Syntactic Relations in Western Muskogean: A Typological Perspective

Munro, Pamela; Gordon, Lynn Melby; Ángeles, Los

doi:10.2307/413532

Cited by 65 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(43) Chickasaw (Munro and Gordon 1982) a. top-at tiwwa-li-kat sa-hotolhko-tok. The sentence in (43a) shows same-subject marking on the subordinate clause, which shows that the difference between aligning S with A in the case of tiwwa 'lie' and with O in the case of hotolhko 'cough' is immaterial to the relevant notion of {S,A} monitored by same-subject marking here.…”

Section: Coding Constructions and Gr Specifications In Other Construcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grammatical Relations Typology

Bickel

Song²

2010

Oxford Handbooks Online

204

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Coding Constructions and Gr Specifications In Other Construcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grammatical Relations Typology

Bickel

Song²

2010

Oxford Handbooks Online

204

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…' [Cs] 8 This term originated with Jacobsen (1967). The switch-reference system in Western Muskogean is discussed in detail in Payne (1980), Broadwell (1990;2006), Munro and Willmond (1994;2008), and Munro (2016), among others. 9 One pair of switch-reference markers uses Cs -cha, Ct -chah for same subject and Cs -na, Ct -nah for different subject.…”

Section: (6)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative clauses in Western Muskogean languages

Gordon

Munro

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chickasaw and Choctaw, the two Western Muskogean languages, have several different relative clause constructions, each of which is internally headed: (1) relative clauses with final demonstratives; (2) relative clauses in which the verb is marked with the suffix -kaash; and (3) relative clauses in which the verb is marked with a form of the complement switch-reference marker -ka. Western Muskgean relative clauses sometimes take the marking predicted by the case system, sometimes the marking predicted by the switch-reference system, and sometimes can take either marker, with different conditions for the three different relative clauses types and for extraposed modifying clauses. This complexity, we argue, arose from syntactic change in progress.

show abstract

“…As we observed, although this kind of possessor-raising is not allowed in Japanese, it has been reported in the literature that it can be found in a lot of languages like Korean (O'Grady 1991, J.-S. Lee 1992, among others. ), Muskogian languages (Munro & Gordon 1982, Munro 1984, and Broadwell 1990, Bantu languages (Scotton 198 1, Bicldbrd 1986, andRochemont 1992), etc. 2g…”

Section: Hiroyuh Uramentioning

confidence: 99%