amerindia
n° 16, 1991
Split
ergativity in Shuswap Salish
Dwight GARDINER
and Ross SAUNDERS
Simon Fraser University
0 Introduction
In this paper we wish to
present a set of observations that raise interesting questions about the status
of the pronominal system in Shuswap[1]. There is a form /-«s/ in Shuswap that occurs in several common
syntactic constructions. It behaves as a third person marker in the grammatical
system, but also appears cliticized to /-w-/ and has developed a broader
function triggered by aspectual and discourse factors. This development is
shared only with the closely related Thompson language (Thompson 1976) although Tillamook may have separately
developed a similar system (Newman 1980).
We provide an analysis in which Shuswap is shown to have a split ergative
morphological case marking system. It is shown that this system is triggered by
distinctions in person, aspect and clause type.
Shuswap /-«s/ shows up as a 3rd person pronominal agreement marker in Wh-question, focus, and relative clause constructions.
(1) swέtỷ
k-čntέs[2]
swέtỷ k čw-n-t-Ø-έs
who
irr-punch-fc-tr-3abs-3erg
Whom
did he punch?
(2) swέtq k-čntέm«s[3]
swέtq
k-čw-n-t-Ø-έm-w-«s
who
irr-punch-fc-tr-3abs-pass-incompl-3nom
Who
punched him?
In (1), it is the
argument corresponding to the Patient that is questioned and the verbal
morphology is identical to declaratives (3). In (2), it is the Agent argument
that is questioned. We assume that the 3rd person marker appears as
/-s,-έs/ or /-«s/ depending on the phonological
environment. The notional verb is grammatically intransitive, having been
turned into a passive and is then extended with /-w-«s/. It is similar, but not identical to the
independent clause (4) which is an impersonal passive contruction.
(3) čntέs
čw-n-t-Ø-έs
punch-fc-tr-3abs-3erg
He
punched him.
(4) čntέm
čw-n-t-Ø-έm
punch-fc-tr-3abs-pass
He
was punched.
The form /čntέm/ can also occur in Wh-constructions.
(5) swέtq k-čntέm
swέtq
k-čw-n-t-Ø-έm
who
irr-punch-fc-tr-3abs-pass
Who was punched?
Independent impersonal passives can never be formed with /-«s/.
(6) *čntέm«s
Focus constructions with a pronominal
argument in preverbal position exhibit a similar pattern. These constructions
are always emphatic.
(7) nwi/s mε/ čntέs
nwi/s mε/ čw-n-t-Ø-έs
3emph exp
punch-fc-tr-3abs-3erg
He's
the one whom he punched.
(8) nčέčw«/ lu/čnčέ[č]ms
nčέčw«/ lu/ čw-n-sέ[č]m-s
Iemph deic
punch-fc-tr-1acc-3erg
I'm the one whom he punched.
(9) nwi/s čntέm«s
nwi/s čw-n-t-Ø-έm-w-«s
3emph
punch-fc-tr-3abs-pass-incompl-3nom
He's
the one who punched him.
(10) nčέčw«/ čntέm«s
nčέčw«/ čw-n-t-Ø-έm-w-«s
Iemph
punch-fc-tr-3abs-pass-incompl-3nom
I'm
the one who punched him.
In (7-8) the preverbal emphatic pronoun
corresponds to the Patient. The verbal is identical to the corresponding
non-focus clauses in (11):
(11) čntέs He punched him.
čnč[č]ms He punched me.
In (9-10) the preverbal emphatic pronoun corresponds
to the Agent. The predicate has been made passive and is then extended with
/-w-«s/. Non-focus clauses are shown in (12).
(12) čntέs He punched him.
čntέ[t]n I
punched him.
A third construction that displays the same pattern is
one that has properties resembling relative clauses.
(13) člx*mstέ[t]n F-sqέl«mx l«-m-čntέs
c-lx*-m-st-Ø-n
F-sqέl«mx l«-m-čw-n-t-Ø-έs
hab-know-middle-caus-3abs-1nom
deic-man deic-compl-punch-fc-tr-3abs-3erg
I
know the man whom he punched.
(14) člx*mstέ[t]n F-sqέl«mx l«-m-čntέx
č-lx*-m-st-Ø-n
F-sqέl«mx l«-m-čw-n-t-Ø-έx
hab-know-middle-caus-3abs-1nom
deic-man deic-compl-punch-fc-tr-3abs-2nom
I
know the man whom you punched.
(15) člx*mstέ[t]n F-sqέl«mx l«-m-čntέm«s
č-lx*-m-st-Ø-n
F-sqέl«mx l«-m-čw-n-Ø-tέm-w-«s
hab-know-middle-caus-3abs-1nom
deic-man deic-compl-punch-fc-tr-3abs-pass-incompl-3nom
I
know the man who punched him.
(16) clx*mstέ[t]n F-sqέl«mx l«-m-čnčís
c-lx*-m-st-‚-n
F-sqέl«mx l«-m-čn-n-t-sís
hab-know-middle-caus-3abs-1nom
deic-man deic-compl-punch-fc-tr-2acc-3erg
I
know the man who punched you.
The relative clauses (13-14) are headed by a nominal
that corresponds to the Patient internal to the clause. All of the persons are
marked on the predicate of the relative. In (15-16) the relative clause is
headed by a nominal that corresponds to the internal Agent. In (15) the
predicate is made intransitive by passive /-έm/ and the /-w-«s/ form is added and in (16) there is a pronominal
agreement suffix on the predicate corresponding to the nominal head.
These constructions can also occur without nominal
heads.
(17) člx*mstέ[t]n l«-m-čntέs
c-lx*-m-st-Ø-n
l«-m-čw-n-t-Ø-έs
hab-know-middle-caus-3abs-1nom
deic-compl-punch-fc-tr-3abs-3erg
I
know whom he punched.
(18) člx*mstέ[t]n l«-m-čntέm«s
č-lx*-m-st-Ø-n
l«-m-čw-n-t-Ø-έm-w-«s
hab-know-middle-caus-3abs-1nom
deic-compl-punch-fc-tr-3abs-pass-incompl-3nom
I
know who punched him.
The pattern of person marking in relative clauses
parallels that of Wh-questions and focus constructions.
Jacaltec (Craig
1976) a Mayan language has a similar construction in which extracted subjects[4] behave differently than objects.
Transitive clause structure is shown in (19).
(19) xil naj ix
saw
cl/he cl/her
He
saw her.
In (20-22) third
person pronominal objects are extracted in question, cleft, and relative clause
constructions and there is no mark on the verb.
(20) mac xil naj
Who
saw cl/he
Who
did he see?
(21) ha' ix xil naj
cleft
cl/she saw cl/he
It's
her that he saw.
(22) wohtaj ix xil naj
I
know cl/her saw cl/he
I
know the woman that he saw.
In (23-25), the reference to subjects
requires additional marking on the verb /x'il-ni/.
(23) mac
x'il-ni ix
Who
saw-suffix cl/her
Who
saw her?
(24) ha' naj
x'il-ni ix
cleft
cl/he saw-suffix cl/her
It's
he who saw her.
(25) wohtaj
naj x'il-ni ix
I
know cl/he saw-suffix cl/her
I
know the man who saw her.
Before turning to the syntactic properties
of the Shuswap constructions we provide an overview of the pronominal system.
1.0 The
Pronominal System
Person is referenced by sets of affixes and
clitics that occur on the predicate. We first discuss first and second person.
Intransitive
clauses are referenced for person by pronominal clitics :
(26) ´'/ε[/]k-kn
go-1nom
I
go/went.
(27) ´'/εk-k
go-2nom
You
go.
(28) ´'/εk-kt
go-1pl
incl nom
We
(including you) go.
(29) ´'/εk-kux
go-1pl exl nom
We (but not you) go.
(30) ´'/εk-kp
go-2pl
nom
You
(pl) go.
The clitic
paradigm is shown in the following chart.
Singular Plural
1st -kn -kt
(incl)
-kux
(excl)
2nd -k -kp
Transitive clauses are referenced for person by pronominal suffixes. The predicate is suffixed with /-t/ and the pronominal subject follows the object marker.
(31) čnčέ[č]mx
čw-n-t-sέ[č]m-x
hit-fc-tr-1acc-2nom
You punch me.
(32) čnčín
čw-n-t-sí-n
hit-fc-tr-2acc-1nom
I punch you.
The pronominal subjects are shown in the following chart.[5]
Singular Plural
1st -(έ)n
2nd -(έ)x -(έ)p
The pronominal objects are given in the following chart.
Singular Plural
1st -s(έ)m- -(έ)l-
2nd -s(í)- -(ú)lm-
First and second person are marked
according to a nominative/accusative system. In intransitive clauses first and
second person is supplied by clitics. In transitive clauses the first and
second person markers are suffixes.
The nominative clitic paradigm behaves
differently from the suffixal paradigms. Evidence that these are different
paradigms comes from the question suffix /-n-/ :
(33) m-´'/εk-n-k
compl-go-qu-2nom
Did you go?
(34) čnčín
čw-nÖ&t-sí-s-n
hit-fc-tr-2acc-3erg-qu
Did he hit you?
The question suffix
/-n/ intervenes between the predicate stem and the subject clitic in
intransitive clauses whereas it is suffixed after the pronominal objects and
subjects in transitive clauses.
1.1 Third
Person Marking
In this section we establish an ergative/absolutive system for third person. The behaviour of third person pronominals in intransitive clauses is shown in the following examples :
(35) ´'/εk-Ø
go-3abs
He goes.
(36) wik-m-Ø
see-middle-3abs
He is looking.
(37) wik-t-Ø-m
see-tr-3abs-pass
He was seen.
Clauses (35-37) are
intransitive and the third person marker is /-Ø/. The following clauses are
transitive.
(38) wik-t-Ø-s
see-tr-3abs-3erg
He saw it.
(39) wik-t-Ø-s
F-s«k'lέp
see-tr-3abs-3erg
deic-coyote
He saw the coyote.
(40) wik-t-Ø-s
F-sqέl«mx F-s«k'lέp
see-tr-3abs-3erg
deic-man deic-coyote
The man saw the coyote.
Third person behaves according to an
ergative/absolutive system. Subjects of transitive clauses in (38-40) are
marked with /-έs,-s/, the ergative.
Third person objects are marked with /-Ø-/, the absolutive, parallel to
subjects of intransitive clauses (35-37).
Shuswap then has a split ergative system
for person. First and second person are nominative/accusative and third person
is ergative/absolutive. The common types of split systems recognized are on the
basis of person marking, aspect and clausal type. Having established the
presence of a split system based on person, we now turn to aspect.
1.2 Aspect
Split ergative systems frequently make a
distinction based on aspect. Often in the completive aspect third person
behaves as an ergative/absolutive whereas in the incompletive aspect third
person behaves as a nominative/accusative. Clauses (41-43) are marked with the
completive prefix /m-/.
(41) m-´'/ε[/]k-kn
compl-go-1nom
I
went.
(42) m-´'/εk-k
compl-go-2nom
You
went.
(43) m-´'/εk-Ø
compl-go-3abs
He
went.
The completives (41-43) are all independent clauses. First and second person are nominative and third person is absolutive. Incompletive constructions have the particle /w/εx/ in predicate initial position and the notional verb is a dependent clause.
(44) w/εx F-´'/ε[/]k-w-«n
exist
deic-go-incompl-1nom
I
am going.
(45) w/εx F-´'/ε[/]k-w-«x[uxw]
exist
deic-go-incompl-2nom
You
are going.
(46) w/εx F-´'/ε[/]k-w-«n
exist
deic-go-incompl-3nom
He
is going.
Notice that the pronominal markers are
attached to /-w-/ in (44-46) parallel to being attached to /-k-/ in (41-43).[6] The incompletive
pronominal paradigm is given in the following chart.
Singular Plural
1st -w-«n -w-«t
2nd -w-«x -w-«p
3rd -w-«s -w-«s
The behaviour of third person would follow from an account of split ergativity based on aspect. In (47) the third person of the completive clause is absolutive whereas in (48) the third person subject of the incompletive clause is nominative.
(47) m-´'/εk-Ø
compl-go-3abs
He
went.
(48) w/εx F-´'/εk-w-«s
exist
deic-go-incompl-3nom
He
is going.
Incompletives have a strong active
interpretation as shown by the derived nominals in (49-50). In (49) the
predicate /k'úlm«s/ is focussing on the action of 'making'
and the Patient argument is an oblique. In (50) it is the action that is
questioned by the form /kεnm/.
(49) w/εx F-k'úlm«s t«-misx '
exist
deic-make-middle-incompl-3nom deic-basket
He
is making a basket./He's a basket-maker.
(50) /εx
k-kέnm-ux
exist
irr-do-w-2subj
What
are you doing?
Constructions formed with the particle /w/εx/ do not force incompletive aspectual agreement as can be seen by the following pair.
(51) w/εx F-píp-«m-Ø
exist
det-hunt-middle-3abs
There's a hunter
around.
(52) w/εx F-píp-«m-w-«s
exist
det-hunt-middle-incompl-3nom
He's hunting.
Third person splits along aspectual lines with completives using an ergative/absolutive system whereas the incompletives employ a nominative/accusative system. Incompletives also exhibit behaviour paralleling subordinate clauses. We now go on to look at the status of these clauses.
1.3 Clausal Type
Split ergative
phenomena often appear on the basis of clausal type. Third person marking
behaves as an ergative/absolutive in independent clauses and as a
nominative/accusative in subordinate clauses. Independent clauses are shown in
(53-54).
(53) ´'/εk-Ø
go-3abs
He goes.
(54) wik-t-Ø-s F-s«k'lέp
see-tr-3abs-3erg
deic-coyote
He saw the coyote.
Third person marking in
independent clauses is ergative/absolutive. The subject of the intransitive
clause (53) is /-Ø/, the absolutive, parallel to the object of the transitive
clause (54). On the other hand the third person subject of (54) is /-έs/,
the ergative.
Subordinate clauses are underlined in
(55-57).
(55) mε/ k«xčín t«-sp«qpέq ε
qw«nέnux
mε/ k«x čín t«-sp«qpέq ε
qw«nέn-w-«x
expect
give-2acc-1nom deic-berries if want-incompl-2nom
I'll
give you some berries if you want.
(56) č-pípqw-stn y«Fέy lu/ w/έxw«s q'wiyílxw«s
čpípqwst-Ø-n
y«Fέy lu/ w/έx-w-«s q'wiyílx-w-«s
hab-watch-caus-3abs-1nom
that one part exist-incompl-3nom dance-incompl-3nom
I
was watching him when he was dancing.
(57) sq'lέln«mstn lu/ y«Fέy l«-s«čínm«s
sq'lέln«m-st-Ø-n lu/ y«Fέy l«-s«čín-m-w-«s
listen-caus-3abs-1nom
part that one deic-sing-middle-incompl-3nom
I
was listening to him when he was singing.
The subordinate clauses are marked in the
same way as incompletives, taking a member of the clitic paradigm suffixed to
/-w-/parallel to clause (58).
(58) w/εx
F-k'l-m-«s t«-misx
exist
deic-make-middle-w-3nom deic-basket
He
is making a basket./He's a basket-maker.
The split in person marking systems can be
seen in contrasting dependent clauses (59-60) which take ergative/absolutive
marking with (61) which takes nominative/accusative marking.
(59) člpmstέtn F-sqέlmx
l-m-qw«čέč
c-lp-m-st-Ø-έ[t]n F-sqέlmx l-m-qw«čέč-Ø
hab-know-middle-caus-3abs-1nom
deic-man deic-compl-leave-3abs
I
know the man who left.
(60) člpmstέtn F-sqέl«mx
l-m-čntέs
c-lp-m-st-Ø-έ-[t]-n F-sqέl«mx
l-m-čw-n-t-Ø-έs
hab-know-middle-caus-3abs-1nom
deic-man deic-compl-punch-fc-tr-3abs-3erg
I
know the man whom he punched.
(61) člpmstέtn F-sqέlmx
l-m-čntέm«s
č-lp-m-st-Ø-έ[t]-n
F-sqέlmx
l-m-čw-n-t-Ø-έm-«s
hab-know-middle-caus-3abs-1nom
deic-man deic-compl-punch-fc-tr-3abs-pass-3nom.
I
know the man who punched him.
A split in clausal type has been reported
for Halkomelem with pronominals behaving as ergative/absolutives in dependent
clauses and as nominative/accusatives in subordinate clauses (Gerdts 1988). The Shuswap facts however
give credence to an analysis based on aspect.
The following chart for third
person displays the distribution of morphological case marking :
Nom/Accus Erg/Abs
Person
Third – +
Non-Third + –
Aspect
Completive – +
Incompletive + –
Clause Type
Independent – +
Dependent + +
Subordinate + –
The chart shows a complementarity of
ergative/absolutive and nominative/accusative systems for person and aspect.
Clause types appear to split however, taking nominative/accusative for
subordinates and agentive dependent clauses, and taking the ergative/absolutive
system for non-agentive dependent clauses.
2.0 Syntactic
Properties of Wh-Constructions
In this section we examine the syntactic properties of
Wh-constructions. An analysis of focus constructions and relative clauses will
follow from this treatment. Active and impersonal passive constructions are
repeated in (62-63).
(62) swέtq
k-čntέs
swέtq k-čw-n-t-Ø-έs
who
irr-punch-fc-tr-3abs-3erg
Whom
did he punch?
(63) swέtq k-čntέm
swέtq k-čw-n-t-Ø-έm
who
irr-punch-fc-tr-3abs-pass
Who
was punched?
Both of these constructions are
Patient-centered.[7] Syntactically, Wh-constructions are formed
by extracting the absolutive. The Wh-question form /swέtq/
occurs in pre-verbal focus. In (62) both the Agent and Patient are
morphologically present whereas in (63), the Agent argument is suppressed and
the clause has passive marking with /-έm/. The construction is an
impersonal passive.
In (64) Patient-centered Wh-constructions
are compared with independent clauses. The person markings for both sets are
identical.
(64) swέtq k-čntέ[t]n Whom did I punch?
swέtq k-čntέx Whom did you punch?
swέtq k-čntέs Whom did he punch?
swέtq k-čntέm Who was punched?
čntέ§tçn I punched him.
čntέx You punched him.
čntέs He punched him.
cntέm He was punched.
The Wh-construction in (65) is Agent-centered.
(65) swέtq k-čntέm«s
swέtq
k-čw-n-t-Ø-έm-w-«s
who
irr-punch-fc-tr-3abs-pass-3nom
Who
punched him?
Shuswap permits absolutives to be directly
questioned as in (62-63). In (65) it is the ergative that is questioned. The
construction is made passive and then the form /-w-«s/ from the incompletive aspectual paradigm
is suffixed to represent the Agent.
The situation is similar to the Coast Salish language
Halkomelem (Gerdts 1988).
(66) n«w« ni
l«m-θ-am«-/e.n/
2emph
aux look-tr-2obj-1subj
It's you that I looked
at.
(67) /é.θ« ni q'wàqw-«θ-ám/š-«s
1emph
aux club-tr-1obj-3subj
It's
me who he clubbed.
(68) /é.θ« ni
q'wàqw-«t(*q'wàqw-«t-/é.n/)
1emph aux
club-tr
I'm
the one who clubbed it.
(69) níl l«
sléni/ ni
q'wàqw-«t(*q'wàqw-«t-«s)
3emph
det woman aux club-tr
It's
the woman who clubbed it.
Objects (66-67) and obliques have
pronominal copies whereas subjects (68-69) do not. There is no shift in
transitive marking.
In (70) Shuswap Agent-centered
Wh-constructions are compared with independent clauses.
(70) swέtỷ
čnčέ[č]ms Who
punched me?
swέtỷ čnčís Who punched you?
swέtỷ čntέm«s Who punched him?
cnčέ[č]ms He punched me.
čnčís He punched you.
*čntέm«s/(čntέs) He punched him.
In Agent-centered Wh-constructions (70) with first and second person Patients it is clear that there is a pronominal copy of the Agent manifested as a pronominal agreement suffix on the verb. The person marking is exactly the same as in independent clauses. In the third person Agent-centered construction the form /k-čntέm«s/ is grammatically marked as passive and is morphologically the same as the independent clause /čntέm/. There is, in addition, the /-w-«s/ ending. In Lummi, another Coast Salish language (Jelinek 1987) the Patient-centered paradigm (71) is in all relevant respects the same as in Shuswap.[8]
(71) c«-x*či-t-«n the one that I know
det-know-tr-1subj
c«-x*či-t-«x the one that you know
det-know-tr-2subj
c«-x*či-t-s the one that he knows
det-know-tr-3subj
In (72) the Agent-centered paradigm is given.
(72) c«-x*či-t-oN«s the one that knows you/me
det-know-tr-1/2obj
c«-x*či-t-Ø the one that knows him
det-know-tr-3obj
Jelinek assumes that because there is no
ergative argument in the Agent-centered construction, there is no absolutive
argument in the Patient-centered construction.
In (73) the corresponding Shuswap forms
with Patient-centered interpretations are given.
(73) l«-č-lx'-m-st-Ø-έ[t]n the one I know
det-hab-know-middle-caus-3abs-1nom
l«-č-lx'-m-st-Ø-έx the one you know
det-hab-know-middle-caus-3abs-2nom
l«-č-lx'-m-st-Ø-έs the one he knows
det-hab-know-middle-caus-3abs-3erg
In (74) forms with Agent-centered interpretations are given.
(74) l«-č-lx'-m-st-sέ[č]m-s the one who knows me
det-hab-know-middle-caus-1acc-3erg
l«-č-lx*-m-st-sí-s the one who knows you
det-hab-know-middle-caus-2acc-3erg
l«-č-lx*-m-st-Ø-έm-w-«s the one who knows him
det-hab-know-middle-caus-3abs-pass-incompl-3nom
In both the Patient-centered and
Agent-centered paradigms, pronominal forms are fully represented. To summarize,
Shuswap has the syntactic strategy of extracting absolutives in focus
constructions and has innovated a mechanism based on aspect to extract
ergatives. The Shuswap facts suggest that there are no gaps involved in the
expression of focus.
3.0 Conclusion
Although there is strong evidence of a
grammatical split in the Shuswap pronominal system, the appearance of /-«s/ as a third person Agentive in dependent clauses
still requires an explanation. It has been observed (Dixon 1979) that direct/inverse grammatical systems are often
mistaken for split ergative ones. One promising line of investigation would be
to view the Shuswap system as reflecting an animacy hierarchy, certainly well
recognized in being involved in split systems (Silverstein 1976). This line has been followed for the Coast
Salish language Lummi (Jelinek
and Demers 1983).
In Shuswap there is evidence of an animacy hierarchy with inclusive first person plural pronominal subjects. The Shuswap form for 'we saw him' occurs as a passive and has the alternate interpretation 'he was seen'.
(75) wik-t-Ø-m
see-tr-3abs-pass
He
was seen./We (incl) saw him.
Evidence for an animacy hierarchy suggests
that Shuswap may have behaviour parallel to direct/inverse person marking
systems well recognized for the Athabaskan language family. Whistler (1985) has
looked at direct/inverse marking in Nootkan suggesting that this person marking
system typologically may be more widespread in the area. Jelinek and Demers
have explored this possiblility for the Salish language Lummi (1983).
There are some intriguing similarities in the Navaho paradigms in (76-77) (Jelinek 1987) and the Shuswap paradigms in (78-79).
(76) yiztal He
kicked him.
yiztal-ée the one
who was kicked...
'ashkii yiztal He kicked the
boy.
'ashkii yiztal-ée the one who kicked
the boy...
(77) biztal[9] He got kicked
by him (approx).
biztal-ée the one
who kicked him...
'ashkii biztal He got kicked
by the boy.
'ashkii biztal-ée the one who got
kicked by the boy...
(78) m-čntέs He punched him.
l«-m-čntέm the one who
was punched...
m-čntέs F-sqέlmx He punched the man.
l«-m-čntέm«s F-sqέlmx the one who punched the man...
(79) m-čntέm He got punched.
l«-m-čntέm«s the one who
punched him...
m-čntέm F-sqέlmx The man got punched.
m-čntέm t«-sqέlmx He got punched by the
man.
l«-m-čntέm«s F-sqέlmx the one who punched the man...
l«-mcntέm
t«-sqέlmx he one who got punched by the man...
The two languages have several features in
common: the predicate is fully marked for person, and there is an animacy
hierarchy banning certain argument co-occurrences.
Finally it should be pointed out that the
behaviour of /-«s/ is not triggered strictly on grammatical
grounds. It also occurs frequently in spatial and temporal deixis.
(80) tl/έn« mέ/ k«x-čí-n-«s
from
this expect give-2acc-1nom-3nom
I'll
give you some from this.
(81) kεnm k-sčlpmst-Ø-έx
pnhέ/ny«Fέy qw«čέč-«s
do
irr-know-3abs-2nom when that one left-3nom
Do
you know when that person left?
In (80) the predicate /k«x-čí-n/ is fully marked for its arguments and the
/-w-«s/ is triggered by spatial deixis as it is
with the temporal deixis in (81).
Kuipers (1974) has noted the frequent occurrence of /-«s/ in texts and that the texts often have forms with and without the suffix. This is suggestive that /-«s/ may have diverse functions in discourse styles. These properties suggest that an analysis based on aspect has some credibility. Given that /-«s/ has such strong active readings it may be functioning as a reference tracking device in discourse, somewhat akin to switch-reference systems. The Shuswap form /-«s/ appears to be what Nichols and Woodbury (1985) call an emergent linguistic category, one with "tendencies in discourse which are almost, but not quite, rigid and grammaticalized".[10]
references
craig, Colette G.
1976 "Properties of
Basic and Derived Subjects in Jacaltec" in Subject and Topic, ed. Charles N. Li. New York: Academic Press.
dixon, R. M. W.
1979. "Ergativity". Language
55:59-138.
gerdts, Donna B.
1988. Object and
Absolutive, in Halkomelem Salish. New York : Garland Publishing Inc.
jelinek, Eloise
1987. "'Headless'
Relatives and Pronominal Arguments: A Typological Perspective" in Native
American Languages and Grammatical Typology: Papers from a Conference at
the University of Chicago, eds. Paul D. Kroeber and Robert E. Moore.
Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
jelinek, Eloise and Richard A. Demers
1983. "The Agent
Hierarchy and Voice in Some Coast Salish Languages". IJAL 49 :167-185.
kuipers, Aert
1974. The Shuswap Language. The Hague: Mouton.
newman, Stanley
1980. "Functional
Changes in the Salish Pronominal System". IJAL n° 46:155-167.
nichols, Johanna and Anthony C. Woodbury
1985. Grammar inside and
outside the clause: Some approaches to theory from the field. Cambridge:
University Press.
silverstein, M.
1976. "Hierarchy of
Features and Ergativity" in Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages,
ed. R.M.W. Dixon, pp. 112-71. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press.
speas, Margaret
1990. Phrase Structure in Natural
Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
thompson, Laurence C.
1976. "Salishan and the
Northwest" in The Languages of Native America: Historical and
Comparative Assessment, eds. L. Campbell and M. Mithun, pp. 692-765.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
whistler, Ken
1985. "Focus,
perspective, and inverse person marking in Nootkan", in Grammar inside
and outside the clause: Some approaches to theory from the field, eds.
Nichols, Johanna and Anthony C. Woodbury, pp. 227-265. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.