Topics in the Nez Perce Verb

477 Pages·2010·3.341 MB·English

by  Amy Rose Deal

TOPICS IN THE NEZ PERCE VERB
A DissertationPresented
by
AMYROSE DEAL
SubmittedtotheGraduateSchool ofthe
UniversityofMassachusettsAmherstinpartial fulllment
oftherequirementsforthedegreeof
DOCTOROF PHILOSOPHY
May2010
Linguistics
UMI Number: 3409565

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3409565
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
!c CopyrightbyAmyRose Deal 2010
AllRightsReserved
TOPICS IN THE NEZ PERCE VERB
A DissertationPresented
by
AMYROSE DEAL
Approvedas to styleandcontent by:
Rajesh Bhatt, Co-chair
AngelikaKratzer, Co-chair
KyleJohnson,Member
PhillipBricker, Member
JohnJ. McCarthy,Department Head
Linguistics
Iandthismysteryherewe stand.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This little artifact stands for a process. I would like to express my thanks to many
peoplewhohavecontributedalongtheway.
I am grateful to my Nez Perce teachers Cecil Carter, Florence Davis, Bessie Scott and
VeraSonneck, withoutwhomthisdissertationwouldnotexist. Workingwiththesefriends
and teachers, and with Lapwai (and Clarkston) friends Harold Crook, Anne McCormack
and Angel Sobotta, has been an immensely gratifying experience on many levels. I am
sure I cannot sufciently thank the Nez Perce community for allowing me to share their
languageandtheirelders’precioustime. Allthesame: himeeq’isqe’ciyew’yew’,’oykaloo!
I am grateful to my committeemembers and teachers Rajesh Bhatt, Phil Bricker, Kyle
Johnson and Angelika Kratzer. Their great patience and masterful teaching have shaped
me and this document through and through. I thank Rajesh and Angelika, my co-chairs,
fortheirguidancethroughthisprocess,andfortheirexibilityasthetopicsofinvestigation
for the thesis evolved. I thank Kyle for his careful reading and insightful questions which
cut to the heart of many (unsolved) matters. I thank Phil for reminding me of the joys of
metaphysics,and forhiswillingnesstodebatewithmeuntilInally understood.
IshouldalsorecognizetheimmensecontributiontothisworkofCathyO’Connor,who
taught me to be a eldworker. While her name does not appear on the signature page,
throughoutthisprocessshehelpedmebringempiricalandtheoreticalstrandstogether,and
tomakethecrucial issuesclearer andmoreaccessible.
Manyfriendsandcolleagueshelpedinintellectualandpersonalwaystomakeprogress
on this project more possible. I would like to thank my wonderful classmates Maria
Biezma, Chris Davis, Annahita Farudi, Masashi Hashimoto, Karen Jesney, Kathryn Pruitt
v
andAynatRubinstein;inspirationalfellowlinguistsJanAnderssen,AnaArregui,Shai Co-
hen, Ilaria Frana, Meg Grant, Misato Hiraga, Patrick Jones, Jillian Mills, Keir Moulton,
Florian Schwarz, Anne-Michelle Tessier and Matt Wolf; my friends in the philosophy de-
partment(pastandpresent)HeidiBuetow,SamCowling,BarakKrakauer,ChrisMeacham,
JonathanSchaffer,andKellyTrogdon;theintrepidKathyAdamcyzkandSarahVega-Liros;
and my colleagues Michael Becker, Gennaro Chierchia, Jim Huang, Jay Jasanoff, Masha
Polinsky and Jeremy Rau for their encouragement and support. I thank audiences at UC
SanDiego,Harvard,Stanford,theCUNYSyntaxSupper,SULA4,theErgativityResearch
Seminar at MIT and the 2008 LSA meeting in Chicago, as well as Henry Davis, Mar-
cel den Dikken and an anonymous NLLT reviewer for feedback on the material presented
in chapters 5-8. The material in chapters 2-4 benetted from comments on presentations
at Stanford, SALT 18, SULA 5, the 2009 LSA meeting in San Francisco, and at Angelika
Kratzer’sBirthdayWorkshop;manythankstotheseaudiences,andinparticulartoMichael
Becker, Cleo Condoravdi,Harold Crook, LisaMatthewsonand RogerSchwarzschild.
I am grateful to several sources of nancial support. Fieldwork for this project was
fundedbytheNationalScienceFoundationunderagraduateresearchfellowship,GrantNo.
BCS-0418311toBarbaraH.ParteeandVladimirBorschev,andDissertationImprovement
grant BCS-0843905, as well as by theAmerican PhilosophicalSociety viaa PhillipsFund
grant.
Members of my family deserve special acknowledgment for their understanding and
encouragement. Thanks to my parents Bruce and Debby Deal, and to my sisters Beth
and Lindy. Barak Krakauer has my immense gratitude for his patience, love and unfail-
ing optimism, the causal role of which in the completion of this document should not be
underestimated.
vi
ABSTRACT
TOPICS IN THE NEZ PERCE VERB
MAY2010
AMYROSE DEAL
B.A., BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY
Ph.D., UNIVERSITY OFMASSACHUSETTS AMHERST
Directedby: ProfessorRajesh Bhatt andProfessor AngelikaKratzer
Thisdissertationinvestigatesseveraltopicsinthemorphology,syntaxandsemanticsof
theNezPerce verb andverbal clause.
The rst part ofthedissertationfocuses on themorphologicalsegmentationof theNez
Perce verb and on the semantic description of the verb and clause. Chapter 1 provides
a grammar sketch. Chapter 2 discusses the morphology, syntax and semantics of verbal
sufx complexes for tense, space, aspect and modality. Chapter 3 investigates the modal
sufxo’qa,whichisvariouslytranslatedcan,could(have),would(have),should,may,and
must, and used to makecircumstantial, deonticand counterfactual claims. I argue that this
sufx has only a non-epistemicpossibilitymeaning, and that apparent necessity meanings
are artifacts of translation. Chapter 4 investigates the future sufx u’, generally translated
will. Based on evidence from truth-value judgment tasks, conjunctions of u’ sentences
describing incompatiblestates of affairs, and negation,I argue that u’ sentences havenon-
vii
modaltruthconditions. Ialsodiscusschallengestothisanalysisfromfreechoicelicensing
and fromcertain acceptable conjunctionsofincompatibleu’sentences.
The second part of the dissertation explores the syntax of the verb and clause as re-
vealed by the system of case-marking. Nez Perce case follows a tripartite pattern, with
no case on intransitivesubjects,and bothergativeand objectivecases in transitiveclauses.
Transitive clauses may alternatively surface with no case, however. I show that caseless
transitive clauses in Nez Perce come in two syntactically and semantically distinguished
varieties. In one variety, the subject binds a possessor phrase within the object. Chapter
6 takes up this construction together with possessor raising, which I analyze as involving
movementtoaθ-position. Iarguethattheabsenceofcaseunderpossessor-bindingreects
an anaphor agreement effect. In the other variety of caseless clause, the object is a weak
indenite. Chapter 7 concludes that such objects are not full DPs. In chapter 8, I propose
a morphological theory of case-marking which captures the cased/caseless distinction for
transitiveclauses. Both ergativeand objectivecases are analyzed as morphologicalresults
ofthesyntacticsystemofagreement.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................... v
ABSTRACT ..............................................................vii
LIST OFTABLES. ........................................................ xv
LIST OFFIGURES ...................................................... xvi
CHAPTER
INTRODUCTION.......................................................... 1
PART I. MORPHEMES, MEANING AND STRUCTURE
1. A SKETCH OF NEZPERCE GRAMMAR ............................... 14
1.1 Phonemicinventoryand orthographicrepresentation ..................... 15
1.2 Majorphonologicalprocesses inbrief ................................. 15
1.3 Typologicalbackground ............................................. 18
1.3.1 Morphologyand morphologicaltypology........................ 18
1.3.2 Order ofsententialconstituents ................................ 21
1.3.3 Argumentdrop.............................................. 22
1.4 Nominals ......................................................... 23
1.4.1 Word orderin nominals....................................... 25
1.4.2 Numberand classication..................................... 27
1.4.3 Inection ofnominals ........................................ 31
1.4.4 Pronouns................................................... 34
1.5 Indeterminatepronouns ............................................. 37
1.6 Relativeconstructions............................................... 43
1.7 Thestructureoftheverb............................................. 53
ix