Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:49:55.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A unified account of Choctaw intensives*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Charles H. Ulrich
Charles H. Ulrich
Affiliation:
Pomona College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Choctaw verbs form intensives by a complex procedure of (apparent) infixation, gemination and accentuation. Verbs of all shapes have two distinct intensive forms, which Ulrich (1986) distinguishes as the y-grade (involving a geminate yy) and the g-grade (involving gemination of a stem consonant or a falling tone). Lombardi & McCarthy (1991) analyse Choctaw intensives in terms of the theory of prosodic circumscription (McCarthy & Prince 1990). Hammond (1993) gives an alternative analysis within the same theory. While insightful in certain respects, these analyses fail to account for the full range of Choctaw intensives, instead generating a single intensive for any verb. In the present paper, I propose a unified analysis of Choctaw intensives, with two, minimally different, procedures for generating the two intensives of any verb.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , August 1994 , pp. 325 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Booker, Karen M. (1980). Comparative Muskogean: aspects of Proto-Muskogean verb morphology. PhD dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R. (1941). The classification of the Muskogean languages. In Spier, L., Hallowell, A. I. & Newman, S. S. (eds.) Language, culture, and personality: essays in memory of Edward Sapir. Menasha, WI: Banta Publishing. 41–56.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael (1993). Heavy trochees in Choctaw morphology. Phonology 10. 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, Linda & McCarthy, John (1991). Prosodic circumscription in Choctaw morphology. Phonology 8. 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S. (1990). Foot and word in prosodic morphology: the Arabic broken plurals. NLLT 8. 209–283.Google Scholar
Munro, Pamela (1985). Chickasaw accent and verb grades. In Ursula, Pieper & Gerhard, Stickel (eds.) Studia linguistica diachronica et synchronica: Werner Winter sexagenario. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 581–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, Pamela (1987). Some morphological differences between Chickasaw and Choctaw. In Munro, Pamela (ed.) Muskogean linguistics. UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6. 119–133.Google Scholar
Munro, Pamela & Ulrich, Charles H. (1984). Structure preservation and Western Muskogean rhythmic lengthening. WCCFL 3. 191–202.Google Scholar
Munro, Pamela & Willmond, Catherine (1994). Chickasaw: an analytical dictionary. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Nicklas, T. Dale (1974). The elements of Choctaw. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Nicklas, T. Dale (1975). Choctaw morphophonemics. In Crawford, James M. (ed.) Studies in Southeastern Indian languages. Athens: University of Georgia Press. 237–250.Google Scholar
Ulrich, Charles H. (1986). Choctaw morphophonology. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Ulrich, Charles H. (1993). The glottal stop in Western Muskogean. IJAL 59. 430–441.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira (1988). Template morphology and the direction of association. NLLT 6. 551–577.Google Scholar