Syntax and semantics of the Tlingit classifier 1 ...

Syntax and semantics of the Tlingit classifier James A. Crippen and Rose-Marie Déchaine* University of British Columbia Abstract: The Tlingit classifier prefix occurs on all verbs and is composed of three phonological components (D, S, I) that map onto three syntactic heads (Voice, v, V). Each component may be valued ([D], [S], [I]) or unvalued ([uD], [uS], [uI]). Valued features have phonological content, unvalued features do not. Valued features combine by concatenation in combination with epenthesis and underparsing. Each head has omnivorous syntactic and semantic functions. VoiceD maps onto a π operator that attracts any argument in the vP. vS maps onto a Relate operator that adds an internal or external argument. VI maps onto a Be operator that derives (result) states. This analysis accounts for the diverse functions of the classifier prefix, correctly predicts the structural asymmetries that hold between classifier components, and should generalize to other Na-Dene languages. Keywords: syntax-semantics interface, voice, valency, noun classification, event structure, states, morphology

1

Introducing the Tlingit classifier prefix

The Tlingit classifier prefix occurs immediately to the left of the verb root and has sixteen exponents (table 1) that are conditioned by aspect, voice, and valency.1 The forms in (1) illustrate a partial paradigm for the root √hun ‘sell’; the classifer prefix is shaded and the classifier + root combination is bracketed.2 The form of the classifier prefix reflects the presence of its constitutive components, which are called the D-, S-, and I-components for which we use green, blue, and red colours respectively. The classifier prefix is null in (1a), and in (1b) the allomorph wa- realizes the I-component. (1c) realizes [S-I], (1d) realizes [D-I], and (1e) realizes [D-S-I]. The classifier + root combination forms a subconstituent, and in analyses that treat the classifier prefix as a lexicalized formative (Story 1966; Krauss 1968; Leer 1991). Each lexical entry is specified for the classifiers that it combines with; this is the standard in Tlingit lexicography (e.g. Story & Naish 1973; Edwards 2009). We explore an alternative view, arguing that the classifier prefix has transparent phonology, predictable syntax, and compositional semantics. (1) a. b. c. d. e.

a-[0-hóon] ‘s/he is selling it’ aa-[wa-hoon] ‘s/he sold it’ aw-[si-hoon] ‘s/he sold it (long)’ wu-[di-hoon] ‘s/he sold’ wu-[dli-hoon] ‘s/he went selling’

imperfective cl[uD, uS, uI] perfective cl[uD, uS, I] classificatory perfective cl[uD, s, I] antipassive perfective cl[D, uS, I] antipassive ambulatory pfv. cl[D, l, I]

*

Thanks to E. Bogal-Albritten, H. Borer, S. Cable, Keiyishí B. Cooley, Keix̱wnéi N.M. Dauenhauer, H. Harley, Ḵʼaltseen C. Martin, Keihéenákʼw J. Martin, L. Matthewson, P. Moore, K. Rice, L. Saxon, P. Speas, C. Toews, L. Twitchell, N. Weber, M. Wiltschko, N. Welch, and to audiences at UMass Amherst and wscla 20 (U. of Arizona). Supported by the National Science Foundation (USA) under Award No. bcs-1322770 to Seth Cable and by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Canada) under Partnership Grant No. 895-2012-1029 to Marianne Ignace and under Insight Development Grant No. 12R1-7101 to Rose-Marie Déchaine. This paper is dedicated to the memory eternal of Xwaayeenáḵ Richard Dauenhauer, who couldn’t wait for us to finish. Contact info: [email protected], [email protected] 1Tlingit Lingít /ɬìnˈkít/ – English pronunciation /ˈklɪŋ.kɪt/ – is a Na-Dene language spoken in southeastern Alaska (USA) as well as neighbouring regions of British Columbia and the Yukon Territory (Canada). The classifier prefix occurs throughout the family; recent formal analyses of its syntax and semantics in Dene (Athabaskan) languages include Embick (1996), Rice (2000: ch. 7), Rice & Saxon (2005), and Hale (2001). Ours is the first attempt for Tlingit. 2In this paper we ignore ‘stem variation’ (Leer 1991: 160–174), predictable agreement-like allomorphy of roots. In proceedings of the Workshop on Structure and Consistency in Languages of the Americas 20, University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 20, Natalie Weber (eds.), 2015.

[uI] [uS] [s] [l] [sh]

[I]

[uD]

[D]

[uD]

[D]

0-

daVsVlVsh-

yasilishi-

didzidli(d)ji-

salasha-

Table 1: Inventory of classifier exponents.

2

Our proposal: The classifier is VoiceD , vS , and VI

As sketched in (2) we propose that the classifier consists of three heads: Voice, v, and V, each of which maps onto a distinct phonological exponent. Voice maps onto the D-component and takes the forms {d-, 0-}. v maps onto the S-component and has the forms {s-, l-, sh-, 0-}. V maps onto the I-component and has the forms {i-, 0-}. Each syntactic head maps onto distinct semantic functors: VoiceD maps onto the voice-operator π, vS maps onto the valency-extending operator Relate, and VI maps onto the state operator Be. (2)

2.1

[VoiceP VoiceD [vP vS [VP VI √root ]]] [CL {d-, 0-} {s-, l-, sh-, 0-} {i-, 0-} ] √root [ π [ Relate [ Be √root ]]]

syntax phonology semantics

Phonology: Concatenating VoiceD , vS , and VI

The surface form of the classifier prefix results from concatenation in combination with epenthesis and underparsing. Before showing how this works, in (3) we give some orthographic conventions that are necessary to understand the phonological forms. The symbol ⟨l⟩ stands for a voiceless lateral fricative /ɬ/ (there is no voiced */l/), and ⟨sh⟩ stands for a voiceless postalveolar fricative /ʃ/. The ‘voiced’ consonant symbols like ⟨d, g, g̱⟩ are actually unaspirated /t, k, q/ and contrast with ‘voiceless’ symbols ⟨t, k, ḵ⟩ which are actually aspirated /tʰ, kʰ, qʰ/. The affricate ⟨dl⟩ is an unaspirated lateral /tɬ/, ⟨dz⟩ is an unaspirated alveolar /ts/, and ⟨j⟩ is an unaspirated postalveolar /tʃ/. Because of the orthography, IPA /s/ is written ⟨s⟩ when a monograph, but ⟨z⟩ when part of the digraphic ‘voiced’ (unaspirated) affricate, so /s/ = ⟨s⟩, but /ts/ = ⟨dz⟩; voiced fricatives like */z/ do not exist. (3)

orthog. ⟨l⟩ ⟨s⟩ ⟨sh⟩

IPA = /ɬ/ = /s/ = /ʃ/

orthog. ⟨d⟩ ⟨dl⟩ ⟨dz⟩ ⟨j⟩

= = = =

IPA

orthog.

/t/ /tɬ/ /ts/ /tʃ/

⟨t⟩ ⟨tl⟩ ⟨ts⟩ ⟨ch⟩

= = = =

IPA

orthog.

/tʰ/ /tɬʰ/ /tsʰ/ /tʃʰ/

⟨tʼ⟩ ⟨tlʼ⟩ ⟨tsʼ⟩ ⟨chʼ⟩

IPA = = = =

/tʼ/ /tɬʼ/ /tsʼ/ /tʃʼ/

We decompose the Tlingit classifier into three abstract features, [D], [S], and [I], each of which can be valued or unvalued. The D-component has valued [D] and unvalued [uD]. The I-component likewise has valued [I] and unvalued [uI]. The S-component has three values [s], [l], and [sh], as well as unvalued [uS]. The mapping from syntax to phonology compresses these three morphemes into a single surface prefix, creating a many-to-one mapping. The representations in (4)−(9) show how surface outputs are derived from concatenation, supplemented by epenthesis and underparsing. Concatenation linearly spells out

input segments, and of the four logically possible concatenations three are well-formed outputs, namely [D-S-I], [S-I], and [D-I]. The ill-formedness of concatenative *[D-S] reflects a prohibition in the classifier domain against affricates as coda consonants and is resolved by underparsing the D-component; this corresponds to the shaded forms in (5).3 If only one component of the classifier prefix is valued, as in (7) and (9), the single consonant of the prefix is supported by an epenthetic vowel: this yields sa-, la-, sha-, da-, and ya-.4 D

(6)

d- + s- + i- → d- + l- + i- → d- + sh- + i- → D S I

dzidlijiform

[tsi-] [tɬi-] [tʃ i-] [IPA]

0- + s- + i0- + l- + i0- + sh- + id- + 0- + i-

silishidiform

[si-] [ɬi-] [ʃ i-] [ti-] [IPA]

(8)

D

S

form [IPA]

(4)

S

I

→ → → →

I

0- + 0- + 0- →

D

(7)

d- + s- + 0- → d- + l- + 0- → d- + sh- + 0- → D S I

VsVlVshform

[Vs-] [Vɬ-] [Vʃ -] [IPA]

0- + s- + 00- + l- + 00- + sh- + 0d- + 0- + 0-

salashadaform

[sa-] [ɬa-] [ʃ a-] [ta-] [IPA]

(9)

D

S

form [IPA]

(5)

S

I

I

→ → → →

0-

[0-] 0- + 0- + i- → ya- [ja-] The forms with an epenthetic vowel in (7) other than da- fail to occur with the vowel when they are immediately preceded by one of the prefixes a-, n-, g̱-, wu-, u-, or dag̱a-. They then appear surface-identical with the forms in (5) except that d- is not underlyingly present and V ≠ i. This is associated with epenthesis suppression in preceding syllables and is part of a larger problem involving verb prefix phonology. 2.2 Syntax: Merging VoiceD , vS , and VI The schema in (10) presents the core ingredients of our analysis. The I-component is a verbalizing head V that merges with the root and introduces a DP in Spec-VP and that associates with a stative operator Be. The S-component adds an external or internal argument, thus deriving transitivized verbs as well as applied and qualified objects; it associates with a valency-extending operator that we dub Relate. The D-component is an omnivorous voice operator (π, cf. Alexiadou & Doron 2012) that derives (anti)passive and other structures. VoiceD selects a vP or VP and suppresses a DP in its c-command domain. (10)

[VP DP [VP VI →Be √root ]] [vP DP [vP vS →Relate {vP, VP} ]] [VoiceP … [VoiceP VoiceD →π {vP, VP} ]]

The three classifier components D, S, and I instantiate three syntactic heads Voice, v, and V that successively merge as shown in (11). We develop an analysis of their syntactic distribution and associated semantic functions by exploring, in turn, the mapping of VI onto Be (§3), of vS onto Relate (§4), and of VoiceD onto π (§5). 3When cl[D, S, uI] has an underparsed D-component, the epenthetic vowel is i with word-initial syllables, and otherwise a. Tlingit i-epenthesis is cognate with Dene ‘peg vowel’ epenthesis (Kari 1975: 338, 1976; Hargus & Tuttle 1997; Leer 2000: 117, 120; McDonough 2000: 156). 4Epenthesis is a last resort: if the preceding prefix ends in a vowel, the classifier is parsed as a C coda {Vs-, Vl-, Vsh-}. Our epenthesis account, which contrasts with Cable’s (2006) syncope-based treatment, is akin to the Dene ‘default vowel’ analysis (Kari 1976; Fountain 1998: 277; McDonough 2003: 45); the Tlingit and Dene epenthesis systems are probably cognate historically.

Aspect

Affixes

imperfective perfective

0-

wu-, u-

I [I] [I]

Aspect

Affixes

progressive habitual habitual prospective

n-…-n conj-…-ch u-…-ch g-w-g̱-…-{μ,H}

I [uI] [uI] [uI] [uI]

Table 2: The I-component and grammatical aspect

(11)

3

[VoiceP VoiceD [vP vS [VP VI

[√root ]]]]

syntax

Big V: The I-component

Tlingit roots are specified for valency (mono-, di-, and trivalent) and lexical aspect (state, activity, achievement, accomplishment). The I-component diagnoses lexical aspect as seen in (12). Only durative roots are compatible with (zero-marked) imperfective aspect, states taking valued [I], and activities taking unvalued [uI].5 Only imperfective and perfective aspect select valued [I], and only if all other functional heads of the verb spine are null. This yields the partition in (13), which shows successively merged heads of the verb spine. Valued [I] is found only with affirmative non-past root clauses; elsewhere the I-component is unvalued [uI]. When these syntactic factors are controlled for the contribution of VI becomes apparent. The most salient feature of the I-component is that it shows aspectual differentiation, with only (im)perfective aspect selecting valued [I]. All other aspects select unvalued [uI]; this includes progressive, habitual, and prospective aspect; see Table 2. Perfective aspect requires valued [I], stative imperfective aspect also requires [I], and in those contexts [uI] is ungrammatical. Moreoever, [I]-valued imperfective verbs are construed as states (14) but those with perfective aspect are construed as result states (15).6 Eventuality

(12) Durative state impfv: [I] (13)

activity impfv: [uI]

Non-Durative achievement accomplishment *impfv

[CP Aff 0 [TP [AspP 0-/wu-Asp [vP (vS ) [VP V [I] [√root ]]]] -0T ] -0 C ] [CP Neg tléil [TP [AspP …-Asp [vP (vS ) [VP V[uI] [√root ]]]] -ínT:pst ] -í C ]

(14) a. [yatsáakw ] *[0tsáakw ] cl[uD, uS, I]-√durable ‘it’s durable’

b. a- [ya.óo ] *a- [0.óo ] 3>3- cl[uD, uS, I]-√own ‘s/he owns it’

5In the descriptive literature states are ‘stative verbs’, activities are ‘active verbs’, achievements are ‘eventive verbs’, and accomplishments are ‘motion verbs’, but the latter two are often collapsed (Leer 1991). 6The incompatibility of progressive, habitual, and prospective aspect with valued [I] indicates that they denote dynamic events (Leer 1991: 364). Progressive aspect denotes an ongoing transition (Leer 1991: 501). Habitual aspect denotes an iterated event (Leer 1991: 393). As for prospective aspect – actually a combination of prospective aspect (g-), irrealis mood (w-), and modality (g̱-) – it denotes an event in some possible world after the eventuality time.

(15) a. u- [wa.ée ] *u- [0.ée ] pfv- cl[uD, uS, I]-√cook ‘it got cooked’

b. wu- tu- [si.ée ] *wu- tu- [sa.ée ] pfv-1pl.s- cl[uD, s, I]-√cook ‘we cooked it’

3.1 VI maps onto BeI To see the activity of VI one must look at verbs where the I-component is valued, namely with imperfective and perfective aspect. One must also control for valency because both mono- and bivalent roots take valued [I]. Agreement correlates with valency: the single DP argument of an unaccusative triggers object agreement which precedes prefixal aspect marking. The placement of object agreement thus diagnoses movement from Spec-VP to Spec-AspP; see (16).7 The locus of Tlingit subject agreement is either in SpecvP or Spec-VoiceP which are both positioned between AspP and vP. This correctly derives the [O-…S-…cl√root] order found in Tlingit verbs.8 (16)

[AspP DPobj [AspP Asp [VP [VP VI √root ]]]] [AspP DPobj [AspP Asp [vP DP [vP vS [VP [VP VI √root ]]]]]]

Semantically, the valued I-component maps onto the stative operator Be that restricts an eventuality e to be a state as well as defining the internal argument y (17). In unmarked contexts (i.e. with imperfective aspect) Be denotes time-stable states as in (18a). In (18b) Be denotes a result state with the perfective’s Become operator. (17) a. b.

V[uI] → Theme(e, y) V[I] → Be(e, f ) ∧ Theme(e, y)

(18) a. b.

Be(e, √root) ∧ Theme(e, y) Be(e, √root) ∧ Theme(e, y) ∧ Become(e, √root) ∧ Pfv(e)

imperfective perfective

3.2 What BeI does Valued [I] derives state denotations: this accounts for its presence with imperfective states (§3.2.1) and with perfective result states (§3.2.2). There are other instances of stativity in Tlingit that we do not explore in this paper (e.g. pluristatives, temporally modified states, extensional states along motion paths, positional states on motion paths, and a kind of possibility modality), but we expect our model presented here to generalize to them in future work. 3.2.1 BeI derives imperfective states In Tlingit the minimal verb structure is a zero-marked imperfective verb consisting of VI in combination with a root and a DP as in (19), with examples in (20).9 In the Tlingit lexicographical tradition each root 7Tlingit’s obligatory movement of the internal argument to Spec-AspP is consistent with Kahnemuyipour’s (2009) proposal, following Travis (1991) and others, that DP objects raise to Spec-AspP. 8Aspect marking is both prefixal and suffixal, and so is compatible with either a head-initial or head-final parse. For simplicity we adopt a strictly head-initial structure in this paper. 9In addition to the verbs discussed here, Tlingit has numerous lexicalized complex verbs which in addition to having a valued I-component also contain a valued S-component (deriving time-stable states) and/or a valued Dcomponent (deriving result states). These are all denominal transitivized VPs and detransitivized vPs.

Person 1 1 2 2 3

Num.

Object

Aspect

Subject

Clf+Root

sg pl sg pl

x̱at=, ax̱ = haa= iyeea-, 0-

… … … … …

x̱too-, tuiyi0-

… … … … …

Table 3: Tlingit intransitive pronominal agreement

is specified for whether it occurs in the imperfective. One reason to reject this view is that imperfective verbs can be predicted from the root’s denotation: when combined with VI , roots denoting ontologically time-stable properties denote states. We take the stativity of I-marked verbs to reflect the presence of the stativity operator Be. (19) (20) a. b. c. d.

minimal verb structure: [AspP 0-impfv [VP DP [VP VI √root ]]] ya-k’éi ya-dál ya-t’éex’ ya-tsáakw

‘it’s good’ ‘it’s heavy’ ‘it’s difficult’ ‘it’s durable’

[uD, uS, I] [uD, uS, I] [uD, uS, I] [uD, uS, I]

I-valued imperfective intransitives are all unaccusative. Tlingit has split-intransitivity (cf. Mithun 1991; Dixon 1994), so the DP argument of an unaccusative triggers object agreement, but that of an unergative triggers subject agreement.10 Table 3 illustrates how subject agreement linearly follows Aspect but object agreement precedes it. With intransitives third person agreement is always null (0-) so the contrast between unaccusatives and unergatives is seen only with first and second person arguments.11 (21a) demonstrates unaccusative object agreement and (21b) demonstrates unergative subject agreement.12 naa ] (21) a. haa= wo- [o1pl.o=pfv- cl[uD, uS, I]-√die ‘we died’

ḵoox̱ ] b. wu- tu- [wapfv-1pl.s- cl[uD, uS, I]-√boat ‘we boated’

VI is also present with transitive statives which are embedded in a vP shell as in (22). There are two output forms: transitive statives with valued [S] (23a), and those with unvalued (phonologically null) [uS] (23b). The latter indicates that vS is present in transitive contexts, even when the S-component is phonologically null.13 Transitives appearing with [uS] show that these roots are inherently bivalent. (22)

[AspP Asp [vP DP [vP vS [VP DP [VP VI √root ]]]]] a. 0-impfv [S] [I] b. 0-impfv [uS] [I]

structure values values

10Tlingit contrasts here with Dene languages that have only subject-agreeing intransitives. 11The third person ‘object’ a- indicates a transitive verb with third person subject and object, ‘three-on-three’ or ‘3>3’. 12In (21a), the classifier ya- surfaces as length (⟨oo⟩ = /ùː/) due to assimilation with the preceding syllable of wu-. In (21b), the classifier ya- surfaces as wa- because of predictable rounding of y after u. 13There are very few transitive states in Tlingit. For discussion of their crosslinguistic rarity see Toews 2015.

(23) a. b.

a-[si-x̱án] ‘s/he loves her/him/it’ a-[ya-.óo] ‘s/he owns it’

[uD, S, I] [uD, uS, I]

Stative verbs are derived by combining a root with I-valued VI and imperfective aspect. This converges with Leer (1991: 364) who comments that “Tlingit stative verbs have unambiguously stative meaning only in the stative imperfective.” These imperfective states, which are sensitive to the ontology of states, contrast with perfective result states, which are completely general, and to which we now turn. 3.2.2

BeI derives perfective result states

Leer (1991: 365) observes that all Tlingit perfectives denote result states; this is consistent with the fact that perfective aspect forces a result state reading (Condoravdi & Deo 2015). With monovalent roots, imperfective states alternate with their perfective counterparts that maintain the I-component as in (24).14 Syntactically, the only difference between imperfective and perfective verbs lies in the covert versus overt realization of grammatical aspect, (25). Semantically, imperfective unaccusatives are time-stable states, but perfective unaccusatives are result states. This difference is attributable to the interaction of grammatical aspect with the I-component. With zero-marked imperfective aspect, the stative Be operator is the source of the stative construal. Perfective aspect forces the presence of a change-of-state operator Become and selects for the stative Be operator as formalized in (26). (24) a. [yagéi ] *[0géi ] cl[uD, uS, I]-√big ‘it’s big’ (25)

(26)

b. wo- [ogéi ] *wu- [0géi ] pfv- cl[uD, uS, I]-√big ‘it got big’

[AspP DP [AspP Asp [VP DP [VP VI √big ]]]] pro 0-impfv ya- géi pro wo-pfv o- géi

‘it’s big’ ‘it got big’

Be(e, √big) ∧ Theme(e, y) ∧ Become(e, √big) ∧ Pfv(e)

Now consider the derivation of perfective transitives. As illustrated with √.ée ‘cook’ in (27) below, there is a regular alternation between transitive imperfectives with unvalued [uI] and transitive perfectives with valued [I]. The obligatoriness of the I-component with the perfective confirms that it coerces an activity predicate into a result state predicate; the relevant formula is given in (28). If roots denote only result states, as do achievement predicates like in (29), we expect them to obligatorily occur in the perfective, and this is precisely what happens. The Relate operator is introduced by vS as discussed in section 4. (27) a. a- 0[s.ée ] 3>3-impfv- cl[uD, s, uI]-√cook ‘s/he’s cooking it, s/he cooks it’

b. a- w- [si.ée ] 3>3-pfv- cl[uD, s, I]-√cook ‘s/he cooked it’

(28) a. Relate(e, x, √cook) ∧ Theme(e, y) activity b. Relate(e, x, √cook) ∧ Be(e, √cook) ∧ Theme(e, y) ∧ Become(e, √cook) ∧ Pfv(e) result state

14The perfective wu- in combination with the ya- classifier surfaces as woo-. The underlying i- merges with the vowel of wu- to become a long ⟨oo⟩ /ùː/ and the epenthetic a is never inserted.

(29) a. *a- 0[0tʼei ] 3>3-impfv- cl[uD, uS, uI]-√find intended: ‘s/he’s finding/finds it’

4

b. a- a- [watʼei ] 3>3-pfv- cl[uD, s, I]- √find ‘s/he found it’

Little v: The S-component

When vS adds an external argument it derives transitivized verbs as in (30)–(31). If vS adds an internal argument it derives applied or qualified objects. With applicatives the additional argument is marked as an oblique: in (32) the applied object héen ‘water’ is marked with instrumental -ch. vS can also add nominal qualia that restrict the denotation of the object; we call these ‘qualified objects’. With a bivalent root like √hun ‘sell’ (33) the qualia introduced by vS is ‘long’; this derives a transitive verb whose internal argument is restricted to long objects. The bivalency of roots like √jaḵ ‘kill’ and √hun ‘sell’ means that they do not require vS to be transitive, allowing transparent marking of applicative and qualificational functions. kʼéi ] (30) a. wo- [opfv- cl[uD, uS, I]-√good ‘it got good’

b. a- w- [likʼéi ] 3>3-pfv- cl[uD, l, I]-√good ‘s/he improved it’

(31) a. náalx̱ ‘wealth’

náalx̱ ] b. wu- [lipfv- cl[uD, l, I]-√wealth ‘s/he’s gotten rich’

(32) a. a- a- [wajáḵ ] 3>3-pfv- cl[uD, uS, I]-√kill ‘s/he killed it‘

b. héen-ch a- w- [li-

hoon ] (33) a. a- a- [wa3>3-pfv- cl[uD, uS, I]-√sell ‘s/he sold it‘

b. a- w- [sihoon ] 3>3-pfv- cl[uD, s, I]-√sell ‘he sold it (long thing)’

jáḵ ]

water-inst 3>3-pfv- cl[uD, l, I]-√kill

‘he killed it with water’

4.1 vS maps onto RelateS The S-component maps onto the operator Relate which modifies a selected argument variable α (34) and restricts it in various ways. Relate derives a complex predicate which by definition requires a prejacent event (cf. Kratzer 2000; Piñón 2001). Consider the formulas in (35). If Relate associates with an external argument xagent then it derives a transitivized predicate (35a); the base predicate may be monoor bivalent with corresponding differences in the derived predicate. If Relate associates with an internal argument ytheme then it derives a qualified object (35b). If Relate associates with an oblique argument zinstr/loc then it derives an applied object (35c). These formulae are mapped from complex predicates in the syntax with recursive vP structures which we illustrate in the next subsection. (34) (35) a. b. c.

v[S] → Relate(e, α, f ) Relate(e, xagent , √root) Relate(e, ytheme , √root) Relate(e, zinstr/loc , √root)

4.2 What RelateS does The S-component, which has four allomorphs (s-, l-, sh-, 0-) can be inserted into any layer of the verb projection. If Relate is introduced at the top layer, this derives transitivized verbs (36) and denominal verbs (37). Of note is the fact that denominalization derives both state and activity predicates. The relevant structures are given in (38).15 (36) a. u- [watʼíxʼ ] pfv- cl[uD, uS, I]-√hard ‘it froze, hardened’

b. a- w- [litʼíxʼ ] 3>3-pfv- cl[uD, l, I]-√hard ‘he froze/hardened it’

-náalx̱ ] (37) a. [li cl[uD, l, I]-√wealth ‘s/he’s rich’, lit. ‘s/he has wealth’

tséek ] b. a- [l3>3- cl[uD, l, uI]-√skewer ‘s/he’s barbecueing it’, lit. ‘s/he’s skewering it’

(38)

[vP DP [vP vS →Relate [VP DP [VP VI √root ]]]] [vP DP [vP vS →Relate [VP DP [VP VI √nP ]]]]

A novel aspect of our analysis is that it accounts for why applied and qualified objects both activate the S-component. If the added DP is an internal argument it derives applied objects – including instrumental (39a) and locative (39b) applicatives – with the structure in (40). (39) a.

b.

(40)

lʼéiw-ch sha- w- [lihík ] sand-instr head-pfv- cl[uD, l, I]-√fill ‘he filled it with sand’ ḵáa ] ax̱ kʼoodásʼ-i ká-t a- w- [li1sg shirt-pss sfc-p 3>3-pfv- cl[uD, l, I]-√sew ‘s/he sewed it onto my shirt’

instrumental applicative [uD, l, I]

locative applicative [uD, l, I]

[vP DP [vP v [vP DP [vP vS →Relate [VP DP [VP V √root ]]]]]]

If the S-component qualifies an argument then the valency of the derived predicate remains unchanged.16 Trivalent roots which denote transfer of possession or location introduce three arguments (DPagent , DPtheme , PPsource/goal ) and impose a classificatory restriction on the theme. For example, in (41), DPtheme is a long object. With mono- and bivalent roots, the addition of the S-component derives verbs whose internal argument is qualified, as in (42)–(43). To see why the derivation of applied objects doesn’t affect valency, consider (44). With trivalent roots Relate restricts the denotation of a DP that is already present. With mono- and bivalent roots Relate introduces a vP layer and the DP in Spec-vP is construed as qualifying the DP in Spec-VP, with shading indicating co-construal.17 15A still mysterious issue is that the morphology of denominal verbs like those in (37) indicates they are derived by successively combining VI and vS . We leave this problem to future research on the root lexicon. 16We converge with Kibrik (1993, 1996), Cook (1984), and Rice (2000) in treating nominal qualifiers as modifying properties specified by roots. Implementation details differ however. While Rice (2000: 126) analyses qualifiers as functors that modify the verb, we treat them as restrictors with very precise syntactic and semantic functions. We introduce qualifiers at Spec-VP where they restrict the denotation of the DP argument and then raise to Spec-AspP. 17The S-component can be structurally ambiguous as it may reflect more than one v. It is also the basis for other object-oriented verb forms (e.g. exhaustive and amissive), as well as various outstanding instances of lexicalized S.

(41) a. aa-dé a- a- [watee ] 3 -p 3>3-pfv- cl[uD, uS, I]-√handle ‘s/he carried it there’

b. aa-dé a- w- [sitee ] 3 -p 3>3-pfv- cl[uD, s, I]-√handle ‘s/he carried it (long) there’

(42) a. a- a- [walʼéexʼ ] 3>3-pfv- cl[uD, uS, I]-√break ‘s/he broke it’

b. a- w- [lilʼéexʼ ] 3>3-pfv- cl[uD, s, I]-√break ‘s/he broke it (long object)’

(43) a. [yasátk ] cl[uD, uS, I]-√fast ‘it’s fast’

b. [lisátk ] cl[uD, l, I]-√fast ‘it’s fast’ (extended in space, e.g. train)

(44)

5

[vP DP [vP v [vP DPqual [vP v[s] [VP PP [VP VI √root ]]]]]] [vP DP [vP v [vP DPqual [vP v[s] [VP DP [VP VI √root ]]]]]] [vP DPqual [vP v[l] [VP DP [VP VI √root ]]]]

Voice: The D-component

VoiceD absorbs any DP in its c-command domain. When it suppresses the DP subject it derives passives (45a) and indefinite subjects (45b), with the latter arising if a D-valued verb is supplemented with indefinite subject agreement du- (Leer 1991: 104; Thompson 1996: 361). When VoiceD suppresses the DP object it derives antipassives (46a) and reflexive objects (46b), with the latter arising if a D-valued verb is supplemented with the reflexive object clitic sh=. kʼéi ] (45) a. wu- [dlipfv- cl[D, l, uI]-√good ‘it got improved’

b. wu- du- [dlikʼéi ] pfv-4h·s- cl[D, l, uI]-√good ‘someone improved it’

(46) a. wu- [dihoon ] pfv- cl[D, uS, uI]-√sell ‘she sold’

b. sh= wu- [dihoon ] rflx=pfv- cl[D, uS, uI]-√sell ‘s/he sold her/himself’

5.1 VoiceD maps onto πD Tlingit π is an argument-saturator that operates on any argument, (47). We follow Chung & Ladusaw (2004) in distinguishing restriction from saturation and treat VoiceD → π as a function that restricts any argument of the vP. Our π operator is inspired by Alexiadou & Doron (2012) but we extend it beyond passives to derive antipassives as well. This captures the fact that π does not necessarily detransitivize the vP it combines with, and that it can restrict either external or internal arguments. (48a) shows how π can restrict an external argument DPagent and (48b) shows how π can restrict a internal argument DPtheme . Note that π has no direct relationship with an eventuality. (47) a.

Voice[D] → π( f, α)

(48) a. b.

π(√root, xagent ) π(√root, ytheme )

5.2 What πD does VoiceD is an omnivorous argument suppressor. We model this as in (49), with VoiceD specified with an argument feature that enters into an Agree relation with any argument in its c-command domain. For example, in (49), VoiceD potentially Agrees with a PRO in Spec-vP or Spec-VP. As we shall see, Spec-VoiceP is available as a landing site for movement of vP-internal DPs. (49)

[VoiceP … [VoiceP VoiceD [vP PRO [vP vS [VP DP [VP VI √root ]]]]]] [VoiceP … [VoiceP VoiceD [vP DP [vP vS [VP PRO [VP VI √root ]]]]]]

With both passive and indefinite subjects, VoiceD enters into an Agree relation with the DP in SpecvP. which we represent as PRO, (50). The difference them lies in whether Move applies: PRO raises to Spec-VoiceP; or whether Merge applies: indefinite pronominal agreement du- is inserted at Spec-VoiceP to control PRO. Positioning subject agreement in Spec-VoiceP captures the fact that it controls the subject DP which is generated in Spec-vP, and also accounts for the position of du- which appears between Aspect and the classifier. This indicates that movement of PRO from Spec-vP to Spec-VoiceP is possible (with passive), but not necessary (with an indefinite subject). Notice that the internal argument, generated in Spec-VP, raises to Spec-AspP, the normal position for objects (see §3.1). (50)

[AspP DPobj Asp [VoiceP PROsubj VoiceD [vP vS [VP VI √root ]]]] [AspP DPobj Asp [VoiceP Agrsubj VoiceD [vP PRO vS [VP VI √root ]]]]

(51) illustrates how VoiceD derives anti-passive by entering into an Agree relation with PRO in Spec-VP. The external argument, generated in Spec-vP raises to Spec-VoiceP, from where it hosts subject agreement. If PRO moves to Spec-AspP, this suppresses object agreement. If Merge occurs, then the reflexive proclitic sh= is inserted into Spec-AspP. This is the parallel of Move versus Merge for object agreement. (51)

[AspP PROobj Asp [VoiceP DPsubj VoiceD [vP vS [VP VI √root ]]]] [AspP DPrflx Asp [VoiceP DPsubj VoiceD [vP vS [VP PRO VI √root ]]]]

The same mechanism that derives reflexive objects is also in play for the reciprocal. Reflexives use sh= (52), reciprocals use woosh= (53), and the derivation of the reciprocal proceeds in the same way.18 (52) a. x̱ wa[siteen ] pfv.1sg·s- cl[uD, s, I]-√see ‘I have seen it’

b. sh= x̱ wa[dziteen ] rflx·o=pfv.1sg·s- cl[D, s, I]-√see ‘I have seen myself’

teen ] (53) a. wu- tu- [sipfv-1pl·s- cl[uD, s, I]-√see ‘we have seen it’

teen ] b. woosh= wu- tu- [dzirecip·o=pfv-1pl·s- cl[D, s, I]-√see ‘we have seen each other’

6

Conclusion and prospects

We have shown that close attention to interface mapping relations yields great insights into a complex phenomenon. In morphophonology we find that the complexities of Tlingit classifier spellout are tractable when approached from a syntactic perspective. Surface elements that are traditionally taken to be monomorphemic or portmanteau can be decomposed into smaller units that obey regular rules. The spellout of these microsyntactic units reflects locality relations in the syntax. In morphosyntax we present our work as an illustration of how North American indigenous languages can serve as a testbed for theories of syntactic interfaces. American languages are famous for their rich morphological systems and we believe that 18A further question is whether and how reciprocal woo-sh is related to reflexive sh.

every morphological system can be analyzed using modern interface theories of phonology, syntax, and semantics. In morphosemantics we have concluded that Tlingit marks statives with non-default status, contrary to widespread expectations of states being default and events being non-default. Our proposal suggests that the event structure of states deserves closer investigation, and that languages can instantiate more articulated stativity systems than are usually assumed in research on event semantics. We have also shown that Tlingit features pervasive multifunctionality in its mappings of syntactic exponents to functors that exemplify semantic dualism. We expect that the same can be shown not only for most of the rest of Tlingit verbal morphology, but that this principle holds across the entire Na-Dene family.

References Alexiadou, Artemis & Edit Doron. 2012. The syntactic construction of two non-active voices: Passive and middle. Journal of Linguistics 48(1): 1–34. doi 10.1017/S0022226711000338. Cable, Seth. 2006. Syncope in the verbal prefixes of Tlingit: Meter and surface phonotactics. (Lincom studies in Native American lingusitics 53). Berlin: Lincom Europa. isbn 3-89586-377-7. Chung, Sandra & William A. Ladusaw. 2004. Restriction and saturation. (Linguistic Inquiry monographs 42). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. isbn 0-262-03313-5. Condoravdi, Cleo & Ashwini Deo. 2015. Aspect shifts in Indo-Aryan and trajectories of semantic change. In Language change at the syntax-semantics interface, Chiara Gianollo, Agnes Jäger, & Doris Penka (eds.), ch. 9, pp. 261–291. (Trends in linguistics: Studies and monographs 278). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. isbn 978-3-11-035217-7. Cook, Eung-Do. 1984. A Sarcee grammar. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. isbn 0-7748-0200-6. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity. (Cambridge studies in linguistics 69). Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press. isbn 0-521-44446-2. Edwards, Keri. 2009. Dictionary of Tlingit. Juneau, AK: Sealaska Heritage Institute. isbn 978-1-44-040127-5. Embick, David. 1996. Causativization in Hupa. In Proceedings of the 22nd annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 83–94. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Fernald, Theodore B. & Paul R. Platero (eds.). 2000. The Athabaskan languages: Perspectives on a Native American language family. (Oxford studies in anthropological linguistics 24). Oxford: Oxford University Press. isbn 0-19-511947-9. Fountain, Amy V. 1998. An optimality theoretic account of Navajo prefixal syllables. Tuscon: University of Arizona, PhD dissertation. Hale, Ken. 2001. Navajo verb stem position and the bipartite structure of the Navajo conjunct sector. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4): 678–693. doi 10.1162/002438901753373041. jstor 4179170. Hargus, Sharon & Siri Tuttle. 1997. Augmentation as affixation in Athabaskan languages. Phonology 14: 177–220. jstor 4420100. Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2009. The syntax of sentential stress. (Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics 25). Oxford University Press. isbn 978-0-19-921923-0. Kari, James. 1975. The disjunct boundary in the Navajo and Tanaina verb prefix complexes. International Journal of American Linguistics 41(4): 330–345. jstor 1264556. — 1976. Navajo verb prefix phonology. New York: Garland Publishing. Kibrik, Andrej A. 1993. Transitivity increase in Athabaskan languages. In Causatives and transitivity, Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds.), ch. 2, pp. 47–68. (Studies in language companion series

vol. 23). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. isbn 1-55619-375-0. Kibrik, Andrej A. 1996. Transitivity decrease in Navajo and Athabaskan: actor-affecting propositional derivations. In Athabaskan language studies: Essays in honor of Robert W. Young, Eloise Jelinek et al. (eds.), pp. 259–304. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. isbn 0-8263-1705-7. Kratzer, Angelika. 2000. Building statives. In Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 385–399. (Annual proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society vol. 26.1). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. bls 3344. Krauss, Michael E. 1968. Noun-classification systems in Athapaskan, Eyak, Tlingit, and Haida verbs. International Journal of American Linguistics 34(3): 194–203. jstor 1263565. Leer, Jeff. 1991. The schetic categories of the Tlingit verb. Chicago: University of Chicago, PhD dissertation. Alaska Native Language Archive TL962L1991. — 2000. The negative/irrealis category in Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit. In The Athabaskan languages: Perspectives on a Native American language family, Theodore B. Fernald & Paul R. Platero (eds.), ch. 7, pp. 101–138. (Oxford studies in anthropological linguistics 24). Oxford: Oxford University Press. isbn 0-19-511947-9. McDonough, Joyce. 2000. On a bipartite model of the Athabaskan verb. In The Athabaskan languages: Perspectives on a Native American language family, Theodore B. Fernald & Paul R. Platero (eds.), ch. 7, pp. 139–166. (Oxford studies in anthropological linguistics 24). Oxford: Oxford University Press. isbn 0-19-511947-9. — 2003. The Navajo sound system. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 55). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. isbn 1-4020-1351-5. Mithun, Marianne. 1991. Active/agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 67(3): 510–546. Piñón, Christopher. 2001. A finer look at the causative-inchoative alternation. In Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory 11, Rachel Hastings, Brendan Jackson, & Zsofia Zvolenszky (eds.), pp. 346–364. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Rice, Keren. 2000. Morpheme order and semantic scope. (Cambridge studies in linguistics 90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. isbn 0-521-58354-3. Rice, Keren & Leslie Saxon. 2005. Comparative Athapaskan syntax: Arguments and projections. In The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, Guglielmo Cinque & Richard S. Kayne (eds.), ch. 16, pp. 698–774. Oxford: Oxford University Press. isbn 978-0-19-513650-0. Story, Gillian L. 1966. A morphological study of Tlingit. London: School of Oriental & African Languages, University of London, master’s thesis. Alaska Native Language Archive TL959S1966. Story, Gillian L. & Constance M. Naish. 1973. Tlingit verb dictionary. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Language Center. isbn 0-933769-25-3. Thompson, Chad. 1996. The Na-Dene middle voice: An impersonal source of the D-element. International Journal of American Linguistics 62(4): 351–378. jstor 1265706. Toews, Carmela Irene Penner. 2015. Topics in Siamou tense and aspect. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, PhD dissertation. hdl 2429/52844. Travis, Lisa deMena. 1991. Derived objects, inner aspect, and the structure of VP. in Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society (NELS) 22, K. Broderick (ed.), pp. 1–11. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.