NEG 3-dog ‘Waubano didn’t walk his dog.’ (Macaulay 2003:221)
Based on both syntactic and morphosyntactic evidence, we argue that nega- tion in Menominee is situated between CP and IP/TP. An important conse- quence is that the Menominee verb does not sit in C0, contra what others have previously argued for in Algonquian languages. This paper is structured as follows: the next section provides an overview of Menominee negation, based on Macaulay 2003. In the section after that, we provide evidence for our claim that negation sits between CP and IP/TP. Then, we argue that the morphosyntax of the negative order in Menominee supports our analysis, and discuss the relationship between negation and agreement. The last section concludes the paper.
DESCRIPTION OF MENOMINEE NEGATION
Before introducing our analysis, we rst provide an overview of the nega- tion system in Menominee. As shown in (1) above, Menominee has a unique negative order marked by the suf x -an. Macaulay (2003) shows that the negative order exhibits three major differences in in ection from the other orders. First, the third person pre x o- is unique to the negative order (see example (1b) above). In the independent order, the third person pre x is null, as seen in (2):
(2) n nၤw n n-ၤ-w fetch.TA-TH-3 ‘He fetches him.’ (Bloom eld 1962:152)
Second, the person agreement suf xes are impoverished: -w is used to index the subject of II verbs (as in (3)), while -n marks the rst, second and third person animate arguments of AI, TA and TI verbs (as in (4)–(6)).3 As we
3. Example (5) contains the preverb aw- which surfaces as naw- when preceded by a person pre x (Bloom eld 1962:216). 176 MEREDITH JOHNSON AND BRYAN ROSEN discuss in more detail later in the paper, independent and conjunct order agreement suf xes distinguish both gender and number.
(3) II verb ahkanom wenah kan omas k s-tak n ahkanom wenah kan omas k s-takw-w-an long.ago it NEG here PST-exist.II-INAN-NEG ‘It wasn’t here, long ago.’ (MW; Macaulay’s (12))
(4) AI verb kan kၤkčh ukiw-iskihsinenan kan kၤkčh o-kew-aeskihsenၤ-n-an NEG something 3-HAB-be.left.over.AI-AN-NEG ‘He never has anything left.’ (MIF 4; Macaulay’s (22))
(5) TA verb nah w, kan taeh kina-Oၤwinan! nah w, kan taeh kae-aw-Oၤw-e-n-an well.then NEG and 2-INC-see.TA-TH-AN-NEG ‘Well, then, you won’t see me!’ (RS 167; Macaulay’s (14))
(6) TI verb kan nepëtčnan kan nae-p t- -n-an NEG 1-bring.TI-TH-AN-NEG ‘I do not bring it.’ (Bloom eld 1962:173; Macaulay’s (15))
Third, the obviative marker in the negative order (7a) is distinct from both independent order (7b) and conjunct order (7c). Consider the examples below with the obviative marker in bold:
(7) a. kan opčsenenÓnan kan o-pčse-n-enÓn-an NEG 3-embark.AI-AN-OBV-NEG ‘S/he (obv) does not embark’ (Bloom eld 1962:168; Macaulay’s (16))
b. pčsewan pčse-w-an embark.AI-3-OBV ‘S/he (obv) embarks’ (Bloom eld 1962:150; Macaulay’s (17)) ON THE EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SYNTAX OF MENOMINEE NEGATION 177
c. pčsenet pčse-aene-t embark.AI-OBV-3.CONJ ‘S/he (obv) embarks’ (Bloom eld 1962:224; Macaulay’s (18))
Lastly, there are two negators in Menominee: kan and kat. Kan is used in both negative order and conjunct order, while kat is used only in conjunct order. Neither negator can be used with independent order. Macaulay (2003) points out that the two negators have distinct uses: kan is the “unmarked” negator, and kat is restricted to mirative contexts. The examples in (8) illustrate the uses of kan and kat, respectively.
(8) a. eneq ၤc kan wenah cew-kÓs-esÓqtat eneq aese-t kan wenah cew-kÓs-aeseqta-t it.is.that IC.say.AI-3.CONJ NEG she EPIS-PST-do.so.AI-3.CONJ ‘She said that she didn’t do it.’ (Macaulay 2003:227)
b. kat akekoh as Áwetuaq këqsÓhsak kat akekoh as Áwe-t-wÁw këqsÓhs-ak NEG these.AN AOR be.AI-3-3PL.CONJ girl-AN.PL ‘(Then all at once he knew) it was not those girls.’ (BM 84; Macaulay’s (37))
In sum, we have seen that Menominee exhibits a unique negative order and has two negators, kan and kat. In the next sections, we provide a formal analysis of these data.
EXTERNAL SYNTAX
Position of Negator
We analyze kan and kat as negators that occupy Neg0 of NegP. We argue that NegP is between CP and IP/TP. This is consistent with previous analyses of the syntax of negation (see, e.g., Belletti 1990; Laka 1990; Rivero 1994; Haegeman and Zanuttini 1996; and Wiltschko 2002). We argue that NegP is below CP because kan and kat are below elements that are in the CP domain. For example, negation is preceded by the complementizer kÓspen ‘if’ as shown in (9a) for kat and (9b) for kan: 178 MEREDITH JOHNSON AND BRYAN ROSEN
(9) a. kÓspen kat m c yan kÓspen kat m cy -an if NEG leave.AI-LCL.CONJ ‘If you don’t leave’ (Macaulay 2003:226)
b. kÓspen kan mÓset nekiah kÓspen kan mÓN-e-t nae-kyÁhs if NEG give.TA-TH-3.CONJ 1-mother ‘If my mother does not give me them’ (Macaulay 2003:229)
KÓspen has both the syntactic and semantic properties associated with com- plementizers crosslinguistically: it always appears in clause-initial position, and it appears to have the same semantic function as English if (McCloskey 1996; Branigan and MacKenzie 2002). The possibility of the co-occurrence of a complementizer-verb sequence is crosslinguistically used as a diagnos- tic for the position of the verb. For example, den Besten (1983) argues that V2 word order in German is derived by V-to-C movement since the verb does not raise in embedded clauses due to the presence of a complementizer. Furthermore, Diesing (1990) and Thráinsson (1985) argue for Yiddish and Icelandic, respectively, that the verb does not move to C, as V2 is found in both matrix and embedded clauses. A CP-recursion analysis is also not desirable for Menominee: Iatridou (1991) and Iatridou and Kroch (1992) argue that CP-recursion is not possible when the verb takes an irrealis complement. Clauses embedded by the complementizer if certainly seem to qualify as irrealis. We adopt the proposal of Johnson et al. (2015), who argue that the left periphery in Menominee consists of two topic phrases and a focus phrase. This is schematized in (10), below. According to Johnson et al., the highest topic (the “external topic”) can be separated from the rest of the clause with a pause, and it is not necessarily an argument of the verb. As for focus, Johnson et al. follow Aissen (1992), who says “The semantics of the focus construction has two essential parts, a presupposition and an asser- tion . . . What the focus construction asserts is that the focused constituent denotes an entity which satis es the variable of the presupposition” (p. 50).
(10) [ExtTopP … [FocP … [IntTopP …]]]
In Menominee, external topics and focused elements also precede negation. The noun phrase metÁtah mÓqsemenak ‘ten apples’ in (11) exem- ON THE EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SYNTAX OF MENOMINEE NEGATION 179 pli es an external topic. As de ned by Johnson et al., external topics do not have to correspond to an argument of the verb.4
(11) MetÁtah mÓqsemenak, (nëw) kan (nëw) awၤtokÓhsewak. MaetÁtah mÓqsemen-ak (nëw) kan (nëw) awၤtokÓhsÓwe-w-ak ten apple-AN.PL (four) NEG (four) be.wormy.AI-3-3PL ‘Of the ten apples, four aren’t wormy.’ (MF/MK/LT 9/23/12)
The following examples all show that negation follows focused items. In (12) and (13), both kan and kat follow wh-words, which we assume to be in a focus position (Horvath 1986; Rizzi 1997).
(12) 8ၤkiq kan kew-mÓcek? Wၤkiq kan kew-mÓc-E-k what NEG HAB-eat.TI-TH-3.CONJ ‘What doesn’t he eat?’ (MF/LS 04/15/05)
(13) Wၤkiq kat kew-mÓcek? Wၤkiq kat kew-mÓc-E-k what NEG HAB-eat.TI-TH-3.CONJ ‘What doesn’t he eat?’ (MF/LS 04/15/05)
Negation follows restrictive NPs in (14) and inde nites in (15), which Johnson et al. claim also sit in focus position in Menominee:
(14) Nenah ap new kan kÓs-nëminan. Nenah ap new kan kÓs-nÓmi-n-an. I also CTR NEG PST-dance.AI-AN-NEG ‘I also didn’t dance last night.’ (MF/MK/LT 9/23/12)
(15) Weyak kan okÓs-menၤnan okahpÓm. Weyak kan o-kÓs-maenae-n-an o-kahpÓw-m someone NEG 3-PST-drink.AI-AN-NEG 3-coffee-POSS ‘Someone didn’t drink their coffee.’ (MF/MK/LT 9/23/12)
Lastly, negation follows eneq (also argued by Johnson et al. to be a focus element), as in (16):
4. As (11) shows, occasionally the modern-day speakers use independent order with kan. 180 MEREDITH JOHNSON AND BRYAN ROSEN
(16) Eneq-peh taeh Monica kan okÓs-pianan. Eneq-peh taeh Monica kan o-kÓs-pyÁ-n-an then-time and Monica NEG 3-PST-come.AI-AN-NEG ‘And then Monica didn’t come.’ (MF/MK/LT 9/23/12)
We propose that NegP is higher than IP/TP since negation obligatorily precedes the verb, and thus the preverbs that encode tense, aspect and mood. (17a) shows an example with the habitual preverb kew-, while (17b) and (c) illustrate the position of the future and past tense preverbs, respectively.
(17) a. kan ’s kew-m t kamiwၤhneh kan ’s kew-m t kam wၤhnaen-k NEG AOR HAB-splash.with.sound.of.moving.water.II-3.CONJ ‘The water wasn’t making any sound.’ (BOM 036)
b. kan nekčtoh kena-kënonaehÁnan kemëcehswan kan naekotoh kae-aw-k nonၤh-Á-n-an kae-mÓcehswan NEG ever 2-FUT-seek.in.vain.TI-TH-AN-NEG 2-food ‘You will never lack for food.’ (BOY 061)
c. tepၤh ၤhkwah kan ok s-nep nan tepၤh ahkuat-k kan o-kÓs-naepÁ-n-an at.night IC.all.long.II-3.CONJ NEG 3-PST-sleep.AI-AN-NEG ‘He had not slept all night.’ (NTM 118)
Our analysis is consistent with Lochbihler and Mathieu’s (2008/2009) analysis of the verb position in Ojibwe: they propose that preverbs sit in T0. They further note that the fact that tense precedes the verb cannot be accounted for if the verb moves to C0, as proposed in some accounts of Algonquian syntax (Halle and Marantz 1993; Campana 1996; Brittain 2001; Richards 2004). Our analysis departs from previous generativist accounts of Algon- quian negation that have proposed that negation is base-generated in the CP domain. Brittain (1996) proposes an analysis to account for the two negators in Innu-aimun: apû and ekâ. Both negators in Innu-aimun require the verb to bear conjunct morphology. Brittain places both negators in the CP domain: she argues that apû sits in Spec,CP and ekâ in the upper C0 of ON THE EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SYNTAX OF MENOMINEE NEGATION 181 a double CP structure. This type of analysis is necessary under the assump- tion that the verb moves to C0 in conjunct order. Brittain’s analysis cannot straightforwardly be extended to Menomi- nee data. If both negation and the verb occupied C0, it would be necessary to posit three CPs to account for the examples in (9). This is illustrated in (18).
(18)
Furthermore, arguments can appear between the complementizer and the negator, as in (19). This is unexpected under Brittain’s account, as she is explicit that the embedded CP has no speci er position. We assume that weyak ‘someone’ sits in one of the left-peripheral positions proposed by Johnson et al.
(19) Këspen weyak kat ’s pīnëtah ’s onuawၤt. KÓspen weyak kat ’s pīnët-am-k ’s if someone NEG AOR stop.making.vocal.noise.TI-TH-3.CONJ AOR
onuawၤ-t hiccup-3.CONJ ‘If someone does not stop hiccoughing.’ (HIC 001)
As mentioned above, CP-recursion does not occur with irrealis com- plements, which would rule out a structure like (18). Instead, we propose a single CP in which the complementizer is in C0, the negators kan and kat are in Neg0 and the verb is in T0. Our analysis of example (9a) is schematized in (20). 182 MEREDITH JOHNSON AND BRYAN ROSEN
(20)
An anonymous reviewer suggests an alternative analysis of Menomi- nee negation. Consider again the example in (6) (repeated in (21)).
(21) kan nepëtčnan kan nae-pët-č-n-an NEG 1-bring.TI-TH-AN-NEG ‘I do not bring it.’ (Bloom eld 1962:173; Macaulay’s (15))
They propose that the verbal morphology -an represents Neg0, while kan/kat is merged in Spec,NegP. Under this analysis, the verb moves into Neg0 to pick up -an in the negative order and a null allomorph in conjunct order. This analysis is presented in (22), ignoring theme signs and other agreement morphemes.
(22) a. Underlying structure of (21)
[NegP kan [-an] [VP OBFQëUčO]] NEG NEG I bring it
b. Movement of V0 to Neg0 [ kan [ [ ] -an] [ t ]] NegP Neg V OBFQëUčO VP OBFQëUčO NEG I bring it NEG
However, this alternative analysis cannot account for many of the word order facts described above. Many elements can intervene between kan/kat and the verb, including argument NPs ((4), (8a)), adjuncts ((3), (17b)) and demonstratives (8b). This is unexpected if kan/kat is the speci er to the head that contains the verb: it is not clear where such elements could sit. ON THE EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SYNTAX OF MENOMINEE NEGATION 183
In contrast, under our analysis, kan and kat sit in the Neg0 head while the verb does not move past T0; thus, there are positions between the negator and the verb for these intervening elements. In conclusion, our analysis can account for the following generaliza- tions about the syntactic positioning of negation in Menominee: (i) nega- tion is below CP, as the negator follows complementizers and elements in topic or focus position; (ii) negation is above TP, as it precedes preverbs that encode tense; and (iii) a CP-recursion analysis is not consistent with the semantics of the clause. In the next few sections, we show how the structure proposed in (20) applies to other aspects of Menominee negation.
Conjunct Order and Negation Here we address the connections between negation, conjunct order, and mirativity. In order to derive the difference between kan and kat with con- junct order, we appeal to the operation Agree as in Pesetsky and Torrego (P&T; 2004). P&T argue feature interpretability should be separated from feature values. This is represented in (23) with the four feature types:
(23) a. iF val interpretable, valued b. uF [ ] uninterpretable, unvalued c. iF [ ] interpretable, unvalued d. uF val uninterpretable, valued
P&T’s version of Agree is as follows:
(24) Agree (Feature sharing version) (P&T 2004)
i. An unvalued feature F (a probe) on a head H at syntactic location (F ) scans its c-command domain for another instance of F (a goal) at location
(F ) with which to agree.
ii. Replace F with F , so that the same feature is present in both locations.
Torres Bustamante (2013:232) proposes that mirativity is the result of “a clash between a speaker’s previous beliefs and the current state of affairs.” Syntactically, she analyzes mirativity as an “above-the-proposition” phenom- enon by placing the mirative operator in the CP domain. Following Torres Bustamante, we place the Menominee mirative operator in the CP domain. Recall that kat requires conjunct order and produces a mirative reading. 184 MEREDITH JOHNSON AND BRYAN ROSEN
We assume that conjunct order has a relationship with C0, and that either the presence of a CP or the presence of features speci c to C0 conditions its usage (cf. Brittain 2001). By linking both mirativity and conjunct order with C0, and locating kat in Neg0, we can analyze mirativity as a probe-goal relation (Agree) between C0 and Neg0. (25) shows the derivation of kat in conjunct order, while (26) shows the derivation of kan in conjunct order.
(25) a.
b. C0 … Neg0 Agree iNeg [ ] iNeg [ ] c. Neg0 … T0 Agree iNeg [ ] uNeg [val] d. C0 … Neg0 … T0 iNeg [val] iNeg [val] uNeg [val] Locus of negation
(26) a.
b. C0 … Neg0 Agree uNeg [ ] iNeg [ ] c. Neg0 … T0 Agree iNeg [ ] uNeg [val] d. C0 … Neg0 … T0 uNeg [val] iNeg [val] uNeg [val] Locus of negation ON THE EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SYNTAX OF MENOMINEE NEGATION 185
In (25), C0 bears iNeg [ ] from the Numeration; Neg0, iNeg [ ]; and T0, uNeg [val].5 First, C0 probes Neg0, which allows these heads to have an instance of the same feature. Next, Neg0 probes T0 and gets its interpretable feature valued. Since C0 and Neg0 have instances of the same feature, C0 also becomes valued. At the end of the derivation, uninterpretable features and the lower instances of interpretable features are deleted. A similar process occurs in (26). From the Numeration, C0 bears uNeg [ ]; Neg0, iNeg [ ]; and T0, uNeg [val]. Just as in (25), C0 probes Neg0, and Neg0 subsequently probes T0 so that Neg0 (and C0) becomes valued. Finally, all uninterpretable features are deleted. In negative order, kan realizes Neg0 carrying the feature iNeg [ ]. The feature checking process proceeds again by Neg0 probing down to T0 (uNeg [val]) to become valued. The uNeg feature on T0 is deleted to complete the derivation, and negation is interpreted on Neg0 (kan). Thus, the syntactic difference between kan and kat in conjunct order depends on where negation is interpreted: kan indicates that negation is interpreted on the Neg0 node, while kat indicates that negation is interpreted on the C0 node, and thus gives a mirative interpretation.
INTERNAL SYNTAX
In this section, we discuss the implications the structure in (20) has for the morphology associated with negated verbs.
7KH1HJDWLYH2UGHU6XI¿[DQ
In the previous section, we argued that the negator kan occupies the Neg0 position in the syntax. However, the verbal suf x -an is also obligatory in negative order. As shown in (27) below, -an immediately follows the agreement suf x on the verb.
(27) a. ahkanom wenah kan omas kÓs-takčn ahkanom wenah kan omas kÓs-takw-w-an long.ago it NEG here PST-exist.II-INAN-NEG ‘It wasn’t here, long ago.’ (MW; Macaulay’s (12))
5. We assume that the verb has already moved to T0 at this point in the derivation, which allows T0 to bear a valued feature. 186 MEREDITH JOHNSON AND BRYAN ROSEN
b. kan kၤk h ukiw-iskihsinenan kan kၤk h o-kew-aeskihsenၤ-n-an NEG something 3-HAB-be.left.over.AI-AN-NEG ‘He never has anything left.’ (MIF 4; Macaulay’s (22))
Thus, we suggest that -an has a comparable status to the agreement mor- phology, and is licensed by the negator kan. There are two possible ways to account for the appearance of -an, depending on the theoretical approach to morphological agreement. On the lexicalist/Minimalist approach to morphology (see, e.g., Chomsky 1995; among others), -an would be inserted on the verb before syntactic computa- tion, and its relevant features checked with Neg0. In contrast, on the non-lex- icalist approach (see, e.g., Halle and Marantz 1993), -an would be inserted post-syntactically with other agreement morphemes. Both approaches seem to achieve the same empirical result, and since no other part of the analysis presented in the paper requires adopting one of these particular morphologi- cal theories, we leave this issue open.
3HUVRQDO3UH¿[HV
Above we argued, based on the distribution of negation, that conjunct and negative order verbs do not move to C0. In this section, we show that Menominee negative order also provides evidence that the verb does not move to C0 in independent order. Recall from above that the personal pre xes are present in the negative order in Menominee. Previous approaches to the syntax of the Algonquian verb have linked the personal pre xes to the position of the verb. Campana (1996) claims that the conjunct verb does not bear the personal pre xes because the verb moves to C0. He argues that the pre xes are associated with the IP-layer, and thus the conjunct order verb moves past them (see also Brittain 2001). In contrast, Richards (2004) argues that personal pre- xes are absent in conjunct order because they are base-generated in the CP domain, and conjunct order verbs only move to T0. In the previous section, we proposed that the conjunct and negative order verbs never move to C0. This entails that the absence of personal pre xes on the conjunct verb is not due to the verb moving to C0 (contra Campana 1996 and Brittain 1999); otherwise, we would expect the conjunct verb in Menominee to bear the personal pre xes, contrary to fact. ON THE EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SYNTAX OF MENOMINEE NEGATION 187
The negative order also provides evidence that the independent order verb does not move to C0 (contra Richards 2004): in Menominee, the per- sonal pre xes are present on the negative order verb even though the verb does not move to C0. Thus, since the person pre xes can be present with- out the verb moving to C0, there is no justi cation for arguing that the independent-order verb in Menominee moves to C0 based on the presence of the person pre xes. Instead, we propose that the verb in Menominee never moves past T0, and thus that the distribution of the person pre xes is not dependent on the position of the verb.6
$JUHHPHQW6XI¿[HV
At this point, we turn to the morphology of the agreement suf xes. A comparison of the agreement morphology in the independent, negative and conjunct orders show a cline of impoverishment. Independent order has both the person pre xes and a rich set of suf xes, as shown in (28) for AI verbs. Negative order (29) has the person pre xes, but the suf xes make fewer distinctions: all singular forms are identical, the inclusive/exclusive distinction in rst person is neutralized, and the plural suf x is the same for both second and third person.7 The conjunct order (30) does not have the person pre xes, and the suf xes are also impoverished compared to independent order: the inclusive/exclusive distinction is neutralized.
(28) $,,QGHSHQGHQW2UGHU %ORRP¿HOG a. nepčsem b. kepčsem nae-pčse-m kae-pčse-m 1-embark-LCL 2-embark-LCL ‘I embark.’ ‘You (sg.) embark.’
6. For an alternative explanation, see Déchaine and Wiltschko (2014). Under their analysis, third-person pre xes are present if agreement takes place in the IP/TP domain (e.g., in Blackfoot), while they are absent if agreement is a CP-level process (e.g., in Plains Cree). However, it is not clear that their analysis would allow for variation in the domain of agreement in any one given language. 7. An anonymous reviewer notes that the absence of the third person pre x o- in the independent order indicates that the negative order is morphologically richer in this respect. While this is true, our point here is that OVERALL the independent order is morphologically richer than negative order (which in turn is overall richer than conjunct order.) 188 MEREDITH JOHNSON AND BRYAN ROSEN
c. pčsew d. pčsewan pčse-w pčse-w-an embark-3 embark-3-OBV ‘S/he embarks.’ ‘S/he (obv.) embarks.’
e. nepčsemenaw f. kepčseq nae-pčse-m-Enaw kae-pčse-q 1-embark-LCL-1PL.EX 2-embark-1PL.IN ‘We (excl.) embark.’ ‘We (incl.) embark.’
g. kepčsemwaw h. pčsewak kae-pčse-PZƗZ pčse-w-ak 2-embark-LCL-2PL embark-3-3PL ‘You (pl.) embark.’ ‘They embark.’
(29) $,1HJDWLYH2UGHU %ORRP¿HOG a. kan nepčsenan b. kan kepčsenan kan nae-pčse-n-an kan kae-pčse-n-an NEG 1-embark-AN-NEG NEG 2-embark.AN-NEG ‘I do not embark.’ ‘You do not embark.’
c. kan opčsenan d. kan opčsenenÓnan kan o-pčse-n-an kan o-pčse-n-enÓn-an NEG 3-embark.AN-NEG NEG 3-embark.AN-OBV-NEG ‘S/he does not embark.’ ‘S/he (obv.) does not embark.’
e. kan nepčsen nawan f. kan kepčsen nawan kan nae-pčse-QƯQDZDQ kan kae-pčse-n-ënaw-an NEG 1-embark-AN-1PL-NEG NEG 2-embark-AN-1PL-NEG ‘We (excl.) do not embark.’ ‘We (incl.) do not embark.’
g. kan kepčsenowÁwan h. kan opčsenowÁwan kan kae-pčse-n-owÁw-an kan o-pčse-n-owÁw-an NEG 2-embark-AN-2/3PL-NEG NEG 3-embark-AN-2/3PL-NEG ‘You (pl.) do not embark.’ ‘They do not embark.’
(30) $,&RQMXQFW2UGHU %ORRP¿HOG ±) a. pčseyan b. pčseyan pčse-an pčse-an embark-LCL embark-LCL ‘I embark.’ ‘You embark.’ ON THE EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SYNTAX OF MENOMINEE NEGATION 189
c. pčset d. pčsenet pčse-t pčse-aene-t embark-3 embark-OBV-3 ‘S/he embarks.’ ‘S/he (obv.) embarks.’
e. pčseyah f. pčseyah pčse-ahk pčse-ahk embark-1PL embark-1PL ‘We (incl.) embark.’ ‘We (excl.) embark.’
g. pčseyၤk h. pčsetuaq pčse-ၤk pčse-t-wÁw embark-2PL embark-3-3PL ‘You (pl.) embark.’ ‘They embark.’
According to Franck et al. (2006), agreement with local projections is obligatory, but long distance/downward agreement can be impoverished. Samek-Lodovici (2002) formalizes this asymmetry in terms of extended projections (see Grimshaw 2000), and makes the generalization that “agree- ment within local projections is never poorer than agreement within their extended projections” (p. 49). If we connect agreement to the height of the licensing head, we can account for the cline of impoverishment in negative and conjunct orders. Since the verb is in T0, independent order is the most local and has full agreement: it has personal pre xes and a rich system of suf xes. Negative order is more impoverished than independent: it still has personal pre xes but makes fewer distinctions with suf xes. Negative order is dependent on the presence of a NegP, which is further from the verb than T0. Conjunct order is the most impoverished: it has no personal pre xes and suf xes make fewer distinctions. As stated above, we assume that conjunct order is dependent on a relationship with a CP projection, which is higher than both T0 and Neg0. Thus, the agreement pattern in Menominee can be explained by the distance of the licensing head from the verb, as schematized in (31).
0 0 0 0 (31) [CP C [NegP Neg [TP T [VP … V …]]]] Conjunct order Negative order Independent order 190 MEREDITH JOHNSON AND BRYAN ROSEN
CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have argued that negation in Menominee heads a NegP projection between CP and IP/TP. We have further argued that the data from the negative order suggest that the verb in Menominee never moves past T0, contra previous accounts of negation in other Algonquian languages that propose that the verb moves to C0 in negation environments. Overall, the data in this paper contribute to a greater understanding of negation and verb movement in Algonquian languages.
REFERENCES
Aissen, Judith. 1992. Topic and focus in Mayan. Language 68:43–80. Belletti, Adriana. 1990. Generalized verb movement. Torino: Rosenberg and Selliner. den Besten, Hans. 1983. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. 2Q WKH IRUPDO V\QWD[ RI WKH :HVWJHUPDQLD, ed. by Werner Abraham, pp. 47–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bloom eld, Leonard. 1928. 0HQRPLQLWH[WV. Publications of the American Ethnological Society 12, New York. Bloom eld, Leonard. 1962. The Menomini language, ed. by Charles F. Hockett. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Branigan, Phil, and Marguerite MacKenzie. 2002. Word order variation at the left periph- ery in Innu-aimûn. Papers of the 33rd Algonquian Conference, ed. by H. C. Wolfart, pp. 110–119. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press. Brittain, Julie. 1996. Two negative morphemes in Sheshâtshît Montagnais (Innu-aimun): apû and ekâ. 3DSHUVRIWKHWK$OJRQTXLDQ&RQIHUHQFH, ed. by David H. Pentland, pp. 25–36. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press. Brittain, Julie. 2001. 7KHPRUSKRV\QWD[RIWKH$OJRQTXLDQFRQMXQFWYHUE $PLQLPDOLVW approach. New York: Garland. Campana, Mark. 1996. The conjunct verb in Algonquian. Canadian Journal of Linguis- tics 41:201–234. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2014. Micro-variation in agreement, clause-typing and niteness: Comparative evidence from Blackfoot and Plains Cree. Papers of the 42nd Algonquian Conference, ed. by J. Randolph Valentine and Monica Macaulay, pp. 69–101. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Diesing, Molly. 1990. Verb movement and the subject position in Yiddish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8:41–79. Franck, Julie, Glenda Lassi, Ulrich Frauenfelder, and Luigi Rizzi. 2006. Agreement and movement: A syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition 101:173–216. Grimshaw, Jane. 2000. Locality and extended projection. /H[LFDO6SHFL¿FDWLRQDQG,QVHU- tion, ed. by Peter Coopmans, Martin Everaert, and Jane Grimshaw, pp. 115–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ON THE EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SYNTAX OF MENOMINEE NEGATION 191
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of in ec- tion. The view from building 20, ed. by Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, pp. 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Haegeman, Liliane, and Raffaella Zanuttini 1996. Negative concord in West Flemish. 3DUDPHWHUV DQG IXQFWLRQDO KHDGV (VVD\V LQ &RPSDUDWLYH 6\QWD[, ed. by Adriana Belletti and Luigi Rizzi, pp. 117–179. New York: Oxford University Press. Horvath, Julia. 1986. )RFXV LQ WKH WKHRU\ RI JUDPPDU DQG WKH V\QWD[ RI +XQJDULDQ Dordrecht: Foris. Iatridou, Sabine. 1991. Topics in conditionals. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Iatridou, Sabine, and Anthony Kroch. 1992. The licensing of CP-recursion and its rel- evance to the Germanic verb-second phenomenon. Working Papers in Scandinavian Linguistics 50:1–25. Johnson, Meredith, Monica Macaulay, Bryan Rosen, and Rachel Wang. 2015. A survey of Menominee word order. Papers of the 43rd Algonquian Conference, ed. by J. Randolph Valentine and Monica Macaulay. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Laka, Itziar. 1990. 1HJDWLRQLQV\QWD[ 2QWKHQDWXUHRIIXQFWLRQDOFDWHJRULHVDQGSUR- jections. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lochbihler, Bethany, and Éric Mathieu. 2008/2009 Wh-agreement in Ojibwe: conse- quences for feature inheritance and the categorical status of tense. University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of WSCLA 13 and 14), ed. by Heather Bliss and Raphael Girard, pp. 14–31. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. Macaulay, Monica. 2003. Negation, dubitatives, and mirativity in Menominee. Papers of the 34th Algonquian Conference, ed. by H. C. Wolfart, pp. 217–239. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press. McCloskey, James. 1996. On the scope of verb movement in Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14:47–104. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2004. The Syntax of valuation and the interpret- ability of features. Unpublished manuscript, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Richards, Norvin. 2004. The syntax of the conjunct and independent orders in Wampa- noag. International Journal of American Linguistics 70:327–368. Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The ne structure of the left periphery. Elements of Grammar, ed. by Liliane Haegeman, pp. 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rivero, Maria Luisa. 1994. The structure of IP and verb-movement in languages of the Balkans. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12:63–120. Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2002. Agreement impoverishment under subject inversion: A crosslinguistic analysis. Linguistische Berichte 11:49–82. Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1986. V1, V2, V3 in Icelandic. Verb second phenomena in Germanic Languages, ed. by Hubert Haider and Martin Prinzhorn, pp. 169–194. Dordrecht: Foris. Torres Bustamante, Teresa. 2013. Mirativity as Tense (and Aspect) Displacement. Pro- ceedings of NELS 42, ed. by Stefan Keine and Shayne Sloggett, vol. 2, pp. 231–244. Amherst, MA: GLSA. Wiltschko, Martina. 2002. Sentential negation in Upriver Halkomelem. International Journal of American Linguistics 68:253–286.