Argument Structure and Argument-Marking in Choctaw

Abstract Argument Structure and Argument-marking in Choctaw Matthew Tyler 2020 This thesis examines argument structure—the linking relations between verbs and their arguments—in Choctaw, a Muskogean language spoken in Mississippi and Oklahoma. My focus is on three morphological reflexes of argument structure, which constitute the argument-marking systems of the title. Firstly, the verb may host various morphological markers of voice, which often carry labels like ‘transitive’ or ‘causative’. Secondly, the verb may host clitics which index (or ‘double’) certain arguments. Thirdly, overt arguments may carry case-markers. Following recent work in Minimalism and Distributed Morphology, I argue that each of these morphological systems is ‘read off’ a syntactic structure, which encodes verbal argument structure through a root and an arrangement of functional heads (v, Voice, Appl). This syntactic structure must make use of, at least, trivalent specifier requirements, in the sense of Kastner (2020), and a licensing relation. And in the mappings from syntactic structure to morphological and semantic output, there must be a high degree of contextual conditioning, in the sense of Wood and Marantz (2017). Of particular relevance to the syntax- morphology interface, I argue that case-assignment is morphological, and subject to contextual conditioning in the same way that morphological exponence is. I first discuss voice morphology, focusing on the (anti)causative alternation and syntactic causatives. I concentrate on some key puzzles, concerning the multifunctionality of several pieces of morphology. Upon inspection, there turns out to be a many-to-many correspondence between syntactic behavior, morphological exponence, and interpretation. To account for this I adopt two innovations. In the syntax, I adopt trivalent specifier requirements: Voice heads come in three flavors, either mandating, banning, or permitting aspec- ifier. And at the interfaces with morphology and semantics, I adopt a loose connection between syntactic heads, their exponence, and their interpretation, in which allomorphy and allosemy are widespread. I then turn to erg and abs clitics, which distribute in an active alignment, and reveal yet more properties of Voice. I show that erg clitics mostly index external arguments (i.e. inhabitants of Spec-VoiceP), but there are exceptions: some erg clitics index internal arguments, and some external arguments cannot be indexed by erg clitics. I propose that arguments indexed by erg clitics have been assigned an [erg] case value by Voice, but crucially, this case value need not be assigned in a Spec-head configuration with Voice, nor isa Spec-head relation with Voice sufficient. Rather, the establishment of the case-assignment relation is subject to contextually-conditioned rules, just like morphological exponence and semantic interpretation. I then turn to applied arguments, some of which are indexed by dat clitics—and as with erg-indexed arguments, I show that dat-indexed arguments have a particular case value ([dat]). The chapter is focused on an informative bifurcation in the syntactic behavior of applied arguments: some applied arguments can become the subject when they are the highest argument in their clause; others will always remain objects, even when they are the highest argument. The two classes of applied argument have disjoint thematic interpretations. I argue that this distinction motivates an additional property of argument-structure-related functional heads: they may form a syntactic licensing relation with arguments which ‘freezes’ them in place. I also show that an argument having or lacking a dat case value is orthogonal to its syntactic behavior, providing further evidence for the non-syntactic nature of Choctaw case. Finally, I turn to the case-markers that appear on overt NPs. These markers distribute in a nominative alignment, but also compete with zero-marking. To capture the distinction between nominative and oblique arguments, I show that a single [nom] case value assigned from a functional head is required. I then argue that the distinction between the presence and absence of case-marking is orthogonal to their underlying case value, but is a consequence of certain rules and constraints active in the latter stages of the morphological derivation. Furthermore, combining the analysis of case-marking with the analysis of clitic-doubling outlined above, we arrive at an analysis where arguments may end up with zero, one or multiple case values by the end of the derivation. Consequently, the notions of Case-licensing and the Case Filter cannot be a part of the syntactic derivation. In sum, this thesis argues that the mapping from syntactic structure (which encodes argument structure) to its interfaces requires a syntax enriched with trivalent specifier requirements and licensing, and a high tolerance for contextual conditioning in the domains of exponence, interpretation, and case-assignment. In the process, this thesis brings to light a number of interesting new generalizations about Choctaw mor- phosyntax. Argument Structure and Argument-marking in Choctaw A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Yale University in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Matthew David Tyler Dissertation Director: Jim Wood December 2020 © 2021 by Matthew David Tyler All rights reserved. Contents List of abbreviations x Acknowledgments xi 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Theoretical overview ........................................ 2 1.2 Choctaw ............................................... 6 1.2.1 Basic properties ....................................... 6 1.2.2 The causative alternation .................................. 7 1.2.3 Causatives .......................................... 9 1.2.4 Clitics/agreement ...................................... 10 1.2.5 Datives and applicatives .................................. 11 1.2.6 Nominal case-marking ................................... 13 1.3 Theoretical framework ....................................... 14 1.3.1 Minimalist syntax ...................................... 14 1.3.2 The syntax of argument structure ............................. 17 1.3.3 Argument-marking in syntax and morphology ..................... 21 1.3.4 Morphology ......................................... 26 1.3.5 Semantics .......................................... 28 1.4 Methodology ............................................. 31 1.4.1 Interviews .......................................... 31 1.4.2 The tension between description and theory ....................... 36 1.5 Chapter guide ............................................ 37 2 A sketch of Choctaw syntax 40 2.1 Language status ........................................... 41 iii 2.1.1 Existing literature in and about Choctaw ......................... 42 2.2 Phonology and orthography .................................... 44 2.2.1 Segmental Phonology ................................... 45 2.2.2 Suprasegmental phonology ................................ 46 2.2.3 Comparison of the two orthographies .......................... 51 2.3 Basic clausal syntax ......................................... 53 2.3.1 The subject position .................................... 53 2.3.2 Core properties of subjects ................................. 57 2.3.3 Restructuring ........................................ 60 2.3.4 Topics, fronting and extraposition ............................. 61 2.4 The middle field ........................................... 62 2.5 The verb complex .......................................... 66 2.5.1 Suffixes ........................................... 66 2.5.2 Prefixes ........................................... 72 2.5.3 Proclitics ........................................... 77 2.5.4 Aspectual grades ...................................... 80 2.6 Non-verbal categories ........................................ 84 2.6.1 Nouns ............................................ 84 2.6.2 Adjectives and quantifiers? ................................ 89 2.6.3 Adpositions? ........................................ 90 2.7 Constituents of indeterminate clausal vs. nominal status .................... 92 2.7.1 Indefinites and wh-words ................................. 92 2.7.2 Other ‘complex’ NPs .................................... 96 2.7.3 Case and switch-reference ................................. 98 2.8 Conclusion .............................................. 105 3 The syntax of voice morphology 106 3.1 Morphology and semantics of the causative alternation ..................... 109 3.1.1 Morphology ......................................... 109 3.1.2 Interpretation ........................................ 112 3.1.3 Lexicalization and inter-speaker variability ....................... 115 3.2 Outline of analysis .......................................... 117 3.2.1 The causative alternation: merging different Voice heads withvP ........... 118 iv 3.2.2 Interpreting the Voice heads ................................ 122 3.2.3 Syntactic causativization: merging Voice[+N] with VoiceP ................ 126 3.3 The theoretical stakes ........................................ 128 3.3.1 Implications for the analysis of Choctaw verbs ..................... 128 3.3.2 Implications for syntactic theory ............................. 130 3.3.3 Chapter plan ........................................ 133 3.4 The versatility of Voice[] (-li) .................................... 134 3.4.1 How roots can use allosemy to indirectly demand or reject a specifier for Voice[]

Load more