Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:54:53.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Demonstrative Position in Michif

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

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

Abstract

This article consists of a generative analysis of the variable surface ordering of demonstratives in Michif, a mixed language historically derived from French and Cree, and spoken by some Métis. It is claimed that all demonstratives in Michif originate in [Spec, DemP] and raise to [Spec, DP]. Prenominal demonstratives occur when the head of the movement chain is pronounced, while postnominal demonstratives are the result of two factors: first, the pronunciation of the tail rather than the head of the demonstrative’s movement chain, and second, the noun undergoing a last resort p-movement, adjoining to DemP. The different patterning is motivated via meaning differences in the corresponding patterns, appealing to the differences in the featural makeup of demonstratives. Pragmatic information, said here to be a contrastive focus feature, is posited on some demonstratives while not on others, yielding the different ordering and also a different interpretation. The variable nature of demonstratives cross-linguistically is also discussed.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article présente une analyse generative de l’ordre variable des démonstratifs en Michif, une langue mixte historiquement dérivée du français et du cri, parlée par certains Métis encore aujourd’hui. Il est proposé que tous les démonstratifs en Michif proviennent de [Spec, DemP] et sont déplacés [Spec, DP]. La position prénominale est le résultat de la prononciation de la tête de la chaîne de mouvement, alors que la position postnominale peut s’expliquer par deux facteurs : premièrement, la prononciation de la queue plutôt que de la tête de la chaîne de mouvement du démonstratif, et deuxièmement, le nom subissant un mouvement de dernier recours pour des raisons phonologiques, s’adjoignant DemP. L’ordre différent est motivé par des traits différents associés avec les démonstratifs, ce qui mène un sens différent entre les deux ordres possibles. De l’information pragmatique, ici un trait de focus contrastif, est présente sur certains démonstratifs, expliquant les différences dans l’ordre et dans l’interprétation. La nature variable des démonstratifs dans d’autres langues est également discutée.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 48 , Issue 1-2 , June 2003 , pp. 39 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2003

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

Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Alboiu, Gabriela. 2000. The features of movement in Romanian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba.Google Scholar
Alboiu, Gabriela. 2001. Operator asymmetries: syntax and/or phonology? Paper read at the 5th Annual Bilingual Workshop in Theoretical Linguistics. University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R., and Keenan, Edward L.. 1985. Deixis. In Language typology and syntactic description 3, ed. Shopen, Timothy, 259–308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bakker, Peter. 1997. A language of our own. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, Peter, and Papen, Robert. 1997. Michif: A mixed language based on Cree and French. In Contact languages: A wider perspective, ed. Thomason, Sarah J., 295–363. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Judy. 1993. Topics in the syntax of nominal structure across Romance. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Judy. 1997. Demonstratives and reinforcers in Romance and Germanic languages. Lingua 102:87–113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Judy. 2001. Focussing the right way in Romance determiner phrases. Probus 13:1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 2002. Adjectives, number and interfaces: Why languages vary. Amsterdam: North Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugè, L. 1996. Demonstrative movement in Spanish: A comparative approach. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 6:1–53.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. In Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, ed. Steinberg, Daniel and Jakobovits, Leon, 183–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–155. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1996. The ‘antisymmetric’ programme: Theoretical and typological implications. Linguistics 32:447–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornilescu, Alexandra. 1992. Remarks on the determiner system of Rumanian: the demonstratives al and cel . Probus 4:189–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyr, Danielle. 1993. Definite articles and demonstratives in Plains Cree. In Papers from the twenty-fourth Algonquian conference, ed. Cowan, William, 64–80. Ottawa: Carleton University.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 1989. Article-noun order. In Proceedings of the 25th annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. Wiltshire, Caroline, Graczyk, Randolf, and Music, Bradley, 83–97.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68:81–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faingold, Eduardo. 1996. Demonstrative pronouns and the definite article in Latin and the Romance languages. Papiere zur Linguistik 54:67–82.Google Scholar
Foreman, John. 2002. These deictic words here. Abstract for talk at West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara, ed. 1996. Studies in anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghomeshi, Jila, Jackendoff, Ray, Rosen, Nicole, and Russell, Kevin. To appear. English contrastive reduplication. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
Giorgi, Alessandra, and Pianesi, Fabio. 1996. Verb movement in Italian and syncretic categories. Probus 8:137–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 1991. La sintassi dei determinanti. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 1992. Heads and modifiers among determiners: Evidence from Rumanian. In Advances in Roumanian Linguistics, ed. Cinque, Guglielmo and Giusti, Giuliana, 103–125. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grosu, Alex. 1988. On the distribution of genitive phrases in Roumanian. Linguistics 26:931–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Heinrichs, Heinrich M. 1954. Studien zum bestimmten Artikel in den germanischen Sprachen. Giessen: Schmitz Verlag.Google Scholar
Himmelman, Nikolaus. 1997. Deiktiton, Artikel, Nominalphrase: Zur Emergenz syntak- tscher Struktur. Tübingen: Niermeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Bob Morris, and Thomas, Alan R.. 1977. The Welsh language: Studies in its syntax and semantics. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1974. Remarks on this and that. In Papers from the tenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. Bruck, Anthony, Fox, Robert, and LaGaly, Michael, 345–356.Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundeby, Einar. 1965. Overbestemt substantiv i norsk og de andre nordiske spr. Oslo: Universitetsforrlaget.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa, and Reinholtz, Charlotte. 1996. The syntax and semantics of determiners: A comparison of Salish and Cree, In Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, 211–238. Department of Linguistics, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1987. The grammatical nature and discourse power of demonstratives. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13:184—194.Google Scholar
Ng, Eva. 2000. Adnominal demonstrative words in Passamaquoddy. In Papers of the thirty-first Algonquian conference, ed. Nicols, John D., 255–271. Department of Linguistics, University of Manitoba.Google Scholar
Ordóñez, Francisco. 1997. Word order and clause structure in Spanish and other Romance languages. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Ordóñez, Francisco. 1998. Postverbal asymmetries in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:313–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papen, Robert. 2002. Michif: A question of gender. Paper read at the Thirty-Fourth Algonquian Conference, Kingston, Ontario.Google Scholar
Reinholtz, Charlotte. 2002. Focussing Particles in Cree. Paper read at the Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Toronto.Google Scholar
Roca, Francese. 1996. La determinación y la modificación nominal en español. Doctoral dissertation, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 1999. Subject extraction without subjects. Paper read at the LSA Summer Institute, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois.Google Scholar
Wolfart, H. Christopher. 2002. The grammatical prominence of small groups. Paper read at the Thirty-Fourth Algonquian Conference, Kingston, Ontario.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta Maria, Luisa. 1998. Prosody, focus and word order. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar