Abstract
Athapaskan verbal morphology appears to violate the Mirror Principle in multiple ways and, thus, the ordering of affixes in these languages has resisted a straightforward analysis. We adopt a new morphological tool of Iterative Root Prefixation, which allows for a more direct mapping from syntax to morphology in languages of this profile. Apparent violations of affix ordering that remain, namely the puzzling placement of the transitive and causative morphemes, are argued to be explained by overriding phonological constraints.
Funding source: SSHRC http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000155
Award Identifier / Grant number: 435-2015-0490
Award Identifier / Grant number: 435-2016-1331
Funding source: FRQSC
Award Identifier / Grant number: 2016-SE-188196
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank audiences at the McGill/UQAM Word Structure Research Group (Groupe de recherche sur le mot), especially Jurij Božič, Tom Leu, Heather Newell, and Máire Noonan, the mfm Fringe Meeting 2018, MOT 2018, and Mo-MOT 2019. Further thanks to Sharon Hargus, Heidi Harley, two anonymous reviewers, and especially Keren Rice, whose insights and vast Athapaskan knowledge have greatly improved this paper. All errors are, of course, our own.
-
Research funding: This research was funded by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grants 435-2015-0490 to Heather Goad (PI) and Lydia White and 435-2016-1331 to Lisa Travis (PI) and Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Société et culture (FRQSC) grant 2016-SE-188196 to Lydia White (PI) and colleagues.
References
Alderete, John & Tanya Bob. 2005. A corpus-based analysis of Tahltan stress. In Sharon Hargus & Keren Rice (eds.), Athabaskan prosody, 369–391. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.269.21aldSearch in Google Scholar
Andrews, Christina. 1988. Lexical phonology of Chilcotin. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16. 373–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/00253359.1985.10656046.Search in Google Scholar
Berkson, Kelly. 2013. Optionality and locality: Evidence from Navajo sibilant harmony. Laboratory Phonology 4. 287–337. https://doi.org/10.1515/lp-2013-0011.Search in Google Scholar
Causley, Trisha. 1994. Featural correspondence and consonant coalescence in Athapaskan. Ms. University of Toronto.Search in Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2014. Again on tense, aspect, mood morpheme order and the “Mirror Principle”. In Peter Svenonius (ed.), Functional structure from top to toe: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 9, 232–265. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199740390.003.0008Search in Google Scholar
Cook, Eung-Do. 1977. Syllable weight in three Northern Athapaskan languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 43. 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1086/465497.Search in Google Scholar
Cook, Eung-Do. 1979. Flattening and rounding in Chilcotin velars. In Barbara Efrat (ed.), The Victoria Conference on Northwestern Languages, 15–32. Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum.Search in Google Scholar
Cook, Eung-Do. 1983. Chilcotin flattening. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 28. 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008413100024075.Search in Google Scholar
Cook, Eung-Do. 1986. Ambisyllabicity and nasalization in Chilcotin.In Working papers for the 21st conference on Salish and neighboring languages, 1–6. Seattle: University of Washington.Search in Google Scholar
Cook, Eung-Do. 1987. An autosegmental analysis of Chilcotin flattening. In Anna R. K. Bosch, Barbara Need & Edward Schiller (eds.), Proceedings from CLS 23: Parasession of Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology, 51–65. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Search in Google Scholar
Cook, Eung-Do. 1989. Chilcotin tone and verb paradigms. In Eung-Do Cook & Keren Rice (eds.), Athapaskan linguistics, 145–198. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110852394-005Search in Google Scholar
Cook, Eung-Do. 1993. Chilcotin flattening and autosegmental phonology. Lingua 91(2–3). 149–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(93)90011-k.Search in Google Scholar
Cook, Eung-Do. 2013. A Tsilhqút’ín grammar. Vancouver: UBC Press.Search in Google Scholar
Crippen, James. 2019. The syntax of Tlingit verbs. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 555–595. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901753373005.Search in Google Scholar
Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax/ morphology interface. In Gillian C. Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.), Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0010Search in Google Scholar
Goad, Heather. 2002. Markedness in right-edge syllabification: Parallels across populations. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 47. 151–186. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008413100022933.Search in Google Scholar
Goad, Heather. 2012. sC clusters are (almost always) coda-initial. The Linguistic Review 29. 335–373.10.1515/tlr-2012-0013Search in Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew & Edmundo Luna. 2002. An intergenerational investigation of Hupa stress. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 105–117. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.10.3765/bls.v30i1.3426Search in Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2000. Locality and extended projection. In Peter Coopmans, Martin Everaert & Jane Grimshaw (eds.), Lexical specification and insertion, 115–134. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/cilt.197.07griSearch in Google Scholar
Guerssel, Mohamed & Jean Lowenstamm. 1990. The derivational morphology of the Classical Arabic verbal system. Ms. UQAM and Université de Paris 7.Search in Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 2001. Navajo verb stem position and the bipartite structure of the Navajo conjunct sector. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 678–693https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901753373041.Search in Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & Samuel Jay Keyser. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20, 53–110. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 20, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 2001. Theoretical and typological issues in consonant harmony. Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Hargus, Sharon. 1988. The lexical phonology of Sekani. New York: Garland Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Hargus, Sharon. 2007. Witsuwit’en grammar: Phonetics, phonology, morphology. Vancouver: UBC Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hargus, Sharon. 2010. Athabaskan phonetics and phonology. Language and Linguistics Compass 4. 1019–1040.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00245.xSearch in Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2011. Affixation and the Mirror Principle. In Raffaella Folli & Christiane Ulbricht (eds.), Interfaces in linguistics: New research perspectives, 166–186. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Howren, Robert. 1971. A formalization of the Athabaskan ‘D-effect’. International Journal of American Linguistics 37. 96–113. https://doi.org/10.1086/465144.Search in Google Scholar
Itô, Junko. 1989. A prosodic theory of epenthesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7. 217–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00205160.Search in Google Scholar
Kalin, Laura. 2020. Morphology before phonology: A case study of Turoyo (Neo-Aramaic). Morphology 30. 135–184.10.1007/s11525-020-09365-3Search in Google Scholar
Kari, James. 1976. Navajo verb prefix phonology. New York: Garland Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan. 1992. Do you believe in magic? The story of s+C sequences. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 2. 293–313.Search in Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, Jean Lowenstamm & Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1990. Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology 7. 193–231. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675700001184.Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 85–138.10.1017/S0952675700000397Search in Google Scholar
Krauss, Michael. 1964. Proto-Athapaskan-Eyak and the problem of Na-Dene: The phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 30. 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1086/464766.Search in Google Scholar
Krauss, Michael. 1965. Proto-Athapaskan-Eyak and the problem of Na-Dene II: Morphology. International Journal of American Linguistics 31. 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1086/464810.Search in Google Scholar
Krauss, Michael. 1975. Chilcotin phonology, a descriptive and historical report. Ms. University of Alaska.Search in Google Scholar
Lamontagne, Greg & Keren Rice. 1994. An optimality theoretic account of the Athapaskan D-effect(s). Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 340–350. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.10.3765/bls.v20i1.1439Search in Google Scholar
Li, Fang-Kuei. 1946. Chipewyan. In Cornelius Osgood (ed.), Linguistic structures of Native America 6, 398–423. New York: Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology.Search in Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1988. Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonological structure. In Michael Hammond & Michael Noonan (eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, 253–270. San Diego: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. 1986. OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 207–263. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001574-198603000-00006.Search in Google Scholar
McDonough, Joyce. 2000. On a bipartite model of the Athabaskan verb. In Theodore B. Fernald & Platero Paul (eds.), The Athabaskan languages: Perspectives on a Native American language family, 139–166. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
McDonough, Joyce. 2003. The Navajo sound system. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.10.1007/978-94-010-0207-3Search in Google Scholar
Montoya, Ignacio Lorenzo. 2017. Motivating morphological constituents: A learning-based analysis of Hebrew, Navajo, and Spanish. New York, NY: City University of New York dissertation. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2163 (accessed 17 June 2021).Search in Google Scholar
Newell, Heather. 2005. Bracketing paradoxes and particle verbs: A late adjunction analysis. In Sylvia Blaho, Luis Vicente & Erik Schoorlemmer (eds.), Proceedings of Console XIII. Leiden: University of Leiden.Search in Google Scholar
Newell, Heather. 2018. There are no bracketing paradoxes. The Linguistic Review.10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.589Search in Google Scholar
Özçelik, Öner. 2014. Prosodic faithfulness to foot edges: The case of Turkish stress. Phonology 31. 229–269.10.1017/S0952675714000128Search in Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne. 1991. Apocope and the licensing of empty-headed syllables. The Linguistic Review 8. 287–318.10.1515/tlir.1991.8.2-4.287Search in Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne. 2003. The phonotactics of a “Prince” language: A case study. In Stefan Ploch (ed.), Living on the edge: 28 papers in honour of Jonathan Kaye, 401–426. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110890563.401Search in Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne & Lisa deMena Travis. 2013. Adjuncts within words and complex heads. In Raffaella Folli, Christina Sevdali & Robert Truswell (eds.), Syntax and its limits, 157–174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199683239.003.0009Search in Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262162548.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1989. A grammar of Slave. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110861822Search in Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1990. Prosodic constituency in Hare (Athapaskan): Evidence for the foot. Lingua 82(2–3). 201–245.10.1016/0024-3841(90)90062-PSearch in Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1990. Prosodic constituency in Hare (Athapaskan): Evidence for the foot. Lingua 82. 201–245.10.1016/0024-3841(90)90062-PSearch in Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1993. The structure of the Slave (Northern Athabaskan) verb. In Sharon Hargus & Ellen Kaisse (eds.), Studies in lexical phonology, 145–171. San Diego: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-325071-1.50011-XSearch in Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1994. Laryngeal features in Athapaskan languages. Phonology 11. 107–147. https://doi.org/10.1017/s095267570000186x.Search in Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 2000. Morpheme order and semantic scope: Word formation in the Athapaskan verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511663659Search in Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 2003. On the syllabification of right-edge consonants – evidence from Ahtna (Athapaskan). In Stefan Ploch (ed.), Living on the edge: 28 papers in honour of Jonathan Kaye, 429–448. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar
Rice, Keren & Sharon Hargus. 2005. Introduction. In Sharon Hargus & Keren Rice (eds.), Athapaskan prosody, 1–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.269.03ricSearch in Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 1997. What moves where when in which language? Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2001. Movement in language: Interactions and architectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sandoval, Merton & Eloise Jelinek. 1989. The bi-construction and pronominal arguments in Apachean. In Eung-Do Cook & Keren Rice (eds.), Athapaskan linguistics: Current perspectives on a language family, 335–377. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110852394-010Search in Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward & Harry Hoijer. 1967. The phonology and morphology of the Navaho language, vol. 50. Berkeley: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar
Shaw, Patricia A. 1991. Consonant harmony systems: The special status of coronal harmony. In Carole Paradis & Jean-François Prunet (eds.), Phonetics and phonology 2: The special status of coronals, 125–157. San Diego: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-544966-3.50013-0Search in Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret. 1990. Phrase structure in natural language. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.10.1007/978-94-009-2045-3Search in Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret. 1991a. Functional heads and the inflectional morphemes. The Linguistic Review 8. 389–417. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1991.8.2-4.389.Search in Google Scholar
Speas, Margaret. 1991b. Functional heads and the Mirror Principle. Lingua 84. 181–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(91)90070-l.Search in Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa deMena. 1992. Two quirks of structure: Non-projecting heads and the Mirror Image Principle. Journal of Linguistics 28. 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700015309.Search in Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa deMena. 2010. Inner Aspect: The articulation of VP. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-90-481-8550-4Search in Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa deMena. 2011. Syntactic phases and late-adjunction: Evidence from Navajo morpho-phonology. In Raffaella Folli & Christiane Ulbricht (eds.), Interfaces in linguistics: New research perspectives, 187–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Tuttle, Siri. 1998. Metrical and tonal structures in Tanana Athabaskan. Seattle, WA: University of Washington dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Willie, Mary Ann. 1989. Why there is nothing missing in Navajo relative clauses. In Eung-Do Cook & Keren Rice (eds.), Athapaskan linguistics: Current perspectives on a language family, 407–437. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110852394-012Search in Google Scholar
Young, Robert W. & William Morgan. 1972. The Navaho language. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
