In TłĮchǫ Yatı̨ı̀ (Dene, aka Athapaskan), copulas appear obligatorily with adjectives predicated of animate subjects, but are barred from appearing with adjectives predicated of inanimates. I propose that this asymmetry arises from a requirement to realize grammatical agreement for person, and that animate nouns alone bear a person feature. Unlike verbs, adjectives in this language cannot inflect; hence copulas are inserted in adjectival predicates as a rescue strategy to avoid ungrammaticality.
This article examines an asymmetry in the behaviour of predicative adjectives in
Tłı̨chǫ Yatıı̀ (also known as Dogrib), a
Dene (Athapaskan) language of the Northwest Territories, Canada. Although, as in
other Dene languages, the majority of property predicates are expressed with stative
verbs, there is a small class of adjectives that have distinct properties. Only a
subset of these adjectives can occur as predicates, and when they do they sometimes
occur with a copula. Although the occurrence of copulas with predicative adjectives
may appear to be optional, I argue that this is not the case. Copulas are obligatory
with adjectives predicated of animate subjects and barred with those predicated of
inanimate subjects:
(1)
Copulas and adjectives
a.
Chekoa edı elı̨.
chekoa
child
[edı
warm/feverish
Ø-lı̨]
‘The child is feverish.’ (MLBW 2009)
b.
*Chekoa edı.
chekoa
child
edı
warm/feverish
(Intended: ‘The child is feverish.’) (MLBW 2009)
c.
Įxę̀ę edı.
ı̨xę̀ę
yesterday
edı
warm/feverish
‘Yesterday was warm.’
d.
*Įxę̀ę edı elı̨.
ı̨xę̀ę
yesterday
[edı
warm/feverish
Ø-lı̨]
(Intended: ‘Yesterday was
warm.’) (MLBW
2009)
I argue that animate subjects bear a formal person feature that inanimates lack, and
that the copula that appears with adjectival predicates realizes these features
inflectionally, a requirement of the grammatical system that I formalize as a
constraint. This realization is otherwise impossible to fulfill due to
adjectives’ lack of inflection.
The article’s arguments are couched in the framework of Minimalism (
I supplement this view of agreement with a constraint requiring all Φ-features, whether interpretable or uninterpretable, to be checked. That is, an unmatched feature, even if interpretable, will cause the derivation to crash.
Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì (formerly known as Dogrib) is a Dene language spoken in the communities of the Tłı̨chǫ Government and in nearby Yellowknife, Ndilǫ and T’èʔehdaà (Dettah), Northwest Territories.
In common with other Dene languages, Tłı̨chǫ
Yatıì has SOV constituent order and a highly synthetic verbal morphology
showing both subject and object agreement. The verb consists of a monosyllabic stem
to which are prefixed numerous inflectional and derivational morphemes, in general
also monosyllabic.
An example of a representative Tłı̨chǫ verb appears in (2).
(2)
Verb morphology in Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì
Naxısınıyats’eehtı.
naxı-
2
sınì-
ya-
ts’e-
1
e-
Ø-
h-
tı
speak.
‘We judge you.’ (MLBW 2012)
This verb is inflected for subject and object agreement and aspect and has two
lexical portions: the thematic prefixes
As can be seen by comparing the morpheme-by-morpheme gloss with the word,
Tłı̨chǫ verbal morphology is highly fusional.
(3)
Simplified glossing for verbal morphology
Naxısınìyats’eehtı.
naxı-
2
sınìya-
ts’eeh-
tı
judge.
‘We are judging you.’ (MLBW 2012)
Rich systems of verbal agreement morphology are pervasive within the Dene language family. However, in contrast, there exists a class of predicates in Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì that is uninflecting, hosting no aspect or agreement morphology. The class of predicative adjectives in Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì reveals facts about agreement and predication that provide a window into the realization of Φ-features.
Adjectives in Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì are a small lexical
class.
There are reliable diagnostics for distinguishing adjectives from stative verbs (which also denote properties) and from adverbs (which also are uninflected).
Most concepts expressed in English by adjectives are expressed in Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì by stative verbs. Nevertheless, adjectives do exist as a class, and can act either as predicates or as modifiers of nouns. They can be distinguished readily from stative verbs by their lack of inflectional morphology.
In (4) we can see that the adjectives
(4)
Adjectives contrasted with stative verbs
a.
Eya ehłı̨ t’à, edı ehłı̨.
[eya
sick/painful
[edı
warm/feverish
h-lı̨]
t’à,
because
‘Because I’m sick, I’m feverish.’ (MLBW 2009)
b.
Įxę̀ę eya ı̨lè.
ı̨xę̀ę
yesterday
[eya
sick/painful
‘Yesterday he was sick.’ (MLBW 2009)
c.
Edza dìì!
edza
cold
dìì
really
‘[The weather] is really cold!’ (MS 2007)
d.
Neyatıì ehkw’ı ha hǫt’e.
ne-yatı-ì
2
ehkw’ı
correct
ha
hǫt’e
‘Your words must be
correct.’ (MLBW
2012)
e.
Etedeht’ı̨.
etede-
‘I am poor.’ (MLBW 2009)
f.
Tł’àɂeh ełèak’à.
tł’àɂeh
pants
ełè-a-
‘The pants are wrinkled.’ (TCSA 2007)
It is lack of inflection both for agreement and for aspect that sets adjectives apart from verbs.
Adjectives are distinguished from the class of adverbs by occurring as
complements only of copulas and the psych verb
(5)
Properties of adjectives
a.
Eyı ts’èko sìı ahxe elı̨.
eyı
ts’èko
woman
sìı
‘That woman is rich.’ (MLBW 2009)
b.
Edza ts’ı̨hwhǫ.
edza
cold
‘We think it’s cold.’ (MLBW 2009)
c.
*Į̀ı̨̨̀zhaı wegaat’ı̨.
Į̀ı̨̨̀zha
shy
we-gaa-Ø-t’ı̨
3.
(Įntended: ‘She looks shy.’) (MLBW 2009)
d.
Gıgha hoı̨zı̨ laànì gıgaat’ı̨.
gı-gha
3
ho-ı̨-zı̨
laànì
like
gı-gaa-Ø-t’ı̨
3
‘They look like they enjoy
it.’ (
e.
Ezhı̨ ehlı̨.
‘I’m crazy.’ (MLBW 2009)
f.
Computerghǫezhı̨ laàht’e.
ezhı̨
crazy
laà-h-t’e
like-
‘I’m crazy about computers.’ (MLBW 2009)
g.
Dıı sı̀ı godı deèdlı̨ı̨ hǫt’e.
dıı
sìı
deèdlı̨ı̨
hǫ-t’e
‘This is a real story.’ (MLBW 2009)
h.
Dzęedzaanìhòkw’ı ha.
nì-hò-kw’ı
ha
‘Cold days will
come.’ (MLBW
2009)
i.
Eyı nı̨htł’èkǫ̀ hǫt’e.
eyı
nı̨htł’èkǫ̀
ha-ı̨-t’e
‘That is the school.’ (MLBW 2009)
The morphological and selectional criteria outlined above allow us to identify the following (almost certainly not exhaustive) list of adjectives.
Note that morphosyntactic criteria alone can identify these adjectives. Semantic
relatedness is not characteristic of them as a class: they do not correspond to
any of the semantic classes that have often been considered canonical, and
“typically associated with both large and small adjective classes”:
Adjectives in Tłı̨cho Yatıì.
rich/capable | skinny and long | ||
warm/feverish | tightly packed | ||
cold (weather) | smelly | ||
correct | youngest | ||
different/foreign | sharp/wedge-shaped | ||
sick/painful | funny/strange | ||
crazy | cool/hip | ||
raw | original/canonical | ||
naked | real/worthy | ||
shy/ashamed | fresh |
(6)
Adjectives versus stative verbs
a.
Ahxe ehłı̨.
ahxè
rich
h-lı̨
‘I am rich.’ (MLBW 2009)
b.
Į̀ı̨̀zhaı ehłı̨.
ı̨̀ı̨̨̀zha
shy
h-lı̨
‘I am shy.’ (MLBW 2009)
c.
Etedeht’ı̨.
etede-h-t’ı̨
’I am poor.’ (MLBW 2009)
d.
Sezha gıghǫ xàhohdì.
se-zha
1
gı-ghǫ
3
xàho-h-dıì
‘I’m proud of my children.’ (MLBW 2009)
Only a subset of the adjectives in Table
(7)
Attributive-only adjectives
a.
łèwò ı̨lıa
[łè-wò
flour-skin
ı̨lıa]
tightly.packed
‘a tightly packed flour sack’
*‘The flour sack is tightly packed.’ (MS 2009)
b.
t’asìıts’ıì mąą
[t’asìıts’ıì
garbage
mąą]
smelly
‘smelly garbage’
*‘(The) garbage is smelly.’ (MS 2009)
c.
tłı̨a nǫǫdea
[tłı̨-a
dog-
nǫǫdea]
youngest
‘the youngest puppy’
*‘The puppy is the youngest.’ (MLBW 2009)
d.
*Tłı̨a nǫǫdea elı̨.
tłı̨-a
dog-
[nǫǫdea
youngest
Ø-lı̨].
(Intended: ‘The puppy is the youngest.’) (MLBW 2009)
e.
datı nǫ̀ǫht’ò
[datı
needle
nǫ̀ǫht’ò]
sharp/wedge-shaped
‘a sharp-sided needle’ (e.g., a leather needle)
*‘The needle is sharp-sided.’ (MS 2009)
f.
dıı bò sǫǫ̀łı̨ı̨
[dıı
bǫ̀
meat
sǫǫ̀łı̨ı̨]
authentic/original
‘this authentic meat’
*‘This meat is authentic.’ (MS 2009)
The rest, to varying degrees, are acceptable as predicates; however, only the
P(redicative)-adjectives in Table
Common P-adjectives.
ahxe | rich | eya | sick/painful |
edı | warm/feverish | ezhı̨(ne) | crazy |
edza | cold | ı̨̨̀ı̨̨̀zha | shy/ashamed |
ehkw’ı | correct |
In the next section, we will look at the occurrence of copulas with P-adjectives, demonstrating that a copula appears with such an adjective if and only if the subject is animate.
While adjectives are a small class, and P-adjectives smaller still, they are disproportionately illuminating for our picture of agreement and predication in Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì. There is an asymmetry in the behaviour of adjectival predicates; this asymmetry occurs when P-adjectives occur either as predicates or as modifiers, and gives us a window into the agreement mechanisms of the language, and subject-predicate relations in general.
Recall from section 3 that while adjectives bear no inflectional morphology, such morphology does occur on copulas that appear with adjectival predicates:
(8)
Inflection on copulas with adjectival predicates
a.
Eya ehłı̨ t’à, edı
[eya
sick/painful
[edı
warm/feverish
h-lı̨]
t’à,
because
‘Because I’m sick, I’m feverish.’ (repeated from (4a))
b.
Įxę̀ę
eya
ı̨xę̀e
yesterday
[eya
sick/painful
‘Yesterday he was sick.’ (repeated from (4b))
A question that naturally arises is why the copula appears in some cases, such as those in (8a, b), but not in others (9a, b).
(9)
Bare adjectival predicates
a.
Selakw’ǫǫ̀hazǫǫ̀ eya (*elı̨/ *gı̨̨ı̨lı̨).
[se-lakw’ǫǫ̀ hazǫǫ̀]
1
eya
sick/painful
‘My fingers are all sore.’ (MLBW 2009)
b.
Dıı dzęę̀ edza (*elı̨).
[dıı
dzęę̀]
day
edza
cold
‘Today is cold.’ (MLBW 2009)
The clauses in (9) clearly demonstrate that uninflected P-adjectives are capable of being predicates without the support of a copula. What forces the appearance of a copula in (9a, b)?
As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, copulas appear with P-adjectival
predicates if and only if the subject of the clause is animate.
(10)
Copulas and animate subjects
a.
Chekoa į̀į̀zha
chekoa
child
[į̀į̀zha
shy
dìì
really
‘The children are really shy.’ (MS 2007)
b.
*Chekoa į̀į̀zha dìì.
chekoa
child
[̨į̀ìzha]
shy
dìì
really
(Intended: ‘The children are really shy.’) (MS 2007)
c.
Tłı̨ eya elı̨.
tłı̨
dog
[eya
sick
Ø-lı̨]
‘The dog is sick.’ (MLBW 2009)
d.
*Tłı̨ eya.
tłı̨
dog
eya
sick
(Intended: ‘The dog is sick.’) (MLBW 2009)
In (11) and (12) the presence or absence of the copula determines the interpretation. The inclusion of the copula forces an animate interpretation, as in (11a) and (12a), whereas the bare adjectives in (11b) and (12b) are interpreted as predicated of inanimate subjects (a body part or the weather, respectively).
(11)
Copulas and subject animacy
a.
Eyaelı̨.
eya
sick
Ø-lı̨
‘S/he is sick.’ (MLBW 2009)
b.
Sı̨là eya.
se-là
1
eya
sick/painful
‘My hand hurts.’ (MLBW 2009)
(12)
Copulas and subject animacy (continued)
a.
Edı elı̨.
edı
warm/feverish
Ø-lı̨
‘S/he has a fever.’ (MS 2007)
b.
Edı.
edı
warm/feverish
‘The weather is warm.’ (MS 2007)
Conversely, if the subject is inanimate, the inclusion of a copula is ungrammatical, as in (13). Bare adjectival predicates (a) are the only option when the subject is inanimate, and P-adjectival modifiers of inanimate nouns must likewise be bare (c). Adding a copula makes the sentence ungrammatical (b, d).
(13)
Adjectives and copula support
a.
Godı deèdlı̨.
[godı
story
‘a real story’
deèdlı̨]
real
/
[godı]
story
‘The story is real.’
[deèdlı̨]
real
(MLBW 2009)
b.
*Godı deèdlı̨
godı
story
[deèdlı̨
real
(Intended: ‘The story is real.’) (MLBW 2009)
c.
Dıı bò weelı̨.
dıı
‘this fresh meat’
[bò
[meat
weelı̨]
fresh/pure]
/
[dıı bò]
[
‘This meat is fresh.’
[weelı̨]
[fresh/pure] (MLBW 2009)
d.
*Dıı bò weelı̨
dıı
bò
meat
weelı̨
fresh/pure
(Įntended: ‘This meat is fresh.’) (MLBW 2009)
Copulas, then, are necessary for P-adjectival predication of animate subjects, and barred for inanimate subjects. The next section demonstrates that this fact is also true when P-adjectives are relativized and used to modify nouns.
All verbs and predicative adjectives in Northern Dene languages can be turned
into modifiers by the addition of a derivational suffix, which in
Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì takes the form of an extra
mora on the final vowel:
(14)
Modification derived from predication
a.
behchı̨ı̨̀ k’èdı̀ı dǫǫ̀
‘driver’ (
b.
Dzę edzaa nı̀ı̨ɂǫ ha.
dzę
day
edza-μ
cold-
nı̀ı̨-ǫ
ha
‘Cold days will come.’ (MLBW 2009)
Just as in predication, a P-adjective modifying an animate noun requires the appearance of a copula, in which case the extra mora appears on the copula instead of on the adjective itself.
Thus (15a, c), where copulas appear with adjectives modifying the animate nouns
(15)
Ungrammaticality of bare AP predicates of animate subjects
a.
Eyı chekoa
ı̨̀ı̨̀zha
[eyı
ha
chekoa
child
ne-ne-wǫ-le
ı̨̀ı̨̀zha
shy
go-Ø-de
‘That shy child doesn’t want to speak.’ (MLBW 2009)
b.
*Eyı chekoa ı̨̀ı̨̀zhaa gode ha nı̨wǫ-le.
[eyı
ha
chekoa
child
ne-ne-wǫ-le
ı̨̀ı̨̀zha-μ]
shy-
go-Ø-de
(Intended: ‘That shy child doesn’t want to speak.’) (MLBW 2009)
c.
Dǫ ezhı̨
[dǫ
person
ezhı̨
crazy
eyı
kǫ̀
house
nà-Ø-de
‘The crazy person lives in that house.’ (MLBW 2009)
d.
*Dǫ ezhı̨ı̨ eyı kǫ̀ nàdè.
[dǫ
person
ezhı̨-μ]
crazy-
eyı
kǫ̀
house
nà-Ø-dè
(Intended: ‘The crazy person lives in that house.’) (MLBW 2009)
In (16), we see that the converse is also true: copulas are ungrammatical with
P-adjectives modifying the inanimate nouns
(16)
Ungrammaticality of copulas with AP predicates of inanimate subjects
a.
Bò ı̨ht’ee ladà ka wheɂǫ.
[bò
meat
ı̨ht’e-μ]
raw-
ladà ka
table on
whe-ɂǫ
‘The raw meat is lying on the table.’ (MLBW 2009)
b.
*Bò ı̨ht’e
[bò
meat
ı̨ht’e
raw
ladà
table
ka
on
whe-ɂǫ
(Intended: ‘The raw meat is lying on the table.’) (MLBW 2009)
c.
Dzęę̀ edzaa nìhòkw’ı ha.
[dzęę̀
day
edza-μ]
cold-
nìhò-Ø-kw’ı
ha
‘Cold days will come.’ (MLBW 2009)
d.
*Dzęę̀ edza
[dzęę̀
day
edza
cold
nìhò-Ø-kw’ı
ha
(Intended: ‘Cold days will come.’) (MLBW 2009)
Since modification by P-adjectives or relative clauses is derived from predication, it is unsurprising that the asymmetry in modificational P-adjectives should parallel that in predicational ones.
The role of the copula with P-adjectives is the same whether the adjective is used as a predicate or a modifier: the copula rescues the clause from ungrammaticality by providing inflectional realization of features for an uninflecting adjective. The next section proposes that this asymmetry has its origin in two conditions of the language: a requirement to realize the Person features of subjects in agreement morphology, and the presence of such features only on animate nouns.
The rich morphological system of verbs in Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì, like those of other Dene languages, marks agreement with the person and number of subjects and objects. I propose, however, that agreement is not manifested with inanimate nouns, and that this fact is explained by a lack of Person on such nouns.
Agreement with a verb’s subject is marked in the affixal region immediately to the left of the verb stem, as in (17). However, as mentioned in section 3.1.1, this marker is a zero morpheme for third-person singular subjects, as in (17b).
(17)
Verbal subject agreement
a.
Bògǫǫ̀ ghǫ shèhtı̨.
bò-gǫǫ̀
meat-dry
ghǫ
of
shè-
‘I’m eating drymeat.’ (MS 2009)
b.
Sechı bògǫǫ̀ ghǫ shètı̨.
se-chı
1
bò-gǫǫ̀
meat-dry
ghǫ
of
shè-
‘My younger brother is eating drymeat.’ (MS 2009)
Zero-marking of third person singular subjects occurs whether the subject is animate, as in (18a), or inanimate, as in (18b).
(18)
Third-person animate and inanimate subjects
a.
Nıgolà tedaàwò.
nıgolà
Nicholas
te-da-è-wò
water-up-
‘Nicholas fell into the water.’ (ANON 2013)
b.
Kwe tedaàwò.
kwe
rock
te-da-è-wò
water-up-
‘The rock fell into the water.’ (ANON 2013)
The immediate impression that one receives from this is that agreement with all third- person subjects is null, regardless of animacy. This is incorrect, however: there are discernable differences between the facts of agreement with inanimates and with animates. Third-person animate plural subjects trigger overt agreement (19a, c), while inanimates do not (19b, d):
(19)
Agreement with plural subjects
a.
Eyı dǫ sı̨làı tegeètł’ı.
[eyı
dǫ
person
sı̨làı]
five
te-
water-
‘Those five men fell into the water.’ (ANON 2013)
b.
Eyı kwe sı̨làı teètł’ı.
[eyı
kwe
rock
sı̨làı]
five
te-
water-
‘Those five rocks fell into the water.’ (ANON 2013)
d.
Eyı tsı sı̨làı edzǫhǫt’e.
[eyı
tsı
tree
sı̨làı]
five
edzǫ
black.spruce
ha-
‘Those five trees are black spruces.’ (ANON 2013)
This fact continues to hold, as we would expect, when verbal predicates are relativized to serve as modifiers. In (20) we see that relativized verbs have plural subject agreement when modifying an animate noun (20a), but not when modifying an inanimate noun (20b).
(20)
Plural agreement in relativized verbal predicates
a.
dǫ nàke dèè k’e eghàlageedaa sìı
[dǫ
person
nàke]
two
dèè
land
k’e
eghàla-
sìı
FOC
‘two men working in the field’ (
b.
Dechı̨ gedı̨ı̨ sekǫ̀ ga nàèyaa sìı
[dechı̨
tree
k’edıı̨]
eight
se-kǫ̀
1
ga
beside
nà-
sìı
‘eight trees that stood next to my house’ (AW 2012)
It appears then that plural agreement can only be realized inflectionally with the animate subject of a verb, whether that verb is used predicationally or modificationally.
This is also true of the subjects of adjectival predicates, save that the obligatory plural agreement appears on an inserted copula rather than on the adjective:
(21)
Adjectival predicates and plural agreement
a.
Selakw’ǫǫ̀hazǫǫ̀ eya (*elı̨/ *gı̨̨ı̨lı̨).
[se-lakw’ǫǫ̀hazǫǫ̀]
1
eya
sick/painful
‘My fingers are all sore.’ (MLBW 2009)
b.
Chekoa hazǫǫ̀ eya (*elı̨) gı̨ı̨lı̨.
[chekoa
child
hazǫǫ̀]
all
eya
sick/painful
‘The children are all sick.’ (MLBW 2009)
We have a further parallel, then, between verbal and adjectival modification,
just as between verbal and adjectival predication, the distribution of the
copula mirroring the distribution of plural number agreement, as shown in Table
Verbal and adjectival predication and modification.
Predicate type |
|||
---|---|---|---|
VP | AP | ||
Animate | plural agreement-V | A + plural agreement-copula | |
Inanimate | V | A | |
Relativized clause | Adjective | ||
Animate | plural agreement-V | A + plural agreement-copula-μ | |
Inanimate | V | A-μ |
We have seen that inanimates do not trigger plural subject agreement. In
fact, it is arguable that the majority of inanimates cannot trigger person
agreement at all. It goes without saying that in ordinary discourse,
inanimate nouns cannot be first or second person. However, when an
artificial context is created in which inanimate nouns are apostrophized as
the personifications of natural forces, treating them as animate and
agentive entities, second-person agreement may become acceptable, but with
only a small subset of inanimates.
(22)
Apostrophizing inanimates: verbal subject agreement
a.
Sade, dıı dzęę̀ k’e nàı̨tso!
sade
sun
dıı
dzeę
day
k’e
nà-
‘Sun, you are bright (lit. ‘strong’) today!’ (MLBW 2012)
b.
Whǫ, danıghǫ nàahtso?
whǫ
star
danıghǫ
why
nà-
‘Stars, why are you bright (lit. ‘strong’)?’ (MLBW 2012)
In the same artificially coerced context, copulas, marked for second-person subject agreement, appear with adjectival predicates:
(23)
Apostrophizing inanimates: adjectival predicates and copulas
a.
Dzę eyıts’ǫ tòò, danıghǫ eładı̨ı̨ aaht’e?
dze
day
eyıts’ǫ
and
tòò,
night
danıghǫ
why
eładı̨ı̨
different
‘Day and night, why are you different?’ (MLBW 2012)
b.
Xok’è, dàanìghǫ edza nelı̨?
xok’è
winter
dàanìghǫ
why
edza
cold
‘Winter, why are you so cold?’ (MLBW 2012)
c.
Zah, dàanǫ edza nelı̨?
zah
snow
dàanǫ
why
edza
cold
‘Snow, how come you’re cold?’ (AW 2012)
It is apparently the case that inanimate nouns never trigger subject agreement in normal contexts; even in artificially coerced contexts where second person is assigned to an inanimate subject, only a subset of inanimates trigger verbal subject agreement. Inanimates appear to differ qualitatively from animates with respect to subject agreement. Similar facts obtain for object agreement, as we will see in the next section.
The marking of agreement with direct objects shows similar patterns to those of subject agreement, with animacy playing a crucial role.
Direct object agreement occurs leftward of aspect marking and subject agreement, as in (24).
(24)
Direct object agreement
a.
Tsà ehɂı̨ nı̨dè, wehk’è-a.
tsà
beaver
h-ɂı̨
nı̨dè
if
ha
‘If I see a beaver, I will shoot it.’ (AW 2012)
There are several markers of third-person direct object agreement.
(25)
Object marking by
a.
Tsà wehɂı̨ nè, wehk’è-a.
tsà
beaver
weh-ɂı̨
nè
if
‘If I see a beaver, I will shoot it.’
b.
Jıèk’o naèdì, ıhɂà.
jıèk’o
orange
na-èh-dì
ıh-ɂà
‘I bought an orange and ate it.’ (AW 2012)
c.
*Jıèk’o naèdì, wıhɂà.
jıèk’o
orange
na-èh-dì
we-ıh-ɂà
3.
(Intended: ‘I bought an orange and ate
it.’)
Third-person plural animate objects are marked by
(26)
Object marking by
a.
Gısınìyaahtì nı̨dè, ededı sìı naxesınìyagetı ha.
nı̨dè
if
ededı
3
sìı
naxe-sı̨nìya-ge-tı̨
2
ha
‘If you judge them, they will judge you.’ (MLBW 2011)
b.
Segha ełexèyıhtà ha.
se-gha
1
ełe-xè-
ha
‘She is going to add them together for me.’
(
c.
*Segha ełexègıhtà ha.
se-gha
1
ełe-xè-
ha
‘She is going to add them together for me.’ (MLBW 2011)
The only direct object agreement markers that may refer to inanimate objects are
the class of anaphors, of which there are several in
Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì: the reflexive, reciprocal,
and disjoint. The first needs no explanation here. The second indicates a plural
object coindexed with a plural subject where the verb has an interpretation of
mutuality (27). The third indicates an object that is
(27)
Anaphoric object marking: reciprocal
a.
Dałets’eeke.
da-ełe-ts’ee-ke
‘We asked each other.’ (
b.
Behchı̨ı̨̀ ełenìdǫǫ̀ łeetła.
behchı̨ı̨̀
vehicle
ełe-nìdǫǫ̀
łe-e-tła
‘The vehicles met each other head-on.’ (
(28)
Anaphoric object marking: disjoint
a.
Wek’èèt’ı̨ı̨ ełàyıhwhı sǫ̀ǫ̀!
wek’èèt’ı̨ı̨
laziness
ełà-
sǫ̀ǫ̀
‘May she/he not be lazy!’ (Lit.,
laziness had better not kill him/her!) (
b.
Madlę̀ gozì nıìchì, Mıshè ts’ǫ̀ yeèk’a.
Madlę̀
Madeleine
gozì
ball
nı-ì-chì
Mıshè
Michel
ts’ǫ̀
to
‘Madeleine took the ball and threw it to Michel.’ (AW 2012)
c.
Madlę̀ gozì nàke nıìle, Mıshè ts’ǫ̀ yeèdè.
Madlę̀
Madeleine
gozì
ball
nàke
two
nı̨-ì-le
Mıshè
Michel
ts’ǫ̀
to
‘Madeleine took two balls and threw them to Michel.’ (AW 2012)
Notice that the anaphors in these examples are compatible with both animate (27a,
28a) and inanimate (27b, 28b, c) objects. Therefore we can say that whereas the
other object agreement markers impose an animacy restriction on the objects to
which they refer, the only restrictions affecting anaphors are those of
coindexing. The properties of the object agreement markers are summarized in
Table
Restrictions on object markers.
Object marker | Restrictions | ||
---|---|---|---|
3rd person; non-3rd person subject | animate object | ||
3rd person; non-3rd person subject | animate object | plural | |
coindexed with subject | |||
coindexed with subject | mutuality | ||
3rd person; 3rd person subject |
Inanimate nouns may not be referred to with the direct object markers
In Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì, as in other Dene languages,
postpositions may show inflection for the person and number of their arguments.
This fact is demonstrated in (29), where a first- person singular pronominal
argument of
(29)
Postpositional object marking
a.
Dıı kw’à segha daı̨ka.
dıı
kw’à
plate
da-ı̨-ka
up-
‘Hold us this plate for me.’ (
b.
Gıgha gokwı̨ nanek’à.
gokwı̨
axe
na-ne-k’à
‘File the axe for them.’ (
The arguments of the postpositions in (29) are animate. Inanimates do not trigger the number marking that we see in (29b), and in fact third-person plural marking is ungrammatical when referring to inanimate arguments:
(30)
Ungrammaticality of plural PP object agreement with inanimates
a.
Naxı̨ tsekoa gıgà naahza nì dè, tsekoa gıɂį̨̀ı̨ naahza nì dè?
naxı̨
2
[tsekoa
child
gı-gà]
3
na-aah-za
nì
dè
or
[tsekoa
child
gıɂį̀ı̨̨]
3
na-aah-za
nì
dè
or
‘Are you all beside the children or behind them?’ (AW 2012)
b.
Naxı̨ dechı̨ wegà naahza nì dè, dechı̨ gıɂį̨̀ı̨ naahza nì dè?
naxı̨
2
[dechı̨
tree
we-gà]
3-beside
na-aah-za
nì
dè
or
dechı̨
[tree
gıɂį̀ı̨̨
3
na-aah-za
nì
dè
or
‘Are you all beside the trees or behind them?’ (AW 2012)
c.
*Naxı̨ dechı̨ gıgà naahza nì dè, dechı̨ gıɂį̨̀ı̨ naahza nì dè?
naxı̨
2PL
[dechı̨
tree
gı-gà]
3
na-aah-za
nì
dè
or
[dechı̨
tree
gıɂį̀ı̨̨]
3
na-aah-za
nì
dè
or
(Intended: ‘Are you all beside the trees or behind them?’) (AW 2012)
We see, therefore, that not only are inanimate nouns uniquely underprivileged in the subject and object agreement systems, but as objects of postpositions as well.
The data in the previous section have shown that inanimate nouns pattern in a way radically different from animates. Animates, but not inanimates, may trigger plural agreement for subject and object on the verb and for objects of postpositions. A small subclass of inanimates referring to natural forces may trigger second person agreement on verbs when apostrophized in artificially coerced contexts, but the great majority of inanimates do not.
Since Benveniste (
In recent years it has been recognized that this picture requires finer-grained
distinctions. Béjar (
Animate nouns can be speakers, listeners or referents, while inanimates are ordinarily restricted to being referents. This fact hints at a basic semantic difference between the two. In Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì, this semantic difference is reflected in morphological and syntactic structure: animates can trigger various morphological inflections for person and number that inanimates cannot.
I posit the system in Figure
Feature geometry.
This geometry expands upon that of Harley & Ritter (
The facts presented in this paper might lead one to suppose that inanimate nouns
also lack Number. While this is a tempting analysis, I believe that it is
incorrect. The Dene system of classificatory verbs, by which sets of contrasting
suppletive verb roots are distinguished according to the properties of their
subjects or objects, is sensitive to the number of subjects and objects, even
when these are inanimate nouns. I therefore conclude that the absence of
The system in Figure
Inflectional number marking is directly dependent upon the [
The presence of copulas in adjectival predicates of animate subjects and their absence from such predicates of inanimate subjects can be explained by a lack of Person features on inanimates, as discussed in the previous section. The current section explores the reasons for the insertion of copulas (rather than another verb) and the probable locus of insertion.
The Personlessness of inanimate nouns would have no consequences for predicates unless there were a requirement for Person, if present, to be realized in agreement. I formulate this requirement as in (31):
(31)
Morphological Realization:
Φ-features must be realized in agreement morphology at spellout.
If (31) is a correct description of the principles at work, we expect that the semantic contribution of any element inserted to satisfy Morphological Realization must be minimal or zero; otherwise, the compositional semantics of predicates of animate and inanimate subjects would differ, which does not appear to be the case. That being so, the semantically minimal element that is capable of hosting Φ-agreement must be a copula, as any other verb has more complex semantics.
A question that arises is where in the clause structure this insertion occurs.
Word-order data can resolve this question. It is clear that the copula, when it
is present, is inserted inside TP, because it occurs before future and modal
marking in linear order:
(32)
Copula insertion inside TP
a.
Chekoa į̀į̀zhaelı̨ ha.
chekoa
child
shy/ashamed
Ø-lı̨
ha
‘The child will be shy/ashamed.’ (MLBW 2009)
b.
Eyaelı̨ welè!
eya
sick/painful
Ø-lı̨
welè
‘Let him be sick!’ (AW 2012)
The next question is whether the copula is merged with the adjective at A (amounting to incorporation), or in some intervening projection. The first cannot be correct. Copulas in this language are fully verbal, with inflection for aspect and Φ-agreement. This suggests a merger at v or higher, if v is a category-forming head that forms verbs (
On the other hand, merging them at v or Asp yields the result that their aspect and agreement inflection occurs outside of A, in accordance with the facts.
The locus of morphological agreement seems to be Asp rather than T in this language. As we have remarked already (sections 2 and 6.1), aspectual marking is typically fused with subject agreement marking; tense marking is not. Since copulas with AP predicates realize agreement morphology, and since word-order evidence points to their insertion inside TP and outside AP, I conclude that they are merged in Asp, as in Figure
Locus of copula insertion.
Adjectives pose a unique problem to the computational system of Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì in being unable to agree with the Person feature that is proper to animate subjects. Copulas are therefore inserted at Asp in order to realize agreement morphologically. The failure of inanimate subjects to trigger inflectional person and number agreement on verbal predicates is paralleled by their failure to trigger the insertion of a copula (which, like other verbs, is marked for person and number agreement) with adjectival predicates.
Much recent work has assumed without comment that inanimacy is realized syntactically
by a lack of formal Person (e.g.,
The following abbreviations appear in the glosses: AR = areal; CJ = conjugation marker; CLF = classifier; COP = copula; DEM = demonstrative; FOC = focus; FUT = future; IPFV = imperfective; JUSS = jussive; OBJ = object; OPT = optative; PFV = perfective; PL = plural; POSS = possibility; PROH = prohibitive; RECP = reciprocal; REL = relativizer; SBJ = subject; THM = thematic prefix
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
The examples of Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì in this paper are presented in the practical orthography, which is roughly phonemic. With the exception of the following symbols, all letters have their IPA values, save that those that represent voiceless and voiced stops and affricates in English represent aspirated and unaspirated voiceless stops, respectively, in Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì. An apostrophe represents glottalization, an ogonek (ą) nasalization, and a grave accent (à) low tone. ch = [ʧʰ]; dz = [ʦ]; gw = [kʷ]; kw = [kʷʰ]; sh = [ʃ]; ts = [ʦʰ]; y = [j]; dl = [tɬ]; gh = [ɣ]; j = [ʧ]; ł = [ɬ]; tł = [t͜ɬʰ]; wh = [ʍ]; zh = [ʒ].
Whether the subject of this sentence is ‘yesterday’, or an expletive (with ‘yesterday’ as an adverbial), the subject is in any case inanimate.
Most examples in this paper are drawn from fieldwork with native speakers of
Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì in the Northwest Territories,
cited by consultants’ initials (AW = Archie Wedzin, MLBW = Marie-Louise
Bouvier White, MS = Mary Siemens), or by ANON for anonymous consultants. Other
data comes from the
In Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì (and languages of the Dene
family generally), there are in fact two copulas, which differ distributionally
in a manner akin to the SER/ESTAR distinction in Spanish and Portuguese.
Adjective support in Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì employs
only one of the copulas (
In many Dene languages, the stem consists of a monosyllabic root and suffixes
marking TAM distinctions. In Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì,
diachronic fusional processes have rendered stems morphologically opaque (
The latter two characteristics are directly contrary to Baker’s Mirror Principle (Baker, 1985), since the order of syntax is SOV while the order of morphology is OSV.
The classifier is a morpheme immediately left of the verb stem; it plays a
productive, though not entirely predictable, role in valency (
Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì is “the most
phonologically innovative of the Northeast Athabaskan languages… [and] the
most phonologically opaque” (
Aspect/mode is marked by two means: by affixation and by stem variation, as can be seen by the morpheme glosses in (2).
Though nevertheless not a closed class;
In Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì, explicit marking on verbs for the number of their third-person subjects is limited to the plural. Third-person verbs without plural subject marking are usually interpreted as singular, but under certain conditions may be interpreted as plural. For this reason I do not use “singular” in my glosses of third-person verb forms, such as the verb of (4b), but rather a plain “3”.
The vowel
The relationship between adjectives and copulas is not complementation in the selectional sense. Rather, as I claim in Section 5, copulas appear to realize φ-features borne by the subjects of adjectival predicates, features that cannot be marked on the adjectives themselves because of the lack of inflectional morphology discussed above.
The suffix glossed REL in (5h) is discussed in section 4.2.
I do not investigate these M(odifying)-adjectives in this paper, confining my analysis to predication.
I am grateful to Leslie Saxon for this observation (pc, 2006). Note that grammatical animacy is a category that varies from language to language and even from speaker to speaker. In the Northern Dene languages, nouns with human referents always trigger animacy effects; animals associated with humans, particularly dogs, generally do so as well. Nouns denoting other vertebrates trigger animacy effects for many speakers, including most of the consultants I have worked with; nouns denoting invertebrates and plants never do.
This suffix has the effect of relativizing predicates; see Saxon (
These “honorary animates” show other unusual syntactic behaviour as
well; see Rice & Saxon (
Other inanimates behave differently when apostrophized in this way. Most inanimate nouns trigger no subject agreement even in these contexts: a sentence like “Meat, why aren’t you cooked yet?” was judged ungrammatical by my consultants when the verb was inflected for second-person agreement. Both consultants whom I asked rephrased the sentence without agreement. Similarly, adjectival predicates of most inanimates did not trigger copula insertion, even in apostrophizing contexts.
Overt nominal objects do not generally trigger direct object agreement in this
language. “In the northern languages by and large, third-person object
inflection is in complementary distribution with an overt noun phrase
object” (
(25c) could only mean “I bought an orangei and ate himj” (Archie Wedzin, pc, 2012).
See Saxon (
There is another object marker
See Harley & Ritter (
We may tentatively add a fourth domain diachronically: in an earlier stage of the
language, and in other Northeastern Dene languages, plural animate nouns bore a
suffix
As indicated in footnote 17, section 4.1, the set of nouns that trigger the
animacy effects detailed in this paper varies from language to language within
the Dene family, and even intralinguistically from speaker to speaker. An
anonymous reviewer wonders whether the three main phenomena described and
analyzed here (verbal subject agreement, object agreement, and copula insertion
with adjectival predicates) might be sensitive to different categories for some
languages or speakers: for example, copula insertion might be triggered by nouns
referring only to humans, and subject agreement by those referring to humans and
animals. This may be so: in Dëne Sułıné, a close relative of
Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì, it is apparently possible to
say
I argue in a separate paper (
I am grateful to Marie-Louise Bouvier White, Mary Siemens, Archie Wedzin and two anonymous consultants for sharing their language with me, and to Susana Bejar, Bronwyn Bjorkman, Elizabeth Cowper, Keffyalew Gebregziabher, Arsalan Kahnemuyipour, Monica Irimia, Diane Massam, Will Oxford, Keren Rice, Elizabeth Ritter, Leslie Saxon and two anonymous reviewers for feedback and suggestions. Research for this article was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Doctoral Scholarship 752-2010-2724), the University of Calgary, the University of Toronto, the Northern Science Training Program, the Jacobs Research Funds, and the Phillips Fund for Native American Research.