Evidentiality in Nuu-Chah-Nulth
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Evidentiality in Nuu-chah-nulth by Ryan James Waldie B.A., The University of Victoria, 2001 M.A., The University of Victoria, 2004 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Linguistics) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) December 2012 c Ryan James Waldie 2012 Abstract This thesis proposes that evidentiality is made up of three factors, a relation between an origo and a situation, a relation between an origo and a proposition, and a relation between a situation and a proposition. This claim is motivated empirically by the set of evidentials in the Ahousaht dialect of Nuu-chah-nulth, a Wakashan language spoken on the west coast of Vancouver Island in Canada. This language has seven evidentials, each of which encodes at least one of the three factors of evidentiality. The thesis begins by laying out the claim (Chapter 1), giving a brief outline of the grammar of Nuu-chah-nulth (Chapter 2), and going over the relevant literature on evidentiality (Chapter 3). Chapter 4 looks at the morphological and syntactic classification of the evidentials in Nuu-chah-nulth. I show that evidentials occur in several dierent syntactic domains, and are thus able to co-occur. I present a model-theoretic semantic analysis of my proposal in Chapter 5. The notions of origo, situation and proposition are formalized, as are the relations that hold between them. I also give the semantics of each of the evidentials in Nuu-chah-nulth. Chapter 6 addresses the question of how the origo is determined. I argue that three mechanisms are involved: 1) matrix-clause mood suxes specify the origo; 2) embedding verbs lexically encode that their subject argument is the origo of their complement clause; and 3) in the absence of either of the previous two mechanisms, the origo is contextually determined. In Chapter 7 I show that the evidential component of meaning in a sentence does not have the same status as the propositional component of meaning. I propose a modification to the model given in Chapter 5 to account for this. Chapter 8 looks at the interactions between the semantics of temporal suxes and evidentials. I show that the semantics of sensory evidentials requires them to precede tense, while the semantics of other evidentials do not impose any ordering with respect to tense. Finally, in Chapter 9 I summarize the claims of the thesis and turn to some unresolved questions. ii Table of Contents Abstract ........................................... ii Table of Contents ...................................... iii List of Tables ........................................x List of Figures ........................................ xii List of Abbreviations ................................... xiii Acknowledgements .................................... xv 1 Introduction .......................................1 1.1 Introduction . .1 1.1.1 Evidential morphemes in Nuu-chah-nulth . .2 1.2 Proposal . .5 1.2.1 Origo . .6 1.2.2 Perspectival status . .8 1.2.3 Manner of support . .8 1.2.4 Perceptual grounding . 10 1.3 Issues addressed . 10 1.3.1 The morpho-syntactic distribution of evidentials in Nuu-chah-nulth . 11 1.3.2 Model theoretic analysis of the factors of evidentiality . 12 1.3.3 The origo: how it gets its value . 13 1.3.4 Levels of meaning: dierences between the evidential relations and the prejacent proposition . 14 1.3.5 The perceived situation: interactions between evidentials and temporal morphemes . 14 1.4 Methodology and data presentation . 14 1.5 Organization of the dissertation . 15 2 Some basic facts about Nuu-chah-nulth ...................... 17 2.1 A user's guide to Nuu-chah-nulth . 17 2.2 Phonemic inventory . 17 2.2.1 Consonant inventory: 38 consonants . 17 2.2.2 Vowel inventory: five vowels and a length contrast . 18 2.3 Morpho-phonology . 19 2.3.1 Morpho-phonology of stems . 19 iii Table of Contents 2.3.1.1 At the left edge: templatic reduplication and vowel length . 19 2.3.1.2 At the right edge: glottalization and lenition . 21 2.3.2 Morpho-phonology of axes . 23 2.3.2.1 Ghost consonants . 24 2.3.2.2 Variable-length vowels . 24 2.4 Morpheme order . 25 2.4.1 The core/periphery distinction and the morpheme template . 25 2.4.2 Second-position eects . 26 2.4.2.1 Peripheral suxes are always in second position . 26 2.4.2.2 Core suxes are sometimes in second position . 27 2.5 Peripheral suxes in more detail: their status as inflectional morphemes . 28 2.5.1 Mode suxes code modal force . 29 2.5.2 Valence and tense suxes: a mixed bunch . 30 2.5.2.1 Valency extending: causative -'Ap ............... 31 2.5.2.2 The temporal modifier -'az ‘now’ . 31 2.5.2.3 Valency shifting: -'at ...................... 31 2.5.2.4 Nominal valency: possessive -uk and -/Ak ........... 32 2.5.2.5 The past marker -(m)it ..................... 33 2.5.3 Mood suxes are obligatory and define paradigmatic contrasts . 33 2.5.4 Discourse suxes: another mixed bunch . 35 2.6 Word order . 36 2.6.1 Canonical word order is VSO . 36 2.6.2 Modifiers precede heads . 37 2.6.3 Question words (wh-words) are sentence-initial . 38 2.7 Clause-typing in more detail: the mood suxes again . 38 2.7.1 Moods that occur only in matrix clauses . 38 2.7.2 One mood occurs in both matrix and dependent clauses: the absolutive mood..................................... 40 2.7.2.1 The absolutive mood in matrix clauses . 40 2.7.2.2 The absolutive mood in complement clauses . 41 2.7.2.3 The absolutive mood in adjunct clauses . 42 2.7.3 Moods that occur only in dependent clauses . 43 2.7.3.1 The subordinate mood introduces clauses . 43 2.7.3.2 The purposive mood introduces rationale clauses . 44 2.7.3.3 The conditional mood introduces if-clauses . 44 2.7.3.4 The relative and indefinite moods introduce relative clauses . 44 2.8 ............................................ 45 3 Towards a theory of evidentiality .......................... 46 3.1 Ways of classifying evidentials . 46 3.2 Morphological classifications of evidentials . 46 3.3 Syntactic classifications of evidentials . 48 3.4 Semantic classifications of evidentials . 50 3.4.1 Modal approaches . 50 3.4.1.1 Kratzer's (1981) modal analysis . 50 iv Table of Contents 3.4.1.2 Modal accounts of evidentials . 51 3.4.2 Perceptual approaches . 54 3.4.3 Origo . 54 3.5 Pragmatic classifications of evidentials . 56 3.5.1 Evidentials contribute presuppositions . 57 3.5.2 Evidentials contribute sincerity conditions . 57 3.5.3 Evidentials contribute not-at-issue content . 57 3.6 The way forward to an analysis of Nuu-chah-nulth evidentials . 57 4 Cataloguing the inventory of Nuu-chah-nulth evidentials ........... 59 4.1 The origo hypothesis: evidentiality consists of the relations between an origo, a proposition and a situation. 59 4.2 The syntax of Nuu-chah-nulth evidentials . 62 4.2.1 Two hypotheses about the external syntax of evidentials . 62 4.2.1.1 Hypothesis 1: A dedicated position for evidentials: Cinque 1999 . 62 4.2.1.2 Counter-example 1: scattered evidentiality . 63 4.2.1.3 Counter-example 2: paradigmatic heterogeneity . 63 4.2.1.4 Hypothesis 2: multiple positions for evidentials: Blain and Déchaine (2006, 2007) . 63 4.2.2 Nuu-chah-nulth evidentials are associated with CP, IP, or VP . 64 4.3 Nuu-chah-nulth evidentials in the CP domain: inflectional mood suxes . 65 4.3.1 Quotative -wA/iS .............................. 66 4.3.2 Indirect interrogative -HAj ........................ 66 4.3.3 Dubitative -qAJa .............................. 68 4.3.4 Paradigmatic blocking: CP-domain evidentials do not co-occur . 69 4.4 Nuu-chah-nulth evidentials in the IP domain . 71 4.4.1 Inferential -matak ............................. 72 4.4.2 Past inferential -ckvI ............................ 73 4.4.3 IP-domain evidentials can co-occur . 75 4.4.4 IP-domain and CP-domain evidentials can co-occur . 76 4.5 Nuu-chah-nulth evidentials in the VP domain . 77 4.5.1 Visual inferential: the derivational sux -Kuk .............. 77 4.5.1.1 VP-domain -Kuk ‘visual inference' is related to KuK[RSS] ‘re- semble' . 79 4.5.1.2 Co-occurence of VP-domain -Kuk ‘visual inference' with other evidentials . 80 4.5.2 Auditory evidential: the particle na/a:t .................. 82 4.5.2.1 VP-domain na/a:t ‘auditory evidence' is related to na/a: ‘hear' 84 4.5.2.2 Co-occurence of VP-domain na/a:t ‘auditory evidence' with other evidentials . 84 4.6 Comparing evidentials to predicates with similar meanings . 86 4.6.1 Comparing evidentials to predicates that introduce propositions . 86 4.6.2 Comparing evidentials to verbs of saying . 88 v Table of Contents 4.6.3 Comparing evidentials to predicates that introduce experiencers: verbs of perception . 91 4.6.4 Comparing evidentials to predicates that introduce properties: sensory suxes . 92 4.7 Consequences . 93 4.7.1 Not all mood suxes are evidentials . 93 4.7.1.1 Indicative mood . 94 4.7.1.2 Mirative -JA?aS is not an evidential . 95 4.7.1.3 Indirect dependent moods . 97 4.7.2 Evidentials from dierent syntactic domains have dierent semantic properties . 100 4.8 Summary of combinatorial restrictions on Nuu-chah-nulth evidentials . 101 4.9 Variation in evidentials in Southern Wakashan . 102 4.9.1 Dubitative in Southern Wakashan . 103 4.9.2 Quotative in Southern Wakashan . 104 4.9.3 Indirect interrogative in Southern Wakashan . 106 4.9.4 Mirative in Southern Wakashan . 106 4.9.5 -matak in Southern Wakashan .