Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9knnw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-02T17:08:03.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lexical Suffixes and the Position of Proto-Wakashan within theNorthwest Coast Linguistic Area

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Michael Fortescue
Michael Fortescue*
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is argued that the numerous “restrictive” lexical suffixestypifying the Wakashan languages today actually represent the result ofinfluence from neighbouring Salishan languages. The evidence for this lies intheir fluctuating status as lexical head or dependent within Wakashan as opposedto their typological normalcy in Salishan (where they simply modify the stem,the lexical head). A historical framework is suggested that would explain thisand a number of other divergences from typological expectations in Wakashan,namely a development from an earlier SOV (dependent-head) stage to VSO orderunder areal influence. From this perspective, the “governing”suffixes of the Wakashan languages (with no counterpart in Salishan) are in theexpected order vis-à-vis dependent stems. This has a bearing on thecontribution to the Northwest Coast areal mix made by individual languages in— or moving into — the area in prehistoric times.

Résumé

Résumé

Dans le présent article, on argue que les nombreux suffixes lexicaux« restrictifs » aujourd’hui caractéristiques deslangues wakashannes représentent en fait l’influence des languessalishannes avoisinantes. En wakashan, ces suffixes ont un statut variable : ilspeuvent agir comme tête lexicale ou comme dépendant. Dans lafamille salishenne, ils ne sont que de simples modifieurs du radical, latête lexicale. On propose un cadre historique pour expliquer cettesituation, ainsi que d’autres divergences typologiques, notammentl’abandon graduel, sous l’influence des langues avoisinantes,d’une étape précédente présentantl’ordre SOV (subordonné-tête). Dans cette perspective, lessuffixes « régissants » des langues wakashannes (quin’ont pas d’équivalents dans les langues salishennes) setrouvent dans l’ordre attendu vis-à-vis des radicaux régis,ce qui est pertinent pour bien comprendre les contributions à laconfiguration linguistique faites par les langues déjàétablies ou s’établissant sur la côte Nord-Ouestà l’ère préhistorique.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 27 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andrade, Manuel J. 1933. Quileute. In Handbook of American Indian languages, Part 3, ed. Boas, Franz, 149–292. Gliickstadt, Germany: J.J. Augustin.Google Scholar
Andrade, Manuel J. 1953. Relations between Nootka and Quileute. International Journal of American Linguistics 19:138–140.10.1086/464203Google Scholar
Austerlitz, Robert. 1991. Alternatives in long-range comparison. In Sprung from some common source: Investigation into the prehistory of languages, ed. Lamb, Sydney M. and Mitchell, E. Douglas, 357–364. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, David. 2000. Grammatical convergence and the genesis of diversity in the Northwest Coast Sprachbund. Anthropological Linguistics 42:147–213.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1911. The Kwakiutl Indian language. In Handbook of American Indian Languages, Part 1, ed. Boas, Franz, 423–557. Washington: The Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40.Google Scholar
Davidson, Matthew. 2002. Studies in Southern Wakashan (Nootkan) grammar. Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1989. The theory of functional grammar, Part 1: The structure of the clause. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 2006. Drift and the grammaticalization divide between Northern and Southern Wakashan. International Journal of American Linguistics 72:295–324.10.1086/509488Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 2007. Comparative Wakashan dictionary. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael, and Mackenzie, Lachlan. 2004. An acquisitional approach to disharmonic word-order/affixation pairings. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 2:31–71.10.1075/arcl.2.02forGoogle Scholar
Gerdts, Donna B. 1998. Incorporation. In Handbook of morphology, ed. Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold, 44–100. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archeologist’s field trip. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 7:394–415.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of language, ed. Greenberg, Joseph H., 58–90. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A., and Cutler, Anne. 1988. Psycholinguistic factors in morphological assymetry. In Explaining linguistic Universals, ed. Hawkins, John A., 280–317. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mattissen, Johanna. 2003. Dependent-head synthesis in Nivkh. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Donald. 1990. Prehistory of the coasts of southern British Columbia and northern Washington. In Handbook of American Indians, vol. 7, Northwest Coast, ed. Sutles, Wayne, 340–358. Washington, DC: Smithsonian.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The languages of native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nakayama, Toshihide. 1997. Discourse-pragmatic dynamism in Nuu-chah-nulth (Nootka) morphosyntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Nakayama, Toshihide, ed. 2003. Caroline Little’s Nuu-chah-nulth (Ahousaht) texts with grammatical analysis. Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim Publications Series A2-027. Osaka: Osaka Gakuin University.Google Scholar
Powell, Jay. 1993. Chimakuan and Wakashan, the case for remote common origin. University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10: American Indian Linguistics and Ethnography; In honor of Laurence C. Thompson, ed. Mattina, Anthony and Montler, Timothy, 451–470.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1938. Glottalized continuants in Navaho, Nootka, and Kwakiutl. Language 14:248–274.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward, and Swadesh, Morris. 1939. Nootka texts: Tales and ethnological narratives with grammatical notes and lexical materials. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Sherzer, Joel. 1976. Areal linguistics. In Native languages of the Americas, vol. 1, ed. Sebeok, T.A., 121–173. New York: Plenum Press.10.1007/978-1-4757-1559-0_6Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1979. Penutian: An assessment. In The languages of Native America: Historical and comparative assessment, ed. Campbell, Lyle and Mithun, Marianne, 650–691. Austin: University of Texas Press.10.7560/746244-013Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris. 1939. Nootka internal syntax. International Journal of American Linguistics 9:77–102.10.1086/463820Google Scholar
Swadesh, Morris. 1953. Mosan 1 : A problem of remote common origin. International Journal of American Linguistics 19:26–44.Google Scholar
Thompson, Laurence. 1979. Salishan and the Northwest. In The languages of Native America: Historical and comparative assessment, ed. Campbell, Lyle and Mithun, Marianne, 692–765. Austin: University of Texas Press.10.7560/746244-014Google Scholar
Thompson, Laurence, Thompson, M. Terry, and Egesdal, Steven. 1994. Sketch of Thompson, a Salishan language. In Handbook of Native American Indians, vol. 17, ed. Goddard, Ives, 609–640. Washington, DC: Smithsonian.Google Scholar
Wojdak, Rachel. 2003. Predicative lexical suffixes in Nuu-chah-nulth. In University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 11 : Papers for ICSNL XXXVIII: The 38th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, ed. Brown, J.C. and Kalmar, Michele, 275–289.Google Scholar