Plains Cree Personal Pronouns
ROSE-MARIE DÉCHAINE, TONI M. CARDINAL, DAVID JOHNSON, AND ANNE-MARIE KIDD University of British Columbia
INTRODUCTION: PLAINS CREE HAS TWO INDEPENDENT PRONOUN PARADIGMS
Plains Cree has two series of independent pronouns (Wolfart 1973:38b).1 One series, which we call PLAIN PRONOUNS, is built on the -îya stem, Table 1. The other series, which we call ADDITIVE PRONOUNS, translate as ‘X also’ or ‘X too’; they are built on the -îsta stem, Table 2.2
TABLE 1: Plains Cree independent pronouns: -îya series
SINGULAR PLURAL 1 nîya ‘I/me’ nîyanân ‘we/us’ 2 kîya ‘you (sg)’ kîyawâw ‘you (pl)’ 21 kiyânaw ‘me and you’ 3 wîya ‘she/he, him/her’ wîyawâw ‘they/them’
1. This research was supported by a SSHRC SRG grant awarded to Martina Wiltschko (Principal Investigator) and Rose-Marie Déchaine (Co-investigator). Thanks to two anonymous reviewers and to Heather Bliss, Clare Cook, Amy Dahlstrom, Ives Goddard, Valerie Marshall, Andy Matheson, Jeffrey Muehlbauer, John Nichols, David Pentland, Hotze Rullmann, Michael Rochemont, Audra Vincent, Ryan Waldie, Martina Wiltschko, as well as Chris Wolfart. All errors are ours; grammaticality judgments are those of Toni Cardinal. 2. Wolfart (1973:38b) calls the -îya series “simple pronouns” and the -îsta series “af¿rmative pronouns.”
28 PLAINS CREE PERSONAL PRONOUNS 29
TABLE 2: Plains Cree independent pronouns: -îsta series
SINGULAR PLURAL 1 nîsta ‘I/me too’ nîstanân ‘we/us too’ 2 kîsta ‘you (SG) too’ kîstawâw ‘you (PL) too’ 21 kîstanaw ‘you and me too’ 3 wîsta ‘she/he, him/her too’ wîstawâw ‘they/them too’
This paper describes and analyses these two series of pronouns, and shows that they differ in form, distribution, meaning, and discourse function. This has consequences for theories of pronouns in natural language. MORPHOLOGICALLY, there is a transparent relation between Plains Cree pronouns and possessed nouns. This shows that pronouns are not primitives (Déchaine and Wiltschko 2002a). SYNTACTICALLY, descriptions and analyses of pronouns in other languages often focus on their appearance in argument position. Using nominal predication as a diagnostic, we show that -îya pronouns are structurally ambiguous, and can function either as predicates or arguments. SEMANTICALLY, one series of pronouns (the -îsta series) is restricted to additive contexts of the type ‘X also’ or ‘X too.’ This is a novel ¿nding, as the existence of an additive series has not been reported in the theoretical literature before. PRAGMATICALLY, the two pronoun series differ in how they interact with information structure: -îya pronouns can be given (i.e., topical) or contrastive, while -îsta pronouns are always contrastive. TYPOLOGICALLY, the existence of two pronoun series in Plains Cree sheds light on the properties of independent pronouns in general, and also on the properties of independent pronouns in other Algonquian languages.
PRONOUN TYPES: WHERE PLAINS CREE FITS IN
Personal pronouns, both across (and within) languages, vary in surface form, paradigmatic structure, semantic and discourse function, and syntactic structure (Déchaine and Wiltschko 2002b). We consider how Plains Cree pronouns ¿t into the larger typology of pronouns. 30 DÉCHAINE, CARDINAL, JOHNSON, AND KIDD
Property 1: Surface Form of Plains Cree Pronouns
Bresnan’s (2001:114) typology divides pronouns into ¿ve classes: (i) a ZERO PRONOMINAL has no expression in morphology or syntax; (ii) a BOUND PRONOMINAL is a morphologically bound af¿x, i.e., pronominal inÀection; (iii) a CLITIC PRONOMINAL has a specialized syntactic position and is phonologically bound to its host; (iv) a WEAK PRONOMINAL is a free form that does not receive primary sentence accent, and differs from a pronoun in form and distribution; (v) a PRONOUN is a free form that may receive primary sentence accent. Applying Bresnan’s typology to Plains Cree yields the results in Table 3.3
TABLE 3: Range of personal pronominal forms in Plains Cree
TYPE FORM CONTEXT Zero 2(PL):1Ø; 1Ø:2(PL); 2Ø:1PL; Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø 1/2:3 ; 3 :1/2; 3(PL) ƍ ; ƍ :3PL; ƍ :3
Bound agreement N-inÀection; V-inÀectionINDEP/CONJ Clitic ¿rst-position proclitic particles, demonstratives, pronouns second-position enclitic particles, pronouns Weak — — Pronoun independent pronoun -îya, -îsta
3. List of abbreviations: 1 ¿rst person; 2 second person; 21 ¿rst-person inclusive; 3 third person; 3ƍ third-person obviative; ADD = additive; C = complementizer; CONJ = conjunct mode; CT = contrastive topic; DEM = demonstrative; EP = epenthetic segment; EVID = evidential; EXCL = exclusive; F = focus; FOC = focus; FUT = future; INCL = inclusive; HAB = habitual; INDEP = independent mode; IMVE = imperative, IRR = irrealis; NA = noun animate; NEG = negation; NI = noun inanimate; OBV = obviative; PL = plural; PRO = pronoun; PRED = predicate; PRT = particle; PSR = possessor; PST = past; SCAL = scalar; SG = singular; SUBJ = subject; TOP = topic; VAI = verb animate intransitive; VII = verb inanimate intransitive; VTA = verb transitive animate; VTI = verb transitive inanimate. Notations for sources contain the following conventions: Wolfart (1973) is cited with “a” or “b” following the page number; this indicates the left- or right-hand column, respectively. References to Wolfart (1973) may also contain a code before the reference, e.g., “P260-26,” which is a convention used by Wolfart to refer to Bloom¿eld (1934). Examples with no source given are from our ¿eldwork. Consultants’ initials are: AA = Alice Ahenakew and EM = Emma Minde. PLAINS CREE PERSONAL PRONOUNS 31
Plains Cree lacks weak pronominals, but has zero, bound and clitic pronominals, as well as pronouns proper. Plains Cree zero pronominals are paradigmatically conditioned zero forms, and are found with ¿rst, second, and third person.4 Plains Cree bound pronominals show up as agreement in
4. In Plains Cree, zero-marking is paradigmatically conditioned, and is found across all persons. In the independent mode, zero ¿rst person occurs with the local series, when both arguments are singular local speech participants, (i). The conjunct mode shows a more complex pattern with the local series, allowing either the ¿rst person or the second person to be zero-marked, (ii). (i) Local series, independent mode Direct Inverse a. ki-wâpam-in ki-wâpam-it-in 2-see.VTA-LOC 2-see.VTA-INV-LOC ‘you see me’ (2>1Ø) ‘I see you’ (1Ø>2) b. ki-wâpam-inâwâw ki-wâpam-it-inâwâw 2-see.VTA-2PL 2-see.VTA-INV-2PL ‘you(pl) see me’ (2PL>1Ø) ‘I see you(pl)’ (1Ø>2PL) (ii) Local series, ê-conjunct Direct Inverse a. ê-wâpam-iyan ê-wâpam-it-ân C-see.VTA-2SG C-see.VTA-INV-1SG ‘you see me’ (2>1Ø) ‘I see you’ (1>2Ø) b. ê-wâpam-iyêk — C-see.VTA-2PL ‘you(pl) see me’ (2PL1Ø) c. ê-wâpam-iyâhk — C-see.VTA-1PL = (i) ‘you see us’ (2Ø>1PL) = (ii) ‘you(pl) see us’ (2Ø>1PL) Zero third person is found in the mixed series, where one argument is third person, and the other is local. Zero-marking in the mixed series is restricted to the conjunct mode. (iii) Mixed series, ê-conjunct a. ê-wâpam-ak ê-wâpam-it C-see.VTA-1.AGENT C-see.VTA-1.PATIENT ‘I see him/her’ (1>3Ø) ‘S/he sees me’ (3Ø>1) b. ê-wâpam-at ê-wâpam-isk C-see.VTA-2.AGENT C-see.VTA-2.PATIENT ‘You see him/her’ (2>3Ø) ‘S/he sees you’ (3Ø>2) [> it-ik > is-ik > isk] note continues on next page 32 DÉCHAINE, CARDINAL, JOHNSON, AND KIDD three distinct paradigms: (i) possessor agreement on nominal stems; (ii) a related set of bound pronominals occur on verbal stems in the INDEPENDENT MODE paradigm; (iii) a third set of bound pronominals occur on verbal stems in the CONJUNCT MODE paradigm. Plains Cree clitic pronominals occur as ¿rst-position proclitics, or as second-position enclitics. Finally, and relevant to the present discussion, is the pronoun set, which corresponds to two series of independent pronouns: the -îya series and the -îsta series.
A zero third person is also found in the third-person series, when both arguments are third persons: one proximate and the other obviative. Direct verbs register the agent, inverse verbs register the patient. This holds of both the independent mode (iv) and the conjunct mode (v). (iv) Mixed series, independent mode Direct Inverse a. wâpam-ê-w wâpam-ik see.VTA-DIR-3 see.VTA-INV
‘s/hePROX sees him/them’ ‘he/they see him/herPROX’ (3>3ƍØ) (3ƍØ>3Ø) b. wâpam-ê-wak wâpam-ikw-ak see.VTA-DIR-3PL see.VTA-INV-3PL
‘theyPROX see him/them’ ‘he/they sees themPROX (3PL>3ƍØ) (3ƍØ>3PL) c. wâpam-ê-yi-wa wâpam-iko-yi-wa see.VTA-DIR-DS-OBV see.VTA-INV-DS-OBV
he/theyOBV see him/them ‘he/they sees him/themOBV (3OBV>3ƎØ INDEP) (3ƎØ>3OBV INDEP) (v) Mixed series, ê-conjunct Direct Inverse a. ê-wâpam-â-t ê-wâpam-iko-t see.VTA-DIR-3 see.VTA-INV-3
‘s/hePROX sees him/them ‘he/they see him/herPROX (3>3ƍØ CONJ) (3ƍØ>3 CONJ) b. ê-wâpam-â-cik ê-wâpam-iko-cik see.VTA-DIR-3PL see.VTA-INV-3PL
‘theyPROX see him/them’ ‘he/they sees themPROX’ (3PL>3ƍØ CONJ) (3ƍØ>3PL CONJ) c. ê-wâpam-ê-yi-t ê-wâpam-iko-yi-wa see.VTA-DIR-DS-3 see.VTA-INV-DS-OBV
‘he/theyOBV see him/them’ ‘he/they sees him/themOBV’ (3OBV>3ƎØ CONJ) (3ƍØ>3OBV CONJ) PLAINS CREE PERSONAL PRONOUNS 33
Property 2: Paradigmatic Structure of Plains Cree Pronouns
According to Bresnan (2001:130ff.), pronoun paradigms have ¿ve possible diachronic sources. First, they can constitute their own paradigm, as in English. Second, they can derive from a noun, as with Spanish Usted, which derives from Vuestra Merced ‘your honor.’ Third, they can derive from a demonstrative, as with Chichewa non-human pronouns, and dialectal English where that is equivalent to it. Fourth, they can derive from an inÀected verbal stem, as with HocÅk (Winnebago) positional verb stems (Lipkind 1945). Fifth, pronouns can derive from an inÀected (possessed) nominal stem. The Plains Cree -îya pronoun series is such an example, and derives from the inalienable noun -îyaw ‘body.NI.’ Another possible source for pronouns—not discussed by Bresnan—is inÀected formatives that attach to extant pronouns. As we show below, this last strategy corresponds to the Plains Cree -îsta pronoun series. Plains Cree pronouns—both the plain and additive series—derive from inÀected nominal stems. Thus, in Plains Cree at least, the difference between “bound pronominals” and “free pronouns” is not categorical, pace Bresnan (2001). But why should a language have two pronoun series? There is a claim that no language lacks free pronouns (Carstairs-McCarthy 1992:165ff.; Bresnan 2001:113). But this universalist claim falls silent on languages like Plains Cree, which have more than one set of pronouns. To our knowledge, no theory of pronouns, formal or functional, predicts this. Closer examination reveals that Cree pronouns parallel inÀected N-stems, speci¿cally dependent Ns, which include body parts, kin terms, and personal possession (Wolfart 1973:28b; Muehlbauer 2007). To see this, consider the singular forms of the ¿rst, second, and third person, (1). Observe that plain (-îya) and additive (-îsta) pronouns take a reduced form of pre¿xal agreement, namely n-, k- and w-. These reduced forms are also found on dependent Ns such as -îk- ‘house’ (Wolfart and Ahenakew 1998). This contrasts with independent nouns such as ospwâkan ‘pipe,’ which take the long form of pre¿xal agreement, namely ni-, ki-, o-, accompanied by epenthetic -t-. We take the parallel between pronouns and dependent Ns, which include body-part Ns, to reÀect the fact that the -îya series— and by analogy the -îsta series—derives from the body-part N -îyaw ‘body.’ 34 DÉCHAINE, CARDINAL, JOHNSON, AND KIDD
(1) a. n-îya n-îsta n-îka5 ni-t-ospwâkan 1-body 1-too 1-house 1-EP-pipe ‘I/me/mine’ ‘I/me too’ ‘my house’ ‘my pipe’
b. k-îya k-îsta k-îka ki-t-ospwâkan 2-body 2-too 2-house 2-EP-pipe ‘you/yours’ ‘you too’ ‘your house’ ‘your pipe’
c. w-îya w-îsta w-îka o-t-ospwâkan 3-body 3-too 3-house 3-ep-pipe ‘s/he, him/her, his/hers’ ‘s/he too, him/her too’ ‘his/her house’ ‘his/her pipe’
While possessed animate nouns trigger obviation (2a), body-part nouns, many of which have inanimate gender (Wolfart 1973; Goulet 2008), fail to trigger obviation, (2b). Plains Cree -îya pronouns parallel dependent body-part nouns, in that they fail to trigger obviation, (2c). Also relevant is the distribution of -yi, which Wolfart (1973:29) and Dahlstrom (1986, 1991) treat as obviative inÀection, but which Muehlbauer (2008:132ff.) analyzes as a disjoint reference marker. This suf¿x attaches to body part nouns (3a), but not to pronouns (3b).
(2) a. o-mâma-wa cf. *o-mâma ‘his/her mother’ 3-mother.NA-OBV 3-mother.NA
b. *o-stikwân-wa cf. o-stikwân ‘his/her head’ 3-head.NI-OBV 3-head.NI
c. *w-îya-wa cf. w-îya ‘s/he, him/her, his/hers’ 3-body.NI-OBV 3-head.NI
(3) a. o-stikwân-iyiw b. *w-îyâ-yiw 3-head.NI-OBV.PSR 3-head.NI-OBV.PSR ‘his/her(OBV) head’
Haas (1967b) reconstructs Proto-Algonquian pronouns as built on the stem *-ƯOD ‘body’ (Wolfart 1973:38b). Proto-Algonquian *l corresponds to Plains Cree y, giving the correspondence set in Table 4.
5. The stem-¿nal /a/ that occurs on -îk- ‘house’ is the effect of minimal word size in Plains Cree: a noun stem must be at least two syllables. See Wolfart (1973) for discussion. PLAINS CREE PERSONAL PRONOUNS 35
TABLE 4: Proto-Algonquian *-ƯOD ‘body’ and Plains Cree -îya
PROTO-ALGONQUIAN PLAINS CREE 1 ‘I, me’ *n-ƯOD-wa n-îya 1PL ‘we, us’ *n-ƯOD-we-nƗn n-îya-nân
The -îya pronouns are etymologically related to -îyaw ‘body,’ and it is instructive to compare their inÀectional patterns; these are given in Tables 5 and 6. The noun -îyaw ‘body’ and the pronoun -îya both use the pre¿xal agreement of dependent Ns, namely the short forms n-, k-, and w-. Neither -îyaw ‘body’ nor its pronominal counterpart -îya allow the head N to be pluralized. While -îyaw ‘body’ does not permit plural possessors, the -îya pronoun does. The latter indicates that pronominal -îya is a grammaticized pronoun devoid of independent referential content.
TABLE 5: Pluralization of possessor and head N: -îyaw ‘body’6
HEAD N = SINGULAR HEAD N = PLURAL 1 nîyaw ‘my body’ *nîyâ-wa [my bodies] 2 kîyaw ‘your SG body’ *kîyâ-wa [your SG bodies] 3 wîyaw ‘his/her body’ *wîyâ-wa [him/her bodies] 1PL *nîyânân [our body] *nîyânân-iwa [our bodies] 21 *kîyânaw [your PL INCL body] *kîyânâ-wa [your PL INCL bodies] 2PL *kîyâwâw [your PL EXCL body] *kîyâwâ-wa [your PL EXCL bodies] 3PL *wîyâwâw [their body] *wîyâwâ-wa [their bodies]
TABLE 6: Pluralization of possessor and head N: -îya pronoun stem
HEAD N = SINGULAR HEAD N = PLURAL 1 nîya ‘I, me, mine’ *nîya-wa [myselves] 2 kîya ‘you, yours, SG’ *kîya-wa [yourselves] 3 wîya ‘she/he, him/her his/hers’ *wîya-wa [him/her-selves] 1PL nîyanân ‘we, us, ours’ *nîyanân-iwa [ourselves] 21 kîyânaw ‘you, yours, PL INCL’ * kîyânâ-wa [yourselves, PL INCL] 2PL kîyawâw ‘you, yours, PL EXCL’ *kîyâwâ-wa [yourselves, PL EXCL] 3PL wîyawâw ‘them, they, theirs’ *wîyawâ-wa [themselves]
6. The suf¿xed forms in Table 5 result from the application of a contraction rule: aw+i ĺ â; see Wolfart 1973:81b for discussion. 36 DÉCHAINE, CARDINAL, JOHNSON, AND KIDD
In Plains Cree, the stem-¿nal vowel of -îya has likely been reanalyzed as the general-purpose /a/ vowel that is used to repair monosyllabic noun roots. Thus, in the same way as maskw- ‘bear’ surfaces as maskwa (Wolfart 1973:30a, fn. 45), the bound pronoun stem -îy- surfaces as -îya (Jeffrey Muehlbauer, personal communication). This allows us to better understand the internal structure of the -îsta pronouns. We conjecture that the additive stem -îsta, which seems to be speci¿c to Plains Cree, arose from the additive enclitic asici. The latter is cited in Wolfart and Ahenakew (1998:14) as an indeclinable particle (IPC) glossed as ‘also, in addition, along with, together with’ (4). We speculate that the -îsta pronoun paradigm comes from a combination of the -îy- pronoun stem with the *-asita enclitic, (5). We assume that the surface form of -îsta pronouns reÀects the application of vowel deletion and syllable reduction, (6).
(4) asic-i (asit-i; too-PRT) < *-asit- < *-asit-a
(5) *n-îy-asita < *n-îyas’ta < n-îsta 1-self-too 1-self.too 1-too (‘me too’)
(6) Vowel deletion (Wolfart 1973:81a): i ĺ / C__C n - î y - a s i t a Syllable reduction Cî.yasta ĺ Cîsta n - î y - a s t a n - î - s t a
Property 3: Semantic Functions of Plains Cree Pronouns
While -îya pronouns occur in a wide variety of contexts, including emphatic ones (7a), -îsta pronouns occur only in additive contexts (7b). This difference in semantic function is reÀected in differences in the external syntax of -îya and -îsta pronouns, which we discuss in the next two sections.
(7) a. nika-miywêyihtên nîya mîna wâhyaw kit-êtohtêmakahk pîkiskwêwin, . . . 1.IRR-glad.VAI.1.IND 1.PRO also far.away IRR-go.VII.1.CONJ speech ‘I myself shall be glad that far away my speech will go, . . .’ (P4-33, Wolfart 1973:77a)
b. êyâpic nîsta nik-âcimon. in.due.course 1.too 1.IRR-narrate.VAI.1.INDEP ‘I too will narrate some more.’ (Wolfart 1973:83a, 83b, 84) PLAINS CREE PERSONAL PRONOUNS 37
THE EXTERNAL SYNTAX OF THE PLAIN SERIES: THE -ÎYA PRONOUNS Plains Cree -îya pronouns occur in the following contexts: (i) with coordinated DPs; (ii) with nominal predication (as either subject or predicate); (iii) as clitics (the latter is restricted to wîya); (iv) as topic-linked pronouns; (v) as focus-linked pronouns. We consider each in turn.
Context 1: -îy(a) Pronouns Can Be Coordinated with Other DPs Con¿rmation that -îya pronouns are DPs comes from the fact that they can coordinate with other DPs, (8). This also con¿rms that -îya forms are free forms, a de¿ning property of PRONOUNS in Bresnan’s (2001) typology.
(8) a. ki-wâpamitinâwaw Jeff êkwa kîya. 2-see.VTA.1>2.PL.INDEP J. and 2.PRO ‘I saw Jeff and you.’
b. nîya êkwa Jeff ê-wâpamitahk. 1.PRO and J. C-see.VTA.1>2.PL.CONJ ‘Jeff and I saw you.’
Context 2: -îy(a) Pronouns Participate in Nominal Predication
Plains Cree has many verbless sentences that juxtapose a subject with a nominal predicate (Ahenakew 1987; Déchaine 1997). In such contexts, -îya pronouns can be construed as the subject of nominal predication (9a), as an equative predicate (9b), or as a possessive predicate (9c). Observe that while the equative construal allows truncation of the ¿nal stem vowel (9b), the possessor construal retains the ¿nal vowel (9c).
(9) a. okimâw nîya. leader 1.PRO ‘I’m the person in charge; I’m the chief; I’m the CEO; I’m the top-gun.’
b. nîy’ ôma. 1.PRO DEM.NI ‘It’s me.’
c. nîya ôma. 1.PRO DEM.NI ‘It’s mine.’ 38 DÉCHAINE, CARDINAL, JOHNSON, AND KIDD
-ÎY(A) PRONOUNS AS SUBJECTS OF NOMINAL PREDICATION
Plains Cree nominal predication is an instance of inverse predication where the predicate precedes the subject (Ruwet 1967; Moro 1997). This yields the structure in (10). Moreover, the information-theoretic status of the pronoun is sensitive to person features: ¿rst/second person is indexical in that it links to a speech act participant, while third person is anaphoric (Fillmore 1997; Déchaine and Wiltschko, to appear). Thus, in an out-of-the-blue context, a ¿rst/second person pronoun is felicitous, (11). This is because an indexical can always anchor to a discourse referent in the common ground, namely the relevant speaker or hearer. This con¿rms that ¿rst/second person pronouns are inherently given. However, a third-person pronoun is not felicitous in an out-of-the-blue context (12a). This can be repaired by providing a contrastive context (12b), where the third person is in focus. And if the personal pronoun is replaced by a demonstrative (12c), then the latter introduces the third person into the common ground.
(10) [ NPPREDICATE DPSUBJECT ]
(11) [NP/PRED okimâw ] [DP/SUBJ=GIVEN nîya ] leader 1.PRO ‘I’m the person in charge; I’m the chief; I’m the CEO; I’m the top-gun.’
(12) a. #okimâw wîya leader 3.PRO Consultant’s comment: “wîya is used in contrast”
b. môy nîya okimâw, [NP/PRED okimâw ] [DP/SUBJ=FOCUS wîya ] NEG 1.PRO leader leader 3.PRO ‘I’m not the top gun, she’s the one that’s the top-gun.’ (offered as correction to (12a))
c. [NP/PRED okimâw ] [DP/SUBJ=GIVEN awa ] leader DEM.NA ‘S/he’s the top-gun.’
STRUCTURAL AMBIGUITY OF -ÎY(A) PRONOUNS IN PREDICATIVE POSITION
Equative predication, which is a kind of nominal predication, establishes an identity relation between two DPs, e.g., [DP Lucy] is [DP the doctor]. Since PLAINS CREE PERSONAL PRONOUNS 39
Plains Cree nominal predication has a [PREDICATE-SUBJECT] order, if the initial element is a DP, then the structure is [DPPRED DPSUBJ]. A pronoun in initial position, because it is a DP, necessarily gives rise to equative readings. For some speakers, the pronoun is ambiguous between possessive property-attribution (13a), and equation proper (13b).7 In negative contexts, these two readings are disambiguated: an overt demonstrative in subject position forces the possessor construal (14a); a null subject forces the equative reading (14b).8
(13) &nîya ôma. 1.PRO DEM.NI
a. ‘it’s mine’ [S [PRED/DP n-îya ] [DP/SUBJ ôma ] ]
b. ‘it’s me’ [S [PRED/DP nîya ] [DP/SUBJ ôma ] ]
(14) a. môy nîya ôma. neg 1.pro DEM.NI
‘it’s not mine’ [S [NEG môy [S[PRED/DP n-îya ][DP/SUBJ ôma ]]]
b. môy nîya. NEG 1.PRO
‘it’s not me’ [S [NEG môy [S[PRED/DP nîya ][DP/SUBJ pro ]]]
This interpretive contrast indicates that Plains Cree pronouns are structurally ambiguous. On the possessor reading, they are complex D-pronouns, akin to English forms such as ‘myself’ (15a). On the equative reading, they are simplex D-pronouns whose internal structure is opaque (15b), akin to English forms such as ‘me’ and ‘I.’
7. Jeffrey Muehlbauer (personal communication) informs us that some speakers alternate between a [DEM PRONOUN] order (i) and a [PRONOUN DEM] order (ii). We analyze the former along the lines of French C’est le mien, lit. ‘It is the mine,’ with the [DEM PRONOUN] sequences analyzed as a single DP constituent, in combination with a null pro subject. (i) a. ôma nîya (ii) a. nîya ôma DEM 1.PRO 1.PRO DEM ‘it’s mine’ ‘it’s me’
b. [S [PRED/DP ôma n-îya ] [DP/SUBJ pro ]] b. [S [PRED/DP nîya] [DP/SUBJ ôma]] 8. We adopt the convention of using superscript “&” to indicate ambiguity. 40 DÉCHAINE, CARDINAL, JOHNSON, AND KIDD
(15) a. [D n- [PHI [N îya ]]] [complex D-pronoun]
b. [D nîya [PHI [N ]]] [simplex D-pronoun]
Context 3: Third Person wîya Can Be a Clitic
Third person wîya also occurs as a second-position enclitic (Blain 1995), where it reinforces other pronouns (16a), or sentence connectives such as negative êkâ (16b), concessive âta (16c), continuative êkwa (16d), and evidential êsa (16e). As an enclitic, it forms a phonological word with its host. Thus, in (16a), there is a pitch rise on the penultimate syllable, as well as vowel lengthening: [niyáawiya]. And in (16b), êkâwîya often collapses to êkâya in running speech. Wîya also occurs as a proclitic, at the left edge of DPs (17), or CPs (18).9
(16) a. mâka, [nîya wîya] môy nôh-pakwâtên anima . . . but 1.PRO 3.PRO NEG 1.from-hate.VTI.1.INDEP DEM.NI ‘But I did not mind [it] . . .’ (EM 8, Cook 2008:70, (25b))
b. [êkâ wîya] pîtos awiya wîkim. NEG 3.PRO different someone marry.VTA.2>3.IMVE ‘Don’t marry anyone else.’ (P260-26, Wolfart 1973:38a)
c. [âta wîya] nîsta piyisk nikîtôtên êwakw anima indeed 3.PRO 1.too ¿nally PST.do.VTI.1.INDEP TOP DEM.NI ‘I, too, ¿nally used to do that, . . .’ (EM 50, Cook 2008:294, (48b))
d. [êkwa wîya] ôma micihciy ê-pê-otinahk and 3.PRO DEM.NI hand C-come-take.VTI.3.CONJ ‘. . . and then this hand took it.’ (T10p128, Wolfart 1973:15b, 62b)
e. mâka pâskisikan [wiy’êsa] ê-ki-nakatamâht êsa. . . . but gun 3.PRO EVID C-PST-leave.for.VTI.3.CONJ EVID ‘. . . but he had been left with a gun.’ (AA2000§9.8, Muehlbauer 2008:193, (242))
9. When wîya occurs at the left edge of a clause it seems to function as a subordinating particle, i.e., a complementizer. This is akin to the double duty performed by English that, which may be a demonstrative (e.g., that woman), or a complementizer (I know that Lucy saw me). PLAINS CREE PERSONAL PRONOUNS 41
(17) êkwa ana pêyak [DP wîy’âna] nîsôtêw ana, and DEM.NA one 3.PRO DEM.NA twin.VAI.3.INDEP DEM.NA ‘And one of the twins . . .
ê-kî-kiskinohamâht ta-pimihât, . . . C-PST-train.VTA.3.CONJ IRR-pilot.VAI.3.CONJ . . . trained to be a pilot, . . .’ (AA 5.20, Cook 2008:314, (86b))
(18) a. [CP wîya ê-mosci-kitâpamât], moy kêhcinahô kîkwaya. 3.PRO C-merely-look.at.VAI.3>3ƍ.CONJ NEG be.certain.VAI.3.INDEP what.sort ‘But since he looked at him plainly (without telescope) he was not sure what he was.’ (T58-4, Wolfart 1973:36a)
b. [CP wîya kahkiyaw kîkway ê-kî-wayêsihtahk] 3.PRO every thing C-PST-trick.by.speech.VTI.3.CONJ
awa wîsahkêcâhk. DEM.NA Wisahkecahk ‘For everything he used to trick by speech, this Wisahkecachk’ (T131-4 Wolfart 1973:21a)
Context 4: -îy(a) Pronouns Can Be Topic-Linked
Information structure is concerned with how an utterance optimally conveys an interlocutor’s point of view of the discourse situation (Chafe 1976). We adopt the view that there are three basic information states: given, new, and contrastive (Rochemont 2012). In general, pronouns introduce given information, but they can also present new and contrastive information (Kameyama 1997). Not much is known about the structural correlates of givenness, newness, and contrast in Plains Cree, but preliminary studies suggest that both the left-edge and right-edge of the clause are exploited for information-structure contrasts (Dahlstrom 1995; Junker 2004; Wolvengrey 2007). The data we present here focuses on the left-edge of the clause. We identify two structural positions for -îya pronouns: (i) a left-most contrastive focus position, labeled XP in (19); (ii) a default left-edge (but not left-most) position that is compatible with both given and discourse-new information, labeled YP in (19).
(19) [FOCUS XP [GIVEN/NEW YP [CP . . . ]]] 42 DÉCHAINE, CARDINAL, JOHNSON, AND KIDD
In Plains Cree, information structure contrasts are coded by linear order, rather than intonation. In addition, the interaction of pronouns with information structure is mediated by agreement, as a pronoun must link to verbal pronominal agreement. Both topicalized (given) and focused pronouns link to agreement; we call this topic-linking and focus-linking. (See Déchaine (1999b) for an analysis of Algonquian agreement as a linking relation, in the sense of Higginbotham (1980)). Moreover, the deployment of -îya pronouns is sensitive to clause-typing, in particular to the distinction between indexical (independent mode) and anaphoric (conjunct mode) clauses. We discuss topic-linking ¿rst, then focus-linking. Plains Cree independent mode clauses are indexical in that they anchor to the utterance situation (Cook 2008). This predicts that the pronominal agreement of independent mode clauses anchors to the discourse topic. Accordingly, when an -îya pronoun combines with an independent mode form, it links to the structurally conditioned discourse operator in [Spec-CP]. With ¿rst and second person, the operator has overt content in the form of person proclitics (ni- and ki-), and -îya pronouns link to the corresponding proclitics via agreement, (20a–b). With the third person, the wîya pronoun links to the null topic in [Spec-CP], (20c). (We adopt the convention of underlining the agreeing forms.)
(20) a. [DP nîya ] [CP ni=TOP [IP . . . ]] nîya + INDEPENDENT MODE
b. [DP kîya ] [CP ki=TOP [IP . . . ]] kîya + INDEPENDENT MODE
c. [DP wîya ] [CP proTOP [IP . . . ]] wîya + INDEPENDENT MODE
In Plains Cree, the independent mode is restricted to discourse-initial matrix clauses. All other clauses are in the conjunct mode, which constitutes a distinct verbal paradigm. Plains Cree has three conjunct mode forms—the simple conjunct, the ê-conjunct, and the kâ-conjunct—whose distribution is structurally determined (Wolfart 1996; Cook 2008). Relevant to the present discussion is the fact that the ê-conjunct has a general-purpose null operator in [Spec-CP], which is compatible with, but not restricted to, topic-binding, (21). The linking of the pronoun to the operator is mediated by right-edge pronominal agreement. (See Déchaine (1999a) for arguments that this agreement attaches via cliticization.)
(21) a. [DP nîya] [CP OP [C ê- [IP . . .=AGR ]]] nîya + ê-CONJUNCT MODE
b. [DP kîya] [CP OP [C ê- [IP . . .=AGR ]]] kîya + ê-CONJUNCT MODE
c. [DP wîya] [CP OP [C ê- [IP . . .=AGR ]]] wîya + ê-CONJUNCT MODE PLAINS CREE PERSONAL PRONOUNS 43
Topical -îya pronouns occur in both the independent and ê-conjunct mode. In (22)–(24), the (a) examples show topic-linked pronouns hosted by independent mode clauses; the (b) examples with ê-conjunct mode clauses. In the present analysis, these are structurally-conditioned topics that link via agreement to a topic-operator (overt or null) in [Spec-CP]. These left- edge -îya pronouns adjoin to the CP they are construed with, as con¿rmed by the fact that other elements may intervene between the pronoun and its host clause.
(22) a. kîyaTOP namôya nântaw ka-kî-ohtinamâson ka-mîcîyin. 2.PRO NEG anyway 2.IRR-able-take.for.VAI.2.INDEP FUT-eat.VAI.2.INDEP ‘As for you, you wouldn’t be able to get anything to eat, anyway.’
b. kîyaTOP namôya nântaw ê-kî-ohtinamâsoyan ka-mîcîyin. 2.PRO NEG anyway C-PST-take.for.VAI.2.CONJ FUT-eat.VAI.2.INDEP ‘As for you, you couldn’t ¿nd anything to eat anyway.’ (adapted from S42-23, Wolfart 1973:77b)
(23) a. êkosi nîyanânTOP mâskôc namoya nikiskêhimikonân maci-manitow. thus 1PL.PRO perhaps NEG know.VTA.3>1PL.INDEP bad-spirit ‘As for us, perhaps we are not known to the devil.’
b. êkosi nîyanânTOP mâskôc namoya ê-kiskêhimikoyâhk maci-manitow. thus 1PL.PRO perhaps NEG know.VTA.3>1PL.CONJ bad-spirit ‘As for us, perhaps the devil does not know us.’ (adapted from P4-40, Wolfart 1973:55a, fn. 66)
(24) a. ahpô, kîyawâwTOP mâna kîkway ki-y-âpacihtânâwâw. or 2pl.PRO HAB thing 2-EP-use.VTA.2PL.INDEP ‘Or, what did you all use?’
b. ahpô, kîyawâwTOP mâna kîkway ê-kî-âpacihtâyêk. or 2PL.PRO HAB thing C-EP-use.VTA.2PL.CONJ ‘Or, what did you all use?’ (adapted from T10p22, Wolfart 1973:36a)
Context 5: -îya Pronouns Can Be Focus-Linked
We adopt Rooth’s (1985, 1992) alternative semantics analysis of focus, and more speci¿cally Krifka’s (2008) formulation of it: “focus indicates the 44 DÉCHAINE, CARDINAL, JOHNSON, AND KIDD presence of alternatives that are relevant for the interpretation of linguistic expressions” (Krifka 2008:247, (6)). With argument focus, -îya pronouns can be focus-linked (we mark this with subscript F), in either the independent or ê-conjunct mode. Focus-linking of ¿rst/second person nîya/kîya is shown in (25); focus-linking of third person wîya is shown in (26). The (a) examples are in the independent mode; the (b) examples are in the ê-conjunct.
(25) a. kîyaF kimiyohtwân, mâka nîyaF nimacîhtwân.
b. kîyaF ê-miyohtoyan, mâka nîyaF ê-macîhtoyân. 2.PRO nice.VAI.2 but 1.PRO mean.VAI.1 ‘You are nice but I am mean.’
(26) a. môy nimiywêyihtên sîsip-mîcimapôy, mâka John wîya miywêyihtam êkw’anima.
b. môy ê-miyêhtâmân sîsip-mîcimapôy, mâka John wîyaF ê-miyêhtahk êkw’anima. NEG like.VTI.1 duck-soup but John 3.PRO like.VTI.3 TOP DEM.NI ‘I don’t like duck soup; but John, he likes that.’
The independent mode and ê-conjunct are compatible with, but do not require, contrastive focus. But with the kâ-conjunct, contrastive focus is obligatory in matrix clauses. In elicitation, this occurs most easily in question/answer pairs (27), and in corrections where an alternative is explicitly offered (28).
(27) A: awîna kâ-miywêyihtahk ê-mêtawêt who C-like.VTI.3.CONJ C-play.VAI.3.CONJ ‘Who’s the one who likes to play?’
B: niyaF ôma kâ-miywêyihtamân ê-mêtawêyân 1 DEM.NI C-like.VTI.1.CONJ C-play.VAI.1.CONJ ‘I’m the one who likes to play.’
(28) A: Marie ê-kî-wîcêwak Marie C-PAST-accompany.VTA.1>3.CONJ ‘I went with Marie.’
B: Namôya, môy kîyaFOC kâ-wîcêwat. No, NEG 2.PRO C-with.go.VTA.2>3.CONJ ‘No, it wasn’t you that went with her.’ PLAINS CREE PERSONAL PRONOUNS 45
THE EXTERNAL SYNTAX OF THE ADDITIVE SERIES: THE -ÎSTA PRONOUNS
The data that we present here on Plains Cree -îsta pronouns are novel in two ways. First, this is the ¿rst attempt to catalogue the contexts in which Plains Cree additive pronouns occur. Second, the existence of dedicated additive pronouns of the type found in Plains Cree widens the empirical domain for formal theories of additive semantics, which have, thus far, been based on the behavior of general-purpose additive particles such as ‘also’ and ‘too.’ Plains Cree -îsta pronouns are inherently additive, as indicated by their translation as ‘X also’ or ‘X too.’ As such, they interact with the additive particle mîna ‘also.’ After introducing some background on additive particles, we show how mîna ‘also’ interacts with additive -îsta pronouns to mark the scope of the additive operator. We also brieÀy discuss what seems to be additive concord, which has not been reported before in the descriptive or theoretical literature.
Background on Additive Particles
Additive particles like ‘also, too’ are part of a larger set of grading particles which include scalar (even) and exclusive (only) particles. These grading particles usually occur before the focused constituent they associate with, and yield different presuppositions. Consider the examples in (29). In English, the associate has a pitch-accent (indicated in CAPS). In (29a), additive also associates with Lucy; this sentence asserts that ‘Peter invited Lucy for dinner’ and presupposes that ‘Peter invited somebody other than Lucy for dinner.’ In (29b), scalar even associates with Lucy; this sentence has the same assertion, namely that ‘Peter invited Lucy for dinner,’ and presupposes that ‘Lucy is an unlikely person for Peter to invite for dinner.’ In (29c), exclusive only associates with Lucy; this sentence asserts that ‘Peter invited nobody else but Lucy for dinner’ and presupposes that ‘Peter invited Lucy for dinner.’
(29) a. Peter also invited LUCYFOC for dinner. [additive particle] assertion: ‘Peter invited Lucy for dinner.’ presupposition: ‘Peter invited somebody other than Lucy for dinner.’ 46 DÉCHAINE, CARDINAL, JOHNSON, AND KIDD
b. Peter even invited LUCYFOC for dinner. [scalar particle] assertion: ‘Peter invited Lucy for dinner.’ presupposition: ‘Lucy is an unlikely person for Peter to invite for dinner.’
c. Peter only invited LUCYFOC for dinner. [exclusive particle] assertion: ‘Peter invited nobody else but Lucy for dinner.’ presupposition: ‘Peter invited Lucy for dinner.’
Consider next Table 7. Grading particles all associate with a focus (F1), but differ in the focus-alternatives (Fƍ) that they evoke. Additive also presupposes a focus-alternative (Fƍ) distinct from the focus (F). Scalar even presupposes there are no focus-alternatives (Fƍ) less likely than the focus (F). And exclusive only asserts there is no focus-alternative (Fƍ) distinct from the focus (F).
TABLE 7: The semantics of English grading particles
ASSERTION PRESUPPOSITION
[alsoADD1 [S«F1…]]: [S …F…] ( Fƍ F[S …Fƍ…] ) Ø [evenSCAL1 [S …F1…]]: [S …F…] ( Fƍ F[ [S …F…] English grading particles usually precede their focus. The one exception is the additive particle, which can follow its associate, in which case it is stressed, (30).10 Observe that in English, the form of the additive particle reÀects its linear position: when it precedes its associate, it surfaces as also; when it follows its associate it surfaces as too or as well. The associate of such right-hand additive particles are analyzed as contrastive topics (Krifka 1998; Rullman 2003); notated as a subscript CT in (30). When Cree speakers translate additive forms into English, they volunteer left-edge also, or right-hand too. 10. The paradigm in (27) is based on data reported in Krifka (2008). Some English speakers permit all three scalar particles at the right edge (Michael Rochemont, Jeffrey Muehlbauer, personal communication): (i) a. Peter invited LUCYCT for dinner {ÀLSO, TÒO, AS WÈLL}. b. Peter invited LUCYCT for dinner ÒNLY. c. Peter invited LUCYCT for dinner ÈVEN. PLAINS CREE PERSONAL PRONOUNS 47 (30) a. Peter invited LUCYCT for dinner { TÓO, AS WÉLL }. [additive particle] b. *Peter invited LUCYCT for dinner ÓNLY. [exclusive particle] c. *Peter invited LUCYCT for dinner ÉVEN. [scalar particle] With this as background, we now turn our attention to Plains Cree additive forms, of which there are two: the additive particle mîna ‘also,’ and the additive -îsta pronouns.11 We show that: (i) if the additive operator has predicate scope, additive mîna is used; (ii) if the additive operator has argument scope, then an additive -îsta pronoun is used; (iii) additive mîna and additive -îsta can co-occur. Predicative and Argument Scope: Additive mîna Versus Additive -îsta Pronouns The additive particle mîna has predicate scope; i.e., in both (31) and (32) it scopes over ‘(not) wash the dishes.’ In af¿rmative contexts, additive mîna can precede or follow the clause it associates with (31), translates into English as either ‘too’ or ‘also,’ and marks either a focus or contrastive topic. In negative contexts, there is a preference for mîna to occur before the negated clause, (32a), and it can mark focus or contrastive topic. In the presence of negation, mîna is dispreferred in post-verbal position and seems to only mark contrastive topic (32b). (31) a. John kîstêpow êkwa mîna kisîpêyâkinêw. John cook.VAI.3.INDEP and also wash.dish.VAI.3.INDEP = (i) ‘John cooked the food, and he also [washed the dishes]F’ = (ii) ‘John cooked the food, and he [washed the dishes]CT too.’ (NB: both translations freely offered by consultant) b. John kîstêpow êkwa kisîpêyâkinêw mîna. John cook.VAI.3.INDEP and wash.dish.VAI.3.INDEP also = (i) ‘John cooked the food, and he also [washed the dishes]F.’ = (ii) ‘John cooked the food, and he [washed the dishes]CT too.’ (NB: both translations freely offered by consultant) 11. Plains Cree additive particles include mîna ‘also,’ ahpô mîna ‘even,’ and poko ‘only’ (also piko for some speakers). 48 DÉCHAINE, CARDINAL, JOHNSON, AND KIDD (32) a. John mwê kîstêpow êkwa mîna môy kisîpêyâkinêw. John NEG cook.VAI.3.INDEP and also NEG wash.dishes.VAI.3.INDEP = (i) ‘John didn’t cook the food. He also did [not wash the dishes]F.’ = (ii) ‘John didn’t cook the food. He did [not wash the dishes]CT either.’ b. ?John mwê kîstêpow êkwa môy kisîpêyâkinêw mîna. John NEG cook.VAI.3.INDEP and NEG wash.dishes.VAI.3.INDEP also ‘John didn’t cook the food. He didn’t [wash the dishes]CT either.’ Consultant’s comment: “If I was saying it, I would use (32a) (rather than (32b)).” While additive mîna has predicate scope, additive -îsta pronouns are used when the additive operator has argument scope. This is shown in (33a) with the ¿rst person form nîsta ‘I also,’ and in (33b) with third person form wîsta ‘s/he also.’ (33) a. nîsta niwî-tôhtân. 1.too 1.FUT-go.VAI.1.INDEP ‘[I]CT’m going to go too.’ b. wîsta ka-pêtôhtêw. 3.too IRR-come.VAI.3.INDEP ‘[S/he]CT’ll come along also.’ We analyze the pronominal agreement that appears on inÀected -îsta ‘too’ as linked to a contrastive topic. The structures for the examples in (33) are given in (34), where the associate of the additive operator -îsta ‘too’ is the topic position introduced in [Spec-CP] of the independent mode clause. (34) a. [DP [nAGR]i -îsta]] [CP ni=CT [IP wî-tôhtân ]] 1- too 1- FUT-go.VAI.1.INDEP ‘[I]CT’m going to go too.’ b. [DP [wAGR]i -îsta]] [CP proCT [IP ka-pêtôhtêw ]] 3- too IRR-come.VAI.3.INDEP ‘[S/he]CT’ll come along also.’ Additive mîna can co-occur with an additive -îsta pronoun. Consider the examples in (35). In (35a), the associate of the additive operator is a predicate that is in focus, and mîna is used by itself. In (35b), the associate PLAINS CREE PERSONAL PRONOUNS 49 of the additive operator is an argument that is in focus, and mîna is used in combination with the additive -îsta pronoun. (35) a. Context: I’m not X quality. I’m not Y quality. I’m also not mean . . . êkwa mîna môy nimacîhtwân. and also NEG mean.VAI.1.INDEP ‘. . . and I’m also [not mean]F.’ b. Context: Person X is not mean; I’m also not mean . . . nîsta mîna môy nimacîhtwân. 1.too also NEG mean.VAI.1.INDEP ‘. . . [I]F’m also not mean.’ (35) con¿rms that mîna does not inherently have predicate scope. The argument goes as follows. First, the additive -îsta pronoun forces argument scope. Second, in the presence of an additive -îsta pronoun, additive mîna takes argument scope; we analyze this as concordial additive marking. Third, when mîna occurs by itself, since there is a marked form for argument scope (namely -îsta pronouns), mîna takes predicate scope. We take this to be an elsewhere effect. Recall that independent mode clauses are analyzed as having proclitic agreement in [Spec-CP], and that with ¿rst/second person indexical features are given. The default is for 1/2 to anchor to the discourse topic, since given is usually topic. But it is also possible for given information to be focused, in which case the associate—which corresponds to the proclitic in [Spec-CP]—is a contrastive topic. Thus, the structure for (35) is as in (36). Accordingly, -îsta forms have the status of inÀected additive particles that happen to agree with their associate. (36) . . . [[ nAGR]i -îsta] mîna môy [CP ni =CT/i [IP macîhtwân ]]] 1 too also NEG 1 mean.VAI.INDEP ‘. . . [I]F’m also not mean.’ It is instructive to look at the interaction of additive mîna and the additive -îsta pronouns. So far, the examples that we have presented where an additive pronoun co-occurs with the additive particle mîna are ones where the pronoun is left-adjacent to the particle. This might suggest that they form a single additive constituent. Evidence against this comes from the fact that it is 50 DÉCHAINE, CARDINAL, JOHNSON, AND KIDD possible for the two to be separated: in (37a) mîna follows adverbial elements; in (37b), the -îsta pronoun precedes them; and in (37c) they co-occur. (37) a. ahpô êtokwê mîna nitomêwak. maybe probably also invite.VTA.3PL>3.INDEP ‘They might have also [invited him]F.’ b. Tomio niwâpamâw, wîsta ahpô êtokwê nitomêwak. Tomio 1-see.VTA.1>3.INDEP 3.too maybe probably invite.VTA.3.PL>3.INDEP ‘I saw Tomio, they might have invited [him]CT too.’ c. Tomio niwâpamâw, wîsta ahpô êtokwê mîna nitomêwak. Tomio 1-see.VTA.1>3.INDEP 3.too maybe probably also invite.VTA.3PL>3.INDEP ‘I saw Tomio, they might also have invited [him]CT too.’ An additive -îsta pronoun can occur by itself (38), or in combination with the additive particle mîna (39), with the latter judged as more felicitous. This indicates that additive concord is preferred. This holds of the independent mode (a), the ê-conjunct (b), and the kâ-conjunct (c). (The kâ-conjunct is ambiguous between an adjunct when-clause or a matrix cleft, cf. Cook 2008.) (38) a. nîsta ni-wî-tôhtân. ‘[I]CT ’m going to go too.’ b. nîsta ê-wî-tôhtêyân. ‘[I]CT ’m going to go too.’ & c. nîsta kâ-wî-tôhtêyân. = (i) ‘when [I]CT am also going to go’ 1.too C-FUT-go(VAI1) = (ii) ‘I’m the one that is also going to go.’ (39) a. nîsta mîna ni-wî-tôhtân. ‘[I]CT ’m going to go too.’ b. nîsta mîna ê-wî-tôhtêyân. ‘[I]CT ’m going to go too.’ & c. nîsta mîna kâ-wî-tôhtêyân. = (i) ‘when [I]CT am also going to go’ 1.too also 1.go.VAI1 = (ii) ‘I’m the one that is also going to go.’ That additive concord is at play in (39) is con¿rmed by the fact that substituting additive -îsta with an -îya pronoun leads to degradation. An -îya pronoun with an independent mode clause is used in contexts of contrastive focus, (40a). Combining the additive particle with a plain pronoun is dispreferred (40b). This can be remedied by stacking an additive pronoun in a left-peripheral topic position, (40c), in which case additive mîna scopes over the predicate, and additive -îsta takes argument scope. So while (39) involves additive concord (a single additive operator with two PLAINS CREE PERSONAL PRONOUNS 51 surface instantiations), (40c) has two distinct additive operators. We assume, following Rullmann (2003), that one associate is a focus, while the other is a contrastive topic. This shows that additive -îsta pronouns are a probe for how information structure is deployed in Plains Cree. More remains to be discovered, and we are investigating this in ongoing research. (40) a. mâkanîya ni-wî-tôhtân. but 1.PRO 1-FUT-go.VAI.1.INDEP ‘. . . but [I]F’m going’ b. ?nîya mîna ni-wî-tôhtân. 1.PRO also 1-FUT-go.VAI.1.INDEP ‘[I]F’m going to go too.’ Consultant’s comment: “OK, but not the best.” c. nîsta nîya mîna ni-wî-tôhtân. 1.too 1.PRO also 1-FUT-go.VAI1.INDEP ‘Me too, [I]CT’m also [going to go]F too.’ IMPLICATIONS Plains Cree has two pronoun series based on the stems -îya and -îsta, and both forms are free pronouns in the sense of Bresnan (2001). They parallel inÀected nominal stems (in particular dependent N stems) and third-person forms do not inÀect for obviation. The two series differ in their context- of-use. The plain -îya pronouns occur in contexts of DP coordination, nominal predication, cliticization, topic-binding, and focus-binding. As for -îsta additive pronouns, they are restricted to contexts of contrastive topicalization. In this concluding section, we assess how the Plains Cree pronoun system bears on our understanding of: (i) the indexicality and anaphoricity of pronouns; (ii) the pronominal systems of other Algonquian languages; and (iii) the general typology of pronouns. What Plains Cree Pronominals Reveal about Indexicality and Anaphoricity Pronominals—be they independent pronouns, zero forms, agreement, or clitics—participate in both REFERENCE SHIFTING (by indexing the Speaker and 52 DÉCHAINE, CARDINAL, JOHNSON, AND KIDD Hearer in an utterance situation) and REFERENTIAL DEPENDENCE (by referring back to a previously introduced entity). Bresnan (2001) claims that these two functions—indexicality and anaphoricity—are universally bundled together. But Plains Cree pronominal agreement shows that indexicality and anaphoricity can be lexicalized by distinct formatives: the agreement of the independent mode is indexical; the agreement of the conjunct mode is anaphoric (Cook 2008; Déchaine and Wiltschko 2014). Moreover, with independent pronouns, the indexical/anaphoric contrast is structurally conditioned. We have already seen above that, in the context of nominal predication, -îya pronouns show a person split: ¿rst/second-person pronouns are indexical, but third-person pronouns are anaphoric. Consequently, third person -îya pronouns obligatorily co-occur with a demonstrative; this holds of the independent mode (41a), the ê-conjunct (41b), and the kâ-conjunct (41c). (41) a. anikik kâhkiyaw iskwêwak miyohtwâwak, mâkaana DEM.NA.PL all women nice.VAI.3PL.INDEP but DEM.NA kâ-mihkostikwânêt, C-red.hair.VAI.3.CONJ ‘All those women are nice/friendly, but the one with the red hair, . . .’ (i) [ wîy’âna macîhtwâw ] [volunteered] (ii) *[ wîya macîhtwâw ] [elicited] 3.PRO.DEM.NA mean.VAI.3.INDEP ‘. . . sheTOP is mean.’ b. kâya ka-pîkiskwâtâw ana ayisiyiniw . . . NEG IRR-speak.VTA.2>3.INDEP DEM.NA person ‘Don’t speak to that person . . . (i) . . . ayis [ wîy’âna ê-macîhtwât ] [volunteered] (ii) *. . . ayis [ wîya ê-macîhtwât ] [elicited] because 3.PRO.DEM.NA C-mean.VAI.3.CONJ . . . because he/sheTOP is (known to be) mean.’ c. Q: awîn’âna kâ-macîhtwât? who DEM.NA C-mean.VAI.3.CONJ ‘Who is the one that is mean? / Who is the mean one?’ A1: [ wîy’âna kâ-macîhtwât ], môy nîya. [volunteered] A2: *[ wîya kâ-macîhtwât ], môy nîya. [elicited] 3.PRO.DEM.NA C-mean.VAI.3.CONJ NEG 1.PRO ‘HE/SHEF is the one that is mean, not me.’ PLAINS CREE PERSONAL PRONOUNS 53 Wîya cannot be used by itself, but must be augmented with the demonstrative ana. We take this to reÀect the fact that a third-person plain pronoun is inherently anaphoric. The fact that wîy’âna occurs with the independent mode or ê-conjunct indicates that it can be topic-linked. And the occurrence of wîy’âna with the kâ-conjunct indicates it can be focus-linked. Plains Cree Pronouns and Pronouns in Other Algonquian Languages We offer some observations on how Plains Cree pronouns compare to those of other Algonquian languages. We focus on Fox (Dahlstrom 1998) and Blackfoot (Wilschko et al. 2011), as the data sets are comparable. The results are summarized in Table 8. Plains Cree pronouns have the following properties. First, Plains Cree has two series of pronouns: the plain -îya series, and the additive -îsta series. Second, they are used for information structure contrasts: -îya pronouns are compatible with topic or focus, while additive -îsta pronouns are contrastive topics. Third, they have the distribution of DPs, in the sense of Déchaine and Wiltschko (2002a): in particular, they do not support bound variable anaphora (Déchaine et al. 2011). Fourth, Plains Cree pronouns are not inÀected for obviation. Fifth, -îya pronouns are used in nominal predication, in both equative and possessor contexts. Sixth, Plains Cree pronouns are not used with non-indexed arguments; i.e., they cannot be used as reÀexive (Déchaine et al. 2011). Finally, Algonquian languages differ regarding which of these properties their pronominal systems have. First, they differ in the number of pronoun stems that they have: Plains Cree and Fox each have two, but Blackfoot has one. Not surprisingly, pronouns are always deployed to mark information structure contrasts relating to topic-linking and focus-linking. Their syntactic status differs: while Plains Cree and Fox pronouns are DP-pronouns (as con¿rmed by their possessor construal), Blackfoot pronouns are PhiP-pronouns. And while Plains Cree and Fox pronouns do not inÀect for obviation, Blackfoot pronouns do. In all three languages, pronouns appear in contexts of equative predication. Finally, while Plains Cree pronouns cannot be used in reÀexive contexts, Fox and Blackfoot pronouns can be. (For discussion of the theoretical implications of such micro-variation see Déchaine et al. (2011). For related discussion of Southwestern Ojibwe, see Schwartz and Dunnigan (1986), who report that free pronouns in that language occur as initially focused elements, in apposition, and in coordination. This accords with the overall patterning of Plains Cree pronouns.) 54 DÉCHAINE, CARDINAL, JOHNSON, AND KIDD TABLE 8: Comparing pronouns in three Algonquian languages PLAINS CREE FOX BLACKFOOT Pronoun stems -îya -îsta -i·na -i·yawi -iistó Information Topic (given) ݱ ݱ ݱ ݵ ݱ structure Focus ݱ ݵ ݱ ݵ ݱ Syntactic status DP DP DP DP PhiP Possessor construal ݱ ݵ ݱ ݵ ݵ InÀect for obviation ݵ ݵ ݵ ݵ ݱ Equative predication ݱ ݵ ݱ ݵ ݱ 5HÀH[LYH ݵ ݵ ݵ ݱ ݱ Plains Cree Pronouns and the Typology of Pronouns This study of Plains Cree pronouns contributes to the general typology of pronouns. First, the pronominal paradigm provides evidence for the structure of inÀectional paradigms; this is desirable from a learnability perspective: pronouns isolate pronominal agreement morphology (Déchaine 1999a). Second, Plains Cree pronouns call for amendments to Bresnan’s (2001:115) pronoun typology, which associates pronouns with the properties listed in (i) through (iv). Bresnan takes (i–ii) to be universally bundled together, and (iii–iv) to be subject to variation. (i) indexical: picks out Speaker and Hearer in utterance situation (“reference shifting”) (ii) anaphoric: refers back to previously mentioned entity (“referential dependence”) (iii) topical: picks out topic (“reference to topic”) (iv) classi¿catory: picks out features such as . . . person (1/2/3) . . . number (singular/plural) . . . gender (animate/inanimate, human/non-human, masculine/feminine . . .) Plains Cree pronominal agreement shows that (i) and (ii) can be lexicalized by distinct formatives: the agreement of the independent mode is indexical; the agreement of the conjunct mode is anaphoric (Cook 2008; Déchaine and Wiltschko 2014). Plains Cree pronouns also show that topicality/givenness PLAINS CREE PERSONAL PRONOUNS 55 does not exhaust the information structure properties of pronouns: -îya pronouns are compatible with topic and focus, while -îsta pronouns function as contrastive topics (by virtue of their additive semantics in combination with the fact that they scope over arguments). Finally, the classi¿catory features of Plains Cree pronouns—which range over person, number and gender—are not mere “grammatical features,” but are semantically active. For person, there is a robust contrast between indexical versus anaphoric person. For number, there is a distinction between number-neutral and numbered contexts that goes beyond the singular/plural contrast (Wolfart 2002). And for gender, in Plains Cree, the animate/inanimate distinction codes discourse-level perspectival contrasts (Muehlbauer 2008, 2012). REFERENCES Ahenakew, Freda. 1987. Cree language structures: a Cree approach. Winnipeg: Pem- mican Publications. Blaine, Eleanor M. 1995. Emphatic wiya in Plains Cree. Papers of the 26th Algon- quian Conference, ed. by David H. Pentland, pp. 22–34. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press. Bloom¿eld, Leonard. 1934. Plains Cree texts. New York: G. E. Stechert & Co. Bresnan, Joan. 2001. The Emergence of the unmarked pronoun. Optimality-theoretic syntax, ed. by Géraldine Legendre, Jane Grimshaw, and Sten Vikner, pp. 113–142. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1992. Current morphology. London: Routledge. Chafe, William. 1976. Giveness, contrastiveness, de¿niteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. Subject and topic, ed. by Charles Li, pp. 25–55. New York: Academic Press. Cook, Clare. 2008. The syntax and semantics of clause-typing in Plains Cree. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia. Dahlstrom, Amy. 1991. Plains Cree morphosyntax. New York: Garland. Dahlstrom, Amy. 1995. Topic, focus, and other word order problems in Algonquian. The Belcourt Lecture. Winnipeg: Voices of Rupert’s Land. Dahlstrom, Amy. 1998. Independent pronouns in Fox. In honor of Mary Haas: From the Haas Festival Conference on Native American languages, ed. by William. Shipley, pp. 165–194. Berlin: Mouton. Déchaine, Rose-Marie. 1997. Nominal predication in Plains Cree. Papers of the 28th Algonquian Conference, ed. by David H. Pentland, pp. 105–135. Winnepeg: Uni- versity of Manitoba. Déchaine, Rose-Marie. 1999a. What Algonquian morphology is really like: Hockett rev- isted. Papers from Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Native American Languages (MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17), ed. by Leora Bar-el, Rose- Marie Déchaine, and Charlotte Reinholtz, pp. 25–72. 56 DÉCHAINE, CARDINAL, JOHNSON, AND KIDD Déchaine, Rose-Marie. 1999b. Algonquian agreement in clause structure. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia. Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002a. Decomposing pronouns. Linguis- tic Inquiry 33:409–442. Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002b. Deriving reÀexives. Proceedings of WCCFL 21, ed. by Line Mikkelsen, and Christopher Potts, pp.71–84. Somerville, Massachusetts: Cascadilla 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. New York: SUNY Press. Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. To appear. When and why can ¿rst and second person pronouns be bound variables? Pronouns Workshop, MIT. Déchaine, Rose-Marie, David Johnson, Anne-Marie Kidd, Valerie Marshall, Andy Mathe- son, Audra Vincent, and Martina Wiltschko. 2011. Personal pronouns in Blackfoot and Plains Cree. Proceedings of WECOL 2011. Fillmore, Charles. 1997. Lectures on deixis. CSLI. Goulet, Keith. 2008. Animate and inanimate: the Cree Nehinuw view. Material His- tories: Proceedings of a workshop held at Marischal Museum, ed. by Alison K. Brown, pp. 7–20. Haas, M. R. 1967. The development of Proto-Algonkian *-awe-. Studies in Historical Linguistics in Honor of George Sherman Lane 62:137–145. Higginbotham, James. 1980. Pronouns and bound variables. Linguistic Inquiry 11:679–708. Junker, Marie-Odile. 2004. Focus, obviation and word order in East Cree. Lingua 114:345–365. Kameyama, Megumi. 1997. Stressed and unstressed pronouns: Complementary prefer- ences. Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, ed. by Peter Bosch, and Rob van de Sandt, pp. 306–321. New York: Cambridge University Press. Krifka, Manfred. 1998. Additive particles under stress. Proceedings of SALT VIII, pp. 111–128. New York: CLC Publications. Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hun- garia 55:243–276. Lipkind, William. 1945. Winnebago grammar. New York: King’s Crown Press. Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates: Predicate noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. New York: Cambridge University Press. Muehlbauer, Jeffery. 2007. Evidence for the three distinct nominal classes in Plains Cree. Natural Language Semantics 15:167–186. Muehlbauer, Jeffery. 2008. Kâ-yôskâtahk ôma nêhiuawêwin: The representation of inten- tionality in Plains Cree. PhD thesis, University of British Columbia. Muehlbauer, Jeffery. 2012. The relation of switch-reference, animacy, and obviation in Plains Cree. International Journal of American Linguistics 78:203–238. Rochemont, Michael. 2012. Discourse new, f-marking, and information structure Trig- gers. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia. PLAINS CREE PERSONAL PRONOUNS 57 Rooth, Mats Edward. 1985. Association with focus. PhD thesis, University of Mas- sachusetts, Amherst. Rooth, Mats Edward. 1992. A theory of focus intepretation. Natural Language Semantics 1:75–116. Rullmann, Hotze. 2003. Additive particles and polarity. Journal of Semantics 20:329–401. Ruwet, Nicolas. 1967. Introduction à la grammaire générative. Paris, Plon. Schwartz, Linda, and Timothy Dunnigan. 1986. Pronouns and pronominal categories in Southwestern Ojibwe. Pronominal systems, ed. by Ursula, Wiesemann, pp. 285–322. Tübingen, Germany: Gunter Narr. Wiltschko, Martina, Valerie Marshall, Andy Matheson, and Audra Vincent. 2012. Inde- pendent Pronouns in Blackfoot. Paper read at the 43rd Algonquian Conference, University of Michigan. Wolfart, H. C. 1973. Plains Cree: A grammatical study. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s., vol. 63, part 5, Philadelphia. Wolfart, H. C. 1996. Sketch of Cree, an Algonquian language. Handbook of North American Indians, ed. by Ives Goddard, v. 17: Languages, pp. 390-439. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. Wolfart, H. C. 2002. Indeterminate number. Paper read the Linguistics Colloquium, University of Manitoba. Wolfart, H. C., and Freda Ahenakew. 1998. The student’s dictionary of literary Plains Cree, based on contemporary texts. Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics Memoir 15, Winnipeg. Wolvengrey, Arok. 2007. Placing plaings Cree locatives: On the road to a functional analysis. Paper read at WSCLA 12, Lethbridge University.