Pragmatically determined word order in Cherokee and its exceptions - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
pragmatically determined word order in cherokee and its
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Pragmatically determined word order in Cherokee and its exceptions - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 15, 2024 155 likes •578 views

Pragmatically determined word order in Cherokee and its exceptions Brian Hsu and Benjamin Frey LSA 2020 Annual Meeting January 4, 2020 1 Introduction and overview Information structure is known to play a primary role in Cherokee word order

slide-1
SLIDE 1

1

Pragmatically determined word order in Cherokee and its exceptions

Brian Hsu and Benjamin Frey LSA 2020 Annual Meeting January 4, 2020

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

Introduction and overview

Information structure is known to play a primary role in Cherokee word order (Scancarelli 1987,

Montogmery-Anderson 2008) § Thematic structure plays a relatively limited role in determining word order

Goals of this project:

§ Closer examination of relative ordering restrictions

  • n information structure specifications.

§ Examining effects of other properties on word order, particularly quantification.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

Introduction and overview

Preview of findings: § Relative order of major constituents in the clause, based on information structure:

Frame-setter, > new info., > verb > given info. topic focus § Exception: quantified nouns are uniformly pre- verbal, independent of their information structure status.

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

Organization of the talk

  • 1. Introduction and overview
  • 2. Background and prior works
  • 3. Information structure in the Cherokee

clause

  • 4. Quantified nominals
  • 5. Conclusion
slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Background and prior works

Southern Iroquoian language – indigenous to western North Carolina and adjacent areas. Currently severely endangered:

  • ~1991 speakers in Oklahoma
  • ~211 speakers in North Carolina

(Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190629081731/https://www.t heonefeather.com/2019/06/tri-council-declares-state-of- emergency-for-cherokee-language/)

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

Background and prior works

Often classified as polysynthetic:

§ Verbs highly inflected for person, tense, aspect, mood specification. § Single words can express full propositions.

(1) ᏲᎠᎦᏎᏍᏓᏁᎴ y-oj-a3gasesda32n-el-e3

NEG-1.EXCL-pay

.attention-BEN-REP ‘We didn’t pay much attention to it.’

(Feeling et al. 2017: 12)

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Background and prior works

Unlike other polysynthetic languages, Cherokee does not have productive noun incorporation.

(2) Cherokee (3) Mohawk (N. Iroquoian) ᎩᏟᏍ ᎯᏩᏎ kiihli=s hii-hwas-e wa'-ke-nakt-a-hnínu-’ dog=Q 2A.AN-buy:CMP-NXP

FACT-1SG.S-bed-O-buy-PUNC

‘Did you buy the dog?’ ‘I bought the bed’ (Baker 1996)

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

Background and prior works

Key consequence: It is relatively easy to investigate the placement of major constituents in the clause

(3) Cherokee (4) Mohawk (N. Iroquoian) ᎩᏟᏍ ᎯᏩᏎ kiihli=s hii-hwas-e wa'-ke-nakt-a-hnínu-’ dog=Q 2A.A N-buy:C M P-N X P

FA C T-1SG.S-bed-O-buy- PUNC

‘Did you buy the dog?’ ‘I bought the bed’ (Baker 1996)

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

Methods

Our data are from narrative texts, particularly useful in identifying information structure.

§ Occasionally checked against the Cherokee Corpus

(http://www.cherokeedictionary.net/corpus/corpusMain)

Sources:

§ Montgomery-Anderson, Brad. 2008. A reference grammar of Oklahoma Cherokee. Ph.D dissertation, University of Kansas. § Feeling, Durbin, William Pulte, and Gregory Pulte. 2017. Cherokee narratives: a linguistic study. Norman: University of Oklahoma press.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

Organization of the talk

  • 1. Introduction and overview
  • 2. Background and prior works
  • 3. Information structure in the Cherokee

clause

  • 4. Quantified nominals
  • 5. Conclusion
slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

Information structure in the Cherokee clause

A quick glance shows that all orders of Subjects (S), Objects (O), Verbs (V) are possible (Scancarelli 1986) (5) ᏭᏢᏍᏔᏁ ᏩᏯ wi-uu-atlvvstan-éʔi wahya

TRN-3B-take.off:CMP-NXP

wolf ‘the wolf took off’ (M-A 2008: 552)

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

Information structure in the Cherokee clause

A quick glance shows that all orders of Subjects (S), Objects (O), Verbs (V) are possible (Scancarelli 1986) (6) ᎩᎶ ᎤᏛᏐᏅ ᎤᏢᎬ kilo utvsohnv u-dlv-g-v some old.man 3B-sick-PROG-EXP ‘an old man was sick’ (Feeling 2017: 22)

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

Information structure in the Cherokee clause

A quick glance shows that all orders of Subjects (S), Objects (O), Verbs (V) are possible (Scancarelli 1986) (7) ᎦᏂᏓᏛ ᏭᎪᎮ ᏥᏍᏛᎾ ka-níitaʔtv́v́ʔi wi-uu-kooh-éʔi jíistvvna 3A-tail

TRN-3B-saw:CMP-NXP

crawdad ‘the crawdad saw (the wolf’s) tail.’ (M-A 2008:552)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

Information structure in the Cherokee clause

However, word order is largely predictable from information structure factors (Scancarelli 1987). § Our proposed template:

Frame-setter, > new info., > verb > given info. topic focus

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

New information > verb

Frame-setter, > new info., > verb > given info. topic focus

Best observed in the first sentence(s) of narratives. § These typically consist of all new information. § Nominal arguments not likely to be realized only as pronoun prefixes. § Initial sentences are uniformly verb final.

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

New information > verb

First sentences of “Water Beast” (Feeling et al. 2017) (9)ᎾᏍᎩᏃ

... Nasgi-hno That-and ᎯᎠ ᎠᏂᏔᎵ ᎠᏂᏍᎦᏯ ᎠᏂᎦᏪᎯᎮ hiʔa a-ni-taʔli a-ni-sgaya a-ni-gawehih-e this 3-pl-two 3-pl-man 3-pl-paddle-REPP “these two men were paddling”

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

New information > verb

First sentences of Water Beast (Feeling et al. 2017) (10) ... ᏥᏳ ᎤᏍᏗ ᎤᎾᎣᏕ jiyu usdi u-n-ajod-e canoe small 3-PL-be.in-REPP ‘they were in a small canoe’

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

New information > verb

First sentences of Water Beast (Feeling et al. 2017) (11) ... ᏦᎩ ᎠᎦᏘ ᎠᏂᎦᏪᎯᎮ jog akti a-ni-gawehih-e Upstream toward 3-pl-paddle-repP ’they were paddling upstream’

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

Verb > given information

Frame-setter, > new info., > verb > given info. topic focus

§ After their first occurrence in a text, given information phrases occur postverbally. § Following examples from “Two dogs in one” (Feeling et al. 2017):

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20

Verb > given information

In the first (all new information) sentence, television precedes the verb. (20)ji-juja-gwu si ji-ge-sv

  • gi-lvgwodi

ge-sv 1-boy-just yet R EL-be-EX P 1.EX L-like be-EX P ‘when I was a boy, what we liked was...’ a-dayvladv-s-gi

  • g-agadosdo-di

3-in.view-PR O G-A G 1.EX L-watch-IN F ‘For us to watch television’ (Feeling et al. 2017: 103)

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21

Verb > given information

In the second clause, television, now old information, is postverbal. (21) ᎣᎬᏌ ᏲᎩᎮ

  • -gv-sa

y-ogi-h-e 1.EXCL-have-REP

NEG-1.EXCL-have-REP

ᎠᏓᏯᎳᏛᏍᎩ a-dayvladv-s-gi 3-in.view-PROG-AG “… but we ourselves did not have television.”

slide-22
SLIDE 22

22

Verb > given information

The third clause introduces new information electricity, which precedes the verb. (22) ᎠᎾᎦᎵᏍᎩᏊ ᏱᏂᏙᎬᏁ a-n-galis-g-i-gwu yi-ni-do-gv-ne 3-PL-flow-PR O G-A G-just

NEG-1-PL-have-REP

‘and we didn’t even have electricity’ (Feeling p. 99)

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

Newsworthiness reconsidered

Newsworthiness principle (Mithun 1986): word

  • rder in some languages is determined by the

relative newsworthiness of constituents. A constituent is newsworthy if it: § (i) introduce[s] pertinent, new information § (ii) present[s] new topics § (iii) indicate[s] a contrast (Mithun 1992: 58)

slide-24
SLIDE 24

24

Newsworthiness reconsidered

Based in part on Cayuga (Northern Iroquoian). Cherokee shown to follow same basic pattern by Scancarelli (1986) A constituent is newsworthy if it: § (i) introduce[s] pertinent, new information § (ii) present[s] new topics § (iii) indicate[s] a contrast (Mithun 1992: 58)

slide-25
SLIDE 25

25

Newsworthiness reconsidered

Problem 1: Fixed orderings among different types

  • f newsworthy items, ex. Topic / frame-setter > new

information are unexpected. Languages can vary in preferred relative orders of these items.

slide-26
SLIDE 26

26

Newsworthiness reconsidered

Both new info. > given and given > new info. orders attested cross-linguistically (Gundel 1988) § Object placement in Yiddish (Diesing 1997: 390)

(23) a. Maks hot nekhtn geleyent a bukh Max has yesterdayread a book ‘Max read a book yesterday.’

  • c. Maks hot

dos bukh nekhtn geleyent Max has the book yesterdayread Max read the book yesterday’

slide-27
SLIDE 27

27

Newsworthiness reconsidered

Next: Ordering restrictions on quantified nominals that cannot be explained in terms of newsworthiness.

slide-28
SLIDE 28

28

Organization of the talk

  • 1. Introduction and overview
  • 2. Background and prior works
  • 3. Information structure in the Cherokee

clause

  • 4. Quantified nominals
  • 5. Conclusion
slide-29
SLIDE 29

29

Quantified nominals

Quantified nouns ᎩᎶ kilo ‘someone’, Ꮭ ᎩᎶ tla kilo ‘no one’ always precede verbs. § To some extent expected: these items are difficult to interpret as given information. Next: Preverbal instances of ᎩᎶ khilo ‘someone’ that refer to given, specific individuals, not plausibly newsworthy.

slide-30
SLIDE 30

30

Quantified nominals

Kilo precedes the verb, even though the fact that the car has been purchased is more pertinent.

(24)ᎢᎩᎾᏚᎵᏍᎪ ᎠᎵᏗᏝ ji-kin-tuuliisk-ő altííthla

R EL-1B.D L-want:C M P-H A B\SU B

car ‘the car that we want...’ ᎦᏳᎳ ᎩᎶ ᎤᏩᏎ káayuùla khilo uu-hwas-éʔi already someone 3B-buy:C M P-N X P ‘someone already bought it.’ (MA 132)

slide-31
SLIDE 31

31

Quantified nominals

Opening of “Hunting Dialogue” (Feeling et al. 2017): § Summary of story where a hunter finds a deer who has been shot:

(25) ᏥᎾᏩᏛᎲᏊᏅ ᎥᏍᏊ ᎠᏫ ᎩᎶ ᎤᏲᏢ ji-nawa-tvhv-gwu-hnv vsgwu ahwi kilo u-yohl-v 1-find-EXP-just-and too deer someone 3-shot-EXP ‘I just found a deer, too, that someone had shot.’

slide-32
SLIDE 32

32

Quantified nominals

The story opens with the hunter walking in the woods when he and his friends hear a shot.

(26) … ᎣᎦᏛᎦᏅ ᎩᎶ ᏚᏍᏓᏲᏢ Ok-tvgan-v kilo d-u-sdayohl-v 1.EXCL-hear-EXP someone

PL-3-shoot-EXP

‘we heard someone shoot’

slide-33
SLIDE 33

33

Quantified nominals

After hearing this, the hunters follow the path of the wounded deer and find it lying on a hill

(27)... oj-olunhvs-v gadusi-yv j-u-ganaʔ-v 1.EXCL-see-EXP hill.on-top

PST-3-lie-EXP

‘we found it lying on top of the hill.’ kilo u-yohl-v someone 3-shoot-EXP ‘someone had shot it.’ (pp. 134-135)

slide-34
SLIDE 34

34

Quantified nominals

In the 2nd and 3rd occurrences of ᎩᎶ kilo ‘someone’, the person who shot the deer is not newsworthy based on Mithun’s criteria § It is not new information, a topic, or contrast. § The most pertinent information in the last sentence is that the deer was shot, not that someone had done so.

§ The shooter is known as a specific individual (Fodor & Sag 1982).

slide-35
SLIDE 35

35

Quantified nominals

Special ordering restrictions on quantified items are attested in other languages.

Mandarin Chinese: most objects occur after verbs, but some quantified items (no/any/even X) are preverbal: (23) Wo kan-dao-le na-xie ren I see-RESULT-PERF that-PL person ‘I saw those people’ (24) Wo shei dou mei kan-dao I anyone even

NEG.PERF

see-RESULT ‘I did not see anyone’

slide-36
SLIDE 36

36

Organization of the talk

  • 1. Introduction and overview
  • 2. Background and prior works
  • 3. Information structure in the Cherokee

clause

  • 4. Quantified nominals
  • 5. Conclusion
slide-37
SLIDE 37

37

Summary

Order of major constituents in the clause determined largely by information structure:

Frame-setter, > new info., > verb > given info. topic focus § Discourse-marked items occupy dedicated positions in the clause. Order not determined by relative newsworthiness. § Key exception to information structure-based

  • rdering: uniformly preverbal some/no X
slide-38
SLIDE 38

38

Future directions

Systematic investigation of other types of major constituents in more contexts.

  • Arguments vs. adjuncts
  • Other types of quantification
  • Main vs. embedded clauses
  • Clause type effects (negation, questions, finiteness)
  • Probabilistic tendencies

Can we more precisely identify where these items

  • ccur in clause structure?
slide-39
SLIDE 39

39

Thank you!

slide-40
SLIDE 40

40

References

Baker, Mark C. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Diesing, Molly. 1997. Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement in

  • Germanic. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15: 369–427.

Feeling, Durbin, William Pulte, and Gregory Pulte. 2017. Cherokee narratives: a linguistic study. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Gundel, Jeanette K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. In Studies in syntactic typology, ed. Michael Hammond, Edith A. Moravcsik, and Jessica

  • Wirth. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Mithun, Marianne. 1992. Is basic word order universal? In Pragmatics of word

  • rder flexibility, ed. Doris L. Payne, 15–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Montgomery-Anderson, Brad. 2008. A reference grammar of Oklahoma Cherokee. Ph.D dissertation, University of Kansas.

slide-41
SLIDE 41

41

References

Scancarelli, Janine. 1986. Pragmatic Roles in Cherokee Grammar. In Proceedings

  • f the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Vassiliki

Nikiforidou, Mary VanClay, Mary Niepokuj, and Deborah Feder, 224–234. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.