Noun incorporation and the Mohawk lexicon - CiteSeerX

Noun incorporation and the Mohawk lexicon Robert P. Malouf Stanford University

[email protected] June 8, 1994

Mohawk, like many North American languages, seems to do in its morphology what more familiar languages do in their syntax. When faced with such a language, the linguist is forced to reconsider some basic notions. Do we ignore the apparent parallels between syntactic and morphological processes and continue to treat them dierently, or do we push syntax down below the word level? What is the division of labor between the lexical and syntactic components of the grammar? One phenomenon which has been at the center of this debate for nearly a century is Mohawk noun incorporation. Noun incorporation is described as \the combination into one word of the noun object and the verb functioning as the predicate of a sentence" (Kroeber 1908, 569). As such, it is a process which seems to sit on the boundary between morphology and syntax. But, as Sapir (1911) notes, \noun incorporation is primarily either a morphological or syntactic process; the attempt to put it under two rubrics at the same time necessarily leads to a certain amount of arti ciality of treatment" (255). Sapir argues that in most cases, noun incorporation is no more a syntactic process than is nominalization in English. Even in languages, such as Mohawk, where it seems most like a syntactic process, Sapir claimed it was still \a purely non-syntactic or etymological process, the morphological equivalent of a logically syntactic one" (278). Apparently his arguments were convincing, as Kroeber (1911) concedes \Here is the crux of the whole problem and its answer: noun incorporation is not grammatical but etymological " (580). This, however, did not put the question to rest. As Sapir's `arti ciality' gave way to the generative grammarian's `abstractness', it once again became possible to consider incorporation as a syntactic process with morphological eects rather than as a morphological process with syntactic eects. In this paper I will review some of the analyses of Mohawk noun incorporation that have been proposed. I will also oer a lexical analysis, situated in a general theory of grammar, which is an attempt to synthesize some of the dierent viewpoints. Fragments of this material were presented at the 1993 HPSG Workshop at Ohio State University and the 1994 HPSG Conference in Copenhagen. I would like to thank the following people for invaluable comments on earlier drafts: Arto Anttila, Joan Bresnan, Eve Clark, Vivienne Fong, Peter Sells, and especially Ivan Sag. This work was supported by an NSF Graduate Fellowship. 

1

1 The nature of noun incorporation

1.1 Incorporation as a syntactic process

Baker (1988a) proposes an analysis of noun incorporation as a syntactic movement process (i.e., an instantiation of Move ). He argues for this position on the basis of the syntactic distribution of noun incorporation and the co-occurrence of incorporated noun stems with external nominal modi ers (`stranding'). One kind of evidence that Baker uses to support the syntactic nature of noun incorporation is that it appears to respect the Empty Category Principle (ECP), a constraint on syntactic movement. The ECP requires that every trace left by syntactic movement must be coindexed with something that governs it. In eect, this insures that all movement will be upward. It is generally true of languages which allow noun incorporation that the incorporated noun must be one of the verb's internal arguments. For example, in the Iroquoian languages, only direct objects of transitive verbs and subjects of unaccusative verbs are subject to noun incorporation, as is shown by the examples in (1) and (2).1 (1) a. ka- hi- hw- i ne' o- hsahe't- a' 3n- spill- caus- asp ne pre- bean- suff `The beans spilled.' (Woodbury 1975, Onondaga) b. ka- hsahe't- ahi- hw- i 3n- beans- spill- caus- asp `The beans spilled.' (Woodbury 1975, Onondaga) (2) a. h-

ate- 'se:- ' ne' o- tsi'kt- a' 3mS- refl- drag- asp ne pre- louse- suff `The louse crawls.' b.*h- ate- tsi'kti- 'se:- ' 3mS- refl- louse- drag- asp `The louse crawls.'

(Woodbury 1975, Onondaga) (Woodbury 1975, Onondaga)

Baker's explanation for this contrast is the ECP. The example in (1b) would have the Sstructure in (3a), and the example in (2b) would have the S-structure in (3b). Of course, these structures assume some version of the Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH). The focus of this paper is on Mohawk, but where the relevant Mohawk examples were not available I have drawn from the other closely related Northern Iroquoian languages Oneida, Onondaga, and Tuscarora. Ne' is a somewhat mysterious discourse particle that introduces noun phrases. Some of its properties are described by Bonvillain (1985). [Glosses.] 1

2

(3) a.

VP NP

b. V0

V

e

N

NP V

*VP NP

V0

t

V

i

N

t

i

V

beans spill louse crawls In (3a), the noun-verb complex governs the trace of the noun, so the incorporation satis es the ECP. In (3b), on the other hand, the noun-verb complex does not govern the trace of the incorporated noun, so the movement creates a violation of the ECP. This split between unergative and unaccusative verbs is explained quite naturally under a movement analysis of noun incorporation, using independently motivated principles, as long as (3) accurately represents the phrase structure. Another suggestive fact is that syntactic movement of the head of an NP in Mohawk can strand nominal modi ers, much like movement of an NP out of a PP can strand a preposition in English. The sentence in (4a) is an example of stranding due to WH-movement. The sentence in (4b) is a putative example of stranding due to noun incorporation. The sentence in (4c) is the analog of (4b) in which no incorporation has occurred. e' (4) a. nahotv [ ne' thikv t ] sa- hnoskwa- hnutwhat ne that 2sO- cheek- be full in cheek- punc `What is that you have in your cheek?' (Bonvillain and Francis 1980, 77) b. ka- nuhs - rakv [ thikv t ] 3n- house- white that `That house is white.' (Postal 1962, 395) c. ka- hu'syi [ thikv ka- hyatuhsr- a' ] 3n- black that pre- booksuff `That book is black.' (Baker 1988a, 93) Similar stranding eects can be seen with relative clauses, quanti ers, and numerals. Modi er stranding is easily explained if incorporation is adjunction of a lexical category (N0) to another lexical category (V0). This would predict that only the lexical head can move and not the whole NP. Also, the trace of the lexical head allows the modi er to be semantically interpreted as applying to the incorporated noun at Logical Form. Under a lexical analysis, an independent explanation would be required to account for the fact that an external modi er can apply to part of a base generated N+V complex. i

i

i

i

i

i

3

1.2 Incorporation and non-con gurationality

As observed by Van Valin (1992), the movement analysis of incorporation proposed by Baker (1988a) depends on some speci c assumptions about the phrase structure of Mohawk. In particular, the movement analysis depends crucially on the existence of a verb phrase in all languages. However, many languages which allow noun incorporation, including the Iroquoian languages, do not show the kind of subject/object asymmetries in the syntax that indicate the existence of a VP. Baker (1991) oers an attractive analysis of Mohawk which accounts for the apparently non-con gurational character of the language while still maintaining a fundamentally con gurational structure. The traditional view of agreement in many Native American languages is that the agreement morphology is itself the arguments of the verb, while any overt nominals that occur are in apposition to the pronominal agreement markers and are outside the clause. In recent years, this kind of analysis has been proposed by Jelinek (1984) and Van Valin (1987), among others. This view is often attributed to Boas (1911), but actually goes back somewhat further; in his description of Chinook, Swanton (1900) commented: Since the gender of each substantive is always indicated by a pronominal pre x, and since, if this substantive happens to be the subject, object, or second object of the verb, the relation is expressed by a corresponding pre x in the verb itself, the substantives really stand in apposition to the verb. . . The verb is thus the vital center of a Chinook sentence, about which all else is built and upon which it all depends (237).

Following this view, Baker treats all overt NPs as adjuncts adjoined to S and coindexed with the actual arguments (pro s) in the VP. This provides the free word order and symmetric behavior of overt NP subjects and objects at one level, and satis es the Projection Principle (and the UTAH) with phonologically null pronouns at another level. Baker goes beyond the \relatively super cial" evidence presented by previous researchers and constructs and argument for the adjunct status of overt nominals based on disjoint reference, question formation, and weak crossover eects. Baker further argues that while overt NPs can only appear in A -positions, incorporated objects are generated in (and leave a trace in) A-positions. So, consider the sentences in (5) and their S-structures in (6). (5) a. wa- k- hninu' ka- nakt- a' fact- 1sS- buy pre- bed- suff `I bought a bed.' (Bonvillain 1973, 77) b. wa'- ke- nakt- a- hninu' fact- 1sS- bed- join- buy `I bought a bed.' (Bonvillain 1973, 77)

4

(6) a.

S

b.

VP NP pro

NP V0

VP

i

NP

bed

pro

V0 V

V

NP

N

bought

pro

bed

i

NP V

i

t

i

bought

In (6a), the true subject and object of the verb are the VP-internal pro s, and the NP kanakta' `bed' is an adjunct. In (6b), the NP originates in an A-position and is moved into V, leaving a trace. These examples show that, in principle, Baker's noun incorporation analysis is compatible with his Mohawk phrase structure analysis. In addition, both the Projection Principle and the UTAH are maintained. However, Baker's claim that the UTAH provides evidence for a syntactic treatment of noun incorporation is considerably weakened. In arguing for such a treatment, he writes: Generally, whenever a part of a word shows syntactic signs of assigning or receiving a thematic role in the same way that morphologically independent constituents do, the UTAH will imply that that part of the word appears in an independent structural position at D-structure, so that the thematic relationship can be represented in the canonical way. Thus, the [UTAH] points away from a lexical analysis of. . . noun incorporation structures and gives a theoretical motivation for the analysis in terms of syntactic X0 movement (Baker 1988a, 49).

If the Theme role is always assigned to the sister of V, then not only are the thematic role assignments to nakt `bed' in (6a) and (6b) not identical, but the overt NP in (6a) corresponding to the incorporated NP in (6b) does not receive any thematic role at all. The Theme role is assigned to pro , whose only overt manifestation is in the verbal morphology (viz., the pronominal pre x). So, there seems to be a contrast between, on the one hand, pronominal pre xes and incorporated noun roots, which receive thematic roles, and on the other hand, unincorporated nouns, which do not receive a thematic role. If anything then, the UTAH points towards a lexical analysis of noun incorporation. Since an incorporated noun cannot originate from the same structural position as an external nominal, the arguments based on stranding are also brought into question. Consider again the examples in (4). Given the phrase structure proposal under consideration, there is no way to maintain an analysis that derives (4b) by stranding. The only plausible Sstructure for (4b) is that given in (7a). The structure of (4c), a parallel sentence with no noun incorporation, is given in (7b). The structures in (7a) and (7b) are the only possible structures that Baker could assign to (4b) and (4c). The incorporated object must be generated at D-structure within the VP. If house in (7a) were generated in the adjunct NP, the D-structure would violate the UTAH, as the Theme role is not assigned to an adjunct in a canonical structure. Additionally, the movement of house into the verb from an adjunct would create a violation of the ECP, since the incorporated noun would fail to govern its i

5

trace. The overt object NP could be within the VP at D-structure, but it could not remain there at S-structure, since, by Baker's (1991) analysis Mohawk verbs do not assign Case. On the other hand, if it (along with the trace left by noun incorporation) moved into an adjunct position it would violate the ECP. (7) a.

b.

S VP NP

i

V

N

V

house

i

VP

NP V0

e

S

that e

NP

NP

e

ti

NP

i

V0 that book V

NP

black

pro

i

white

The `stranded' modi er in (7a) is not the remnant of an NP which has been beheaded by incorporation. It can only be a modi er (either with a null head or no head at all) in apposition to the true object within the VP. So, the examples in (4) have no bearing on the syntactic nature of noun incorporation.

1.3 Incorporation as a semantic process

A very dierent kind of analysis for noun incorporation is proposed by Mithun (1984), DiSciullo and Williams (1987), and Rosen (1989). While dierent in detail, these analyses are based on the same fundamental insight, but for concreteness I will primarily concentrate on Rosen's analysis. Rosen proposes that in languages like Mohawk, noun incorporation is a process by which a verb is combined with a noun in the lexicon. The incorporated noun places selectional restrictions which semantically restrict the possible reference of one of the verb's arguments, but otherwise leaves the verb unchanged. In particular, the incorporated noun does not aect the transitivity of the verb and does not satisfy an argument position. Rosen rst looks at the stranding examples cited by Baker (1988a). She observes that nominal modi ers can appear without any overt head noun independent from noun incorporation. This is shown by the examples in (8). (8) a. kanekwarunyu wa'- kakya'tawi'tsher- u:ni 3n.dotted.dist fact- 1s/3n- dressmake `I made a polka-dotted dress.' (Mithun 1984, 870) b. kanekwarunyu wa'katkahtho 3n.dotted.dist fact.1s/3n.see `I saw a dotted (one).' (Mithun 1984, 870) 6

In (8a), the nominal modi er kanekwarunyu `dotted' seems to have been stranded by movement of its head into the verb. However, the modi er appears with no overt head in (8b), an example with no noun incorporation involved. Also, note that the modi ers in (8) agree in number and gender with their absent heads in both examples. In fact, the whole range of stranding eects demonstrated by Baker in noun incorporation sentences also occur independent of noun incorporation. This suggests that a general mechanism licenses null heads while an independent mechanism allows verbs to incorporate a noun stem. As evidence for a semantic conception of incorporation, Rosen also looks at so-called `doubling' eects. Baker claims that in some cases a copy of the incorporated noun can be left external to the verb as a kind of phonologically realized trace, as in the sentence in (9a), and that this is evidence that the thematic role assigned to the argument is transmitted to a verb-external position. However, as Mithun (1984) points out, the external double need not be an exact duplicate of the incorporated lexical item, but merely must be semantically compatible with the incorporated noun, as in the sentence in (9b). (9) a. wa- knvhs- v:ti: [ he:ni:kv: o:- nvhs- eh ] fact- 1s/3n- house- make(perf) that pre- house- suff `I have made that house.' (Williams 1976, 63:Tuscarora) b. hati- hnek- aets o- v:ta:k- i' 3mP- liquid- gather pre- syrup- suff `They gather maple syrup.' (Woodbury 1975, Onondaga) Rosen concludes that noun incorporation in fact does not satisfy an argument position. Instead, it places a semantic restriction on what may ll an argument position. The most attractive feature of a movement analysis of noun incorporation is its predictions about the distribution of noun incorporation. If noun incorporation were in fact subject to an independently motivated syntactic constraint, then a semantic analysis of noun incorporation would be cast into doubt. However, it is not clear that the Empty Category Principle captures quite the right generalizations about noun incorporation. First, the ECP analysis predicts that only internal arguments can ever be incorporated, while subjects of transitive or unergative verbs and adjuncts would be unincorporable. However, while this is a general tendency among languages, it is not without exception. For example, Van Valin (1992) cites Mayali, an \Australian Aboriginal language", as an example of a language which allows the incorporation of all intransitive subjects, whether the verb is unaccusative or unergative, and Boni, an Eastern Cushitic language, as a language which allows incorporation of subjects of both intransitive and transitive verbs. Spencer (1991) cites Chukchee, a paleosiberian language, as a language which allows incorporation of nontheta-marked adjuncts. An example is given in (10a), with its non-incorporated equivalent in (10b). (10) a. men- neki- ure- qepl- uwicwen- mek 1p.imp- night- long- ball- play1p `Let's play ball for a long time at night.' (Skorik 1977, 241) 7

b. neki- te n- ur- ?ew men- uwicwen- mek qepl- e night- obl adv- long- adv 1p.imp- play1p ball- obl Similarly, Wilhelm (1993) reports that the Northern Athapaskan languages allow incorporation of both transitive subjects and adjuncts, as well as transitive objects and intransitive subjects. These cases, while unusual, show that the the ECP is too strong a constraint on noun incorporation. On the other hand, the ECP is too weak a constraint in that only draws a distinction between internal arguments on the one hand and external arguments and adjuncts on the other. The syntactic analysis then predicts that all internal arguments should be incorporable. However, this is not the case. Languages dier as to which internal arguments can be incorporated (Mithun 1984). Some languages allow incorporation only of transitive objects but not subjects of unaccusatives. Other languages allow incorporation of other internal arguments. Baker (1988a) argues that \the distinctions made by the ECP seem to be more accurate than the semantically based statement. . . that only nouns which are patients can be incorporated" (83). As evidence for this, he cites several examples in which the incorporated noun root is not the patient but \semantic locatives of some kind" (84). However, as DiSciullo and Williams (1987) observe, this by itself does not constitute an argument that the domain of incorporation can only be characterized syntactically, only that one particular semantic analysis is too narrow. In addition, the UTAH would seem to imply a one-to-one correspondence between syntactic positions and thematic relations, which suggests that syntactic and semantic descriptions of what can incorporated will be equivalent. Under a lexical analysis of noun incorporation, the domain of noun incorporation can be stated in terms of thematic relations. It is still interesting, however, to consider why the overwhelming majority of languages only allow incorporation of themes. A comparable preference for V+Theme idioms has been noted by, among others, Marantz (1984). Nunberg, Sag, and Wasow (1994) argue that this tendency is the result of \general facts about the transfer of meaning in gurative uses of language" (39). Noun incorporation is itself a highly idiomatic process: \In Mohawk. . . the processes of semantic extension and the creation of metaphor are highly characteristic of morphological incorporation in many lexical domains" (Bonvillain 1989, 192). It is at least plausible then that the patterns of noun incorporation in Mohawk are just the grammaticalization of underlying principles guiding the use of gurative language.

1.4 The syntax/morphology interface

Mohawk noun incorporation is a phenomenon that has many aspects of both a morphological and a syntactic process. While Baker (1988a) considers the syntactic properties of noun incorporation in considerable detail, he devotes relatively little attention to its morphophonological properties. One aspect of the morphophonology of noun incorporation in Mohawk which is surprising under a straightforward syntactic analysis is the existence of many frozen lexicalized forms. 8

Compare the regular incorporation structure in (11a) with the lexicalized forms in (11b) and (11c). (11) a. te- k- ht- o:lalak- s dup- 1s- object- press- asp `I am pressing it.' (Bonvillain 1989, 187) b. u- k- ya't- o:lalak- e' fact- 1sS- body- press- asp `I had a nightmare (lit: it pressed on me).' (Bonvillain 1974, 23) c. te- ke- list- o:lalak- s dup- 1s- metal- press- asp `I am typing; I am a typist (lit: I press on metal).' (Bonvillain 1989, 187) Under a movement account of incorporation, (11a) must be produced in by syntax while (11b) and (11c) must be formed in the lexicon. The diculty this presents is that in general, lexicalized forms are subject to the same morphophonological processes as productive, semantically transparent forms. For example, Baker (1988b) cites the examples in (12). (12) a. wa'- k- nvhs- a- tya't fact- 1sS- house- join- buy `I bought a house.' (Baker 1988b, 23:Tuscarora) b. o- 'nekhw- a- hra- htsr- eh pre- food- join- set- nom- suff `table' (lit: that which food is set on) (Baker 1988b, 22:Tuscarora) The epenthetic vowel /a/ is inserted between a consonant nal incorporated noun stem and a consonant initial verb stem. The `joiner' /a/ occurs only within complex verb bases; other epenthetic processes insert /e/ or /i/. This applies to both productively derived verbs, as in (12a), and clearly lexicalized forms, as in (12b). Similarly, clearly lexicalized verbs are assigned stress in exactly the same way as productively formed verbs (Michelson 1983). Baker (1988b) argues that since morphophonological processes are not sensitive to the level of derivation at which they occur, \the type of phonological processes triggered by a morphological combination is a function of inherent properties. . . of the elements involved| essentially, whether a morpheme happens to be `cyclic' (or `+ boundary', or `stem selecting') or `noncyclic' (`# boundary,' `word selecting')" (29). Lexicalized forms in Mohawk can show various semantic, morphological, and phonological irregularities. Michelson (1990) surveys some of the irregularities and subregularities that can be found. Many lexicalized forms are like the example in (12b), which is semantically and morphologically transparent and is in fact ambiguous between its xed and its literal meaning. Other examples are like (11b) and (11c), which are morphologically anomalous and show semantic drift. Other examples of lexicalization are given in (13). 9

(13) a. te- k- lihw- a- khw- a' dup- 1sS- matter- join lift.up- hab `I sing.' (Michelson 1990, 74:Oneida) b. wa'- t- k- at- kah- kwek- e' fact- dup- 1sS- srl- eye- shut- punc `I closed my eyes.' (Michelson 1990, 75:Oneida) c. t- a- se- ra:ta'- k cis- fact- 2sS- step.on- mod `Stay up there!' (Michelson 1990, 75) d. wa- hakya't- a- nvhs- tate' fact- 3sM/1sO- body- join- house- point.out- punc `He protects me.' (Beatty 1974, 98) The sentence in (13a) is morphologically regular, but its derivation is not known to native speakers. They report it as an unanalyzable form. The sentence in (13b) is semantically transparent, but it is phonologically irregular. The incorporated noun stem -kahl- `eye' has lost its nal /l/ and has failed to trigger /a/ epenthesis (cf. (12)). The example in (13c) is perfectly transparent, yet \an excellent speaker of Mohawk analyzed this as being composed of a noun root -rat- `heel' incorporated by the verb root -k- `eat', i.e., `Eat your heel!' " (Michelson 1990, 75). The example in (13d) is derived from wahanvhstate' `He points out the house', in the sense of an invitation. Beatty (1974) speculates that \the semantic shift may have occurred as the result of a guest being entitled to the protection of the host." In any case, since Mohawk verbs can only incorporate at most one noun, there is no question that -nvhstat- `to protect' is synchronically a lexicalized verb stem. In addition, certain noun roots seem to have special suppletive incorporating forms which have the same meaning as the external noun roots but dier morphologically. Michelson (1990) cites several Oneida examples in which -ks- `dishes' is incorporated into a verb, while -atsyv- `dishes' is used in independent nouns. Even in the `regular' cases, the overt form of a noun is derived from the same stem as the incorporated form but is almost never identical to it. For example, in (14a), the noun root -j'ja- ` ower' appears with the obligatory noun pre x o- and sux -a'. (14) a. wa'- k- yvtho' o- j:j- a' fact- 1sS- plant pre- ower- suff `I planted a ower' (Bonvillain 1974, 21) b. wa'- k- ji'ja- yvtho' fact- 1sS- ower- plant `I ower-planted.' (Bonvillain 1974, 21) 10

Nearly very formal noun, when used independently, takes an obligatory noun pre x and sux, but these axes never occur in the incorporated form. The few exceptions, such as kwskwis `pig', are apparently onomatopoetic animal names. To account for the morphological complexities of noun incorporation, Baker (1988a) proposes a new module of grammar, `morphology theory': Morphology theory's responsibility is twofold: rst, it determines whether a structure dominated by an X0 level category is grammatical or not in a given language; second, if the structure is well-formed it assigns it a phonological shape. Thus, morphology theory may include whatever principles. . . determine. . . level ordering eects. . . ; principles of the strict (phonological) cycle; principles of morphological subcategorization and feature percolation. . . ; and/or whatever else in this general domain proves relevant. Probably, morphology theory also has at its disposal a simple list of forms in order to deal with phonological exceptions and suppletions of various kinds (68).

Since \the same morphophonological principle determines the shape of combinations formed in the lexicon and in the syntax" (70), morphology theory must not be localized to any particular level of representation but, like the binding theory, apply at every level. In other words, the functions traditionally assigned to the lexicon must be spread across all levels of the grammar. An alternative explanation for the non-contrast in (12) is that both productively derived and lexically frozen verbs are formed in the same way, namely, in the lexicon. This alternative would at rst glance seem to be preferable for two theoretical reasons. First, it would be conceptually simpler. Under a syntactic analysis, word formation processes must interact with syntactic processes in complex ways. Under a lexical analysis, the interface between the word formation component and the syntax is highly restricted. Second, a lexical analysis of noun incorporation would be compatible with well-articulated and empirically motivated theories of morphophonology, such as Kiparsky's (1982) Lexical Phonology and Morphology or Anderson's (1992) `A-morphous Morphology'. The details of a program for a `morphology theory' as proposed by Baker remain largely unexplored. One exception is the framework known as `Distributed Morphology' (Halle 1990, Halle and Marantz 1993). However, some aspects of Distributed Morphology seem to be problematic (Pullum and Zwicky 1991). An additional complication for `morphology theory' is presented by the fact that \not all noun roots, even named direct objects, can be incorporated into verb bases, since there is a certain amount of hierarchical nominal classi cation in Mohawk" (Bonvillain 1974, 21). Consider the examples in (15). (15) a. wak- yv:tahkwe' ne' ehlal 1sO- own ne dog `I used to have a dog.' (Bonvillain 1974, 21) b. wake- nahskwa- yv:tahkwe' ne' ehlal 1sO- animal- own ne dog `I used to have an animal, pet-dog.' (Bonvillain 1974, 21) 11

Baker's explanation for cases like (15b) is that the incorporated classi er is the direct object of the verb. The overt noun phrase is an adjunct that narrows the reference of the direct object. There seems to be a generalization that that account misses, however. The choice of whether to incorporate the direct object or a classi er of the direct object is not an arbitrary one. In fact, only certain nouns are available for incorporation, and with others the classi er-type incorporation must be used. To a certain extent, Mohawk nouns are, at least semantically, organized in a hierarchy, and nouns at only some levels in the hierarchy can be incorporated into the verb. That the classi cation is on semantic grounds and is not some kind of grammatical `gender' is shown by examples such as those in (16). (16) a. ye- 'wahla- nu:wak- s kwskwis 3sF- meat- hunger.for- asp pig `She's hungry for pig.' (Bonvillain 1989, 180) b. wa'- e- nahskwa- hn:nu- ' kwskwis fact- 3sF- animal- buy- asp pig `She bought a pig.' (Bonvillain 1989, 180) Here the choice of the incorporated classi er clearly depends on the intended meaning of the direct object kwskwis `pig'. So, in addition to the morphophonological information described above, `morphology theory' must also have access to detailed semantic information. In summary, Baker's syntactic analysis of noun incorporation leads him to argue against the lexicon as an independent level of grammar. Instead, he proposes, the functions traditionally assigned to the lexicon are performed on various levels by `morphology theory', which has access to syntactic, semantic, and phonological information. As a consequence, all lexically-based theories of word formation must be reassessed, and in particular \the Lexical Phonology and Morphology model. . . must be revised or discarded" (Baker 1988b, 29). However, the details of exactly how such a `morphology theory' would work, what information it would have access to, and what kinds of constraints would be placed on its operation, are still unclear. The alternative, that noun incorporation, like all other word formation processes, is purely lexical, would seem to yield a simpler and more constrained model of grammar.

2 A Lexical Analysis

2.1 Theoretical preliminaries

The analysis presented in this section is an attempt to synthesize the insights described in the previous section. The picture of Mohawk noun incorporation that emerges is that it is a lexical process which semantically restricts the reference of one of the arguments of a verb. An ideal framework for developing an analysis along those lines is oered by Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG). As a framework with a strong commitment to strict 12

lexicalism, HPSG has necessarily developed with mechanisms for giving detailed analyses of lexical phenomena and for describing the interaction between the lexicon and the syntax. In the hierarchical model of the lexicon developed by Flickinger (1987) and Pollard and Sag (1987), words can be classi ed according to any number of characteristics. This allows a straightforward representation of both the highly productive nature of Mohawk noun incorporation as well as the rich, idiosyncratic exceptions. Following Krieger and Nerbonne (1993) and especially Riehemann (1993), I am adopting an approach to morphology based on templates encoded in the lexical hierarchy. The basic form of a template is given in (17). (17) " STEM  #

Conceptually, (17) can be thought of as a lexical rule mapping  to . In the case of derivational and in ectional morphology, the value of stem will always be a sign, in compounds it will be a list of signs. In a break from current practice (Sag et al. 1992, for example), I will assume that information inherited from a super-type is treated only as a default and can be overridden by contradictory information associated with a more speci c type. In a non-monotonic subsumption hierarchy, constraints on a more speci c type are allowed to override possibly contradictory constraints associated with a higher type. Constraints associated with a super-type then are only defaults which are applied only if no more speci c constraint applies. The technical details of how default uni cation is implemented are not important to this analysis, but I will assume the default uni cation mechanism of Bouma (1993). The only speci c property of default uni cation that is relevant here is that it is always eliminible. For any formula that requires default uni cation, there is an equivalent formula that does not require it.

2.2 Agreement

A proper treatment of verb agreement is crucial to an analysis of Mohawk phrase structure. The main argument of Jelinek (1984) is that the agreement markers on the verb are the actual arguments themselves. Baker (1991) posits pro s as the arguments, but the generalization he is trying to capture is the same|a fully in ected verb has no subcategorization requirements and is by itself a grammatical sentence. Any overt `argument' NPs that appear are in some sense adjuncts. Mohawk verbal morphology is famously complex, and I will not try to include all the morphophonological subtleties here. The treatment of it given here is based on Bonvillain (1973). Roughly speaking, the elements that make up a Mohawk verb can be divided into four broad position classes:

13

Verbal Pronominal Verb Verbal Pre xes Pre xes Base Suxes modals subjective re exive root suxes non-modals objective reciprocal aspects transitive verb roots attributives noun roots A verb base with its pronominal pre xes is called a verb stem. Every Mohawk verb consist of at least a stem. The verbal pre xes and the verbal suxes are optional, and I will not be concerned with them in this paper. Also, for the moment, I will not consider the internal structure of the verb base, and so I will assume that every verb base has its own entry in the lexicon. This division into classes of position classes can be motivated on morphological as well as functional grounds. Mohawk has three kinds of morphophonological process: those that apply at the junction of morphemes within a division of the word, those that apply at the boundaries between major divisions, and those that apply everywhere (even across word boundaries to form clitics). 2 An analysis of Mohawk pronominal pre xes needs to account for two kinds of constraints. The rst and more dicult problem is describing when to use subject, object, or transitive pre xes. Transitive verbs shows subject agreement with their agents and object agreement with their patients. For intransitive verbs, the agreement system, as described by Mithun (1991), is based at least diachronically on semantic grounds. Very broadly speaking, unergative verbs show subject agreement with their single argument and unaccusative verbs show object agreement, but other factors such as volition and aectedness can also play a role. In addition, the agreement pattern that each verb triggers was xed at some point in the historical development of Mohawk, even though semantic drift has often obscured the original semantic grounds for the choice. For example, the verb yo'te' `to work' is semantically the paradigm example of an unergative verb, yet it shows object agreement with its argument. However, \comparative evidence indicates that this verb began as a basic stative, perhaps meaning something like `be occupied, engaged'. . . [and] it was only after the languages had diverged that new aspectual forms were derived and working was expressed as an event." (Mithun 1991, 535). In this analysis, I will not directly address the issue by assuming that the agreement properties of a verb are simply inherited as an object of sort s-vb, o-vb, or t-vb. That is, I will assume that every verb base is simply marked in the lexicon as taking subject agreement, object agreement, or transitive agreement, and I will not speculate as to the mechanism by which that marking is assigned. Whatever generalizations can be drawn, however, and whatever subregularities appear in the data can be economically represented in the hierarchical lexicon. The second and much simpler problem is to describe the information encoded by a particular pre x once it has been chosen. The pronominal pre xes of Mohawk fall into three general classes. The subjective pre xes designate what might roughly be called the agent of the verb (i.e., the subject of a transitive or unergative verb), the object pre xes This ts well with the model of the lexicon presented by Kiparsky (1982) and, while I am developing a non-derivational analysis here, I believe the notion of level ordering is compatible with hierarchical lexical model (see Orgun 1993). 2

14

designate the patient (the object of a transitive or the subject of an unaccusative verb), and the transitive pre xes identify both the agent and the patient of a transitive verb. The pronominal pre xes indicate the person ( rst, second, or third), number (singular, dual, or plural), and the gender (masculine, feminine, inde nite, neuter) of the referenced argument. In the rst-person non-singular, a distinction is made between inclusive and exclusive `we'. Generally, the feminine gender falls together with the inde nite or the neuter gender, depending on pragmatic factors, including the attitude of the speaker towards the individual referent of the argument. The subject agreement paradigm of the verb -hninu`buy' is given in (18) (Bonvillain 1973, 108). (18) khn:nus I buy lahn:nus he buys sehn:nus you (sg.) buy yehn:nus she, one buys tenihn:nus we (dual incl.) buy kahn:nus she, it buys yakenihn:nus we (dual excl.) buy kahn:nus they (masc. dual) buy tewahn:nus we (pl. incl.) buy kenihn:nus they (f/i/n dual) buy yakenihn:nus we (pl. excl.) buy latihn:nus they (masc. pl.) buy senihn:nus you (dual) buy kotihn:nus they (f/i/n pl.) buy sewahn:nus you (pl.) buy The sux -s is an aspectual marker than corresponds roughly with the present progressive tense. Notice that not all semantic categories are uniquely represented. While Mohawk generally makes a three-way gender distinction, only a two-way contrast appears in the third person non-singular verb forms. The primary function of subject or object agreement morphology is to indicate certain grammatical properties of the arguments of a verb. In HPSG terms, it gives some information about the restricted index which lls a role in the semantic content of the verb. In a language like English, the restricted indices that ll the roles of the relation expressed by the semantics of the verb are provided by subcategorized-for arguments, as in the partial lexical entry for sees in (19). (19) 2 PHON 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4

hsees i 2

3 2

3

37

7 HEAD [ n ]verb 77 6 6 7 77 6 6 SUBJ h 1 NPi 7 77 6 CAT 6 7 7 6 6 COMPS h 2 NPi 7 7 7 77 6 4 5 77 SYNSEM 66 77 ARGS h 1 , 2 i 7 6 #77 " 6 77 6 ACT 1 [INDEX 3s ] 57 4 5 CONT UND 2 see-rel

This lexical entry describes a nite verb which subcategorizes for an third person singular NP subject and an NP object. The args list indicates the obliqueness relationship among the arguments of the verb but does not necessarily re ect the valence properties of the 15

verb.3 The tag 1 indicates that the single element of the subj list is token-identical to the rst element of the args list. To say that two structures are token-identical is to say that they are actually one and the same structure. Structures marked with a tag are shared between the positions where the tag appears. The index of the subject NP, indicated by the subscript tag 2 , stands in the role of actor with respect to a relation see-rel. Actor is a macrorole proposed for HPSG by Davis (in preparation) which corresponds roughly to `agent'. The semantic value of the verb is a parameterized state of aairs (psoa). Very loosely speaking, a state of aairs is some possible fact which, in a given situation, may or may not be true. Naturally, most of the information in (19) is redundant. For example, every English verb subcategorizes for a subject, and we would not want to have to specify that in the lexical entry of every verb. In general, the lexical entry for a verb will only have to list a phonological form, a valence type, and a semantic relation. Since an in ected verb in Mohawk needs no overt arguments, lexical entries for verbs must already include the indices of the arguments. For a concrete example, consider the sentence in (20). (20) la-

hnnu- s

MsS- buy-

asp

`He is buying.' (Bonvillain 1973, 106) The representation of this sentence is given in (21). This representation, unlike that of Baker (1991), makes no use of null pronouns (pro s). (21) 2 PHON

3

 ( 1 ; 2 ) = hlahninus i # 6 7 6 7 PHON 1 hhninus i 6 STEM 7 6 7 SYNSEM 2 6 7 s-vb 2 3 6 7 2 3 6 7 SUBJ hi 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 CAT 7 6 7 COMPS h i 4 5 6 77 6 77 6 SYNSEM 2 6 6 77 6 ARGS h 3 NPi 6 6 7 i7 h 4 55 4 CONT [INDEX 3s ] ACT 3 buy-rel "s

In a sense, the `phantom' NP on the args list in (21) plays the same role as Baker's pro s. It is essentially a place-holder which associates an argument position with a referential index and an underspeci ed nominal content value. However, unlike a null pronoun, the NPs on the args list exist only in the argument structure of the verb and are not assigned a position in the phrase structure. The lexical entry in (21) gives three general pieces of information about the verb lahn:nus. It is a morphologically complex object whose stem value is an object of the sort s-vb, i.e., The args feature is the subcat feature of Pollard and Sag (1994). Following a suggestion of Davis (in preparation), I take the values of the roles in a verbal relation to be restricted indices rather than simple indices. 3

16

a verb base which triggers the subject agreement pronominal pre xes.4 This verb base contributes its synsem value to the complex construction. The phonological form of the complex word is the value of the paradigm function  , applied to the phonological form of the stem and the index of the single argument. This function appends the appropriate pronominal pre x from the subject agreement paradigm to the stem.5 The subj and comps lists are empty, so this verb by itself constitutes a fully saturated VP. The syntactic and semantic properties of the word must match those of the verb base, with the additional restriction that the single argument's index match the one provided by the pronominal pre x. Since the pronominal pre x provides only an index and not a restriction set, the index is free to be anchored to anything that is compatible with its person, number, and gender features and the verb's selectional restrictions, just as in English it runs, it can be interpreted as any singular neuter entity which is semantically compatible with the verb run. To say that (21) is the `lexical entry' for lahn:nus is not to say that all this information is stored redundantly for every verb. Indeed, the lexical entry for any particular word is likely to contain very little unique information. Most of the lexical information associated with a word is inherited from the superordinate types by which the word is classi ed. The constraint in (22) expresses the information in (21) which is inherited by virtue of the fact that lahn:nus is an intransitive verb which triggers subject agreement. s

2

(22) s-agr

 (1; 2) " 6 6 PHON 1 6 STEM 6 2 6 s-vb SYNSEM 2 6 PHON

6 6 6 6 6 6 SYNSEM 6 6 4

s

3 # 33

2

SUBJ h i 6 6 77 7 6 CAT 4 COMPS h i 57 6 7 6 26 ARGS h 3 NPi 77 6 i h 5 4 CONT ROLE 3

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5

Of course, most of the constraints in (22) are themselves inherited from superordinate types (e.g., all words have a synsem value) or derived from general principles (e.g., some kind of Morphological Head Principle could be used to enforce the identity of cat values of the stem and the word).

2.3 Phrase Structure

Baker's (1991) GB analysis of the phrase structure of non-con gurational languages re ect an important claim, that overt NPs are syntactically adjuncts, not arguments. The syntactic I am making the simplifying assumption that the aspectual sux -s is part of the verb base. Note there is nothing about (21) that requires that the verb base be morphologically simple. 5 I do not mean to claim that a straightforward word and paradigm analysis is the best way or even a particularly good way to handle Mohawk morphology. I merely wish to abstract away from some of the morphophonological complexities of Mohawk so that I can concentrate on its syntactic properties (see Kathol (1994)). 4

17

analysis I propose here is more or less an HPSG version of Baker (1991). However, in recasting Baker's analysis, I will make two minor changes which I believe improve it while still maintaining the basic insights. The rst dierence has already been discussed in relation with agreement. Since arguments that are represented in the semantics need not be represented in the syntax, there is no reason to posit phonologically null elements in the syntax to receive the verb's thematic roles. The second diculty with Baker (1991) is more serious. If Baker wishes to analyze the overt NPs as adjuncts, he has no choice but to represent them as adjoined to S. From this, one would predict that an adjunct S or NP could never appear between the verb and a genuine sentential complement. However, this prediction is not borne out (Baker, p.c.). For example, under one possible analysis of (23), the adjunct NP nohkwali `the bear' comes between the verb and its argument. (23) wa- hv- lu- ' n- o- hkwali kwahikv tsi w- vhunise- ' shifact- 3sM- say- punc ne- FsO- bear very much that FsS- long time- perf coinkoya't- isak- u- hakye- 's 1sS/2sO- body- look for- perf- prog- srl `Said the bear: It's been a very long time that I've been looking all over for you.' (Bonvillain and Francis 1980, 80) Under a GB analysis, these word order facts are accounted for by an appeal to extraposition at PF. In the analysis presented here, argument and adjunct phrases can be freely mixed in the clause, so the possibility of the word order in (23) follows naturally. The proposed head/adjunct structure is supported by the evidence Baker (1991) presents regarding disjoint reference, extraction domains, and weak cross-over eects, but only if we assume that these phenomena are con gurationally de ned. The word order facts suggest that overt NPs are adjuncts at one level but are not dierentiated from arguments at another level. This split does not pose a problem for an HPSG analysis, as restrictions on coreference and extraction are not directly dependent on the phrase structure of a sentence. There are two possible structures that are consistent with the Mohawk word order facts: a completely at structure and a binary branching structure. Either structure will allow a completely free word order. In his analysis of German adjuncts, Kasper (1994) argues against a binary structure on the grounds that it would introduce spurious scope ambiguities. However, for simplicity, I will assume that scope relations in Mohawk are not determined by the tree structure and so mixed adjunct/complement structures as in (23) can be analyzed as binary branching trees. Using a binary structure still requires a minor change in the theory as presented by Pollard and Sag (1994). In HPSG, phrases are licensed by immediate dominance schemata which specify how a head may combine with other elements. The theory as it stands requires that a head combine with all its subcategorized-for complements to form a saturated phrase (by Schema 3), which in turn can combine with one adjunct to form a new phrase (by Schema 5). In essence, this is the same as requiring that adjunct be adjoined to S. We need to allow 18

a head to combine with one complement to form a phrase which can then combine with either a complement or an adjunct.6 This schema will only be required for sentences with two or more subcategorized-for sentential complements, an unlikely occurrence in Mohawk but one which does not seem to be ruled out by the grammar. In most cases, a verb will only combine with a series of adjuncts by Schema 5. This ID schema will license an unordered binary branching tree structure like that in (24). 2

(24)

4

SYNSEM

"

CATjHEAD 1 CONT 2

#3 5

A 2

"

CATjMOD 3 CONT 2

H #3

2

"

#3

CATjHEAD 1 5 4 SYNSEM 5 4 SYNSEM 3 CONT 4 The adjunct, labelled A, selects the synsem value of the head, labelled H, via its mod

feature. The phrase containing the two, licensed by the Complement-Head Schema, has the

head value of the head (by the Head Feature Principle) and the content value of the ad-

junct (by the Semantics Principle). This captures the intuition that adjuncts are syntactic modi ers but semantic heads. Note that the ID schemata specify only the dominance relations in the tree. The order of sisters would normally be xed by separate linear precedence rules. Constituent order in Mohawk is quite free, and I will not comment on the LP rules other than to point out that they would have to be sensitive to discourse-functional considerations as well as to conventional category and obliqueness relations. In general, more focused material occurs early in the clause, with less salient material appearing towards the end (Williams 1974, Mithun 1987b). With these technical details out of the way, consider how this mechanism can be used to represent the simple transitive Mohawk sentence in (25). (25) wa- k- hninu' ka- nakt -a' fact- 1sS- buy pre- bed- suff `I bought a bed.' (Bonvillain 1973, 77) We have already seen how `pro-drop' is treated under this analysis. The lexical entry for wakhninu' `I bought (it)' will have a rst person singular index for the actor role and a third person singular neuter index for the undergoer role. Its lexical entry is given in (26). For the purposes of this paper, I am ignoring the tense pre x wa-. 6

This is essentially the Complement-Head Schema proposed for HPSG-III (Pollard and Sag 1994, 426).

19

3

(26) 2 PHON 6

 ( 1 ; 2 ; 3 ) = hkhninu' #i " 7 7 6 1 hhninu' i PHON 7 6 STEM 7 6 SYNSEM 4 7 6 t-vb 6 3 2 3 7 2 7 6 HEAD verb 7 6 6 6 777 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 SUBJ h i 6 6 CAT 777 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 6 6 577 4 COMPS h i 7 6  7 6 6 SYNSEM 4 6 77 ARGS NP 7 6 2 , NP 3 7 6 6 " # 77 6 7 6 7 6 ACT 2 buy-rel 6 57 4 CONT 5 4 buy-rel UND 3 t

Note that the pronominal pre xes supply only a referential index and no restrictions. The purpose of overt nominals is to provide these restrictions. Kasper (1994) makes a suggestion which will greatly simplify operations on the restriction set of an argument. He proposes that the content value of a verb should be an object of the sort rsoa, (restricted state of aairs) with features nucleus and restr. The value of the feature nucleus is a psoa object and the value of the restr feature is a set of restrictions on parameters of the nucleus value. The synsem value of (26) should then represented as in (27). (27)

2

2

3

3

HEAD verb 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 SUBJ 7 hi 6 CAT 7 6 7 6 7 6 COMPS h i 7 6 7 4 5 6 7 6 7 ARGS hNP: 5 , NP: 6 i 6 7 2 37 6 # " 6 7 ACT 2 6 7 6 NUCLEUS 77 6 6 7 6 7 3 77 bug-rel UND 6 CONT 6 i i 55 h h 4 4 RESTR f 5 INST 2 [1s ] , 6 INST 3 [3sN ] g

This is not a substantive change, but will allow modi ers to more easily get at the restrictions on the indices which ll the roles of a verb. Note that since the NPs on the args list of a verb are completely underspeci ed, the restrictions they place on the arguments of the verb are not very informative. The function of the overt NP in Mohawk is to further specify the reference of an argument. In terms of this analysis, the adjuncts will add a restriction to the restr set of the index of one of the arguments. In HPSG, nominal semantics are analyzed as restricted indices in the situation theoretic sense (Cooper 1991, Barwise and Cooper 1991). That is, the semantic value of a nominal consists of a referential index, a kind of variable whose value can range over objects in the world, and a set of relations which must hold for any value of the index. One motivation for this two part structure is that it provides a natural way to represent restricted quanti cation. In addition, the index and the restriction set of a noun can be modi ed independently. For example, an intersective adjective adds a restriction to the restriction set, and a quanti er 20

causes the index to range over a set of possible values. When a noun is used referentially, its index is anchored to a particular individual in the world. Agreement and anaphora are represented as index sharing. Thus, the index must be speci ed for person, number, and gender features. A partial lexical entry for kanakta' `bed' is given in (28). Again, I am ignoring the morphological complexity of the noun. (28)

2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4

2

2

CATjHEADjMOD

6 6 4

SYNSEM 

6 6 4

CAT

"

CONT 2 h

HEAD verb ARGS h. . . , NP: 1 , . . . i i

2 RESTR bed-rel f 1 INST [3sN ] , . . . g

CONT



#333 777 777 557 7 7 7 7 5

The noun is modi er which selects for an in ected verb with some NP on its args list. The content of the head-adjunct structure is the same as the content of the verb, except

that the restriction expressed by the noun is uni ed with the restriction associated with the selected argument. This ensures that the number and gender features of the noun match the number and gender features encoded in the agreement markers for the selected argument. The representation for (25) is the combination of (27) with (28) by the ID rule in (24). The synsem value of the result is given in (29). (29)

2

2

3

3

HEAD verb 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 SUBJ 7 hi 6 CAT 7 6 7 6 7 6 COMPS h i 7 6 7 4 5 6 7 6 7 ARGS h NP: 5 , NP: 6 i 6 7 2 37 6 " # 6 7 ACT 2 6 7 6 NUCLEUS 77 6 6 77 6 UND 3 7 buy-rel 6 CONT 6 i h h i 57 4 4 5 RESTR f 5 INST 2 [1s ] , 6 INST 3 [3sN ] g bed-rel

The feature structure in (29) is the nearly the same as that in (27). The dierence is in the adjunct NP further speci ed the psoa in the verb's restriction set associated with the undergoer role. Nothing about this analysis requires that the adjuncts be nouns. In Mohawk, NP modi ers can appear freely without any overt nominal head, as in (30). (30) ka- rakv thikv 3n- white that `That is white.'

(Baker 1991, ??) 21

They serve the same purpose as an overt noun, namely, to restrict the reference of the argument index. Mithun (1987a) argues that demonstratives in Iroquoian languages perform a semantic function similar to that of English demonstratives, but are dramatically dierent syntactically. She claims that though they form a closed class, they \do not function as speci ers, nor do they mark syntactically dependent structures". The same seems to be true of numerals and relative clauses. Baker argues that overt nominals are in adjunct positions on the basis of the lack of binding and extraction asymmetries between subjects and objects. While particular formulations of the binding theory vary widely, any version will have to allow coreference in (31a) but rule it out in (31b). (31) a. John 's knife helped him . b.*He broke John 's knife. In Baker's analysis, this contrast follows from principle C of the binding theory, which is de ned in terms of the con gurational notion of c-command. The equivalent principle in HPSG, paraphrased in (32a), is derived in terms of the non-con gurational notion of o-command, de ned recursively in (32b). (32) a. A non-pronoun Y must not be coindexed with an NP Z if Z o-commands Y. b. Given referential synsem objects Y and Z, Y o-commands Z i Y precedes Z on a head's args list, or Y o-commands some X that contains Z on its args list, or Y o-commands some X which is a phrasal projection of Z. In (31a), him does not o-command John, so coreference is permitted. In (31b), on the other hand, he precedes the phrase headed by knife on the args list of break. In addition, John is on the args list of knife, so he o-commands John and coreference is prohibited. Examples like (33) show that principle C holds in Mohawk as well as English. In (33a), there is no o-command relationship between Sak and him, so coreference is allowed. In (33b), though he o-commands Sak, and coreference is prohibited. hrewaht- e' (33) a. wa- honakuni- ' tsi Sak wa- hifact- NsS/MsO - anger punc that Sak fact- 1sS/MsO- punish- punc `That I punished Sak made him mad.' (Baker 1991, 543) hrewaht- e' b. wa- shakohrori- ' tsi Sak wa- hifact- MsS /FsO- tell- punc that Sak fact- 1sS/MsO- punish- punc `He told her that I punished Sak .' (Baker 1991, 543) However, in the Mohawk equivalents of (31), given in (34), no such asymmetry is found. (34) a. ro- ya'takehnha- s Sak rao- a'share' MsO - helphab Sak MsP- knife `Sak 's knife helps him ' (Baker 1991, 544) i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

j

i

i

i

i

22

b. wa'- t- ha- ya'k- e' Sak rao- a'share' fact- dup- MsS - break- punc Sak MsP- knife `He broke Sak 's knife.' (Baker 1991, 544) This suggests that there is no o-command relation between the nominal phrases in (34), which in turn means that the nominal phrases do not appear on the args list of the verb. The semantic analysis of agreement proposed here also provides a natural explanation for the dierence between nominal and phrasal complements in Mohawk re ected in (33) and (34). Sentential complements must be subcategorized for, while nominal complements never are subcategorized for. This follows from the sortal restrictions on what kinds of objects can ll the roles of a relation. Consider a relation like tell-rel. Some of its roles, such as the actor, expect to be lled by a nominal index. Under this analysis, that nominal index is supplied by the pronominal pre xes. Other roles, undergoer (the thing told), expect to be lled by a something like a proposition (in this analysis, a psoa ). The only way such a role can be lled is with a real subcategorized-for sentential complement. Another subject/object asymmetry that Baker (1991) argues is not found in Mohawk is the one predicted by the Condition on Extraction Domains. Restrictions on the domain of extraction are similar in Mohawk and in English. Compare the examples in (35) with their English equivalents. (35) a. uhka ihs- ehre' v- ye- atya'tawi- tsher- a- hninu- ' who 2sS- think fut- FsS- dressnom- buy- punc `Who do you think t will buy a dress?' (Baker 1991, 551) b.*uhka wa'- te- s- ahsvtho- ' ne tsi wa'- e- ihey- e' who fact- dup- 2sS- crypunc because fact- FsS- die- punc `Who did you cry because t died?' (Baker 1991, 551) Extract of a wh word from a complement is acceptable, but extraction of the subject is not. Similarly, extraction of a wh word from a sentential complement, but not from a sentential subject, is permitted. Pollard and Sag (1994) and Fodor and Sag (1994) present a lexically-based theory of extraction. Brie y, they argue that the `gap' of a long-distance dependency is created by a lexical rule which removes an element from the comps list of a verb and places it on the slash list. The slash value is propagated up the tree (by the Non-local Feature Principle) until the dependency is satis ed by the slash-binding phrase structure schema. The asymmetry in (35) is accounted for by the Subject Condition, given in (36). i

i

i

i

(36) Subject Condition The initial element of a lexical head's args list may be slashed only if that list contains another slashed element (Pollard and Sag 1994, 350). 23

In (35b), the rst element of the args list of wa'eiheye' `(she) died' has a non-empty slash value, in violation of (36). Unlike English, however, Mohawk shows no dierences in the acceptability of extraction out of an NP, as shown in (37). (37) a.*uhka se- nuhwe'- s ne ako- kara' who 2sS- like- hab ne FsP- story `Whose story do you like?' (Baker 1991, 553) b.*uhka we- sa- tsituni- ' ne ako- kara' who fact- 2sO- make.cry- punc ne FsP- story `Whose story made you cry?' (Baker 1991, 554) In the analysis of Mohawk presented here this lack of asymmetry follows directly from the fact that overt nominals in Mohawk are in adjuncts and not arguments coupled with the Slash Inheritance Principle, given in (38). (38) Slash Inheritance Principle Every member of the slash set on a headed constituent must be inherited from a daughter that is either (a) subcategorized for by a substantive head, or (b) the head (Pollard and Sag 1994, 186). This principle plays a role similar to that of the Condition on Extraction Domains in Baker's (1991) GB analysis. It blocks the propogation of a slash value from the adjunct NP ne akokara' `(her) story' thus predicting the ungrammaticality of the sentences in (37).

2.4 Noun Incorporation

The mechanisms described in the preceding two sections provide the basis for an HPSG analysis of noun incorporation. Conceptually, noun incorporation is a device for combining a verb root with a noun root which semantically restricts the reference of one of the verb's arguments. In terms of the analysis presented here, it creates a morphologically complex verb base. To accommodate morphologically complex verb bases in structures like (21), we need to further classify vb objects, as in (39). (39)

vb-agr s-vb

vb-morph

o-vb

s-s-vb

t-vb

o-s-vb

simple-vb

t-s-vb

complex-vb

s-c-vb

24

Verb bases are classi ed by the agreement patterns they trigger and by their morphological structure. The value of stem in (21) is not only of sort s-vb (i.e., a verb base triggering subject agreement), but is also of sort simple-vb. Note that a simple-vb need not be morphologically simple. It may consist of a verb root together with verb root suxes. It may not, however, include an incorporated noun root. A transitive verb typically shows agreement with both its subject and its direct object, as in (40a). However, Baker (1994) reports that when the direct object is incorporated, as in (40b), the verb only shows subject agreement. (40) a. shakonuhwe'- s ne owira'a MsS/FsO- likehab ne baby `He likes them (babies).' (Baker 1994) b. ra- wir- a- nuhwe'- s MsS- baby- join- likehab `He likes babies.' (Baker 1994) This generalization is represented in (39) by the fact all objects of the sort complex-vb are also objects of the sort s-vb; i.e., complex verb bases trigger subject agreement. We also need to identify the semantic contribution of the incorporated noun root in the verb base. The semantic content of a noun root is the same, whether it appears in an overt noun phrase or in a verb base. The only dierence is in its syntactic properties. The only lexical information that needs to be stored for a noun root is its morphological form and the semantic restriction that it imposes on an index, as in (41). 2

(41) PHON 6 6 6 4

hnakt i 2

SYNSEMjCONT

bed-rel

bed-nr

4

INST

index

3 "

PER 3 GEN neut

#37 7 57 5

The rest of the syntactic, semantic, and phonological information in the representation of a full noun (e.g., as in (28)) can be inherited from the standard constraints that apply to all full nouns. The noun root in (41) speci es the agreement features of the index that it can restrict, but not all noun roots will specify them fully. For example, the noun root -ya't`body' is compatible with any index value. The semantic restriction contributed by the noun root will be composed with the semantics of the verb by the constraint associated with the sort complex-vb, given in (42). (42) 2 PHON 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4

complex-vb

1 + 3

*"

3 #

"

#+

7 PHON 1 3 7 PHON 7 STEM , 7 SYNSEM j CONT 2 SYNSEM 4 7 simple-vb inc-vr 2 3 2 3 7 7 7 NUCLEUSjUND 5 h 6 7 i 557 SYNSEM 4 4 CONT 4 RESTR 5 f 2 INST 5 ,. . . g

25

This constraint represents the general restrictions on noun incorporation. A complex verb base consists of an incorporable noun root and a morphologically simple verb base (noun incorporation is not iterative). The syntactic and semantic properties of the complex verb base are the same as those of the simple verb base, with the additional restriction that the undergoer role of the arguments of the verb is semantically restricted by the incorporated noun root. The morphological form of the complex verb base is the concatenation of the noun root and the simple verb base. To return to our example, the version of (25) to which noun incorporation has applied is given in (43). (43) wa'- ke- nakt- a- hninu' fact- 1sS- bed- join- buy `I bought a bed.' (Bonvillain 1973, 77) The only dierence between (25) and (43) is that the noun nakt `bed' appears as part of the verb base rather than as an external adjunct. Its semantic role in the sentence is the same: it restricts the reference of the argument of the verb. The representation of (43) is also the same as the representation of (25) (in (27)). The only dierence is the value of the stem feature, which is replaced with the complex structure in (44). (44) 2 PHON 6

1 + 3 = hnakthninu' i *" " # #+ 6 PHON 1 hnakt i 3 hhninu' i PHON 6 STEM , 6 6 buy-vb SYNSEM 4 bed-nr SYNSEMjCONT 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 SYNSEM 6 6 6 6 6 4

s-c-vb

2

2

3

SUBJ h i 6 6 7 6 CAT 4 COMPS h i 5 6 6 6 ARGS hNP: 5 , NP: 2 i 6 2 " # 4 66 ACT 6 6 6 NUCLEUS 6 6 CONT 6 6 6 buy-rel UND 6 h i h 4 4 RESTR f 5 INST 6 , 2 INST 7 bed-rel

3 7 7 7 i 5

g

3 7 7 7 7 7 37 7 7 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 57 5

The noun root/verb base complex has the same properties as the bare verb base, except that the phonological form is dierent and there is an additional restriction uni ed into the semantic representation of the verb. A verb base formed by noun incorporation behaves like any other verb base in Mohawk. Once it is in ected (by the constraint in (22)), it is free to combine with an NP adjunct to form a `doubled object' clause. Since the restriction contributed by the adjunct NP gets uni ed with the restriction already in the verb base, the external NP must be semantically compatible with the incorporated noun root. The restriction on doubling in Mohawk is actually somewhat stronger than that: the external NP must be give more speci c information that the incorporated noun root. This can be enforced by a pragmatic requirement, based 26

on Grice's Maxim of Quantity, that the restriction expressed by the external NP be strictly subsumed by the restriction expressed by the incorporated noun root. The relations expressed by noun stems are hierarchically organized, and noun roots are classi ed as to whether or not they undergo incorporation. `Classi er' incorporation then is easily accounted for: since not all noun roots are incorporable, a speaker of Mohawk may have to turn to a more general relation (one higher in the hierarchy of nominal relations) which is incorporable.7 Also, two dierent noun stems, with two dierent phonological forms, can inherit the same relation. If one allows incorporation and one does not, then cases like the Oneida -atsyv-/-ks- `dishes', where the incorporated form is apparently unrelated to the overt noun root, can be represented. In (42), the semantic, syntactic, and morphological properties of the complex verb base are inherited from the verb base and the noun root in a transparent way. However, as was argued in rst section, any of that information can be overridden by lexical idiosyncrasies. For example, in (45a), the verb base is semantically irregular, and in (45b), the verb base is morphologically irregular. (45) a. wa- ha- 'nikuhl- o:ktv fact- 3mS- mind- lack `He became discouraged (lit: he lacked mind).' (Bonvillain 1974, 24) b. wa'- t- k- at- kah- kwek- e' fact- dup- 1sS- srl- eye- shut- punc `I closed my eyes.' (Michelson 1990, 75:Oneida) The verb base -'nikuhlo:ktv- `become discouraged' is syntactically and morphologically regular, but it is semantically non-compositional. The lexical representation for this verb base will look like (46). (46) 2 PHON 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4

'nikuhloktv-vb

STEM

3

1 + 2 = hnikuhloktv i i h iE PHON 1 h'nikuhl' i , PHON 2 hoktv i 777

Dh 2

2

3

3

SUBJ h i 6 6 7 6 CAT 4 COMPS h i 5 6 6 6 ARGS h NP: 3 i SYNSEM 66 2 i h 6 NUC 4 UND 6 discourage-rel 6 CONT 6 h 4 4 RESTR f 3 INST 4

7 7 7 7 7 37 7 7 77 i 57 5

g

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5

In the case of kahkweke' `close eyes', the representation should look like (47). 7

A similar technique for resolving translation mismatches is proposed by Kameyama, et al. (1991).

27

(47) 2 PHON

3

hkahkweke' i

Dh i h 6 6 STEM SYNSEMjCONT 2 , SYNSEM 1 6 2 6 2 3 6 SUBJ h i 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 COMPS h i 7 6 CAT 6 D E 4 5 6 6 6 6 , NP ARGS NP 3 4 6 6 6 6 2 # " 6 SYNSEM 1 6 6 6 3 ACT 6 6 6 NUC 6 6 6 CONT 6 4 6 6 close-rel UND 6 6 i h 4 4 4

RESTR

kahkweke'-vb

f2 eye-rel

INST 4

iE

g

3 7 7 7 5

7 7 7 37 7 7 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 55

Ideally, only the anomalous information about these verb bases would be stored in their lexical entries. Whatever is predictable about the verb bases should be inherited from the appropriate super-type. This can be represented by a further partition of the sort complex-vb into regular and irregular complex verb bases. Given the basic framework assumed here, there are two approaches to this kind of irregularity that can be taken. Riehemann (1993) approaches the problem from the point of view of the regularities that can be found. Applying that method to this problem, we would de ne three kinds of complex verb bases: semantically regular, morphologically regular, and syntactically regular verb base. Completely regular complex verb bases, such as -naktahninu'`bed-buy', would be subtypes of all three types, and would inherit the constraints associated with all three types. Verb bases which are somehow irregular would be subtypes of (and inherit constraints from) only some of the regular types. For example, -'nikuhlo:ktv- `become discouraged' is morphologically and syntactically regular, but not semantically regular. An alternative is to approach the problem from point of view of the kinds of irregularities that are found. That is, we can de ne a sort which characterizes regular complex verb bases, and then de ne sorts for the irregular cases which deviate from the regular case in wellde ned ways. This has the advantage of allowing a simple characterization of the \regular" case and of being more in line with traditional linguistic analyses. While it is possible to present such an analysis in a monotonic subsumption hierarchy, it is more natural to give it a non-monotonic presentation. Using default uni cation, we can de ne a further partition of complex-vb as in (48). The sort complex-vb is as it was de ned above, with the constraint given in (42). (48)

vb-morph simple-vb hninus'-vb

complex-vb sem-irr-c-vb 'nikuhloktv-vb

morph-irr-c-vb nakthninus'-vb kahkwek-vb

28

The lexical speci cations associated with deviant types need only provide information that is not predictable. Anything that is predictable will be inherited from a higher type. For example, the lexical entry for -'nikuhlo:ktv- `become discouraged' is given in (49). Feature values marked with `!' will override any default speci cation. (49) 2 STEM

'nikuhloktv-vb

hmind-nr,

lack-vb i 2 3 2 6 6 SUBJ hi 6 6 7 6 6 6 CAT 7 6 COMPS h i 6 6 5 4 6 

6 6 ARGS NP 6 SYNSEM !6 3 6 6 2 6 h 6 6 6 NUC UND 3 6 6 4 CONT 4discourage-rel 4 RESTR f g

3 37 7 77 77 77 77 77 77 i377 77 77 557 5

Similarly, the lexical entry for kahkweke' `close eyes' would be as in (50). (50) " PHON !hkahkweke' i

kahkweke'-vb

#

STEM heye-nr, close-vb i

When combined by default uni cation with the general constraints associated with noun incorporation, (42), the lexical entry for nikuhloktv in (49) yields (46), and the lexical entry for kahkweke' given in (50) yields (47). In addition, since 'nikuhloktv-vb and kahkweke'-vb are sub-types of complex-vb, they will take pronominal pre xes and behave generally like any other complex verb base. Only their internal structure is anomalous.

3 Consequences

3.1 Some additional arguments

Baker (1994) has presented three arguments against the kind of lexical analysis presented by DiSciullo and Williams (1987) and Rosen (1989). However, these arguments make speci c assumptions about the syntactic theory in which a lexical analysis is embedded. In this section I will try to show that the analysis I have presented here does not share those assumptions and that, divorced from those assumptions, the facts reported by Baker (1994) do not in fact weigh against a lexical analysis of noun incorporation. The rst argument Baker presents is based on the object agreement facts shown in (40). In Mohawk, while a transitive verb typically shows agreement with both its subject and its direct object, verbs only show subject agreement when the direct object is incorporated. Baker proposes a straightforward account of this contrast. Since under a syntactic analysis the direct object of a verb with no incorporated noun is a pro while the direct object of a verb with an incorporated noun is a t, the data in (40) can be explained by a licensing condition requiring the cooccurence of a pro object and object agreement morphology. Under 29

the lexical analysis Baker is arguing against, all transitive verbs with or without an incorporated noun have a pro direct object, so this contrast seems more mysterious. However, Baker's licensing condition on pro objects is just one way of implementing his descriptive generalization repeated in (51). (51) Polysynthesis Parameter Every theta role of an X0 must be related to a morpheme in the word containing that X0 . This morphosyntactic generalization can be implemented in various ways in either a syntactic or a lexical analysis of noun incorporation. By itself, it does not help distinguish between the two. In addition, this apparently is an idiosyncratic fact about Mohawk. In other languages which allow noun incorporation, direct object agreement markers and incorporated nouns are not in complementary distribution. Under the present analysis, (51) is encoded in the lexical sort hierarchy in (39). The second argument oered by Baker (1994) is based on disjoint reference eects in Mohawk. Consider the data given in (52). (52) a. rabahbot yah tha'- te- yo- atvhutsoni ne uhka a- yehninubullhead not con- dup- ZsS- want ne someone opt- FsS/NsO- buy' punc

`The bullhead doesn't want anyone to buy it.' (coreferent) (Baker 1994) b. rabahbot yah tha'- te- yo- atvhutsoni ne uhka a- yehninubullhead not con- dup- ZsS- want ne someone opt- FsS/NsO- buy' ne ka- its- u punc ne pre- sh suff `The bullhead doesn't want anyone to buy sh.' (disjoint) (Baker 1994) c. rabahbot yah tha'- te- yo- atvhutsoni ne uhka a- yeits- hninubullhead not con- dup- ZsS- want ne someone opt- FsS/NsO- sh- buy' punc

`The bullhead doesn't want anyone to buy sh.' (disjoint) (Baker 1994) In (52a), the object of the embedded clause may be interpreted as coreferent with the subject of the matrix clause. In (52b) and (52c), however, the object of the embedded clause may only be interpreted as disjoint with the subject of the matrix clause. Baker assumes a standard formulation of Principle C of the Binding Theory, namely that \an NP is interpreted as disjoint in reference from any non-pronoun which it c-commands." This principle correctly predicts the properties of (52a) and (52b). However, Baker argues, the failure of coreference in (52c) only follows from Principle C if noun incorporation is 30

syntactic. If noun incorporation is a lexical process, then there is no syntactically relevant level at which the object of the embedded clause in (52c) is a non-pronoun, and (52c) should be analogous to (52a). Baker's argument depends crucially on a con gurational conception of the binding theory. If one adopts the non-con gurational binding theory of Pollard and Sag (1994) discussed above, Baker's argument does not follow. The HPSG binding theory is sensitive to argument structure, not con gurational structural. Under the lexical analysis of noun incorporation presented here, (52b) and (52c) have identical argument structures (i.e., args values). Given this conception of the binding theory, the lack of coreference in (52c) is completely consistent with a lexical analysis. Baker's third argument is based on extraction of wh words. The relevant examples are given in (53). (53) a. t- v- ke- wir- a- hkw- e' ne ka- wir- iyo dup- fut- 1sS- baby- join- pick.up- punc ne pre- baby- nice `I will pick up the nice baby.' (Baker 1994) b.*uhka t- v- hse- wir- a- hkw- e who dup- fut- 2sS- baby- join- pick.up- punc `Who are you going to pick up (a baby)?' (Baker 1994) In (53a), the incorporated noun root is `doubled' by an overt nominal. As (53b) shows, however, this external double cannot be extracted. Under a movement analysis of incorporation, this fact can be explained quite naturally: the derivation of (53b) would require movement of -wir- `baby' and uhka `who' from the same D-structure position. A lexical analysis, Baker argues, would need to make an unmotivated stipulation that verbs with an incorporated noun cannot take a wh word as a direct object. Alternatively, the unacceptability of (53b) may be a result of the incompatibility of the discourse functions of noun incorporation and question formation. Noun incorporation is a backgrounding device, while wh movement focuses the questioned element. In any case, this does not present any technical diculty to the analysis presented in this paper. As argued in chapter 9 of Pollard and Sag (1994) and by Sag and Fodor (1994), wh movement is itself founded in a lexical process. Since extraction is a lexical process, it is not surprising that it should interact with other lexical processes (in particular, noun incorporation). So, the three kinds of data cited by Baker to show the syntactic nature of noun incorporation only do so under a speci c set of assumptions. In HPSG, phenomena like binding and extraction, previously assumed to be syntactic, have been reanalyzed as being primarily lexical. Therefore, the fact that they interact with noun incorporation cannot be used as an argument that incorporation must be syntactic.

3.2 A cross-linguistic perspective

While the proposal presented here is intended only as an analysis of Mohawk noun incorporation, it is interesting to consider how it could be extended to cover other languages. In her 31

proposal for a lexical analysis of noun incorporation, Rosen (1989) identi es two major types of noun incorporation. The rst type, `classi er' noun incorporation, is the type discussed here. In this type of language, incorporation does not change the transitivity of the verb, and as a result modi er stranding and object doubling are allowed. Under the analysis presented here, modi er stranding and object doubling are a result of the non-con gurational headmarking nature of Mohawk and not the operation of noun incorporation itself. Baker (1994) makes the plausible speculation that all languages which allow classi er noun incorporation are, like Mohawk, of the non-con gurational head-marking type. If this is indeed the case, then the lexical analysis of noun incorporation presented in the previous section should also be applicable to other languages which allow classi er incorporation. In the second type of language that Rosen considers, `compound' noun incorporation does change the transitivity of the verb. The incorporated object satis es an argument position, and therefore stranding and doubling are not permitted. These languages, including Samoan, Tongan, and Ponapean, are not non-con gurational head-marking languages. Verbs in these languages, in contrast to Mohawk, do subcategorize for overt NP arguments. Compound noun incorporation could be treated as a lexical process which, like classi er noun incorporation, adds information about the direct object to the semantics of the verb. But, unlike classi er noun incorporation, compound noun incorporation also removes the rst item from the comps list, rendering the verb intransitive. A third type of language, exempli ed by Southern Tiwa, is problematic for Rosen's analysis. Southern Tiwa is like Mohawk in that noun incorporation does not change the transitivity of the verb and `stranded' modi ers are allowed. Southern Tiwa diers from Mohawk, though, in that it does not allow an incorporated noun root to be `doubled' by an external NP. Rosen hypothesizes that an incorporated noun root in Southern Tiwa imposes so stringent a selectional restriction on the direct object that no overt NP can ever meet them: \thus, the selectional restrictions would forbid doubling, rather than the rule of noun incorporation" (307). The analysis of noun incorporation that I have presented here allows that notion to be made more precise. Recall that what permits doubling in Mohawk is the organization of nominal relations into a subsumption hierarchy. This allows a speci c relation expressed by an external NP to be uni ed with a more general relation expressed by an incorporated noun root. Perhaps in Southern Tiwa nominal relations are not so organized. Then any attempt to unify restrictions that express dierent relations would fail, regardless of their semantic similarity. Doubling by an exact copy of the incorporated noun could be blocked by a Gricean principle similar to the one proposed for Mohawk. So, the apparent anomalous character of classi er noun incorporation in Southern Tiwa may be the result of an underlying dierence in lexical organization and not in the process of noun incorporation itself.

3.3 Conclusions

One common thread that runs through current syntactic research is a drive toward a uni ed account of morphosyntactic processes. In a lexicalist theory like HPSG, this shift has taken the form of renewed interest in the structure of the lexicon at the expense of more traditional 32

syntactic representations. As one recent paper states: The other part of this program.. . is to show how \uninteresting" our beloved syntax actually is. This involves making speci c assumptions about the general nature of lexical items that, so to say, \predict syntax." I believe the crucial reason why syntactic representations tend to be underdetermined by the lexicon is that most theories are extremely neutral as to what kinds of objects lexical items are. Given this neutrality, the choice of syntactic tools is extremely free, so the \laws" of syntax turn out to be rather independent of \lexical substance". (Szabolcsi 1992, 242)

In a parallel development, with the rise of functional projections and incorporation theory, the trend in recent GB work has been to treat everything as a syntactic process. Baker sums up this position. I have argued. . . that most or all of productive, semantically transparent polysynthetic word building should be analyzed as syntactic incorporation rather than as lexical operations on predicate-argument structures. This raises the question of what is left in the lexicon besides a list of the basic formatives and idiosyncratic combinations of a given language. The answer seems to be at least \less that has usually been thought recently", and the door stands open to the stronger claim \nothing at all". . . [W]e return to the older position that the lexicon is simply the repository of exceptional and partially arbitrary elements of the language. (Baker 1988b, 30)

Clearly both positions cannot be correct. What I have attempted to do in this paper is show that it is plausible that Mohawk noun incorporation, the cornerstone of syntactic word formation theories, can be comfortably accommodated in a radically lexicalist framework.

33

Bibliography

Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, Mark. 1988a. Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Baker, Mark. 1988b. Morphology and syntax: an interlocking independence. In Martin Everaert, Arnold Evers, Riny Huybregts, and Mieke Trommelen (Eds.), Morphology and Modularity, 9{32. Dordrecht: Foris. Baker, Mark. 1991. On some subject/object non-asymmetries in Mohawk. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9:537{576. Baker, Mark. 1994. Classi er incorporation: morphology or syntax? Paper presented at Stanford University, March 4. Barwise, Jon, and Robin Cooper. 1991. Simple situation theory and its graphical representation. Indiana University and Edinburgh University. Beatty, John. 1974. Mohawk Morphology. Greeley, Colorado: Museum of Anthropology, University of Northern Colorado. Boas, Franz. 1911. Handbook of American Indian Languages. Vol. 40 of Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of American Ethnology. chapter Introduction, 1{83. Bonvillain, Nancy. 1973. A Grammar of Akwesasne Mohawk. Ottawa: National Museums of Man. Bonvillain, Nancy. 1974. Noun incorporation in Mohawk. In Michael Foster (Ed.), Papers in Linguistics from the 1972 Conference on Iroquoian Research, no. 10 in Mercury Series, 18{26, Ottawa. National Museum of Man. Bonvillain, Nancy. 1985. A note on ne'. International Journal of American Linguistics 51:349{351. Bonvillain, Nancy. 1989. Noun incorporation and metaphor: semantic process in Akwesasne Mohawk. Anthropological Linguistics 31:173{194. Bonvillain, Nancy, and Beatrice Francis. 1980. The bear and the fox. In Marianne Mithun and Hanni Woodbury (Eds.), Northern Iroquoian Texts, 77{95. University of Chicago Press. Bouma, Gosse. 1993. Nonmonotonicity and Categorial Uni cation Grammar. PhD thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Cooper, Robin. 1991. A working person's guide to situation theory. Edinburgh University. 34

Davis, Anthony. in preparation. Linking and the Hierarchical Lexicon. PhD thesis, Stanford University. Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria, and Edwin Williams. 1987. On the De nition of Word. Cambridge: MIT Press. Flickinger, Daniel. 1987. Lexical Rules in the Hierarchical Lexicon. PhD thesis, Stanford University. Halle, Morris. 1990. An approach to morphology. In Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, Vol. 20. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distrbuted morphology and the pieces of in ection. In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (Eds.), The View frrom Building 20, 111{176. MIT Press. Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case, and con gurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2:39{76. Kameyama, Megumi, Ryo Ochitani, and Stanley Peters. 1991. Resolving translation mismatches with information ow. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 193{200. Kasper, Robert. 1994. Adjuncts in the Mittelfeld. In J. Nerbonne, K. Netter, and C. Pollard (Eds.), German Grammar in HPSG. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kathol, Andreas. 1994. On agreement in HPSG. Ohio State University. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 3{91. Hanshin Publishing Co. Krieger, Hans-Ulrich, and John Nerbonne. 1993. Feature-based inheritance networks for computational lexicons. In Ted Briscoe, Ann Copestake, and Valeria de Paiva (Eds.), Inheritance, Defaults, and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1908. Noun incorporation in American languages. In Franz Heger (Ed.), XVI Internationaler Amerikanisten-Kongress, 569{576, Vienna. A. Hartleben. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1911. Incorporation as a linguistic process. American Anthropologist 13:577{584. Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge: MIT Press. Michelson, Karin. 1983. A Comparative Study of Accent in the Five Nations Iroquoian Languages. PhD thesis, Harvard University. Michelson, Karin. 1990. The Oneida lexicon. In BLS 16: Special Session on General Topics in American Indian Linguistics, 73{84. Berkeley Linguistics Society. 35

Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Linguistics 60:847{894. Mithun, Marianne. 1987a. The grammatical nature and discourse power of demonstratives. In BLS 13, 184{194. Berkeley Linguistic Society. Mithun, Marianne. 1987b. Is basic word order universal? In R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, 281{328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mithun, Marianne. 1991. Active/agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 67(3):510{546. Nunberg, Georey, Ivan A. Sag, and Thomas Wasow. 1994. Idioms. Language. Orgun, Orhan. 1994. Monotonic cyclicity and Optimality Theory. UC Berkeley. Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag. 1987. Information-based Syntax and Semantics. CSLI Publications. Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago Press and CSLI Publications. Postal, Paul. 1962. Some Syntactic Rules in Mohawk. PhD thesis, Yale University. Pullum, Georey, and Arnold Zwicky. 1991. A misconceived approach to morphology. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Vol. 10. Riehemann, Susanne. 1993. Word formation in lexical type hierarchies. Master's thesis, Universitat Tubingen. Rosen, Sara Thomas. 1989. Two types of noun incorporation: a lexical analysis. Language 65:294{317. Sag, Ivan A., and Janet D. Fodor. 1994. Extraction without traces. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Vol. 13. Sag, Ivan A., Lauri Karttunen, and Jerey Goldberg. 1992. A lexical analysis of Icelandic case. In Ivan A. Sag and Anna Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical Matters, 301{318. CSLI Publications. Sapir, Edward. 1911. The problem of noun incorporation in American Indian languages. American Anthropologist 13:250{282.  Skorik, I. P. 1977. Grammatika Cukotskogo Jazyka. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk. Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Swanton, John R. 1900. Morphology of the Chinook verb. American Anthropologist ns 2:199{237. 36

Szabolcsi, Anna. 1992. Combinatory grammar and projection from the lexicon. In Ivan A. Sag and Anna Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical Matters, 241{268. CSLI Pulications. Van Valin, Robert. 1987. The role of government in the grammar of head-marking languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 53:371{397. Van Valin, Robert. 1992. Incorporation in Universal Grammar: a case study in theoretical reductionism. Journal of Linguistics 28:199{220. Wilhelm, Andrea. 1993. Noun incorporation in Northern Athapaskan. Paper presented at 1993 LSA meeting. Williams, Marianne Mithun. 1974. Word order in Tuscarora. In Michael Foster (Ed.), Papers in Linguistics from the 1972 Conference on Iroquoian Research, no. 10 in Mercury Series, 27{35, Ottawa. National Museum of Man. Williams, Marianne Mithun. 1976. A Grammar of Tuscarora. New York: Garland. Woodbury, Hanni. 1975. Noun Incorporation in Onondaga. PhD thesis, Yale University.

37