Constraints on Obviation in Ktunaxa Ally Freemond A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Linguistics Bryn Mawr College December 2020 Abstract In Algonquian languages, when a transitive sentence contains only third-person arguments, one of the arguments is marked as obviative. Factors such as animacy and possession govern the assignment of an argument as obviative. In this paper, I follow the framework of Aissen (1997) and use Optimality Theory to apply constraints on obviation to the language Ktunaxa. Ktunaxa is not an Algonquian language, yet obviation is morphologically marked and is not applied after the fact, unlike in Aissen’s application of the constraints to the languages Tzotzil and Chamorro. These constraint rankings from Algonquian hierarchies adhere to Ktunaxa with little modification needed. 1 Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3 2 Background ............................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Direct and Inverse .............................................................................................................. 3 2.2 What is Obviation? ............................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Obviation in Algonquian .................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Obviation in Ktunaxa ....................................................................................................... 15 2.4.1 Possession in Ktunaxa .......................................................................................... 17 2.4.2 Animacy in Ktunaxa ............................................................................................ 21 3 Hierarchy Alignment in Ktunaxa ........................................................................................... 23 3.1 Genitive Effects in Ktunaxa ............................................................................................. 28 3.2 Animacy Effects in Ktunaxa ............................................................................................. 32 3.3 Topicality Effects in Ktunaxa ........................................................................................... 35 4 Implications ............................................................................................................................ 37 5 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 41 Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... 42 References .................................................................................................................................... 43 2 1 Introduction In this thesis, I apply the model of obviation in Aissen (1997) to the language Ktunaxa. Aissen uses Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 2002) and specifies constraints and rankings to explain how a third-person argument is selected as obviative in relation to factors such as possession and animacy in Algonquian languages. Aissen specifies these constraints based on the alignment of language-specific hierarchies. For example, in Algonquian languages, a possessed noun is obligatorily obviative, and Aissen proposes that genitive nouns outrank their possessum on a hierarchy that must parallel the hierarchy of proximate nouns outranking obviative nouns. Aissen finds that a constraint on obviation related to animacy outranks this constraint concerning possession when the two are in conflict. Using this model, I ask if a ranking of constraints on obviation in the non-Algonquian language Ktunaxa results in a model of the attested data, and if they are ranked in the same way as Algonquian languages. Optimality Theory is a fitting model for representing obviation, as it can account for the multiple factors influencing obviation - especially when these factors come into conflict. 2 Background 2.1 Direct and Inverse Obviation is closely linked to the direct/inverse system found in verb morphology of Algonquian languages, a group of indigenous languages of North America, in which a person hierarchy governs the person marked on a transitive verb. The person hierarchy paradigm representing this is seen in (1): (1) 1st and 2nd > 3 (DeLancey 1981) The person of the higher-ranking argument will be indicated by an affix on the verb, and another affix indicates whether the higher-ranking argument is the subject or the object. For example, a 3 second-person argument ranks higher on the hierarchy than a third-person argument, so a transitive verb with these arguments will mark the second-person in an affix, but this affix does not indicate the grammatical role of the argument. If a second-person argument acts on a third- person argument, then the verb will be marked as direct. Inversion will occur if a lower-ranking argument acts on a higher-ranking argument. That is, in a sentence with a lower-ranking subject/agent and a higher-ranking object/patient will be marked inverse. (2) is an example of the person hierarchy’s role in verb morphology and how an affix in the verb marks whether it is direct or inverse. These examples are from the Algonquian language Miami-Illinois. (2a) is the direct form and (2b) is the inverse form, and the salient affix is in bold. The prefix ki- indicates the presence of a second-person argument, the higher-ranking argument of the two. Note that because the second-person argument is higher on the person hierarchy than the third-person argument, it is indicated on both verbs regardless of its grammatical role. The glosses in the second lines of (2a) and (2b) were added by me and are informed by Costa (2003). The bolded affixes in (2a) and (2b) indicate the presence of a non- local (third-person) argument and that the verbs are direct and inverse, respectively. (2) Miami-Illinois (Costa 2003:270) a. kiwaapamaa 2-look.at-ɴᴏɴʟᴏᴄᴀʟ,ᴅɪʀ ‘you look at him’ b. kiwaapamekwa 2-look.at-ɴᴏɴʟᴏᴄᴀʟ,ɪɴᴠ ‘he looks at you’ 2.2 What is Obviation? Obviation is a grammatical marking that is best known to occur in Algonquian languages (Mithun 2006). Obviation only occurs in non-local scenarios – scenarios in which a transitive 4 verb has third-person arguments – and distinguishes the two arguments from each other. When an argument is marked as obviative, it is often the less salient or less relevant argument in the discourse – however, other factors can govern the selection of obviation. Obviation does not occur in local scenarios, which involve first- or second-person participants and have no third- person participants. In a scenario with a first- or second-person argument and a third-person argument, obviation will still not occur because the third-person argument will be ranked lower without the need to distinguish it from another third-person argument. Obviation has a syntactic role and has morphological marking, but also has relevance in discourse, such as marking the less topical argument. As two third-person arguments are equally ranked on the person hierarchy in (1), obviation distinguishes the two, with one argument marked as obviative morphologically, and the other designated as proximate. The proximate is essentially the more salient of the two third- person arguments. Within the Algonquian person hierarchy, the proximate ranks higher than the obviative, as seen in (3). (3) 1st and 2nd > proximate > obviative (Oxford 2019) (4) is an example of a verb with two third-person arguments in Miami-Illinois. (4a) is the direct form, and (4b) is the inverse form. Note that the prefix present when there are two third- person arguments is ∅-. If a first- or second-person argument was present, it would be indicated on the prefix because first- and second-person arguments outrank third-person arguments on the hierarchy. Therefore, the lack of a first- or second-person prefix marker can be understood as indicating the presence of two third-person arguments. The -eewa affix marking the direct form 5 in (4a) undergoes a phonological change but is the same marker as -aa- in (2a). (4) demonstrates that the bolded affixes in (2) are not third-person markers. The glosses in the second lines of (4a) and (4b) were added by me and are informed by Costa (2003). (4) Miami-Illinois (Costa 2003:270) a. waapameewa 3-looks.at-ɴᴏɴʟᴏᴄᴀʟ,ᴅɪʀ ‘he looks at him (obv.)’ b. waapamekwa 3-looks.at- ɴᴏɴʟᴏᴄᴀʟ,ɪɴᴠ ‘he (obv.) looks at him I employ Plains Cree, or Nêhiyawêwin, as a straightforward example of obviation in an Algonquian language as well. Blain (1998) argues that obviation and the direct/inverse system are a realization of the alignment or misalignment of a person hierarchy with a grammatical relations hierarchy. Blain uses the term “grammatical relations hierarchy” to encompass both the grammatical function hierarchy (Subject > Direct Object > Indirect Object…) and the semantic role hierarchy (Agent > Patient > Goal…). These are ranked lists, so that agent is outranking patient, and agent and patient both outrank goal. When a construction is direct, the person hierarchy in (3) and the aforementioned grammatical function hierarchy and semantic role hierarchy are aligned. (5a) and (5b) demonstrate the morphology of obviation in a sentence with two third-