Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:23:56.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Conjunct Order in Algonquian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Mark Campana
Mark Campana*
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the conjunct order found in Algonquian languages and attempts to characterize the difference between the conjunct and the independent orders in formal terms. Most of the examples are drawn from Passamaquoddy-Maliseet and Montagnais. Specific morphological properties of the two orders are considered: the ability to take person prefixes, the richness of agreement features, and the phonological conditioning of stem-initial vowels. A weak word order effect is observed in Montagnais, and the overall distribution of the two verb paradigms is examined. All of these facts are related to the hypothesis that verbs bearing conjunct morphology move to Comp, while independent verbs remain in Infl. This operation is motivated by the dependence of a conjunct clause on a higher verb or noun, as in subordination or relativization. In some cases, the dependency may derive from the adjunct status of the conjunct clause itself. The overall picture is one of a configurational language type, with superficial differences reducible to parametric variation.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article examine l’ordre conjoint des langues algonquiennes et propose de caractériser la différence entre l’ordre indépendant et l’ordre conjoint en termes formels. La plupart des exemples sont tirés du passamaquoddy-maliseet et du montagnais. Les propriétés morphologiques spécifiques des deux ordres sont examinées: la capacité de prendre des préfixes de personne, la richesse des traits d’accord et le conditionnement phonologique des voyelles en initiale de racine. La distribution des deux ordres en montagnais est également examinée en rapport avec l’ordre des mots observé. Afin de rendre compte de ces différentes propriétés, il est proposé que les verbes qui portent la morphologie du conjoint se déplacent sous Comp alors que les verbes à l’indépendant demeurent sous Infl. Le déplacement sous Comp est motivé par la dépendance d’une phrase conjointe par rapport à un verbe ou un nom matrice. Dans certains cas, la dépendance peut être tributaire du statut d’adjoint de la phrase conjointe. Le portrait qui émerge de cette analyse est celui de langues de type configurationnel dont les différences superficielles s’expliquent en termes de variation paramétrique.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 201 - 234
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

Aoun, Joseph. 1982. A grammar of anaphora. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baker, C.L. 1970. Notes on the description of English questions: The role of an abstract question morpheme. Foundations of Language 6:197–219.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1991. On some subject/object non-asymmetries in Mohawk. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9:537–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1995. The polysynthesis parameter. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Campana, Mark. 1988. Mood and binding in Palauan. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 5.1. 163–189.Google Scholar
Campana, Mark. 1994. Possessor-licensing in Passamaquoddy. In Papers of the Twenty-fifth Algonquian Conference, ed. Cowan, William, 46–58. Ottawa: Carleton University.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1992. Some notes on the economy of derivation. In Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, ed. Freidin, R., 417–454. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samual Jay, 1–52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1982. Unbounded dependencies in Chamorro grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 13:39–78.Google Scholar
Clarke, Sandra. 1982. North-West River Montagnais: A grammatical sketch. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series. Ottawa.Google Scholar
Cyr, Danielle. 1994. Montagnais syntax: A matter of grammatical preference. Paper read at the Twenty-fifth Algonquian Conference, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Dahlstrom, Amy. 1991. Plains Cree morphosyntax. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1987. Anchoring conditions for Tense. In Linguistic Inquiry 22:1–25.Google Scholar
Francis, David, and Leavitt, Robert. 1992. Passamaquoddy-Maliseet verb paradigms. Ms., Micmac-Maliseet Institute, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton.Google Scholar
Georgopoulos, Carol. 1991. Syntactic variables. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Goddard, Ives. 1974. Remarks on the Algonquian independent indicative. International Journal of American Linguistics 40:317–327.Google Scholar
Grafstein, Ann. 1984. Argument structure and syntax in a non-configurational language. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Grafstein, Ann. 1989. Disjoint reference in a ‘free word-order’ language. In Theoretical perspectives on native American languages, ed. Gerdts, Donna B. and Michelson, Karin, 163–175. Albany: State University of New York Press.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, Samual Jay, 111–176. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hendrick, Randall. 1994. The Brythonic copula and head raising. In Verb Movement, ed. Lightfoot, David and Hornstein, Norbert, 163–188. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles. 1966. What Algonquian is really like. International Journal of American Linguistics 32:59–73.Google Scholar
Jelenik, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 39–76.Google Scholar
Johns, Alana. 1982. A unified analysis of relative clauses and questions in Rainy River Ojibwa. In Papers of the Thirteenth Algonquian Conference, ed. Cowan, William, 161–168. Ottawa: Carleton University.Google Scholar
Leavitt, Robert. 1985. Passamaquoddy-Malecite preverbs. In Papers of the Sixteenth Algonquian Conference, ed. Cowan, William, 73–90. Ottawa: Carleton University.Google Scholar
LeSourd, Philip S. 1993. Accent and syllable structure in Passamaquoddy. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Pagotto, Louise. 1983. Embedded clauses in Ojibwa. Master’s thesis, McGill University.Google Scholar
Picallo, Carmen. 1985. Opaque domains. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Proulx, Paul. 1980. The subordinative order of Proto-Algonquian. International Journal of American Linguistics 46:289–300.Google Scholar
Rogers, Jean. 1978. Differential focusing in Ojibwa conjunct verbs: On circumstances, participants, or events. International Journal of American Linguistics 44:167–179.Google Scholar
Sherwood, David. 1986. Maliseet-Passamaquoddy verb morphology. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series. Ottawa.Google Scholar
Toribio, A.J. 1989. Subject-auxiliary inversion in English: Licensing operators. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11:203–38.Google Scholar