Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:00:16.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Synchronic and diachronic perspective on ‘word’ in Siouan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

Robert Rankin
Affiliation:
Dept of Linguistics, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045-2140, USA
John Boyle
Affiliation:
Dept of Linguistics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
Randolph Graczyk
Affiliation:
PO Box 29, Pryor, MT, 59066, USA
John Koontz
Affiliation:
471, E Rainbow Ct, Louisville, CO 80027-2125, USA
R. M. W. Dixon
Affiliation:
La Trobe University, Victoria
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald
Affiliation:
La Trobe University, Victoria
Get access

Summary

Siouan languages were spoken in aboriginal North America in a broad belt stretching from what is now Arkansas northward and westward across the western prairies and eastern great plains to Alberta. In addition there were Siouan languages scattered in the East in what is now Virginia, Alabama and Mississippi. The languages we will be discussing in this chapter are primarily Crow and Hidatsa, of the Missouri River subgroup, and Dakotan (including Dakota and Lakota dialects) and Dhegihan (including Omaha, Ponca, Kansa, Osage and Quapaw) of the Mississippi Valley subgroup. Data from other languages will be introduced as necessary.

Typology

Typologically, Siouan languages are primarily head-marking, active–stative, AOV, SV languages of moderate morphological complexity. Verbs are the most highly inflected category, and they may optionally include numerous and productive instances of noun incorporation. There are also many lexicalised noun–verb compounds. Sapir (1921: 142) characterised Dakota Sioux as ‘complex pure-relational’ in basic type with derivational concepts signalled by agglutinating elements and pure relational (mostly inflectional) concepts somewhat fused. Dakota's overall morphological technique he characterised as ‘agglutinative-fusional’ and degree of synthesis he characterised as ‘synthetic (mildly polysynthetic)’.

Incorporation

Compared with languages like Inuit or Iroquoian we would probably not want to characterise Dakotan, or the rest of Mississippi Valley Siouan, as productively incorporating, but Siouan verbs do incorporate a number of notions that speakers of most European languages would convey with separate words. And these include pronominal, instrumental, locative and directional concepts.

Type
Chapter
Information
Word
A Cross-linguistic Typology
, pp. 180 - 204
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 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

Boas, F. and Deloria, E. 1941. Dakota Grammar, Vol. 23, 2nd Memoir, National Academy of Sciences. Washington: Government Printing Office
Boyle, J. P. 2000. ‘The Hidatsa causative and future markers: a parallel development?’, Paper presented at the Siouan and Caddoan Languages Conference, Anadarko, Oklahoma
Buechel, E. 1970. it A dictionary of the Teton Dakota Sioux language, edited by P. Manhart. Pine Ridge: Red Cloud Indian School
Carstairs, A. 1981. it Notes on affixes, clitics, and paradigms. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club
Carter, R. T., Jones, A. W. and Rankin, R. L., et al., eds. In preparation. Siouan comparative dictionary. Computer database
Comrie, B. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Deloria, Ella. 1932. Dakota texts. Publications of the American Ethnological Society 14. New York: Stechert
Reuse, W. 1994. ‘Noun incorporation in Lakota (Siouan)’, International Journal of American Linguistics 60.199–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorsey, J. O. 1890. The ¢egiha language, Contributions to North American Ethnography 6. Washington: Government Printing Office
Dorsey, J. O. 1890–94. Quapaw texts, dictionary and grammar notes, ms. collection of the National Anthropological Archives. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC
Dorsey, J. O. and Swanton, J. R. 1912. A dictionary of the Biloxi and Ofo languages: accompanied with thirty-one Biloxi texts and numerous Biloxi phrases, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 47. Washington: Government Printing Office
Fletcher, A. and La Flesche, F. 1911. The Omaha tribe, Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report 27. Washington: Government Printing Office
Graczyk, R. 1991. ‘Incorporation and cliticization in Crow morphosyntax’. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago
Hayes, B. 1995. Metrical stress theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Koontz, J. E. 1985. Omaha grammar notes, ms
Lowie, R. 1930. ‘Hidatsa texts – with grammatical notes and phonograph transcriptions by Zellig Harris and C. F. Voegelin’, Prehistory research series, Vol. 1, no. 6. Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Society
Matthews, G. H. 1965. Hidatsa syntax. The Hague: Mouton
Mithun, M. 1984. ‘The evolution of noun incorporation’, Language 60.847–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliverio, G. R. M. 1996. ‘A grammar and dictionary of Tutelo’. PhD dissertation, University of Kansas
Rankin, R. L. 1986. Quapaw–English lexicon, ms
Rankin, R. L. 1987. Kansa–English lexicon, ms
Robinett, F. M. 1955. ‘Hidatsa I, II, III’, International Journal of American Linguistics 21.1–7, 160–77, 210–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rood, D. S. and Taylor, A. R. 1996. ‘Lakhota’, pp. 440–82 of Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 17, edited by I. Goddard. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press
Sadock, J. M. 1991. Autolexical syntax: a theory of parallel grammatical representations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Sapir, E. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt Brace
Trechter, S. J. 1995. ‘The pragmatic functions of gendered clitics in Lakhota’. PhD dissertation, University of Kansas
Zwicky, A. M. 1985. ‘Cliticization versus inflection: the Hidatsa mood markers’, International Journal of American Linguistics 51.629–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. and Pullum, G. K. 1983. ‘Cliticization vs. inflection: English n't,’Language 59.502–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×