Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T03:37:22.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transitivity and Causation in Lushootseed Morphology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

David Beck
David Beck*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Salishan language Lushootseed shows an unusual pattern in its verbal morphology wherein its verbs are formed from intransitive, adjective-like roots via a highly productive set of suffixes, the bulk of which serve to increase the valency of their stem. These include the middle-marker, which forms intransitives, and several transitivizing affixes, which are shown here to be types of causative, their transitivizing effect being an expression of the causality inherent in the prototypical transitive event. In addition, the syntactic properties of the Lushootseed passive — formed by combining a transitivizing suffix with the middle-marker — can be analyzed as straightforward consequences of the meanings of the affixes that compose it. Treating Lushootseed causatives as subtypes of the transitive event model suggests that cross-linguistically transitive-causatives — as well as instrumentals and applicatives — may be subschematic extensions of the simple transitive clause, rather than derivations from more complex, biclausal structures.

Résumé

Résumé

La morphologie verbale du Lushootseed montre un patron inhabituel en ce sens que les verbes sont formés à partir de racines intransitives par l’ajout d’un ensemble très productif de suffixes dont la plupart servent à augmenter la valence verbale. Parmi ceux-ci, on retrouve le marqueur du moyen, qui sert à former les intransitifs, ainsi que plusieurs affixes de transitivisation, qui sont en fait des types de causatif, leur effet de transitivisation reflétant la causalité inhérente aux événements transitifs. Les propriétés syntaxiques du passif, formé par la combinaison d’un suffixe de transitivisation et du marqueur du moyen, peuvent être analysées comme découlant directement du sens des affixes qui le composent. Le fait de traiter les causatifs du Lushootseed comme des sous-types d’événements transitifs suggère que les causatifs transitifs, de même que les instrumentaux et les applicatifs, peuvent être analysés comme des extensions sous-schématiques de simples phrases transitives, plutôt que comme dérivés à partir de structures biphrastiques plus complexes.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 109 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1996

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.)

References

Bates, Dawn, Hess, Thomas M., and Hilbert, Vi. 1994. Lushootseed dictionary. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Beck, David. 1996. Is there a syntactic subject in Lushootseed? In Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, 1–33. University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Bhat, D.N.S. 1994. The adjectival category. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter. 1983. The grammatical role of the causee in universal grammar. International Journal of American Linguistics 49:115–133.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. The syntax of causative constructions. In Syntax and semantics 6: The grammar of causative constructions, ed. Shibatani, Masayoshi, 261–312. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Causative verb formation and other verb-deriving morphology. In Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, ed. Shopen, Timothy, 309–348. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology, 2nd ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, and Polinsky, Maria, eds. 1993. Causatives and transitivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry. To appear. Deep unaccusativity and zero syntax in Sṫáṫimcets. In Supplements to the Basque Journal of Linguistics and Philology, ed. Uribe-Etxebarria, M. and Mendikoetxea, A..Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1982. Where have all the adjectives gone? Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Gerdts, Donna B. 1989. Relational parameters of reflexives: The Halkomelem evidence. In Theoretical perspectives on native American languages, ed. Gerdts, Donna B. and Michelson, Karin, 259–280. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1994. The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: Functional and typological aspects of inversion. In Voice and inversion, ed. Givón, Talmy, 3–44. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, Thomas M. 1973. Agent in a Coast Salish language. International Journal of American Linguistics 39:89–94.Google Scholar
Hess, Thomas M. 1976. Dictionary of Puget Salish. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Hess, Thomas M. 1993a. Lushootseed reader with introductory grammar, Vol. I: Four stories from Edward Sam. Rev. ed. Victoria, B.C.: Tulalip.Google Scholar
Hess, Thomas M. 1993b. A schema for the presentation of Lushootseed verb stems. In University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10: American Indian linguistics and ethnography in honor of Laurence C. Thompson, ed. Mattina, Anthony and Montler, Tim, 113–126. University of Montana, Missoula.Google Scholar
Hess, Thomas M., and Hilbert, Vi. 1976. Lushootseed: An introduction, Books 1 and 2. American Indian Studies, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul, and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56:251–299.Google Scholar
Hukari, Thomas. 1976. Person in a Coast Salish language. International Journal of American Linguistics 42:305–318.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Peter. 1994. The inverse in Squamish. In Voice and inversion, ed. Givón, Talmy, 121–145. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise, and Demers, Richard A.. 1983. The agent hierarchy and voice in some Coast Salish languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 49:167–185.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne, and Verhagen, Arie. 1994. The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics 5:115–156.Google Scholar
Kinkade, M. Dale. 1990. Sorting out third persons in Salish discourse. International Journal of International Linguistics 56:341–360.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Subject and topic, ed. Li, Charles N., 457–489. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1979. Third-person pronouns and zero-anaphora in Chinese discourse. In Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax, ed. Givón, Talmy, 311–335. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Maldonaldo, Ricardo. 1992. Middle voice: The case of Spanish ‘se’. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor A. 1993. The inflectional category of voice: Towards a more rigorous definition. In Causatives and transitivity, ed. Comrie, Bernard and Polinsky, Maria, 1–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor A. 1994. Cours de morphologie générale, vol. 2, deuxième partie : Significations morphologiques. Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal/CNRS.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1980. Relational grammar. In Syntax and semantics 13: Current approaches to syntax, ed. Moravcsik, Edith and Worth, James, 195–230. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1985. Parts-of-speech systems. In Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. I: Clause structure, ed. Shopen, Timothy, 3–61. Bath: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi, ed. 1976. Syntax and semantics 6: The grammar of causative constructions. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Laurence 1979. The control system: A major category in the grammar of Salishan languages. In The Victoria Conference on Northwestern Languages, ed. Barbara Efrat, 156–176. Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum.Google Scholar
Trask, R.L. 1993. A dictionary of grammatical terms in linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tuggy, David. 1988. Náhuatl causative/applicatives in cognitive grammar. In Topics in cognitive linguistics, ed. Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida, 587–618. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
van Oosten, Jeanne. 1977. Subjects and agenthood in English. In Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. Beach, Woodford, Fox, Samuel E., and Philosoph, Shulamith, 459–471. Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago.Google Scholar