2003 Pronouns and Agreement.Pdf

101-2/05-rnitrrun3d- 18/5p- 15:22- disk/sr tq3 lcJ3drufrrpsfrps n

Tronsactioi of lhe PhilologicatSociety \olnme l0l:2 (2003)235-278

PRONOUNS AND AGREEMENT: THE INFORMATION STATUSOF PRONOMINALAFFIXESI

By Mlnur.rNe Mlrntnt (lniversity of California, Santa Barbara

AssrRAcr Pronominal a.ffixesare often assumedto representan inter- mediatestage of diachronic developmentbetwqen independent pronouns like English ie and redundant inflectional markers like English -s. The path of developmentwould involve changesin distribution, form arrd function. Recently it has beenproposed that pronominal affxes are functionally closer to the redundant subject agteementmarkers of English and Germanthan to independentpronouns, because they cannot distinguish referentiality or definiteness.An examination of the use of pronominal affixes in connected speechin two unrelated polysynthetic languages,Central Alaskan Yup'ik Eskimo and Navajo, indicates that the affixes are actually essentiallyequivalent in referentiality and definitenessto the independentpronouns of English and German.Reference and definitenessare established in Yup'ik and Navajo in the same ways as in English and other languages,plus one more. Alternative constructionsare used for non-referentialmentions.In somecases, these systems actually show finer distinc- tions of referentiality and definitenessthan those of English and other Europeanlanguages.

I I would like to thank Greville Corbett, Nick Evans,Bernard Comrie and other participants at the Agreement Workshop, held in conjuntio! with^ the the autumr i002 meeting of thJ Linguistics Associalion of Great Bdtain, for their helpful comments and discussion. I am especially grateful as well to the speakers who eenerouslv contributed thcir time and expertis€ in documenting their languag€s; -Eli*b"ttt Ali, et.nu Charles, George Charles and John Charlos for Central Alaskan Yup'ik and Ilro y Ida Soul6 for Nivajo. Consultation with the Surrey lVlorphology Grouo and partiiipation in the Agreement Workshop were made possible by funding f.o- ihe ESRC: fsnc (urt noooz38228-This support is gratefully acknowledged

Publishedbv BlackwellPublishinq O The PhilologicalSociety 2003 - . - - - 9"600Galsingt; Road, O;ford OX4 2DQ and 350Main Str€€t,Malden' MA 02148,USA' 101-2/05-mithun.3d- 18/5/3 - 15:22- disk/sr lc:/3dpfrrpslrrps

236 rRANsAcrroNsoF TIiE pHrLoLocrcALsocrETy l0l. 2003

1. INTRoDUcrroN A frequently cited type of grammatical change is the evolution of independent anaphoric pronouns into pronominal clitics or affixes, and then into redundant verbal inflectional endings. These diachronic stages are reflected synchronically in the kinds of markers that occur cross-linguistically,as below.

(1) Independent anaphoric pronouns: German and English Er beobachtet. Er beobachtetsie. He watches. He watches them.

(2) Pronominal suffixes:Central Alaskan Yup'ik Nayurtu-q. Nayura-bi. watch-3.se watch-3.sr:13.pt 'He watches.' 'He watchesttem.'

(3) Redundantverbal inflection: German and English Er beobacht-et. He watch-es,

Such markers are sometimesdiscussed together as agreement,but they differ in sometimes subtle and interesting ways, many discussedby Corbett (2003, this volume). The diachronic path linking them would involve changesin distribution, form and function. Perhaps the easiestdifference to see among them is distribu- tional. Independent pronouns occur in complementary distribution with lexical nominals(apart from appositiveconstructions). A nuclear clause in English or Gerrnan may contain a pronoun aloneor a lexicalnominal, but not both in the samegrammatical role.

(4) Independentpronouns: German and English a. Er beobachtet. Mein Vater beobachtet. Er beobachtetdie Kinfls1. Not: *Mein Vater er beobachtet. xEr beobachtetsie die Kinder. 101-2/0emithun3d- 18/5/3* 15:22- disk/sr lcl3drufiAsfrrps

MITHUAN - PRONOUNS AND AGREEMENT 237

(4) b. He watches. My father watches He watchesthe children- Not: *My fatherhe watches' *He watchesthem the chililren. Pronominal affixes,by contrast, are obligatory in everyclause' They may occur alonein the clausejust like independentpronouns' or they may be accompaniedby coreferential lexical nominals' They typicallyreprssent all core arguments. (5) Ptonominalsuffxes: Central Alaskan Yup'ik Nalurtu-q^ walc&-3.sc.ess 'He watches.' Aata-ka nayurtu-q' fat her-L,sclx; walcft-3.sc-,lrs 'My fatherwatches.' Nayura-i. watch-3.scl3.PL 'He watchesthem.' Cuignilnguu-tnaYura-i. botter-PL watch-3.sc/3.Pr 'He watchesthe otters.' Not: *Aataka nayurtu- +Cuignilnguutnayura- Redundantverbal inflectional affixesare obligatory in every clause, like pronominal affixes,but they never occur on their own' They are alwaysaccompanied by an independentlexical nominal or pronoun' (6) Redundantverbal inflection: German and English a. Er beobacht-et. Mein Vater beobacht-et. Not: *Beobacht-et. b. He watch-es. My father watch-es' Not: *Watch-es. 101-2/os-mithun.3d- 18/5/3 * 15:22- disk/st lc:FdruIrrpsrrrps

218 TRANsAcrroNsoF rlrE PHILoLoGICALsocrETY 101, 2003

As discussedby Siewierska(1999), markers at the first two stages, that is, independentpronouns and pronominal affixes,are the most cornmon crosslinguistically, but the diachronic transition from stageto stageis not necessarilyabrupt, and systemsat intermediate stagesdo occur. Siewierskanotes, for example,that Palauan pronominal prefixes are in complementary distribution with independentpronouns, but they co-occutwith lexicalNPs. The evolution from independentpronoun to redundantinflection involves changesin form and function as well. Formally, markers losetheir phonologicalindependence, and there is often a loss of phonologicalsubstance as well. On the functionalside' it has been observedthat the processultimately resultsin a lossof referentiality' As Siewierskaremarks, 'The endpointof the historicalevolution of agreementmarkers from anaphoric person pronouns is the loss of referentiality on the part of the person marker and the obligatory presenceof the nominal argumentwith which it agrees'(1999: 225)' This scenarioraises questions about the lelallvs fiming of the various shifts.Do they occur in sequenceor do they overlap?In particular, does the loss in referentiality occur before or after the markershave become formally dependentand obligatory?Viewed synchronically,are pronominal affixesreferential? In an intriguing paper, Evans (1999)proposes that argumentaffixes in polysyn- lh"ti" lu.rgoag"t, especiallythose representingdirect objects, lack important criterial features of pronouns: referentiality and definiteness.He attributesthe semanticdifference to the obligatoriness of the affixes. Being obligatory, they will no longer be able to encodesuch contrastsas referential vs non-referential,definite vs indefinite and so on. As a result,bound object afrxes in at leastsome polysynthetic languagespattern more like subject agreement morphologyin Europeanlanguages than like freeptonouns, in that they specifyperson and number information while remain- ing non-cornmittalabout referenceand discoursestatus. (Evans 1999:255) Evans's argumentsare basedon material lrom Bininj Gun-wok, a dialect chain of northern Australia, but he maintains that they extendto other polysyntheticlanguages as well, citing languages 101-2/oFmithun.3d- 1E/58 - 15:22- disrysr lcpdruIrrpsflrps

MITHUAN _ PRONOUNS AND AGREEMBNT 239

from the Eskimo-Aleut, Iroquoian, Salishan, Uto-Aztecan and South Caucasianfamilies, among others. In what follows. the notions of referentiality and definiteness will first be examinedmore closely,then the functions of pronominal affixess/ill be investigatedin two unrelated polysynthetic languages:Central Alaskan Yup'ik, an Eskimo-Aleutlanguage of southwesternAlaska, and Navajo, an Athabaskan languageof the American Southwest.It will be seenthat the pronominal affixesin both of theselanguages are referential and definite in all but one of their uses,a usetypical of the independentpronouns of Germanand Englishas well. Non-referentialmentions are generallymade with alternativeconstructions. Termsused for the markersat various stagesalong the diachronic path vary considerably.As discussedby Siewierska(1999) and others, the hypothesiseddiachronic evolution results in a cline that doesnot lend itself to easysegmentation, so authorsdiffer in the number of types of marker they distinguish and the terms they usefor each.Some refer to al1markers along the clineas 'agreement markers'; others use that term only for pronominal affixes and redundantinflection; still othersuse it only for redundantinflection. The schema adopted here is the tripartite division proposed by Siewierskaand implicit in the work of Evans.Foliowing Siewierska and Evans, markers at the three stageswill be referred to as (i) independentpronouns, (ii) pronominal affxes and (iii) redundant grammaticalagreement markers.

2. RBTSRENTTAI-IrY AND DEFINTTENESS The notion of referenceis rarely given a succinct defiaition in the literature on semantics.The concepttends insteadto be introduced by example.Lyons (1977:174) states that'the term "reference"has to do with the relationshipwhich holdsbetween an expressionand what that expression stands for on particular occasions of its utterance'.He providesthe illustrationbelow.

When a sentencelike 'Napoleonis a Corsican'is uttered to make a statement, we will say that the speaker refers to a certain individual (Napoleon) by means of the referring 101-2/os-mithun.3d- 1E/5/3 - 15:22 - disk/sr

[:pdrurrnsrrrps

240 rRANsAcrIoNsoF THEPHILoLoGICAL socIErY 101, 2003

expression.If the referenceis successful,the referring expression will correctly identify for the hearer the individual in question:the referent.(Lyons 1977:t77) Chafe(1994) approaches the notion ofreferencethrough clause function.One can think of a clauseas verbalising the ideaof an eventof starc. Each of these event or state ideas contains within it other' included ideasthat can be said to be participan s in the events or states.These participants are typically the ideas of people, objects, or abstractions,for which the term refercnts is appropriate. . . . With a few exceptionssuch as raining a,nd bi'eingcold (of the weather), things do not happen and states do not exist without the inclusion of referents who perform them, are affected by them, or participate in them in other ways. . . . It is important to keep in mind, however,that in this usageevents, states, and referentsare all ideas that exist in the minds of speakersand listeners.Whether or not they have correlates in the "real world" is irrelevant. I can (and do) think of the featsof ScarlettO'Hara as naturally as those of Marilyn Monroe. That only one of these teferents ever existed in "reality" makes no difference to my thought or speech.(Chafe 1994: 67). Both Lyons and Chafe distinguish several kinds of referents: specific individuals (individual referents), groups of individuals (group referents)and typical instancesof a class(generic referents)' But not all linguistic expressionsevoke the idea of a particular individual,group or class.Examples of Englishnon-referential NPs, used when there is no referent at all, either particular or generic, includethose cited by Chafein (7). (7) SomeEnglish non-referential NPs (Chafe1994: 103-4) a. NPs that specifymore fully the nature of an event He lovestelling jokes. b. Indefnite pronouns whateverthe casemaY be c. Non-specificmentions in irrealis contexts I think I'll buy a newsPaPer. 101-2105-mithun.3d- 18/5f3 - 15:22- disk/sr lcl3drufirpsfrrps

nAl MITHUAN _ PRONOUNS AND AGREEMBNT

(7) d. Negativepronouns No one ever went to Seattleon their way to somewhereelse. e. Contentquestion words Who told you that? f. Non-referentiali/ It is raining. The term 'definiteness'generally refers to the grammaticalencod- ing of identitrability. Chafe (199a: 93) defines the property of identifiablity very simply: 'An identifiablereferent is one the speaker assumesthe listener will be able to identify'. Identifiable referents sharethree characteristics. They are: i. assumedto bealready shared by the listener; ii. verbalised in a sufficiently identifying way; iii. contextually salient.By (i), an identffiablereferent is assumedby the speakerto be alreadypart of the hearet'sknowledge. This know- ledgemight be direct, asin I'vefed thedag, where both speakerand listenerare alreadyfamiliar with the family pet. It might comefrom prior discourse.Or it might be derivedby association,as in Chafe's exampleof the horn in Thesegals were in a Volkswagen,and they kepthonkin' the horn. Criterion (ii) reflectsthe fact that a speakeris obligated to categorisea shared referent in a way that allows the listenerto identify it. The linguisticresources necessary for identi- ficationvary with the situation:in somecases a pronounalone may be sufficient,in others a demonstrativemay be appropriate, and in still othersa commonnoun, a modified noun or a proper name, may be necessary.Criterion (iii), contextualsalience, 'has to do with the degreeto which a referent "stands out" from other referentsthat might be categorisedin the sameway. It may be establishedby the discourse,by the environment within which a conversation takes place,by the social group to which the partipants in a conversation belong,orby commonnessof humanexperiencr' (Chafe 1994: 100). Referentialityand identifiability aredistinct but related'The feature of identifiability is irrelevant for two kinds of NP: thosewith generic referentsand thosewith no referentat all (Chafe1994: 101-5).

3. CSNTRAI- At-,c.sKAN YUP'K Central Alaskan Yup'ik is a languageof the Eskimo-Aleut family spokenin southwesternAlaska. Yup'ik verbsconsist of an initial 101-2/0$mithun.3d-18/58- 15:22-disk/sr lc:/3druflrpsilrps

242 rRANsAcrroNsoF THEPHILOLOGICAL socIErY 101, 2003

root, optionally followed by one or more derivational or modifying suffixes,plus an obligatory inflectional ending.The ending contains a mood suffix that usually distinguishestransitivity, and a pronominal suffx identifying the core arguments of the clause' In the examplescited here, the first line representsthe utterance ln the community orthography; the second, a segmentation into morphemes;the third, morpheme-by-morphemeglossing; and the fourth, a free translation.

(8) Yup'ik verb structure Nayuruararput. nayur-uar-ar-Put observe-without. ser ious. purp o s e'rRANsIsrrvE.INDIcarnn' 1.pr/3.pr 'We watchedthem for sometime.'

The pronominal suffixes do not distinguish gender, but they do distinguishfour persons(frst, second,third and corefetentialthird), three numbers (singular, dual and plural), and two grammatical roles. (The coreferentialthird-person catogory, abbreviated n, is used for participants that are coreferential with the subject of that clauseor a higher one.)There are no independentpronouns comparableto the unstressedpronouns of English or German. (Independentemphatic./contrastive forms meaning,for example,'I myself' exist, but they are not equivalent to English or German unstressedpronouns. They are used only in pragmatically marked contexts.) Verbs with their pronominal suffixes can' and often do, constitutecomplete, grammatical sentences in themselves,as above.

3.1. Referentialityin Yup'ik In languageswith independentpronouns like Englishor German, the referenceof the pronounscan be establishedin a number of ways. Similar strategiescan be seenbehind the use of the Yup'ik pronominal suffxes. The passage below comes from a family conversationabout a hunting trip. The pronominal suffixesare underscored. 101-z/otmithun.3d- 18/5/3 - 15:22-disk/sr lc:/3drufrreslrres

MITHUAN - PRONOUNS AND AGREEMENT 243

(9) Yup'ik otter an€cdote(Elena Charles, speaker p.c.) a. Ayaginarpiuq, AyaginarPi-u-q name do-rNrn.tNorc-3.sc 'Ayaginarsaid, b. "Tang!"-gguq"Cuignilnguut! tang-ggq cuignilngur-t iootrl: QUoTATI\,"E otter-PL "Look! Otters! c. Atak-gguq tang atak:ggug tang well. t hen: r:EAr.sIYlo o k What do you say d. arulaiqarluta arula-ir-qarJu-ta be. in. m o t ion-xwi-brueft -sulonorN,lrrvs-1.pr we stop brieflY e. naluqaqurlaput." nayur-qaqur-la-put ob s e r ve - int e r mi t ten t ly' oP'tATrvE-l.Pt 13.PL and watchthem for a while?" f. Angerluku, anger-1u-ku 4/'S}'El-SUBORDINATIVE-R/3.SG I answeredhim, g. "Kiik patagmekpisqelluku." kiiki patagmekpi-sqe-lu-ku hurry at.once do-ask-suronlrNATlvE-BR/3.sc "Hurry, ask him to do it!" h. Arulaiqerluta arula-ir-qerteJu-ta be.in motion-NpcATrvE-/4st-suBoRDrNATnE-l,PL We stoppedquicklY i nayuruararput. nayur-uar-ar-Put obs e r ve -w ithout. s er ious. purp o s e'rn.nrorc-n 1.prl3.pr and we watchedthem for sometime. 101-2/osmithun.3d- 18/5/3 - 15:22- disk/sr lc:Fdprfrpsrras

2M TRANsAcrIoNsoF rm Ps[oLocIcAL socIErY l0l, 2003

j. rliit pugellrani ilang-at puge-ller-ani as s o c iat e -3.ptJ u; sur/ace-pesr.coN'rsMPonenl'r-3'sc When one of them surfaced, k. nutegariini egrnian n uteg-arte-a-ani egmian shoot-suddenly-coNsEQUENTIAL-3R-x:13.w r ight.away he shot it right away l. nallarrluku. nallarle-lu-ku I it-sunonoruerrw-pJ3.sc and he hit it.'

In languageswith independentpronouns, the referenceof first- and second-personpronouns is establishedby the speechevent: first- personpronouns are directly interpretedas representingthe speaker (with perhaps others) and second-personpronouns as the hearer (with perhapsothers). The samedirect interpretation can be seenof Yup'ik first- and second-personpronominal suffixes.An example appearsin lines (h-i) above:'We stoppedquickly and we watched themfor sometime'. The referenceof independentthird-person pronouns in English and other languagescan be establishedby a lexical nominal in prior discourse.The samestrategy ca:r be seenin line (e): 'Otters! What do you say we stop and watch them for a while?'. The nominal antecedentneed not be in the immediatelypreceding sentence. The next referenceto the otters was a pronominal suffix several lines later: 'Hurry! Ask him to do it! We stopped quickly and watchedthem for sometime' (i). Reference can also be established through inference and/or extralinguisticcontext. When Mrs. Charlessaid, 'Hurry! Ask him to do it!' (g) the referent of the pronominal suffx 'him' was the personoperating the motor on the boat. The referencewas not establishedby a lexical antecedent,but it was easily inferred from the situation without further explanation: this was the only person in a position to carry out the suggestion. So far the principles for establishing the reference of Yup'ik pronominal suffixesare similar to those for establishingthe 101-2/05-mithun.3d- 1E/58 - 15:22- disk/sr lc:/3drurrrpsIras

MTTHUAN- pRoNouNs AND AGREEMENT 245

referenceof English or German independeutpronouns. A referent may be designatedby a pronominal suffx so long as it can be associatedwith an idea of a particular individual, a group of individuals or a typical member of a class.But it is obvious from the ottor anecdote that Yup'ik pronominal suffixes differ in an important way from English and German pronouns.They may co-occurwith a coreferentiallexical nominal in the sameclause, and it can be this nominal that establishesthe reference.We saw this structure in the opening sentenceof the anecdotewith the name Ayaginarand later with the nominal iliit 'one of them'. (9) Yup'ik otter anecdote(Elena Charles, speaker p.c.) a. Ayaginar piuq, Ayaginarpi-u-q name do-wrn.rNotc-3.sc 'Ayaginarsaid, j. niir pugellrani ilang-at puge-ller-ani ass o c i at e -3.pti sc sar/oce-rasr.coNTEMPonanw-3.sc 'When one of them surfaced,' . . ' In English and German, referencecan be establishedwithin the clausefor somepronouns: Mary alwaystakes her dog with het. Tlte only restriction in these languagesis against the establishmentof pronominal referencefor core arguments by material within the clause:Mary she takes her ilog with her. Ytrp'ik simply lacks this restriction.In Yup'ik, referencecan be establishedin all of the same places as in English and German, by extralinguistic context, inference, the speechact itself and linguistic context beyond the clause,and within the clauseas well. This phenomenonwill be discussedfurther in section4. All of the pronominal suffxesin the otter anecdoteare referential. But as Evans (1999)points out, pronominal affixesin languageslike Yup'ik must be presentin everyclause. Speakers of Yup'ik, like speakersof other languages,do make non-referentialmentions. Evansconcludes that pronominal affxes,particularly thoserepresent- ing direct objects,must be incapable of distinguishingreferentiality. A closerlook at the way Yup'ik speakersuse their language,however, shows that pronominal suffxes are as referential and definite as 101-2/0fFmithun.3d- 18/5/3 - 15:22- disk/sr lc:/3drufrrps[rps

246 rRANsAcrroNsoF THEPHILoLocIcAL socIErY 101,2003

Englishpronouns. Non-referential mentions are generallymade with alternativeconstructions that avoid the useof pronominalsuffixes.

3.2. Yup'ikgeneric reference At the edgeof referentialityis genericreference. Generic mentions are usually classified as referential by semanticists,but generic referenceis in a sensemore abstract than other reference,in that it evokesa typical member of a class, rather than an identifiable individualin the rea.lworld. Evans(1999: 265) notes that in English and other Europeanlanguages, 'third personpersonal pronouns do not allow a genericinterpretation [as in (l0a)]; to obtain this a bare plural must be usedinstead of a pronoun', as in (10b). (10) Specificand genericreference (Evans 1999: 265) a. Shescolds them. b. Shescolds people. Evansreports that in Bininj Gun-wok, both can be encodedwith a bound objectprefix. (11) Bininj Gun-wok(Gun-djeihmi) plural objects (Evans 1999: 265) alege daluk gaban-du-ng. FEM.DEMwoman 3l3.pt--scold-r.loN.pA'sr 'That womanscolds people.' or 'That womanis scoldingthem.' In many languages,certain pronouns have a conventionalised genericuse, like Englishyoz and they.Evans cites the exampleThey alwaystry to get you to pay more thanyoa want to (1999:-257).ln Yup'ik, pronominal suffixesare never given genericreadings on their own. Pronominal suffxes are used only when the referent they evoke is established.A Yup'ik constructiontranslated with genericreference is in (12).When her husbandreturned from a hunt empty-handed,Mrs. Charlesgreeted him with this remark, (12) Yup'ik genericreference (Elena Charles, speaker p.c.) Canrituq. ca-nrite-u-q do. s om et hing -t*o-INTR.TNDIc-3. sG 'It's a1lright. 101-2/o5mithun.3d-'18/s/3 - 15:22- disk/sr lc:pdru/rresrras

MITHUAN _ PRONOUNS AND AGREEMENT 247

Yuut piterrlainayuitut. yuk-t pi-te-rrlainar-yu-ite-u-t p ef son-"Lthin g- c at ch- c on I tant Iy-HA!-NEG-INTR.TNDIC-3.PL Peopledon't alwayscatch game.' The noun yuut 'people' establisheda referent that was then picked up in the pronominalsuffix -l'they'on the verb.This verb,with its third-person-pluralpronominal suffx, could not be usedwithout an identifiablereferent. It could constitutea perfectlyacceptable sentence alone,but the pronominal suffx could only beinterpreted as referring to some referent establishedby previous discourse or the extralinguisticcontext: Piterrldinayuitut 'They don't alwayscatch game'.

3.3. Yup'ik quaffiing noms Another type of potentially non-referential expressionin English involves nouns that qualify the nature of an event, as in Chafe's exampleHe lovestelling iokes. Such entities are not referred to by pronominalsuffixes in the Yup'ik counterpartsto theseexpressions' A differentkind of constructionis used. The languagecontains an extensiveinventory of derivational suffixes,among them many verbalisers,some with quite concrete meanings.The verb 'to fish' in (13)is basedon the noun root neqe- 'fish, food' with a verbalisingsuffix -ssur- 'hunt, catch'. (13) Yup'ik denominalverb derivation (George Charles, speaker p.c.) Neqssurnaurtut-llu. neqe-ssur-naur-tu-t: llu fi sh- hun t - cust omorily-nun.rlorc-3.pr : and 'And theyused to fish.' The baseof the verb, the noun root neqe' 'fish' , is not referential,so the fish are not representedin the pronominal suffix, and the verb is intransitive. Evansnotes that'have' constructionsoften take non-referential objects.The kind of Yup'ik denominalintransitive construction seenin (13)is alsoused to predicatepossession. The possesseditem is not expressedas a core argument of the clause.The noun representingit simply servesas the baseof the verb, narrowing the kind of ownershippredicated. 101-2/05-mithun.3d- 1E/sF -'15:22 - disk/sr jc:Fd/J,.rasrrres

248 rRANsAcrroNsoF rrrEPlrLoLoGIcAL socIErY 101, 2003

(14) Yup'ik possession(George Charles, speaker p.c.) Qimugtengqerrlallruuq aataka. qimugte-ngqerr-1arJlru-u-q aata-ka dog - h av e-tt st-Y lrsr-nrrn .rxorc- 3. sG fat her' l.scI sG he usedto dog-hate mYfather 'My father usedto havedogs.' Suchdenominal intransitive constructionsare also usedto predicate the presenceand absenceof entities. (15) Yup'ik presence(Elena Charles, speaker p.c.) Campaput YungqellruYaqelliniuq. campa-put yug-ngqerrJlru-yaqeJlini-u-q camp-l.ttlsc person-hate-n Ast-actually-apparently- INTR.INDIc-3.sG our camp (ms) apparently it had actually person-had 'Therehad apparentlybeen people at our camp.' (16) Yup'ik absence@lena Charles, speaker p.c.) Nunat nukalPiartaicuunateng' nuna-t nukalpiar-taite-yuite-na-teng villag e-tt- man.in. p rime'lack-nas.Nnc-suBoRDrNATrvr-3.PL villages they are not usually lacking in hunters 'The villages are neverwithout a man in his prime (a good hunter and Provider).' Thesedenominal constructionsserve many of the samekinds of lexical,syntactic and discoursepurposes as noun incorporationin other languages(Mithun 1998a,b).While they are probably des- cended from noun-verb compounds, they are now structurally distinct. The morphemeswith verb-like meaningssuch as 'hunt', 'have'and 'lack' areno longerroots, but ratherderivational suffixes. They form a large but closedset, and never occur in initial position in words,the only positionin which roots occur.

3.4. Definitenessin YuP'ik Evans (1999)proposes that an important differencebetween the independentpronouns of English and German on the one hand, and the pronominal affixesof polysyntheticlanguages on the other, 101 -2l0t nithun.3d- 1 815/3 - 15:22 * disk/sr lc:/3drufirpsflrps

MITHUAN - PRONOUNS AND AGREEMENT 249

is the fact that independentpronouns are always definite, while pronominal affixesmay or may not be' As noted earlier, pronominal suffxes in Yup'ik and other polysynthetic languagesare used only for core arguments.Indefinite core argumentsare actually relatively rare in Yup'ik. Participants are usually introduced in other gram- maticalpositions. But sentencesdo occurwith lexicalnominals that can be interpretedas indefinite, that is, with nominalsthat represent entities not previously idenffiable to the audience.(Definiteness is not markedformally in Yup'ik.) (17) Yup'ik indefinitenominal (ElenaCharles, speaker p.c.) Allaneq-am ikantengnaqlallruuq allaneq: am ikani-te-ngrraqe-la-llru-u-q st/anger: EMPIdATICOver. there.RESTR-be-'r/-HAB-PAST- rNtn.nrotc-3.sc 'A strangertried to stayover there qikertarrarmi. qikertar-rrar-mi is I an d- li t t Ie -t oc t'rtw on a little island.' At issuehere is whetherpronominal affixes that are coreferential with indefinite lexical nominals must themselvesbe considered indefinite,that is, non-identifiable.We know that in languageslike English, independentpronouns neednot have the samedefiniteness value as their lexical antecedents.English speakersregularly intro- duce referents with an indefinite NP, then subsequentlyrefer to them with (definite)pronourrs: A sttangertried to stay over there-He nevermanaged to catchany fsh. Yup'ik pronominal suffxes do differ ftom English independentpronouns in that their referentsmay be identified within the sameclause. (Evans notes that even English allows speakersto establishthe referenceof pronouns within the samesentence, as in He who hesitatesis lost.) Yup'ik has gone further than many languagesin prohibiting indefinite transitive patients altogether. Such participants can be expressedonly asobliques, marked with the ablativecase. Recount- ing a story abouttwo hunters,Mr. Charlesnoted that theycaught a small bird. The indefinite norninal a small b#d could not be castas a 101-2/oFmithun.3d- 1E/5/3 - 15:22 - disk/sr lc:pdrurrDsllrps

250 rRANsAcrroNsoF Tm pr LoLocIcALsocIETY 101, 2003

core argument,so it was expressedas an oblique (ablative) and not representedin the pronominalsuffx. (18) Yup'ik indefinite(George Charles, speaker p.c.) Yaqulcuarmek-llu-gguq, yaquJek-cuar-rnek: llu : gBuQ wing-haveJit tle- sn,rl.'rmn: a/so: nrmsev a little bird, they say 'It seemsthose two pitellinilutek taukuk. pitellini-lu-tek tauku-k ca t c h. g ame - app arenl/)r-strBoRDrNA:rrvr-3.ou lfrqt.RlsrR-DU they two apparentlycaught thosetwo caughta smallbird.' Once introduced, the bird was consideredidentifiable (defiaite), so it could be expressedas a core a.rgumentand referred to by pronominal suffixes. (19) Yup'ik definite(George Charles, speaker p.c.) Wani-wa nerevkenaku, now : right nere-vke-na-ku right now g4'-NBG-SUBORDINATTVE-By'3.SC right now wenot edtingit now 'Let's not eat it right now, . . . ' Many languagesshow prohibitions against indefinite or non-specific core arguments.The Yup'ik prohibition againstindefinite transitive absolutivesprobably reflects the fact that this is one of the most commonpositions for non-specificmentions: I wanta cat; I'll get a cat; I'm look@ for a cat.The choiceof an altemativeconstruction, in which the participant is not expressedas a core argument, was apparently generalised.

3. 5 . Yup'ik indefnitepro forms 'someone', 'something' Sincethey are referential and definite, English anaphoric pronouns arenot usedwith openreference to mean'someone' or 'something'. Englishspeakers do not usea sentenceIike He borrowedi/ to mean 101-2/osmithun.sd- 1E/5/3 - 15:22 - disk/sr lcl3druIrrpsfrrps

MITHUAN _ PRONOI.INS AND AGREEMBNT 25I

'someoneborrowed it', evenif they know that the borrowerwas a man. Similarly, they do not use a sentencelike He married her to mean 'He married someone'.The sameprinciples hold for Yup'ik pronominalsuffixes. They are used only whenthere is an identifiable referent. (20) Yup'ik third-personreference (George Charles, speaker p.c.) Navrallruyugnarqaa. navrarJlru-yugnarqe-a-a bo rr ow -P Asr -probabl7-rn.nuc-3.sc/3.sl; 'He borrowedit.' Not: 'someoneborrowed it.' 'He borrowedsomething.' In order to expressa statementlike 'Someonemust have borrowed my knife', speakersestablish a hypothetical referent with an independentpro form 'someone',and referto this hypotheticalreferent pronominallywithin the verb. (21) Yup'ik independentindefnite (GeorgeCharles, speaker p.c.) Kitum nuussiqa navrallruyugnarqaa. kitum nuussiq-ka nawar-llru-yugtarqe-a-a. satneone.Encknife-l.sclso borrow'vtsr-probably' TR.INDIC-3.SG/3.SG 'someonemust haveborrowed my knife'' Pronomiaal suffxes referring to transitive patientsshow the same pattern.The Yup'ik sentencain (19) can mean only 'He married her' or'She marriedhim'. It cannotbe interpretedas 'He married someone'.The pronominalsuffix must be referential' (22) Yup'ik (GeorgeCharles, speaker p.c', elicited) Kassuutellrua. kassuute-llru-a-a m4rrl-PAST-TRANSTTTVE.n IDICATTVE-3. SG/3.SG 'He married her.' or 'She married him.' Not: 'He married someone.'

To express 'He married someone' there are two options. If the identity of the bride is unimportant in the discourseat that point, 101-z/os-mithun.3d- 18/5/3 - 1s:22- disk/sl lc:pdrufrresfrres

252 TRANsAcrIoNsoF TrtEPHILoLocIcAL socIETY 101, 2003

an intransitive form of the verb marry is used,with no pronominal referenceto the indefinitepatient. (23) Yup'ik detransitivisation(George Charles, speakerp.c., elicited) Kassuutellruuq. kassuute-llru-u-q m4rrl-pAsr-INTRANSITIvE.nrprclrrw-3.sc 'He married(someone).' : 'He got married.' If the speakerwishes to establish a refetent with an independent indefinite nominal representingthe semanticpatient of an event, rather than simply leaving it unspecified,an independentpro form meaning'someone' or 'something'can be used.As an indefinite, however, it cafixot qualify as the absolutive of a transitive clause. An intransitiveverb is usedinstead, and there is no pronominal mention of the indefiniteparticipant. The indefinite pro form is in an obliquecase, the ablative. (24) Yup'ik indefinitepatient (GeorgeCharles, speaker p.c., elicited) a. Kitumek tangellrua. kitu-mek tangerr-llru-u-a so me one- AB;LATTV!see-PAsr-INTRANSTTTVB.INDICATIYE- I .sG 'I sawsomebody.' b. Camek nalkutuq. ca-mek nalke-ute-u-q som e t hing - ABLATT,,IEf nd-orrn.lNsrrwlsER-INTRANsnrvE. INDIC- T.SG 'I found something.' Evans(1999: 270) has devised an ingenioustest for referentiality that involves repetition. A Bininj Gun-Wok adverbial prefix mean- 1ngagain canbeused(a) for exactrcplays(He fell overagain), @) fot transition back to a previous state (Theiungle gretv back over the ruins again) and (c) for replays with token replacement,that is, repetitionof actionsin which one or more participantsis replaced with anotherofthe sametype (I caughtafish yesterday,and I caught (one) again today; I saw someonein there yesterday, and saw someoneelse in therc again today). It is type (c) that is of interest here. Evans reports that in Bininj Gun-wok, a regular third-person pronominal prefix can appear in such consfuctions meaning 101-2/0$mithun.3d- 18/58 - 15:22- disk/sr lc:pdrurrfpsrras

MITHUAN ' PRONOUNS AND AGREEMENT 253

'another,someone else', where a personalpronoun would not be acceptablein English. (25) Bininj Cun-wok (Kunwinjku) replay (Evans 1999:271' citing Carroll 1995:363) wanjh bi-yawoyh-yam-i then 3/3ncrcn.oanct.vts'r'again-spear-PAsT.IMPRF na-buyika masc-other 'then he would (go againand) spearanother' Under repetition, Yup'ik pronominal suffixespattern like English independentpronouns: their referencemust remain constant.The transitive verb in (26a)can be usedonly if the participant is the same through the repetition, that is, if the groom married the same woman again. If he married someoneelse the secondtime around, the intransitiveverb in (26b) must be used,with no pronominal referenceto the bride. (26) Yup'ik pronominalsuffxes with repetition(George Charles, speakerp.c., elicited) a. Ataamcali kassuutellrua. ataam cali kassuute-llru-a-a again still mdrrl'-PAsr-TR.INDIc-3.sG/3'sG 'He marriedher again.' b. Ataam cali kassuutellruuq' ataam cali kassute-lku-u-q again still r??drrl-PAsr-INTR.rr'mrc-3.sc 'He remarried.' This contrastswith the interpretation of the noun roots that serveas the basis for denominal verbs. Sincethey are non-referential,they neednot be interpretedwith constantreference. (27) Yup'ik denominalverb with repetition(Jacobson 1984: 525) Tuntutenqigtuq. tuntuk-te-nqigte-u-q ca r ibo u- c at ch- a g am -rNTR.INDrc- 3.sc 'He caughtcaribou again.' The structureof the Bininj Gun'wok examplein (25)above, 'then 101-2/0$mithun.3d- 18/5/3 - 15:22- disk/sr lc:pdprrrpsrras

254 TRANsAcrIoNsoF TrrE?HrLoLoGlcAL socIETY 101, 2003

he would go again and spearanother', is in the end probably much like its counterpartsin Yup'ik and other languageswith pronominal affixes. The Bininj Gun-wok again prefix may certainly have specialproperties that distinguishit from the Englishadverb' But rn"ft"i it doesor not, the independentnominal 'other' in 'then he.would.spear.itother'has the capacityto establisha referent, which is referred to by the pronominal prefix in the verb.

3.6. Yup'iknon'sPecifc mentions Among the types of non-referential mentions are non-specific nominals, those for which there is not necessarilyany referent at a1l.Such mentions occur, for example,in irrealiscontexts, as in the frequently citedI want to marry an lrtshman,where the speakerhas no particular Irishman in mind. The grammar of Yup'ik ensures that suchentities are never representedby pronominal suffixes'The nominalsin (28)and (29)below can be understoodas non-specific' The speakermay utter the first without having a particular woman in mind. andthe secondwithout knowingwhether a potentialhelper exists.

(28) Yup'ik non-specificmention (George Charles, speaker p'c', elicited) Kassuucugtua kassuute-1rrg-tu-a malryr-DEsIDERATTvE-rNTR.rNDlc-1.sG 'I want to marry

yupiarmek arnarnek. yuk-piar-mek arnar-mek p er so n- r eal - ASLAT rVE w Oman- A3.LATr\n a Yup'ik woman.'

(29) Yup'ik non-specificmention (George Charles, speaker p'c') Yuartua yuar-tu-a se ar ch.for -rstx.rNDlc-l.sG' 'I am looking for 101-2/05-tnithun.3d- 18/5F - 15:22- disk/sr lcX3drufrrpsfirps

MITHUAN _ PRONOUNS AND AGREEMENT 255

ikayurtakamnek. ikayur-ta-kar-mnek fte/p-NorvnN,n rsm-uNREALrsED.FUTURE.nrrNc- l.sc/sc.mmrrw my potential helper someoneto helpme.' Becauseof the prohibition against indefinite transitive patients in Yup'ik , thesenon-specific entities are cast as obliques (ablatives). The clausesare thus grammaticallyintransitive, and there is no pronominal relerenceto eitherthe Yup'ik womanor the potentialhelper.

3.7. Yup'ikindefinites under negation: 'no one','nothing' Other commonly cited non-referential expressionsare negated indefinitessuch as 'no one', 'not anyone', 'nothing' and 'not anything'. As noted, Yup'ik pronominal suffixes are always referential, even under negation. The transitive clause in (30a) can be used only with a specific,referential patient. If the patient is non-referential, an intransitive version like that in (30b) must be used, with no pronominal referenceto the non-existent individual. (30) Yup'ik pronominalsuffxes with negation(George Charles, speakerp.c., elicited) a. Kassuutenritaa. kassuute-nrite-a-a mar f y -NEGATIVE-TR. rNDIC- 3. SG/3.SG 'He didn't marry her.' b. Kassuutenrituq. kassuute-nrite-u-q rrl4//y-NEGATTW-INTR.TNDIC- 3.sc 'He didn't marry anyone.' There is also an alternative construction for expressingnegative indefinites,parallel to that usedfor non-negatives.A hypothetical referentcan be establishedwith an independentindefinite 'someone' or'something', which is then referredto in statementsabout that hypotheticalworld. Suchstatemeots can be negated:'It is not the casethat someonecame'. 101-2/05-mithun.3d- 18/5p - 15:22- disk/sr lc:Fdp/rrpslrrps

256 rRANsAcrIoNsoF rr{E PHrLoLocrcALsocIETY 101, 2003

(31) Yup'ik indefnite negation(George Charles, speaker p.c.) a. Kina tainrituq. kina tai-nrite-u-q someonecome-NBGATIvE-rNtn.INorc-3.sc 'No onecame-' b. Kinkut tangenritae. kinkut tangerr-nrite-a-a so me o n e.PL see-NEoATrvE-TR. INDIc-3.Pr-/3'sc 'No onesaw him.' Since the independent indefinite pro forms are indefinite, they cannot be cast as transitive absolutives.They appear as obliques (ablatives),and the verb is intransitive. (32) Yup'ik indefinitenegation (George Charles, speaker p.c.) a. Kitumek tangellrunrituq' kitu-mek tangerr-llru-nrite-u-q SOME ON E. ABLATI\IB JEE-PAST-NEGATIVE'INTRANSITTVE. INDIC-J.SG 'He didn't seeanYone at all.' b. Camek nalkutenrituq. ca-mek nalke-ute-nrite-u-q som e t hin g - n-l,t-,.twn f nd-orruNsrrrvISER-NEG-INTR. TNDIC.J.SG 'Shedidn't find aqthing at all.'

j.8. Yup'ikconlent queslions Other non-referring expressions are question words. Question words themselvesmay not be referential,but they can establisha referent which is then referred to pronominally. Content questions of course presupposethe existenceof the entities to be identified. The questionin (33)presupposed the existenceof peopleat a feast. (33) Yup'ik contentquestion (George Charles, speaker p.c') Kinkut-llu tuantellruat? kirkut : llu tuan-te-llru-a-et who.pt-=too there.rlESTp.-gI. to-PAsr-TR.INDIc-3.pr,/3.sc and whoall they wentto thatPlace 'So whoall was there?' 101-2/0Smithun.3d- 18/58 - 15:22- diskrfsr lcl3drufrresfrres

MITHUAN _ PRONOIINS AND AGREEMENT 25'I

The prohibition against indefinite transitive patients extends to question words, which are tle sameas indefinite pro forms, so the questionwords used for theseforms are oblique. (34) Yup'ik content question (Elizabeth Ali, speakerp'c.) Camek neqengqercit? ca-mek neqe-ngqerr-cl-t something-ABil,Nrr\IE food-have-nil^nxxocATrvE 2.sG 'What do you have to eat?'

3.9. Yup'ik weatherterms There is one context in which Yup'ik pronominal suffixesare used non-referentially:weather expressions.The final -4 in the verbs belowis the third-personsingular. (35) Yup'ik weatherexpressions a. Ivsirtuq. ivsir-tu-q raln-nffn.tNorc-3.sc 'It is raining.' b. Akercirtu-q. 'It is sunnY.' c. Kavcirtu-q 'It is hailing.' d. Taicirtu-q. 'It is foggY.' e. Qanirtu-q 'It is snowing.' It would be difficult, however,to arguethat theseexamples reveal a differencein referentiality or definitenessbetween Yup'ik pronominal suffixesand Englishor Germanindependent pronouns. English it and German es are usedin exactly the sameway: It is raining, Es tegnet. The Yup'ik pronominal suffixes thus match the independent pronouns of English and German in referentiality and deflniteness in all ways but one. Their referentiality and identifiability can be establishednot only by the extralinguistic context, inference, the speechevent and a lexical nominal elsewherein the discoutse,but also by a lexical nominal in the sameclause. A key to unpacking the featuresof referentiality and identifiability is the recognition that a non-referentialor non-identifiablelexical nominal may introducea 101-2/05-|nithun.3d- 16/58- 15:22- disk/sr

[:pdruIrrpsirrps

258 TRANsAcrIoNsoF rrrEPHILoLocIcAL socIETY 101' 2003

referent which is then referred to by referential and definite pronominal affixes. The lexical nominal aad pronominal a-ffxes need not match each other in referentiality or identifiability. Non-referentialmentions in Yup'ik are accomplishedby other constructions:derivation and detransitivisation.

4. Nlvero The fact that the referentiality and definitenessvalues of pronominal affixesare independentof thoseof the lexical nominalsthat establish their referenc€is particularly easy to seein Navajo. Navajo is an Athabaskan languagespoken in the southwesternUnited States, primarily in Arizona and New Mexico. It is polysynthetic, but it differs typologically in a number of waysfrom Yup'ik. While Yup'ik is exclusivelysuffixing, Navajo is exclusivd prefixing. While Yup'ik independentnominals are marked for number and case,Navajo nominals are not. The meaningsexpressed by affixesare generally quite different. But nearly all of the properties of the Yup'ik pronominal suffxes are echoedin the Navajo pronorninal prefxes. In Navajo as in Yup'ik, obligatory pronominal affixeson everyverb identify the core argumentsof the clause.The Navajo pronominal prefixes,like the Yup'ik suffixes,distinguish number and gramma- lical role. There are also severalcategories of third person' As in Yup'ik, there are no independentpronouns comparableto the unstressedindependent pronouns of English or German. Verbs with their pronominal prefixescan constitute completegrammatical sentencesin themselves.A sampleverb is in (36). (36) Navajo verb (Dolly Soul6,speaker p.c.) Chihidahiihriid. ch'ihi-da-0-hi-iid-l-tt'iid out.horizontallyonn-3.osJ-sBRrATftE- l.Pt-.xnt-rxfy. rapilly.Yvs 'We tfuew them out one after another.' In Navajo as in Yup'ik, the basic pronominal prefixes are used only referentially, evenwhen they are formally zero, like the third- person object preflx in (36) above.Non-referential mentions are made with alternativeconstluctions. Some are the same as in Yup'ik, and some are different.Navajo containsno denominal 101-2/05-mithun.3d- |8/58 - 15:22- disk/sr lc:/3drurrrpslras

MITI{UAN _ PRONOUNS AND AGREEMENT 259

verb derivation like that seenin Yup'ik, or noun incorporation, though some other Athabaskanlanguages do' It does contain detransitivising morphology, however, which eliminates non- referential entities from expression as core arguments, and arcordinglyfrom expressionin pronominalprefixes.

4.1. Navajodetransitirisation Languagesof the Athabaskal family contain a small set of old derivational prefixes, traditionally (and inappropriately) termed 'classifiers'.Their basic function is to alter transitivity. Two of these. -/- and -d-, serveto detransitiviseverbs. The effect of such detransitivisationcan be seenin (37), where there is no pronominal referencsto the agent,the personor peopleputting thingsaway. (37) Navajo detransitivisation(Dolly Soul6,speaker p.c.) Hasht'e'nii'nil. hasht'e-'-ni-d-nil in. o r de r -UNSp,o&J-TRM-DETRANSITIVER:mo ve. s e v e r a l. o bi ec t s.PRF 'Thingswere put away.' Transitivity alternations involving these prefixes are pervasive, though their semanticsare not always transparent, becausethey have been used to form lexical items for specificpurposes, lexical items that can continueto developsemantically as independent entities.

4.2. The Navajopronominal calegories As noted above,Evans (1999: 255) has proposedthat pronominal a.ffixesmust differ from independent pronouns in lacking the capacity to distinguish referentiality and definiteness.Particularly pertinentto this issueare the Navajo pronominalcategories.

4.2.1. TheNavajo basic pronominal ptefixes The basicsubject pronominal prefixescan be seenin the paradign in (38), These verbs are based on the imperfective form -nd of the stem 'play', with the atelic prefix na-'atound'. (Due to extensive phonologicalprocesses, individual prefixes can vary considerablyin 101-2/0+mithun,3d- 18/5/3 - 15:22- disk/sr lc:/3drurrnsrrQs

260 rRANsAcrIoNsoF rrrE PHILoLocrcALsocIErY 101,2003

their shapes,and it can be difficult to discern the morphological componentsof prefix strings.)The pronominalprefixes here have beenunderscored. (38) Navajo pronominalsubjects naashn6 'I am playing' nanin6 'you are playng' naan6 '(he or she)is playing' neii'n6 'we two are playing' naahn6 'you two areplaYing' naan6 '(they two) arePiaYing' ndeii'n6 'we (threeor more) are playing' ndaahn6 'you (three or more) are playing' ndaan6 'they (three or more) are playing' There are distinct prefixesfor first- and second-personsingular and dual subjects.Plurality (three or more) is indicated by a separate prefix, basicallyda-, which originatedas a distributive and still serves that functionin somecontexts. The third-person subjectprefix is zero, but eventhe zero form is alwaysused referentially, that is, onlywhen its referentis clearfrom the extralinguistic or linguistic context. Direct and indirect objects are also expressedby pronominal prefixes.The verb 'carry up' below is built on the imperfectivestem teehwith the prefixha-'ttP'. (39) Navajo pronominalobjects a. hashniheeh ha-sh-ni-l-teeh up-1.*.owscr -2.sc. suBJEcr-TRANSITTvISER-carryr.IMPRF 'you arecarrying me up' b. hanishteeh ha-ni-shj-teeh up-2.sc.oBJEc"T-I .sc. suBJEcr-TRANsrrrvIsER-c4/TJr'.IMPRF 'I am carryingyou up' c. haniheeh ha-O-ni-l-teeh up-3.*.owrrr -2.sc. suBJEcr-TRANsrrrvIsER- c4rrl.IMPRF 'you are carryinghim/her uP' 101-2/05mithun.3d-18/58- 15:22-disk/sr lc:pdrurrrpsrrrps

MITI{UAN _ PRONOUNS AND AGREEMENT 261

With first- or second-personsubjects, the third-person object pronoun is again zero, as in (39c). But if the subject is third person, the third-person objectstake one of two forms: proximate bi- or obviativeyi-.

(40) Navajo third-personobjects a. habilteeh ha-bi-0-l-teeh ap-3.m.onrrerr-oBrccr-3.srntEcr-TRANsmI\'ISER- carry.IMPRI. 'heishe/itis carrying him/heruP' b. hailteeh ha-l-0-l-teeh r4-3,orvnrrw.onlrcr-3. suBJEcr-TRANSITTvISER- catryJMPR! 'he/sheis carrying him/her/it uP'

The proximateprefix br'-is usedessentially if the objectis higherin discoursetopicality than the subject(,4 mosquitobit him), and the obviativeprefix 7r- is usedif the objectis lower (Ile swattedit). All three of thesethird-person pronominal prefixes,zero, bi- and yr'-,are usedonly referentially,that is, to evokeestablished referents. Repetitive constructionslike those discussedby Evans confirm the referentiality of thesepronominal prefixes,even when they are zero in form. Navajo containsa prefix with meaningsessentially the same as that describedfor Bininj Gun-wok. It indicatesrepetition of an action or return to a previous location, state or condition. Signific- antly, pronominal reference must remain constant through the repetition. The command in (41a) could be a request to wash an objector bathea baby.That in (4lb) is a requestto washthe same object or bathethe samebaby again.It could not be usedto ask someoneto washanother object or anotherbaby.

(41) Navajo repetitive(Dolly Soul6,speaker p.c., elicited) a. Tdrrigis! t6-0-ni-gis iw olving. w at er-3.oBJEcr-2.sc.suBrrcr-ru6.Iupnr 'Washit!' 101-z/o$mithun.3d- 1ElsB- 15:22 - disk/sr lc:/3dprrresrrres

262 TRANsAcrIoNsoF rIrE PHrLoLocIcALsocIETY 101, 2003

(41) b. Tdniinieis! t6-ni6-0-nigis invo lv in g. w at e r -twYrrrwn-3.osJEcr-2.sc.srtBJEcr-rub.nrpnr 'Washit again!'

4.2.2. Navajogeneric mentions Navajo contains a separate pronominal category for generic referenceto humans. It has the basic form ii- for subjects and Aw- for objects and possessors,and could often be translated as 'one' or 'people'.As can be seenin (42c,d), it also patternslike the British use of'one' in that continuing genericreferences are still genericin form: 'When one isn't hungry one doesn't eat', 'One is fortunate to have one's food'. As might be expected,the genericprefixes appear in generalstatements. Statements in this form are often used as indirect commands and for indirect referenceto the speaker. (42) Navajo genericprefx (Dolly Soul6,speaker p.c.; Goossen 1995:283. 284) a. Ch'66hhn6h66shii nida'iich'id. ch'66h h66hg66shiini-da-'-ii-ch'id futilely avidly around-olsrn-tsNsP.oBJ-cnNnRlc- scf atck.IMPBS futilely avidly one scratching things hete and there-was 'Peoplewere still really diggingaround.' b. Doo ijinii da. doo 'a-ii-nii da ROI TTNSP,OBJECT-GENBRIC.SIJBJECT.SaJ'.IMPRNEG 'One doesn'tsay that.' : 'Don't saythat.' c. Doo dichin iililg66 doo dichin ii-lii: g66 not hungercENBRrc.suBtacr'be : because 'When a personisn't hungrY, doo iiy{:i da. doo ii-ydri da IO' GENERIC.ST,'BJECT-E4'NEGATIVE he doesn'teat.' 101-2/o$mithun.3d- 18/5F - 1s:22- dislvsr lc:pdrufrrpsfrrps

MTTHUAN- pRoNottNs AND AGREEMENT 263

(42) d. Hach'iya' h6lfpgo hw-ch'iy4' h6J{ : go GEI{RTC.POSSFSSOR-/0o d t he r e - e xis t.NETJTER.IMPRF : SUBORDINATE one'sfood that thereexists 'Oneis fortunate hizhdnee'. hw-zh6nee'. cENERIc.oBJEcr-6e./zcky.Nrurrn.rurru it isfortunate for one, to havefood.' This category is also used for respectful reference, such as to relatives. It is used as well to track protagonists in narrative and to differentiateparticipants. For this reasonit is sometimestermed the alternatethird personor fourth personby Navajogrammarians.

4.2.3. Navajounspecfied participants As noted,if a verb like -cha'cry' is usedwith a zero third-person- subjectpronominal prefix, it can only mean 'He is crying' or 'Sheis crying',not 'someoneis crying'. (Navajoverbs cannot consist of a single syllable. If there is not sufficient morphological materia.lto yieldtwo syllables,a meaninglessprothetic 'peg' syllable yr'- is added for bulk. This syllable is distinct from the third-person-obviative object prefix mentioned above and an aspectualprefix of the same shape,which occupydifferent positions in the prefix string.) (43) Navajo third-person subject Yicha. y!Gcha PROTITETIC-3.STJBJECT-C//,IMPRF 'He or sheis crying.' Not: 'Someoneis crying.' To say'someoneis crying', the unspecified-subjectprefix is used' (The basic shapeof this prefix is a glottal stop, usually written ' in the practical orthography but omitted word-initially. Various vowels are added to it in particular contexts, however, so the prefix may appear as '-, 'a-, 'i- or 'e.) The unspecified-subject 101-2/o&mithun.3dr l8/5p - 15:22- disk/s. lc:Fdp/rrpslrrps

264 rRANsAcrroNsoF rrll PHILoLocIcALsocIErY 101, 2003

prefix is usually used to focus on an event rather than the participants. (44) Navajo unspecifiedsubject (Young 2000:36) Acha. 'a-cha UNSPBCIFIED.ST'BJECT-C/J/.DURATIVE.IMPRF 'Thereis crying,someone is crying.' The situation is the samefor objects.With first- or second-person subjects,the third- person pronominal object prefix is zero, as in verbsmeaning 'I'm eatingit' or 'I ateit' Eventhis zerois referential. The verbs with the zero object prefix cannot be used to mean 'I'm eating' or 'I ate'. With third-personsubjects, the third-person pronominal object prefix is yi This prefix, too, is referential:it canbe usedonly to mean'He's eating it' or 'He ateit', not 'He ate'. (45) Navajo referential objects a. Yish{1. yi-0-sh-a pRorHETIc-3,oBJEcr-l.sc. suBlncr-edr.rttaPRF 'I'm eatingit.' Not: 'I'm eating.' b. Yiviiv66'. yi-yiiy{{' 3.osJEcr-coluprETrvE-ed/.PRF 'He ate it.' Not: 'He's eating.' If the object is unspecified,the unspecified-objectprefix is used-It has the sameshape as the unspecified-subjectprefix, but it occursin the position occupied by the other object prefixes, before the unspecified-subjectprefix position. (46) Navajo unspecifiedobjects a. AshdL. 'a-sh-{ TJNSPBCTFIED.OBJECT.I.SG.SI]BJECT-E4'.IMPRF 'I'm eating.' b. Ayiiy6l+'. 'a-yii-O-y{{' T'NSPECIFIED,OBJECT-COMPLETIVE-3. SUBJECT-E4'.PRF 'He ate.' 101-2/05{ithun.3d- 18/58 - 15:22-disk/sr lc:pdrufrrpsfrrps

MITHUAN - PRONOUNS AND AGRBEMENT zo)

4.2.4. Navajo qmbientmentions Navajo contains another prefix category for non-referential mentions. It hasthe basicform hw- (alsoappearing as ho-,hoo-, ha' or fraa).Sometimes termed the 'areal'or 'spatial'category, it is usedfor ambient conditions, characteristicsof an area and much more. Its function can be seenby cornparingthe pairs ofverbs below' The first verb in eachset has a basicreferential third-person zero pronominal prefix, the second,a hw- Prefix. (47) Navajo ftw- subjects(Young, Morgan and Midgette 1992) a. -zh66h Yizh6qh. 'It (a horseor goat) becomesgentle, tame, tractable.' Hoozh66h.'Things (weather,conditions) become Pleasant,Peaceful.' b. -t166' Ditl66'. 'They (clothes)are wet.' Hoditl66'. 'It's wet aroundhere, the groundis wet.'

(48) Navajo frw-objects (Young, Morgan and Midgette 1992) a. d66h 'movemultiple objects swiftly through the air' Yishd66h. 'I'm wiPingit off'' Hashdeeh. 'I'm cleaningup, clearing up around here, removingvegetation, tidying up the place.' b. -ch'id 'scratch,Paw' Yishch'id. 'I'm scratchingit.' Hashch'id. 'I'm feelingaround an area,as in hair for lice'' The differences among the basic third-person category the unspecified category and the ambient or areal category, can be seenby comparing the setsof verbs in (a9). (Ihe basic third-person form of 'be yellow',with zerothird-person subject prefix, contains a prefix ft- that marksphysical attributes') (49) Navajo unspecifiedL and ambient ftw- (Young, Morgan and Midgette 1992) a. l-itso. 'It is yellow or yellowishgreen.' (zero) Altso. 'Thereis a yellow-greenspot or patch.' ('-) Haltso. 'The areais yellow-green.' (hw-) 101-2/0$mithun.3d- 1E/5F - 15:22* disk/sr lc:/3dru/rasrras

266 rRANsAcrIoNsoF TrrEPHILoLOGIcAL socIETY 101, 2003

(49) b. Sh6dl66zh. 'I paintedit (my house).' (zero) Ashdleesh. 'I did the Painting.' ('-) Hosh6dl66zh.'I painted(inside my house).' (hw-) Both the unspecifiedand areal prefixeshave becomeelements of numerouslexicalised prefix stem collocations.In thesecontexts the original meaningsof the prefixes have often expandedand sometimes even faded. They arc pafi. of the basic verbs used for 'drive' and 'ride', for example,for 'talk' and 'sing', 'causetrouble' and mofe. (50) Navajo samplecollocations (Dolly Sou16,speaker p.c.) a. Nihil ilwod. nih-il 'i-l-wod 1 .FL- w i t h IJNSPECIFIED.SI,BJECT-DETRANSITIVISNN-6CNd,PNT with us somethingbent (somethingran) 'Somethingran with us : we drove.' b. Bik'ijf hashchiih. bi-k'ijf ha-sh-l-chiih 3-ONIO AMBIENT.OB'ECT.1.SC.STTST-TRANSITIVISER. become.nasty.IM?*t 'I causethings to becomenasty for him.' : 'I bring trouble on him.'

4.3. TheNavajo prefix categoriesin use SinceNavajo offerssuch a rangeof prefix options, it is instructive to examine the kinds of choice made by speakersin potentially non-referentialand indefinitecontexts.

4.3.L Referentialityin Navajo The referenceof Navajo pronominal prefxes can be establishedin the same ways as that of English and German independent pronouns:by the extralinguisticcontext, by the speechact itself (for first and secondpersons), by linguistic context or by inference from information in any of those.As in Yup'ik, it may also be establishedby lexical nominalswithin the sameclause. If a third personis identified by a lexical nominal in the samesentence, a basic third-personprefix alwaysappears with the verb: zeto,bi or yi-. 101-2/oFmithun.3d- 1E/5/3 * ls:22- disk/sr lct3drufrrpsfirps

M1THUAN _ PRONOUNS AND AGREEMBNT 26'7

(51) Navajo lexicalsubject (Dolly Soul6,speaker p.c.) Aad66 nt'66'ashk6ytlzhi, aa:doo nt'66'ashii: k6: y6zhi 17"rs :from then boy : pI-:DIMINUTT!'E 'Thenfrom theresome little boys

yikaht{6. yi-O-kah:lti3 PROG.3.SI'BJECT.DETRANSITIVISER -MUI t iP I C.W AI K. PROG : EMPHATIC they were walking along camealong.'

4.3.2. Generic reference As expected, generic reference is made with the special generic pronominal prefixes. When the generic (fourth-person) preflxes ji-lhw-'one' are used generically,they do not co-occurwith a lexical nominal. The alternation can be seen in two sentencesfrom an anecdote told by Mrs. Soul6 that were separatedby a small side comment. In the first she used a generic construction, and in the second a referential third-person lexical nominal 'all the people' with third-person (zero) subject prefix.

(52) Navajo (Dolly Sou16,speaker p.c.) Ako tl'66'o shli jineezhj66'. uLo 11'66':go shif ji-ni-s-j66' thm night : at probably dre-TRM-DuR.sEQ-multipk.lie.down.exr 'And then at night they must have gone to bed.'

[A long time ago, when we used to live in hogans, in those days we used to sleepon top of sheepskins.]

Ato 6i shii t'ar at'e ako 6i shii t'aa at'e then that perhaps a/ r,rNsp.sUsrEcr-re.I.{EUTER.TMPRI then that perhaps all it is 'And then probably all 101-2/0tmithun.3d- 18/58- 15:22- disk/sr lc:pdpfrresfrres

268 TRANsAcrIoNsoF TI{BPHrLoLocIcAL socETY 101, 2003

din6 neezj66'. din6 ni-s-0-j66' peaplermr-s.rnr- 3.sswrrr -mult ipI e. I ie. do w n.pxv peoplc they went to bed the peoplein the hoganhad goneto bed.'

4.3.3. Definitenessin Natajo Even if the lexical nominal is indefinite, as in'Then somelittle boys camealong' in (51) above,a basicthird-person prefix appearson the verb rather than an unspecifiedprefix. The samesituation can be seenwith direct objects.If a lexicalnomina.l identifies the object,a basicthird-person pronominal prefix is chosen.(Navajo doesnot havethe prohibition against indefinite direct objects seen in Yup'ik.) (53) Navajo lexicalobject @olly Soul6,speaker p.c.) Bilasiana Vwuy66'. bilas6ana Vr-Vu-0-V6d' apple 3.oBvrATrvE.oBJEcr-cor,rprnrwr-3.swrEcr-eat.P\F apple he ate it 'He ate an apple.' An unspecifiedprefix cannot be used in this context. The verb ayiiy46' 'he ate', with unspecified-object prefix 'a-, would be unacceptable.

4.j.4. Navajoindcfinite pro forms 'someone','something' The equivalents of English 'someone' and 'something' can be expressedeither with unspecifed prefixes, as above, or with independent indefinite pro forms. The independent pro forms establish a referent, which is then referred to in the verb by the basicthird-person pronominal prefixes: zero, yi or bi-. (54) Navajo indefinitesubject (Dolly Sou16,speaker p.c.) Haishii shinoolch66l. haishii shi-n-oo-l-ch66l someonel.sc.osrscr-rH-3.suBJEcr.PRoc-TRANsrrIvIsER- chase.PPoc someonehe or she is chasingme 'Someoneis chasingme.' (I don't know who.) 101-2/0$mithun.3d- 18/5/3- 15:22 - diskrfsr lcv3dlfrrps[rps

MITHUAN _ PRONOUNS AND AGREEMENT 269

Compare:Shinoolch66l. shi-n-ooj-ch6el 1. sc. oerncr-rH-3. suBJEcr. PRoG-TRANSITTI'IsER- chase.ppoc 'He or sheis chasingme.' Not: 'Someoneis chasinsme.'

(55) Navajo indefinite object construction (Young, Morgan and Midgette 1992:250) Ha'it'iishii neil'in. bha'6t'ii=shri na-i-0j-'in something: DvB rn-3'ouvterrvu.osr-3.suBl-rn'bark' DTJR.IMPRF sonething he is barking at it 'He's barking at something.'

Compare:Neil'in. na-i-0-l-'in rH-3.osvIATrvE.oBJ-3.suBJ-TRANsITTvISER-rd/k. DUR.IMPRF 'He's barkingat it.' Not: 'He is barking at something.'

It is significantthat eventhough Navajo containsspecial prefixes for unspecifiedsubjects and objects, they are not used when an independentword for someoneor somethingestablishes a hypothetical referent. The regular definite referential third-person pronominal prefixesmust be used,picking up the reference.The pronominal prefixesneed not match the independentnominals in referentiality or definiteness.

4.3. 5. Non-specificmmtions The same constructionsare used for non-specificmentions. A hypothetical referent is establishedby an independentpro form. This referent,which existswithin the world ofthe sentence,is picked up by the pronominalprefix. 101-2/05-.nithun.3d-|8/58 - 15:22- disk/sr lct3drufrrpsfrrps

270 rRANsAcrroNsoF rHEpHrLoLocrcAL socrEry 101, 2003

(56) Navajo non-specifc mention (Young, Morga:r and Midgette 1992:931) Ha'it'ffiila bik'iniyago ha'it'ihii:da bi-k'!ni-ya: go sarzafiizg': n'{D$I\IIIE 3.osvrATrvE.oBJ-on-rrura-2.sc. SUBJ-g0.PRF : SUB something if you comeon it hadidiilwosh. ha-di-dii-l-wosh. out- audi t or ily -rxcrprrw.2.sc.susJ-DETRANsTTTvBER-ye//.nnur.n 'Holler if you find anything!' In English, pronominal referencecan also be made to referents establishedwithin the world of the senten€e,even if there is no correspondingreferent in the real world, as in Evans' If you fnd a dodo,bring it homeas a pet for my daughter(1999: 257). 4.3.6. Negatedindefinites in Nat'ajo Negativeindefinite constructionscan be formed by negatinga clause containingan unspecifiedsubject or unspecifiedobject preflx. (57) Navajo negatedindefinite (Goossen 1995: 298) T'6adoo ay6ni da. t'iridoo 'a-0-ydn:i da WiThOUt IJNSPBCIFIED OBJECT-3.STJ}J.E4',IMPRF : NOMINALISER NEC tuithout his eating something not 'He isn't eatinganything.' Alternatively, a hypothetical referent can be establishedwith a lexical nominal and referred to with a basic third-person pronominal prefix.The entity may not existin the real world, but reference has beenestablished within the world of the sentence. (58) Navajo absence(Dol1y Sou16, speaker p.c.) Shichidi 6din. shi-chidi '6-Gdin l .possnsson-caraw ay. out. of. s ight -3.stsstucr-b e. none. NEUTER my car it is non-existent 'I don't havea car.' 101-2/os-mithun.3d- 18/5p - 15:22- disk/sr lc:pd!/r.psflrps

MITHUAN _ PRONOIJNS AND AGREEMENT 2"11

4.3.7. Navajocontent questions Navajo content questions also show patterns similar to those in Yup'ik. A content questionpresupposes the existenceof the entity to be identified. The speakerwho askslMho hid it? is presupposingthat thereis someonewho hid it. In Navajo,as in Yup'ik, a hypothetical referent is establishedwith an independent question word, then referredto by a pronominal prefix in the verb. Again it is significant that the pronominal prefix doesnot simply match the independent question word in definiteness.The verbs of content questionsmust contain a basic third-person pronominal prefix referring to the questionedparticipant, rather than anunspecified prefix. (59) Navajo contentquestions (Dolly Soul6,speaker) a. H6ili neidis'ii'la? hrlili na-Yi-di-s-0Jjii' : la who rrur-3.oan-vrsual/y-oun.sne3.stnrncr-rn-hlde.Pw - a who slhehid it it?' b. Haoit'iili-whohid ndanohlch6? ha'6t' iil6 ni-da-0-n-oh-l-ch6 what rn-prsrn-3.osmcr-2.pr.su'sJ-TRANISITIvISER- chase.cottt uwhat you all are chasingit 'What are you guyschasing?' Yes-no questions can contain unspecified prefixes; they do not necessarily involve a hypothetical referent whose existence is presupposedand establishedby a questionword. (60) Navajoyes-noand content questions @olly Soul6,speakerp.c.) a. iiy{ilash? Lii-y{.{.': ash UNSPBCIflED.OBJECT-COMPLETIVE.EA'.PRF = INTERROGATTVE heate something? 'Did heeat?' b. IJa' 6t'ii li iyiiy66'1 ha'at'ii la yt-yi-yri{ what 3.ogvhrrvn.ostEcr-coMPlETl\lE-e.rr.PRF what he ate it 'What did he eat?' 101-2/05-rnithun.3d- 18/5/3 - 15:22- disk/sr lcv3druIrrpslrrps

272 rRANsAcrroNsoF Tr# pHILoLoGIcALsocIETY 101, 2003

4.3.8. Navajosmbient prertxes The areal prefixes of the basic form hw-, which invoke general circumstancesbut not specificreferents, cannot co-occur with coreferentialnominals. If a lexical nominal is present to establish reference,the pronominal prefix must be the basic third-person referentialzero, bi- or yi-.

(61) Navajo Areal prefix (Dolly Soul6,speaker p.c.) a. Hodilhil. ho-dil-hil AREAL.sUBJEcT-cobr - p hv sical. c har ac t e r ist ic-b e. dark.NsurEn 'It's dark (out).' b. T6nteel nizh6nigo t6-nteel ni-0-zh6ni:go water-br oad visually-3.svuncr-nrce: ADvERBIALIsER ocean beautifully 'The oceanis beautifully

dilhil. di-0-l-hil colo r -3.stwncr -p hys i cal. c har a c t eri stic -b e. da*.xBurr,p it is dark colored dark (in color).'

4.j.9. Navajoweather terms Finally, we saw that in Yup'ik, weatherexpressions contain regular third-person pronominal suffixes,comparable to the it of English /l is ruining and the es of German Es regnet. SomeNavajo weatier terms show the same pattern, with basic third-person subject prefixes.Others show areal prefixes.

(62) Navajo basicthird-person weather constructions (Dolly Sou16, speakerp.c.) a. Yidzaas. yi-0-dzaas pnornnrlc-3,susJEcr-Jzolr.IMpRF 'It is snowine.' 101-2/0$mithun.3d- 18/58 - 15:22- disk/sr lc:Fdru/rrpsrrres

MrrrruAN - pRoNouNs AND AGREEMENT 273

(62) b. (T6) naaftin. water na-O-l-tin water downward-3.suBJECFCLASSTFIER'fall.nrcxr 'It is raining.' c. Nl6 naaltin. nil6 na-0-l-tin hail downward-3.suBrECT-cLAssIFIER-/a//.namr 'It is hailing.'

(63) Navajo Areal weatherconstructions (Young, Morgan and Midgette 1992) a. Hatin. ha-tin l*eAI .suarcr-y'eeze.n'renr 'It is freezing(out).' Compare:Yitin. yi-O-tin PROTHETIC-3.SUBJECT-y'eez e.IMPPF 'It (an object)is freezing.' b. Honeezk'62i. ho-nee-s-k':izi ARBAL.STJBTECT-TH-DURATIVE.SEQUENTTAL-De. cool.XrUren 'It is cool (the weather).'

Compare:Sik'62i. si-0-k'6zi DuRATTvE.sEettEl-3.sustEcr-6e. cool. Nrcrren 'It is cool.' (iron, water,a corpse)

4. CoNcLUsloN The obligatorinessof pronominal affxes does not entail a lack of referentiality or definitenessafter all. In the languagesexamined here, Yup'ik and Navajo, pronominal affixes are used only referentially, except in weather expressions.In terms of their referentiality and definiteness,tley are just like the independent pronouns of languageslike English and German. They contrast with the redundantsubject-agreement endings on verbs in those 101-2/0tmithun,3d- 18/5/3 - 15:22-disk/sr lc:/3dpfrresfirps

2'74 rRANsAcrroNsoF Tm PHILoLocIcALsocIErY 101, 2003

languagesbecause, unlike them, they are capable of invoking referentson their own within clauses. In clauses with no independent lexical nominal to establish reference,pronominal affxes do not have open reference.They are used only when a referent has been establishedin one way or another. Basic third-person pronominal affixes can be interpreted only as 'he', 'she','they', 'it', 'him', 'her', 'them', never'someone', 'something','people' or 'things' (unlessthe pronoun has acquired a conventionalisedgeneric use, like English they.) Reference is establishedin languageswith pronominal affixes just as it is in English and German: by the extralinguistic context, by the speech eventitself (for first or secondperson) and by lexical mention in previous discourse.Yup'ik and Navajo differ from English and German simply in the absenceof a restriction: pronominal referencecan be establishedwithin the sameclause as well. This property may be related to the fact that in languages with pronominal affixes, each verb constitutes a complete minimal clausein itseli the skeletonor nucleusof the clause.It has long beenknown that in languageslike Englishand German,independent pronouns need not match their lexical antecedentsin referentiality or definiteness,though they may match in certain feature values such as number or gender.The same principle governs pronominal affixes and their antecedents.This fact is especially easy to see in Navajo, where spealers have choices between referential pronominal prefixes and unspecified subject or object prefixes.If a clausecontains an independentlexical nominal that establishesreference, a definite referential pronominal prefix must be used, even if the independentword that establishesthe referenceis non-referentialor indefinite. Indefinite and non-referentialmentions are accomplishedthrough other strategies.Navajo contains a distinct set of prefixesfor unspecifiedparticipants. Otherwisefor indefinites hke someoneor something,for negatedindefinites like no one or nothing,and for the targetsof contentquestions like who and what,Yup'ik and Navajo exploit the samestrategy. A hypothetical referentis establishedwith an independentindefinite pro form (someone,something), and that referent is evokedwith a pronominal affix. Yup'ik, Navajo and other languageswith pronominal affixes 101-2/0tmithun.3d- 18/5/3* 15:22 - disk/sr lc:/3drurrasrrms

MITIIUAN _ PRONOUNS AND AGREEMENT 275

contain alternative constructions for non-referential expressions, though the alternativesvary acrossthe languages(Mithun 2002). Yup'ik contains extensivedenominal verb derivation, for example. Navajo contains an impressiveelaboration of prefix categories, distinguishing referential third persons, generics,indefinites and ambientsituations. Both Yup'ik and Navajo make extensiveuse of detransitivisation,so that pronominal affixesdo not represent non-referentialentities. The data discussedhere are quite similar to the material cited by Evans(1999) from Bininj Gun-wok, Warray, Mangarayi,Lummi, Georgian, Aztec, Cayuga and Greenlandic (another Eskimoan language).In those languages,as in Yup'ik and Navajo, the referenceof pronominal affixescan be establishedby extralinguistic or linguisticcontext, outside or insideof the clause.The examples cited by Evansfrom thoselanguages generally contain overt lexical items that establishthe referenceof the pronominal affixes:child, man, boy, wtfe, people, women,seal, dog, door, flowers, cigarette, marking.someone, something, some, another. In thoselanguages, just as in Yup'ik and Navajo, all pronominal affixesare referential and definite.(Some are of courselike Englishin the conventionaluse of particular referentialpronouns as generics.)As in Yup'ik and Navajo, non-referentialmentions are madeby alternative constructions. The inventories of alternatives,and tleir relative frequencies ofuse, vary from languageto language,but theyare generally quite similar to those seenhere: detransitivisation,noun incorporation and verbalderivation. The referentiality of pronominal affixes has been of interest to syntacticiansconcemed with the identificationof the core argumentsof clauses.On oneview. it is the lexicalnominals that arethe true arguments.Clauses without lexical nominals are assumedto have dropped them. On another view, it is the pronominal affxes that are the arguments, and coreferential nominals are simply adjuncts with no syntactic status. The material seenhere indicates that pronominal affixes certainly function as core arguments,but their presencedoes not entail a specificsyntactic status on the part of coreferentialnominals in the sameclause. Independent nominals in Yup'ik carry explicit inflectional marking of their syntacticroles, with ergative and absolutivecase endings on core arguments. 't01-2los-mithun.3d - 18/58 - 15:22- disk/sr lc:pdprrasfiDs

276 rRANsAcrIoNsoF rnE PrflLoLoGIcALsocIETY 101, 2003

Nominalsin Navajo,by contrast,caffy no casemarking, but thereis a detectablebasic constituent order that could be associatedwith subjectand object roles. In languagesof the Iroquoian family, nominals carry no case marking and constituent order has no relation to syntactic role. Sincethey evoke the sameentity, lexical nominals and coreferential pronominal affixes may simply share that status, and languagesmay differ in the extent to which the nominals are integratedformally into the clause.This is in keeping with the unifcation approach advocated by Evans, in which information about participants is built up over the course of speechfrom multiple referring expressions.The information can comefrom independentnominals, incorporated nouns, independent pronouns,pronominal affixes,redundant grammatical agreement and of courseinference. It is perhapsunfortunate that the study of agreemontis rooted historically in work on languageslike English and German. Use of the term 'agreernentmarkers' for pronominal affixesmay have led to an assumptionthat they necessarilyagree in all features with the items that establish their reference,including referentiality and definiteness.Agreement is of coursenot the primary function of pronominal affixes; their role is to evoke referents. Redundant grammatical agreementmarkers such as the subject endings of English and German verbs, are actually quite rare cross-linguistically. In her sample of 272 lango.ages,Siewierska (1999:238) found thatjust two, well under|ok, containgrammatical agreementmarkers of this type. Individual pronominal affx systemsvary across languagesin the categoriesthey distinguish and the ways they are used. In the end, however, pronominal affxes function referentially much like independentpronouns.

Dep ar tment of Linguistic s Universityof Califomia Sant a Bar bar a, California usA 93106 Email: [email protected] 101-2/05-mtthun.3d- l8/5/3 - 15:22- disk/sr lc:pdprrresrr4es

MITT{UAN _ PRONOUNS AND AGREEMENT 277

ABBREvIATIoNS

1 FIRST PERSON NEG NEGATIVE 2 sEcoND PERSoN OBJ OBJECT 3 THIRD PERSoN p.c, personalcommunication ABS ABSOLUTN'E CASE PL PLURAL ADV ADVERBIAL PRR PERFECTWE CONT CONTINUATTW PROG PROGRESSIVE DEM DEMONSTRATIVE Q INTERROGATTVE DISTR DISTRIBUTIVE R COREFERENTIAL DU DUAL RESTR RESTRICTED DUB DUBITATN'E SEQ SEQUEL DUR DURATIVE SG SINGULAR FEM FEMININE SUB STJBORDINATII'E HAB HABITUAL SUBJ SUBJECT IMPRF MPERFECTTVE T1I TIIEMATIC INDIC INDTCATIVE MOOD TR TRANSITIVE INTR INTRANSITTVE TRM TBRMINATIIts MASC MASCULINE IJ'NSPEC UNSPECIFIED

REFTRENcES

CHAFEWALLACE, 1994. Discourse, consciousness,and tine, Univetsity of Chicago. CoRBErr, GREVILLE,2003. 'Agreemenl the range of the phenomenon alld the principles of the SMG Agreement Databa.se', Transactio\s of the Philological Society l0l, 155-202 EVANS,NrcHot"As, 1999. 'Why argument affixes in polysynthetic languages are not pronouns: evidence from Bininj Gun-wok', Sprachtypologie und Universalien' forschung 52, 255-281. GoossEN,IRvn, 1995. Dini Bizaad, Flagstaff, AZ: Salina Bookshelf. JAcoBSoN,STE\EN, 1984. tup'ik Eskimo dictionau), Fairbanks, AK; Alaska Native LanguageC€nter. MITrIUN, MARTAT$IE,1998a. 'The s€quencingof grammaticization effects', in Monika S. Schmidt, Jennifer R. Austin and Dieter Stein (eds.), Histofical Linguistics 1997, Amsterdam:John Benjamins,291-314. MrrHUN, MARTANN41998b. 'Yup'ik roots and affixes', in Osalito Miyaoka and Minoru Oshirna (eds.), Languagesof the North Pacifc Rim 4, Kyoto, Japan: Kyoto University Gruduate School of Letters, 63-76. MnIruN, MARIANNE,2002, 'The referential status of pronominal amxes', MS. SrEwrf,RsKA,ANNA, 1999. 'From anaphoric pronoun to grammatical agreement 101-2/0tmithun.3d- 18/5/3 - 15:22- dislvsr lcl3diJfrDs/rDs

278 TRANsAcrroNsoF THEpHILoLocrcAL socIBTy 101, 2003

marker: why objects don't make it', in Greville Corbett (ed.), Ag\eement (Speclal isslueof Folia Linguistiea X){J{IIID, n 25l . YouNc, RoBERT,2000, The Navajo wrb system:an overview, Nbuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. YouNG, Rom.T & MoRc,{r{ WnuAM, u'ith tho assistanceof MDGBTTE,SALLY, 1992. Awlytical lexicon of -lvzvaJb,Albuqu€rque: University of New Mexico Press.