Auxiliaries and other Categories in Straits Salishan

Montler, Timothy

doi:10.1086/379680

Cited by 25 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whatever is the focus is turned into the matrix predicate. This is possible because Salish languages allow great predicate-argument flexibility (Kuipers 1968, Kinkade 1983, Jelinek and Demers 1994, Jelinek 1995; see also van Eijk and Hess 1986; Demirdache and Matthewson 1995; Matthewson 1999, 2009;Montler 2003;Davis 2012). This flexibility means that any open-class predicate (noun, verb, adjective) can be used in the initial predicate position without the use of a copula (Kroeber 1999).…”

Section: Focus In N4e?kepmxcin: Matrix Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Focus on head-final relatives

Koch

2013

Can. J. Linguist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Head-final relatives in Nɬe?kepmcxín (Thompson River Salish) have previously been described as rare. This article presents new data illustrating a range of possible head-final relatives and the discourse context in which they occur. The difference between head-initial and head-final relative structures is accounted for by information structure, namely the position of focus. When focus falls on the entire NP containing the relative clause, a head-initial relative is generated. However, when focus falls on the relative clause itself, excluding the head noun, a head-final relative is used. The effect inside complex nominals is to linearize focus before background, matching the FOCUS ≫ BACKGROUND generalization observed in matrix clause focus marking. The study is the first examination of focus marking inside the Salishan nominal domain.

show abstract

Section: Focus In N4e?kepmxcin: Matrix Clausesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Focus on head-final relatives

Koch

2013

Can. J. Linguist.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Older such studies include Bouma (1973) on German modals, Langdon (1978) for Yuman languages, Marchese (1986) for Kru languages, Phinnemore (1988) for the Papuan language Ono, Rajasekharan Nair (1990) for Malayalam, Botne (1990) for various Bantu languages, Demir (1993) for Turkish, and Warner (1993) for English, to name a few. More recent studies include those by Etxebarria and Joxe (2002) on Basque, Montler (2003) on Straits Salish, Anderson (2004) on Altai‐Sayan Turkic languages, Drinka (2003) or Bentley and Eythórsson (2004) on perfect formations in European languages, Osam (2004) on multi‐verb constructions in Akan, Steever (2005) on AVCs in Tamil, and Tröbs (2009) on the development of the tense‐aspect‐mood system in Manding.…”

Section: Auxiliary Verb Constructionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Auxiliary Verb Constructions (and Other Complex Predicate Types): A Functional–Constructional Overview

Anderson¹

2011

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an overview of a typology of auxiliary verb constructions (AVCs) and other complex predicate types. A brief semantic, inflectional and diachronic or developmental typology of AVCs is proposed. This includes an overview and exemplification of the basic functional semantic contrasts expressed by AVCs, as well as how inflectional categories are distributed throughout the sub‐types of constructions attested. How AVCs differ from other common sub‐types of complex predicate such as serial verb constructions or light verb constructions is exemplified, and more minor or tradition‐specific terms are also discussed in brief. The varied sources for the development of AVCs are cursorily introduced and how such constructions further develop into complex verb forms once grammaticalized is briefly discussed. Thus, the study discusses the full grammaticalization path that such structures follow, from lexical verb construction to AVC to verb plus affix forms. An extensive bibliography is also included.

show abstract

Nominal vs Adverbial Quantification

Hinterwimmer¹

2020

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The chapter gives an overview of the similarities as well as the differences between determiner quantifiers (D‐quantifiers) and adverbial quantifiers (A‐quantifiers). While both types of quantifiers have in common that they express relations between sets of elements, they differ in at least two crucial respects. First, the syntax–semantics mapping is rather strict in the case of D‐quantifiers, while it is much more flexible in the case of A‐quantifiers. Second, the domains of quantification are different. D‐quantifiers quantify over whatever set of elements is denoted by the NP they combine with, which is usually, but not necessarily, a set of individuals. Concerning A‐quantifiers, there are good reasons to assume that the members of one class of A‐quantifiers, namely frequency adverbs, quantify over eventualities or situations exclusively. Adverbs of quantity, in contrast, are free to take entities of any kind as their first argument that can naturally be decomposed into parts.

show abstract

Auxiliaries and other Categories in Straits Salishan

Cited by 25 publications

References 7 publications

Focus on head-final relatives

Focus on head-final relatives

Auxiliary Verb Constructions (and Other Complex Predicate Types): A Functional–Constructional Overview

Nominal vs Adverbial Quantification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About