Chapter Six: Typological Implications 1 Introduction In this chapter I discuss the ramifications of the analysis of Skwxwú7mesh D-determiners that I have provided in Chapters 4 and 5. There are two main questions. First, do other Salish languages have similar D-determiner systems? Second, if D-determiners in Skwxwú7mesh provide domain restriction over their NPs, and quantifiers do not, then the question becomes, is this universal or language specific? In §2, I discuss the implications of my analysis for other Salish languages. Some Salish languages appear to have non-deictic D-determiners, while others do not. The potentially non- deictic D-determiners appear to behave much like kwi. That is, they have D-determiners that are used in questions, under negation, in complex numerals, or in any other contexts when the speaker is unable (or unwilling) to locate the referent. These D-determiners are often used as complementizers, because events are not physically locatable in the same way entities are. A further prediction for a non-deictic D-determiner would be that they could be used partitively; no evidence for this is found in any of the grammars. This is probably because the data involved are not the usual kinds of data elicited in the production of grammars. In order to get partitive judgments, the right contexts must be set up by the researcher. Some Salish languages appear to lack a non-deictic D-determiner. They do not have a D- determiner which behaves like kwi. All D-determiners in these systems are used for potentially locatable referents. I claim in §3 below that, even in English, only the D position is associated with domain restriction. I also provide some indirect evidence that English determiners have domain restriction in their denotation and quantifiers do not. In §4, I discuss the implications of my analysis for languages without (overt) D- determiners. I claim below that covert D-determiners are present in certain contexts (e.g., in definite contexts). 176 In §5 I discuss the implications for Mäori. Mäori has a functional element which forces the nominal to take narrow scope, but is not used in familiar contexts. I claim that this element cannot be a D-determiner. In §6, I conclude the thesis with remaining questions. 2 Implications for other Salish languages My analysis of Skwxwú7mesh involves four main claims. (1) a. all D-determiners in Skwxwú7mesh involve domain restriction. b. no D-determiners in Skwxwú7mesh assert uniqueness c. most D-determiners have deictic features and can take wide scope d. one D-determiner lacks deictic features and must take narrow scope None of my claims can be properly tested on other Salish languages without fieldwork, especially the first two. However, all Salish languages with D-determiners appear to encode deictic features (Matthewson 1998). The final claim (that Skwxwú7mesh has a non-deictic D- determiner) seems to apply to some of the other Salish languages (though not all). Non-deictic D-determiners are non-locatable, and lack any deictic features. I claimed that this resulted in kwi DPs being composed via Restrict, and taking obligatory narrow scope. I predict that non-deictic D-determiners in other Salish languages will often be found in questions and under negation, but also in contexts where the speaker is unable to locate the referent. If a non-deictic D-determiner co-occurs with an operator, I also predict it will take narrow scope with respect to that operator. Non-deictic D-determiners will also be more likely to be used as complementizers. I argued in Chapter 5 that the non-deictic D-determiner kwi is the D-determiner used as a complementizer because it is used for referents that cannot be physically located by the speaker. Embedded clauses cannot be physically located. Recall that in Skwxwú7mesh the deictic D- determiners only locate in space, not in time. Other languages have deictic D-determiners that can be used to locate referents in time as well as space (see Kinkade 1964 for Upper Chehalis; 177 Davis and Saunders 1975 for Nuxalk; Demirdache 1996 for St’át’imcets; Koch 2006 for N®e÷kepmxcín). In languages like that, I predict that the deictic D-determiners can be used as complementizers, and that they could encode a present/past tense distinction. Without doing extensive fieldwork, it is impossible to tell for any language whether the D-determiners locate in time as well as space. I attempt to show that the non-deictic D-determiners are often used as complementizers. Matthewson (1998) argues that some Salish languages have a polarity D-determiner:1 specifically, Sechelt, St’át’imcets, Secepemctsín and Nuxalk. Matthewson’s analysis and the one given in Chapter 5 make some of the same predictions. A polarity D-determiner should be used in questions and under negation; a non-deictic D-determiner will also be used in questions and under negation. However, a polarity D-determiner should not be found in factive environments. A non-deictic D-determiner can (but does not have to) be found in factive environments. However, our analyses end up being the same for the non-deictic D-determiners in some languages: those that have a polarity D-determiner. Matthewson (1998) predicted that polarity D- determiners were non-deictic, but did not address the question of whether all non-deictic D- determiners were polarity items. (2) If a D-determiner is only found in polarity environments then it is non-deictic If a D-determiner is non-deictic, must it be a polarity item? I argued in Chapter 5 that kwi is non-deictic but not a polarity item. My system allows for two kinds of non-deictic D-determiners: polarity items or plain non-deictic D-determiners. (3) If a D-determiner is only found in polarity environments then it is non-deictic. If a D-determiner is non-deictic, it can be: i) a polarity item, or ii) plain. Below I present each of the D-determiner systems that have been described well enough to test for a non-deictic D-determiner. 1 Matthewson (1998) uses the term ‘non-assertion of existence’, rather than ‘polarity’. See §2.1.1 for discussion of non-assertion of existence. 178 2.1 Salish languages with potentially non-deictic D-determiners Only a subset of Salish languages appears to have a non-deictic D-determiner. These D- determiners seem to share some behaviour with kwi. They are found in questions and under negation, and are also often found in contexts when the speaker cannot locate the referent. 2.1.1 St’át’imcets The St’át’imcets D-determiner system is the best-described of all the other Salish languages. Here I briefly discuss the determiner system and compare it to Skwxwú7mesh. Matthewson (1998) argues that St’át’imcets lacks an indefinite/definite distinction. Most of the D-determiners can be used in both novel and familiar contexts. For example, in (4)a, the referent ti smém’lhatsa ‘a girl’ is introduced in the story. In (4)b, the same D-determiner is used on the now-familiar DP. (4) a. húy’-lhkan ptakwlh, ptákwlh-min lts7a ti smém’lhats-a ... going.to-1sg.s tell.story tell.story-appl here det woman(redup)-det ‘I am going to tell a legend, a legend about a girl...’ (novel) b. wa7 ku7 ílal láti7 ti smém’lhats-a. prog quot cry deic det woman(redup)-det ‘The girl was crying there.’ (familiar) (St’át’imcets; van Eijk and Williams 1981: 19, cited by Matthewson 1998) On the basis of this, Matthewson argues for a Common Ground Parameter to distinguish between Salish and English D-determiners. English D-determiners, according to her, can access the common ground, while Salish D-determiners cannot. (5) Common Ground Parameter Determiners may access the common ground of the discourse Yes: {English,...} No: {Salish,...} (Matthewson 1998) The analysis of Skwxwú7mesh D-determiners that I have argued for in this thesis is incompatible with the Common Ground Parameter. I therefore argue that the CGP cannot be the source of the difference in meaning between English and Salish D-determiners. I have argued that all D- 179 determiners access the common ground via domain restriction. The difference in meaning instead arises from the (lack of) assertion of maximality. Instead of an indefinite/definite distinction, Matthewson argues for a non-assertion of existence/assertion of existence distinction. (6) Assertion of existence (informal definition) the speakers’ intent to ‘refer to’ or ‘mean’ a nominal expression to have non-empty references - i.e. to ‘exist’ within a particular universe of discourse (i.e. not necessarily within the real world) (Givón 1978: 293-4) There are two major differences between an assertion of existence D-determiner and a non- assertion of existence D-determiner. First, assertion of existence D-determiners take wide scope and non-assertion of existence D-determiners take narrow scope with respect to some operator. (7) a. cuz’ tsa7cw kw-s Mary lh-t’íq-as going.to happy det-nom Mary hyp-arrive-3conj ti qelhmémen’-a. det old.person(dimin)-det ‘Mary will be happy if an elder comes.’ = $x [elder (x) & [come (x) Æ happy (Mary)]] (wide scope) ≠ [$x [elder (x) & come (x)]] Æ happy (Mary) (narrow scope) b. cuz’ tsa7cw kw-s Mary lh-t’íq-as going.to happy det-nom Mary hyp-arrive-3conj ku qelhmémen’. det old.person(dimin) ‘Mary will be happy if any elder comes.’ ≠ $x [elder (x) & [come (x) Æ happy (Mary)]] (wide scope) = [$x [elder (x) & come (x)]] Æ happy (Mary) (narrow scope) (St’át’imcets; Matthewson 1999: 90) Second, non-assertion of existence D-determiners are more restricted in terms of the environments which they can occur in.