Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-fmk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-18T17:29:42.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wh-agreement in Ojibwe relative clauses: Evidence for CP Structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Bethany Lochbihler  and
Eric Mathieu
Bethany Lochbihler
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Eric Mathieu
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article discusses the morphological and syntactic structure of relative clauses in Ojibwe (Algonquian), in particular their status as wh-constructions. Relatives in this language are full clauses that bear special morphology, show evidence of A′-movement of a wh-operator, and consequently exhibit wh-agreement also found in interrogatives and certain types of focus constructions. Ojibwe shows the possibility of wh-agreement realized on T (in addition to C and v for other languages), as it appears on tense prefixes. We account for the realization of wh-agreement on T in Ojibwe via the mechanism of feature inheritance. We propose that while declarative matrix clauses are canonical in that C introduces φ-features in Ojibwe, the role of C in embedded or wh-contexts is to introduce δ-features (discourse features), such as [uwh], rather than φ-features. These δ-features can be introduced by C, but are transferred down to T where they spell out as wh-agreement.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article étudie la structure morphologique et syntaxique des propositions relatives en ojibwe (langue algonquienne), en particulier leur statut de constructions wh. Il est proposé que les propositions relatives dans cette langue sont des propositions complètes, accompagnées d’une morphologie particulière et d’un mouvement A’ d’un opérateur wh. Il s’agit d’un accord wh que l’on trouve également dans les interrogatives et les constructions focus. Nous démontrons qu’en ojibwe l’accord wh apparaît sur T, plutôt que sur C et v comme dans d’autres langues. L’accord wh se place, en effet, sur les préfixes de temps. Nous proposons une analyse de cet accord wh par le méchanisme de l’«héritage des traits ». L’hypothèse est que dans les propositions principales déclaratives le rôle de C en ojibwe est d’introduire des traits φ (traits flexionnels) alors que dans les propositions subordonnées ou dans les contextes wh, le rôle de C est d’introduire des traits δ (traits discursifs), tel que [uwh], au lieu de traits φ. Ces traits δ sont introduits par C, mais sont transférés à T où ils sont réalisés comme accord wh.

Keywords

relative clauseswh-agreementfeature inheritanceOjibweAlgonquiansuccessive-cyclic movementdiscourse featurespropositions relativesaccord whheritage des traitsojibwealgonquienmouvement cyclique successivetraits discursifs
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 58 , Issue 2: The syntax of relative clauses La syntaxe des propositions relatives , July 2013 , pp. 293 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2013

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

Aboh, Enoch. 2010. Information structuring begins with the numeration. Iberia 2:12–42.Google Scholar
Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax: A Minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2000. Locating nominative case features in the tree. Paper presented at the Workshop on Case, Annual Conference of the German Society for Linguistics (DGfS-2000), University of Marburg.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16:373–415.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blain, Eleanor M. 1997. Wh-constructions in Nêhiyawêwin (Plains Cree). Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Blain, Eleanor M. 1999. Complementizer kâ- in Nêhiyawêwin (Plains Cree). In MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17: Papers from the Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Native American Languages, ed. Bar-el, Leora, Déchaîne, Rose-Marie, and Reinholtz, Charlotte, 1–12. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1957. Eastern Ojibwa grammatical sketch, texts, and word list. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard and Nichols, John D. 1991. The dog’s children: Anishinaabe texts told by Angeline Williams. Publications of the Algonquian Text Society. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric 2000. Quirky agreement. Studia Linguistica 54:354–380.Google Scholar
Brittain, Julie. 1997. The conjunct verb in Sheshatshit Montagnais. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 42:253–284.Google Scholar
Brittain, Julie. 2001. The morphosyntax of the Algonquian conjunct verb: A Minimalist approach. Outstanding dissertations in linguistics. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2001. Syntax at the edge: Cross-clausal phenomena and the syntax of Passamaquoddy. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2004. Two types of wh-scope marking in Passamaquoddy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22.Google Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2006. Differences between the wh-scope-marking and wh-copy constructions in Passamaquoddy. Linguistic Inquiry 37:25–49.Google Scholar
Campana, Mark. 1996. The conjunct order in Algonquian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 41:201–234.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 2005. Agree and EPP in Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23:219–279.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax, ed. Akmajian, Adrian, Culicover, Peter W., and Wasow, Thomas, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael J., 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. On phases. Ms. MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos Peregrin, and Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1994. Wh-agreement and “referentiality” in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry 25:1–44.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1998. The design of agreement: Evidence from Chamorro. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clements, G. Nick. 1984. Binding domains in Kikuyu. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 14:37–56.Google Scholar
Cook, Clare. 2008. The syntax and semantics of clause-typing in Plains Cree. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Costa, David J. 1996. Reconstructing initial change in Algonquian. Anthropological Linguistics 38:39–72.Google Scholar
Georgopoulos, Carol Perkins. 1991. Syntactic variables: Resumptive pronouns and A’-binding in Palauan. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Theory and description in generative syntax: A case study in West Flemish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane and Van Koppen, Marjo. 2012. Complementizer agreement and the relation between C0 and T0. Linguistic Inquiry 43:441–54.Google Scholar
Haïk, Isabelle. 1990. Anaphoric, pronominal and referential INFL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8:347–374.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 L., Keyser, Samuel Jay, and Bromberger, Sylvai, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Howell, Jonathan. 2008. In defense of readjustment rules and why Nishnaabemwin is not ‘Martian’. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistics Association, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Johns, Alana. 1980. Relative clauses and related phenomena in Ojibway. Master’s thesis, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Johns, Alana. 1982. A unified analysis of relative clauses and questions in Rainy River Ojibway. In Papers of the Thirteenth Algonquian Conference, ed. Cowan, William, 161–168. Ottawa: Carleton University.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas and Alan Rhodes, Richard. 1999. Constituency and linearization of Ojibwe nominais. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas (WSCLA) 4, ed. Caldecott, Marion Gerda, Gessner, Suzanne C., and Kim, Eun-Sook, 75–91. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan D. and Piggott, Glyne L. 1973. On the cyclical nature of Ojibwa T-palatalization. Linguistic Inquiry 4:345–362.Google Scholar
Lees, James. 1979. A mini-grammar of Cree-Montagnais. Montreal Working Papers 12:109–148.Google Scholar
Lochbihler, Bethany. 2012. Aspects of argument licensing. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Lochbihler, Bethany and Mathieu, Eric. 2013. Clause typing and feature inheritance of discourse features. Ms., University of Edinburgh and University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, ed. Dimitriadis, Alexis, Siegel, Laura, Surek-Clark, Clarissa, and Williams, Alexander, 201–225. Philadelphia: Penn Graduate Linguistics Society. (University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics (UPWPL) 4.2.)Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1979. Transformational syntax and model theoretic semantics: A case study in Modern Irish. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Nichols, John D., ed. 1988. An Ojibwe text anthology. London, ON: Centre for Research and Teaching of Canadian Native Languages, University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
Pagotto, Louise. 1980. On complementizer adjuncts in the Rapid Lake dialect of Algonquian. In Papers of the Eleventh Algonquian Conference, ed. Cowan, William, 231–246. Ottawa: Carleton University.Google Scholar
Proulx, Paul. 2005. Initial change in Blackfoot. In Calgary Papers in Linguistics, ed. Mezhevich, llana, Bliss, Heather, and Dobrovolsky, Michael B., 1–26. Calgary: University of Calgary, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Rhodes, Richard Alan. 1998. On the syntax of Ottawa content questions. Ms., University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Richards, Marc D. 2007. On feature inheritance: An argument from the Phase Impenetrability Condition. Linguistic Inquiry 38:563–572.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2004. The syntax of the conjunct and independent orders in Wampanoag. International Journal of American Linguistics 70:327–368.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, Jean H. 1978. Differential focusing in Ojibwa conjunct verbs: On circumstances, participants, or events. International Journal of American Linguistics 44:167–179.Google Scholar
Tuller, Laurice Anne. 1986. Bijective relations in Universal Grammar and the syntax of Hausa. Doctoral dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. Randolph. 2001. Nishnaabemwin reference grammar. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar