WSCLA 9: Victoria, B.C. February 6-8, 2004
1 Deriving the definiteness effects in Nuu-chah-nulth locatives QUESTION 1: why is a bare locatum argument obligatorily interpreted as 1. indefinite inXlocatives Rachel Wojdak Florence Woo 2. definite inKLO-locatives UBC UC Santa Cruz [email protected] [email protected] • bare nominal in Nuu-chah-nulth are generally ambiguous between indefinite and definite interpretations 1. The problem (4) a.
(3) KLO&XXL6 KDXP QLLV
-both X-locatives and KLO-locatives share the same underlying structure KLO-locatives: the locatum is the subject 1 X (see: Fthre elzoec a1t9io9n2 )i.s the subject Nuu-chah-nulth is a Southern Wakashan language spoken on Vancouver Island. We would like to KLO locatives - -locatives: the locatum raises to subject position thank our Nuu-chah-nulth consultants for sharing their language & insights with us: Mary Jane Dick, X Katherine Fraser, Christine Nicolaye, Barbara Touchie, Barney Williams Jr. and Sarah Webster. The - -locatives: the locatum remains in object position data presented here are from the Ahousaht dialect, but to the best of our knowledge the - a bare locatum argument in object position is subject to VP-level generalisations also hold for the other dialects we've worked with (Kyuquot, Ucluelet, Clayoquot). existential binding (Diesing 1992) Thanks to Sandra Chung, Henry Davis, Rose-Marie Déchaine, Lisa Matthewson & Martina Wiltschko for their feedback & suggestions. Fieldwork on Nuu-chah-nulth was supported by a UBC Hampton Fund Research Grant in the Humanities and Social Sciences awarded to Henry Davis. 1 WSCLA 9: Victoria, B.C. February 6-8, 2004
• Underlying structure for the locative predicate –&XX"inside a container" • in both types of locatives, there is movement of the predicate to a position (Wojdak 2004) higher than the subject, yielding the VSO word order of the language.
(6) VP (11)KLO-locatives: predicate locatumi VP[ location ____ ti ] location QLLV • in KLO-locatives, the locatum argument raises to subject position and escapes 2. Predictions of the analysis VP-level existential binding (Diesing 1992). 1. The locatum satisfies subject diagnostics in KLOK-LlOocatives 1. The locatum satisfies subject diagnostics in -locatives a. word order (§2.1) (7) IP a. word order (§2.1) b. claubs. a lp ionsfslescstoiorn-r a (i§si2n.g2 )c lausal inflection (§2.2) ∃-binding c. poscse. s csloaru-rsaails infgl e(c§t2io.3n) (§2.3) locatumiVP 2. 2T. h Te hloec laotcuamtu sma tsisaftiiessfi eosb joebcjte dcita dginaogsntoicssti icns inX -lXo-claotcivaetisv es a. worad. owrdoerrd (o§r2d.e1r) (§2.1) location b. incobr. p ionrcaotiropno r(a§t2io.4n) (§2.4) predicate ti 3. 3T. hTeh ien dinedfienfitneinteenses srse srtersitcrtiicotnio inn inX -lXo-cloactiavteivs eiss inso nt oatb asbosluotleu t(e§ 2(§.52). 5) KLO&XXL6 KDXP QLLV (14) KL 2 ¡ For explicitness, we assume that the location has not raised out of the VP in -locatives, and LOC-inside-3 frying.pan oven-DET instead occupies its theta-subject position. This corresponds to the availability of indefinite bare £ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¨ ¨ § The frying pan is inside the oven. ¡ ¤¥ ¡ © ¡ ¡ ¡ nominal locations, eg. ¢ ¢ "A woman is wearing a hat" (ex. 26). 2 WSCLA 9: Victoria, B.C. February 6-8, 2004 • the opposite preference holds forX-locatives, where the location precedes 2.3 Clausal inflection corresponds to subject the locatum argument: • Clausal agreement in Nuu-chah-nulth is triggered by subjects. (15) XXT]LL6 -D0DT] 2.2 Possessor-raising corresponds to subject (20) KLO LVVL6 D+NXX LOC-on.ground-1sg.IND DEIC • possessor-marking on a predicate corresponds to the subject (Davidson I'm sitting over here. 2002, Ravinski in prep) 21 KLO1LLVVL6 (16) X\XDDOXNVL6 KXSNXPO "LQLL] LOC-on.beach-1sg.IND find-POSS-1sg.IND ball dog I'm on the beach. My dog found the ball. (possessor=subject) • inX-locatives, the subject inflection matches the location, not the locatum. (unavailable interpretation : The dog found my ball.) (22) a. X&LWXPVL6 VDM.D+V • In KLO-locatives, the possessor-marking on a predicate matches the locatum on.side.of.head-1sg.IND comb I've got a comb on the side of my head. (17) KLO&XXDNL6 KDXP QLLV • in Xlocatives, the possessor-marking on a predicate matches the location c. XTXPOVL6 VDM.D+V on.head-1sg.IND comb (18) XDOXNL6 "LPWLL /XF\ -XS-XS6XPO I have combs in my hair. on.surface-POSS-3.IND name Lucy sweater There is a name on Lucy's sweater. (possessor=location) 2.4. Incorporation of objects (consultant's comment: "could be ANY name, like a team name") • in Nuu-chah-nulth, affixal predicates show an alternation between (unavailable interpretation: Lucy's name is on a sweater.) suffixation to the expletive morpheme X-, and suffixation to an object: • this pattern is predicted if the locatum is the subject of KLO-locatives, and D XDDPLWL6 MDNXS PD+7LL the location is the subject of X-locatives. XDDSPLWL6 MDNXS PD+7LL buy-PST-3.IND man house A man bought a house. 3 WSCLA 9: Victoria, B.C. February 6-8, 2004 E PD+7LLDPLWL6 MDNXS 2.5 The indefiniteness restriction in X-locatives is not absolute PD+7LLDDSPLWL6 MDNXS house-buy-PST-3.IND man • under the analysis of X-locatives, the locatum remains within the VP. A man bought a house. (27) X-locatives: locatum is subject to existential binding • suffixation to an object has been analysed as incorporation (Davis and Sawai 2001, Wojdak 2003). There is a subject-object asymmetry in this IP incorporation which rules out suffixation of the predicate to its subject: ∃-binding VP (24) MDNXSDDSPLWL6 PD+7LL man-buy-PST-3.IND house location A man bought a house. predicate locatum • the incorporation pattern in X-locatives diagnoses the locatum as the object. Only the locatum argument can incorporate; the location argument • The implication of (27) is that if a (bare) locatum is indefinite, it must be in cannot incorporate. the object position. (25) a. X&XXL6 TDXXFL KDXP • however, the analysis predicts that definite locatum arguments should be X in.container-3.IND basket-DET food possible in -locatives, provided that they are bound by a definite There's food in the burden basket. determiner. b KDXP&XL6 TDXXFL • the prediction holds: the ban on definite locata inX-locatives is not food-in.container-3.IND basket-DET absolute. In restricted contexts, the definite locata are possible in X- There's food in the burden basket. locatives: c. * TDXXF&XL6 KDXP XXT]LL6 -D0DT] an incorporation alternation Question: but if definite locatum arguments are freely allowed in X- 4 locatives, then why don’t we see more of them? WSCLA 9: Victoria, B.C. February 6-8, 2004 • why are X-locatives banned with pro locatum arguments, for example? • This would also predict a restricted set of contexts where X-locatives with definite locata can occur. (30) Q: ZDDVL+ QLLVMXXL where-3.Q boiled-result-DET • under the idea that topics=subject, this means that when both locatum and Where's the boiled fish? location are familiar in the discourse context, an Xlocative is used only when the location is more salient than the definite locatum. A1: KLO&XXL6 D+1LL QLLV • the topic of a sentence, being discourse-old information, necessarily entails • this prediction corresponds to the following context for an X-locative with a familiarity/definiteness in some sense (Chafe 1975). definite locatum: • This would explain why X-locatives (necessarily with a location subject) context: Mary Jane and I went out berry-picking, and we had a few burden are banned in contexts where the locatum is the topic. baskets with us. We got a basket of salal, a basket of blackberries, and a basket of cranberries. We take the berries home & we start to clean (31) Q: ZDDVD]XN+V 7DDW1DLV them. I fall asleep & in the meantime Mary Jane finishes with the ZDDV D]XN+V 7DDW1DLV blackberries & the cranberries. All of a sudden I wake up & then I ask where-TEMP-POSS-1sg.Q children whether there's anything left for me to clean. Mary Jane answers with Where's my kids? (kids = topic) (33). topic subject subject topic A1: KL A2: * X LLOL6DO PD+7LLDNLKen pro 3. Conclusion -inside-3.IND-PL house-POSS-3 Ken pro topic/subject MISMATCH • our analysis of locatives accounts for a range of data (definiteness effects, word order, possessor-raising pattern & subject inflection) with one story: the locatum raises to subject position in KLO-locatives but not X-locatives. 5 WSCLA 9: Victoria, B.C. February 6-8, 2004 For future research: • an analysis of the origin/function of the locative morpheme KLOIs it the same morpheme as the KLOthat appears in predicative contexts (34) and in relative clauses (35)? (34) KLOLL6 PDNX:DV LOC-3.IND store She's at the store. (35) -X3XXTVPLOL6 KLOLWTVXXDDO ZDLM -X3XXTVPLOL6 KLOLWTVXXDDO ZDLM smell-inside-3.IND LOC-2pl.REL-always sleep It smells where you always sleep. • further investigation into the topic/subject link in Nuu-chah-nulth, with locatives & elsewhere. Are subjects and topics inherently linked in Nuu-chah-nulth? References Chafe, Wallace. 1975. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.). Academic Press Inc, New York. Davis, Henry and Naomi Sawai. 2001. Wh-movement as Noun Incorporation in Nuu-chah-nulth. In WCCFL 20 Proceedings, ed. K. Megerdoomian and L. A. Bar-El. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Davidson, Matthew. 2002. Studies in Southern Wakashan (Nootkan) Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, SUNY at Buffalo. Diesing, Molly. 1992. Indefinites. MIT Press, Cambridge. Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68: 553-595. Ravinski, Christine. in prep. [Nuu-chah-nulth possessives.] M.A. thesis, UBC. Rose, Suzanne M. 1981. Kyuquot Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Victoria. Wojdak, Rachel. in prep. Complex predicates in Nuu-chah-nulth. Ph.D. dissertation, UBC. Wojdak, Rachel. 2004. On the classification of Wakashan lexical suffixes. Paper to be presented at the 30th Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Feb 13-16, 2004. Wojdak, Rachel. 2003. PF Incorporation: Evidence from Wakashan. Paper presented at the 26th GLOW Colloquium (Lund, Sweden). 6