Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T09:01:54.667Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Person and deixis in Heiltsuk pronouns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2019

Bronwyn M. Bjorkman*
Queen's University
Elizabeth Cowper*
University of Toronto
Daniel Currie Hall*
Saint Mary's University
Andrew Peters*
University of Toronto


Harbour (2016) argues for a parsimonious universal set of features for grammatical person distinctions, and suggests (ch. 7) that the same features may also form the basis for systems of deixis. We apply this proposal to an analysis of Heiltsuk, a Wakashan language with a particularly rich set of person-based deictic contrasts (Rath 1981). Heiltsuk demonstratives and third-person pronominal enclitics distinguish proximal-to-speaker, proximal-to-addressee, and distal (in addition to an orthogonal visibility contrast). There are no forms marking proximity to third persons (e.g., ‘near them’) or identifying the location of discourse participants (e.g., ‘you near me’ vs. ‘you over there’), nor does the deictic system make use of the clusivity contrast that appears in the pronoun paradigm (e.g., ‘this near you and me’ vs. ‘this near me and others’). We account for the pattern by implementing Harbour's spatial element χ as a function that yields proximity to its first- or second-person argument.


Harbour (2016) propose un ensemble universel et parcimonieux de traits universels pour rendre compte des distinctions grammaticales de personne, et suggère (ch. 7) que ces mêmes traits peuvent également servir de base aux systèmes de deixis. Nous appliquons cette approche à une analyse de heiltsuk, une langue wakashan avec un système particulièrement riche de contrastes déictiques basés sur la personne (Rath 1981). Les démonstratifs de heiltsuk, ainsi que les enclitiques pronominaux à la troisième personne, distinguent entre le proximal au locuteur, le proximal à l'écouteur, et le distal (en plus d'un contraste orthogonal de visibilité). Il n'y a pas de formes qui marquent la proximité à une troisième personne (p. ex. ‘près d'eux’) ni qui situent les participants au discours (p. ex. ‘vous près de moi’ vs ‘vous à distance’). Le système démonstratif n'utilise pas non plus le contraste de clusivité qui figure dans le paradigme pronominal (par exemple, ‘celui près de toi et de moi’ vs ‘celui près de moi et d'autres’). Nous expliquons ce système en modifiant l'élément spatial χ de Harbour (2016), en une fonction qui retourne une relation de proximité par rapport à son argument de première ou de deuxième personne.

Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Bender, Byron W., Capelle, Alfred, and Pagotto, Louise. 2016. Marshallese reference grammar. University of Hawai'i Press.Google Scholar
Bliss, Heather, and Ritter, Elizabeth. 2001. Developing a database of personal and demonstrative pronoun paradigms: Conceptual and technical challenges. In Proceedings of the IRCS Workshop on Linguistic Databases, ed. Bird, Steven, Buneman, Peter, and Liberman, Mark, 3847. Philadelphia: Institute for Research in Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Bliss, Heather, and Ritter, Elizabeth. 2009. A typological database of personal and demonstrative pronouns. In The use of databases in cross-linguistic studies, ed. Everaert, Martin, Musgrave, Simon, and Dimitriadis, Alexis, 77116. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chen, Yujie. 2015. The semantic differentiation of demonstratives in Sinitic languages. In Diversity in Sinitic languages, ed. Chappell, Hilary M., 81109. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N., and Hume, Elizabeth. 1995. The internal organization of speech sounds. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. Goldsmith, John, 245306. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth, and Hall, Daniel Currie. 2002. The syntactic manifestation of nominal feature geometry. In Proceedings of the 2002 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. Burelle, Sophie and Somesfalean, Stanca, 5566. Montréal: Cahiers Linguistiques de l'UQAM.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth, and Hall, Daniel Currie. 2014a. The features and exponence of nominal number. Lingue e Linguaggio 13(1): 6382.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth, and Hall, Daniel Currie. 2014b. Reductiō ad discrīmen: Where features come from. Nordlyd 41(2): 145164.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth, and Hall, Daniel Currie. 2019. Scope variation in contrastive hierarchies of morphosyntactic features. In Variable properties in language: Their nature and acquisition, ed. Lightfoot, David and Havenhill, Jon, 2741. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie, and Wiltschko, Martina. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3): 409442.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2013. Pronominal and adnominal demonstratives. In The world atlas of language structures online, ed. Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin, chap 42. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Published online at 〈〉.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Embick, David, and Noyer, Rolf. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax–morphology interface. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles, 289324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2003. Bininj Gun-Wok: A pan-dialectal grammar of Mali, Kunwinjku, and Kune. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2013. The diachrony of pronouns and demonstratives. In In search of Universal Grammar: From Old Norse to Zoque, ed. Lohndal, Terje, 195218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hall, Daniel Currie, and Cowper, Elizabeth. 2016. Morphosyntactic feature hierarchies are contrastive hierarchies. Paper presented at the Workshop on Hierarchical Structures in Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax, CASTL, Universitetet i Tromsø.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In MITWPL 30: Papers at the interface, ed. Bruening, Benjamin, McGinnis, Martha, and Kang, Yoonjung, 125149. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 111176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 275288.Google Scholar
Harbour, Daniel. 2016. Impossible persons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harbour, Daniel, and Elsholtz, Christian. 2012. Feature geometry: Self-destructed. Ms., Queen Mary University of London and Technische Universität Graz.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Noyer, Rolf. 1999. State-of-the-article: Distributed Morphology. GLOT 4(4): 39.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3): 482526.Google Scholar
Kimball, Geoffrey D. 1991. Koasati grammar. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Mous, Maarten. 1993. A grammar of Iraqw. Hamburg: H. Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
Rath, John C. 1981. A practical Heiltsuk-English dictionary with a grammatical introduction. National Museum of Man Mercury Series. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada.Google Scholar
Rota, Gian-Carlo. 1964. The number of partitions of a set. The American Mathematical Monthly 71(5): 498504. doi: 10.2307/2312585.Google Scholar
Tucker, Archibald N., and Bryan, Margaret A.. 1966. Linguistic analyses: The non-Bantu languages of North-Eastern Africa. Handbook of African Languages. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar