University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Open Access Dissertations 5-2012 The Role of Contextual Restriction in Reference- Tracking Andrew Robert McKenzie University of Massachusetts Amherst, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/open_access_dissertations Part of the Linguistics Commons Recommended Citation McKenzie, Andrew Robert, "The Role of Contextual Restriction in Reference-Tracking" (2012). Open Access Dissertations. 585. https://doi.org/10.7275/tfp7-0s60 https://scholarworks.umass.edu/open_access_dissertations/585 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ROLE OF CONTEXTUAL RESTRICTION IN REFERENCE-TRACKING A Dissertation Presented by ANDREW ROBERT MCKENZIE Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2012 Linguistics © Copyright by Andrew Robert McKenzie 2012 All Rights Reserved THE ROLE OF CONTEXTUAL RESTRICTION IN REFERENCE-TRACKING A Dissertation Presented by ANDREW ROBERT MCKENZIE Approved as to style and content by: Seth A. Cable, Co-chair Angelika H.E.S. Kratzer, Co-chair Rajesh Bhatt, Member Kevin C. Klement, Member Margaret J. Speas, Department Chair Linguistics to Y¯´ısáum ACKNOWLEDGMENTS No major accomplishment is truly completed by one person alone. Without the support and aid of advisors, colleagues, friends, and family, neither I nor this work would have made it out alive. The number of those to whom I owe so much are far too numerous for me to acknowledge by name, but some of you stand out. It would be impossible for me to overstate the benefits of an enthusiastically collaborative working environment. I am grateful for the advice on research and writing that came from many people, notably my advisors, Angelika, Seth, and Rajesh, who were ever-available and eager to help. I would also like to thank the audiences at conferences, colloquia, and workshops where parts of this work have been presented. Despite the romantic imagery of the lone fieldworker, the success of my field- work depended on a wide network of help. Thanks go first to my consultants, ma- jor and minor: Christina Simmons, George and Marjorie Tahbone, Melva Vermy, Alecia Gonzalez, and Carole Willis. I would also like to thank Esther Hayes, Kathryn Collier, Gus Palmer Jr, and David Geimausaddle for their logistical sup- port. I also thank Kathy Adamczyk and Sarah Vega-Liros in the Linguistics office for making everything at UMass run much more smoothly than it had to. I wish to express my appreciation to the NSF for providing the funding for this study, and to all those who provided me room and board during my travels. Outside of this work, my sanity was maintained, by force if necessary, by the other people in my life, especially my wife Marianne, and more recently by our little muffin, Mazarine. Sans elles j’aurais pété les plombs y’a longtemps! v ABSTRACT THE ROLE OF CONTEXTUAL RESTRICTION IN REFERENCE-TRACKING MAY 2012 ANDREW ROBERT MCKENZIE B.A., UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA Ph.D., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST Directed by: Professor Seth A. Cable and Professor Angelika H.E.S. Kratzer This dissertation explores the semantics and syntax of switch-reference (SR). It makes novel generalizations about the phenomenon based on two empirical sources: A broad, cross-linguistic survey of descriptive reports, and semantic field- work that narrowly targets the Kiowa language of Oklahoma. It shows that previ- ous attempts at formalizing switch-reference cannot work, and offers a new theory of switch-reference that derives the facts through effects that emerge from the in- teraction between the syntax and the semantics. The empirical investigation results in four major findings: First, SR is intro- duced by its own head, instead of being parasitic to T◦ or C◦. Second, switch- reference can track Austinian topic situations. Third, it must track topic situations when it is found with coordination, and it cannot do so with intensional embedded clauses. Finally, generalizations or theories based solely on the syntax are not able to account for these facts. vi These findings are explained by analyzing switch-reference as a pronominal head in the extended verbal projection of the embedded clause. This head intro- duces a relation of identity or non-identity between two arguments. One of these is in the dominant clause, the other is the highest indexed constituent in the sister of the SR head. The arguments are selected indirectly, through binding structures that are interpreted as λ-abstraction. The clausemate argument is bound by the SR head; the properties of feature valuation derive the height constraint. The pronoun introduced by the SR head is bound by the connective. Binding by the connective results in the interpretation of the SR-marked clause as a property. This property is then ascribed to an argument in the dominant clause. This theory accounts for the generalizations, and makes fruitful predictions about other aspects of switch- reference, notably when it tracks non-referential subjects. This dissertation improves our understanding of switch-reference, of situation semantics, and of reference-tracking in general. It ties reference-tracking to con- textual restriction by use of topic situations, which are anaphoric pronouns used to restrict sentential interpretation. It provides the first solid evidence of mor- phology sensitive to situations. In addition, the theory of switch-reference pro- posed here relies on independently-motivated mechanisms in the grammar. This reliance links switch-reference to other mechanisms of co-reference from inside an embedded clause, and finds a solid place for switch-reference in linguistic theory. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................. v ABSTRACT ............................................................. vi LIST OF TABLES ...................................................... xiii LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................xiv CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction . 1 1.1.1 The proposal in brief . 1 1.1.2 Results . 2 1.1.3 Outline of the dissertation . 3 1.1.4 Note to the reader . 4 1.2 Methodology . 5 1.2.1 Linguistic fieldwork . 5 1.2.2 Data collection logistics . 6 1.3 Data collection methods . 7 1.3.1 Speaker tasks . 8 1.3.2 Collection methods . 10 1.3.3 Why elicitation is essential . 19 1.3.4 Conclusion . 22 1.4 The Kiowas and their Language. 22 1.4.1 A brief ethnological history of the Kiowa . 22 1.4.2 The status of the language . 25 viii 1.4.3 Reading Kiowa . 28 1.4.4 Previous research on Kiowa . 31 1.5 A grammatical sketch of Kiowa . 34 1.5.1 Typology . 34 1.5.2 Syntax . 35 1.5.3 Phrase Structure . 37 1.5.4 Morphology . 39 1.6 Conclusion . 44 2. A SURVEY OF SWITCH-REFERENCE ................................ 45 2.1 Introduction to switch-reference . 45 2.1.1 Origins of the study of switch-reference . 46 2.1.2 Terminological issues . 47 2.1.3 Pivot and anti-pivot. 48 2.1.4 Anti-pivots seem to be pivots as well . 50 2.1.5 Disambiguation does not trigger switch-reference. 50 2.1.6 Where switch-reference is found around the world . 52 2.2 A cross-linguistic examination of SR morphosyntax . 54 2.2.1 Morphology of switch-reference morphemes . 55 2.2.2 Types of clause juncture where switch-reference is found . 79 2.2.3 Conclusions drawn from morphosyntactic facts. 90 2.3 Components of a theory of switch-reference . 91 2.4 The Binding approach . 92 2.4.1 Finer (1984): SR as an A-pronoun . 93 2.4.2 Problems with the Binding approach . 95 2.5 Conclusion . 104 3. SWITCH-REFERENCE AND TOPIC SITUATIONS .................... 106 3.1 A cross-linguistic survey of non-canonical switch-reference . 106 3.1.1 Switch-reference oblivious to subjects . 106 3.1.2 Observations on non-canonical DS . 108 3.1.3 Observations on non-canonical SS . 112 3.1.4 Configuration and non-canonical SR. 114 3.1.5 An important ambiguity . 116 3.1.6 Summary . 118 ix 3.2 The Bundling Approach . 119 3.2.1 The basic idea . 119 3.2.2 Critique of the binding approach . 120 3.2.3 Switch-reference indicates eventuality agreement . 123 3.2.4 Problems with the Bundling Approach . 127 3.2.5 Summary . 133 3.3 Switch-reference and topic situations . 133 3.3.1 The proposal in brief . 134 3.3.2 Semantic framework . 135 3.3.3 Situations in semantics . 137 3.3.4 Austinian truth and topic situations . 141 3.4 Hypothesis 1 . 148 3.4.1 Applying Hypothesis 1a . 149 3.4.2 Applying Hypothesis 1b . 149 3.4.3 Testing Hypothesis 1a . 151 3.4.4 Testing Hypothesis 1b . 154 3.4.5 Ruling out alternatives . 157 3.4.6 Situations and plans . 160 3.4.7 A step back from canonicity . 165 3.4.8 A crucial nonambiguity . 166 3.5 Hypothesis 2 . 167 3.5.1 Testing Hypothesis 2a . ..