eargativity case and trasitivity in eastern promo

8/3/2019 Eargativity Case and Trasitivity in Eastern Promo

1/10

Ergativity, Case, and Transitivity in Eastern PomoAuthor(s): Sally McLendonSource: International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Jan., 1978), pp. 1-9Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1264759

Accessed: 07/12/2010 05:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

International Journal of American Linguistics.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1264759?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1264759?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/10

InternationalJournalof AmericanLinguisticsVOLUME4 January 1978 NUMBER

ERGATIVITY, CASE, AND TRANSITIVITY IN EASTERN POMO1SALLYMCLENDON

HUNTER COLLEGEAND THE GRADUATE CENTER, CITY UNIVERSITYOF NEW YORK

0. Evidence that EasternPomo is ergative1. Pronouns2. Classes of nonverbs3. Classes of verbs4. Syntactic implications: plurals andswitch-reference5. Conclusion0. The classic definition of an ergativelanguage-ergative languages (1) mark dif-ferentially the subjects of transitive verbsas distinct from the subjects of intransitiveverbs and the objects of transitive verbs(which are marked the same way), and(2) lack passives-associates ergativityand1 Fieldwork on Eastern Pomo which supplieddata for this article was carriedout between 1959and 1976 with the support of the Survey ofCalifornia Indian Languages, the AmericanPhilosophicalSociety,the CityUniversityof NewYork Faculty Research Award Program Grant#11369, and the GuggenheimFoundation, to allof which I am most grateful. I am especiallygrateful to the Guggenheim Foundation for aresearchfellowship in 1975-76 which freed mefrom teaching responsibilities so that I could

pursuethis line of researchand carryout furtherfieldwork. Versions of this article were read tothe Fourteenth and Fifteenth Conferences onAmerican Indian Languages at the AmericanAnthropological Association meetings in SanFrancisco, 1975, and in Washington, 1976, andat a colloquiumof the Departmentof Linguistics,Universityof California,San Diego, in the springof 1976. I am grateful for all the stimulatingdiscussionduring hesepresentations,particularlyto Margaret Langdon, Sandra Chung, AlanTimberlake, and Arthur Schwartz-none ofwhom necessarilyagreeswith me.[IJAL, vol. 44, no. 1, January 1978, pp. 1-9]? 1978by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 1

transitivity. Eastern Pomo, a Hokan lan-guagespoken in NorthernCalifornia,lacksa passive and has noun suffixes, {-la'},{-u'la'},whichspecificallymark the subjectsof transitive verbs (but not of intransitiveverbs). Compare:(1) xa'su'ld'l wi2 kokh6ya3.Rattlesnake' bit3 me2.12 was bitten3by the rattlesnake1.xais wa-du'kiya2.Rattlesnake' wentaway2.EasternPomo thus looks quite ergative.This ergative type of distinction goesbeyondthemorphologyof nouns, however.A number of verbsshow a variation in their

stem shape to mark plurality which alsofollows an ergativepattern. That is, changein the shape of the stem marks pluralityofthe objects of transitive verbs such as kill,and marks plurality of the subjects ofintransitive verbs such as sit, but nevermarkspluralityof the subjectsof transitiveverbs like kill. Thus:(2) du'di'kaput on one thingdu'ya'wkaput on several things(3) sa'kkill one

du'leykill more than one(4) phudipkihang up.one thingphu'bepkihang up more than one thing(5) pha'di'lone leaf drifting


3/10

INTERNATIONALOURNAL FAMERICANINGUISTICSTABLE 1

PronounsI II{ha'} lst-person singular ....................... hi{wi} Ist-person singularobliquestem.............wi{ma}2d-personsingular.........................ma{mi}2d-personsingularobliquestem.............mi{wa'}Ist-personplural ......................... wa wi'l{mi-} 2d-personplural ........................ ma. ma l{mi'-}3d-personsingular+ {-5} masculinestem /mi'p/ ..................mi'f mi'pal+ {-'} feminine stem /mi'f/ .................... mit' mi'ral{b6kh}3d-personplural ........................ b6ekh b6ekal{hi'}anaphoric 3d-personsingular............. hi'{h6ekh}naphoric 3d-personplural.............. hekh hekal{ki'ya-} nterrogativeof person .................. ki'ya' ki'ya'l

phayaiwmany leaves drifting(6) ka.one to sit/dwellna.ph6several to sit/dwell

1. The pronouns, however, have previ-ously been described by Kroeber2 anddeAngulo and Freeland3 (as well asmyself)4as distinguishingsubjectsof transi-tive and intransitiveverbsfrom the objectsof transitiveverbs, that is, as following anaccusative rather than an ergative pattern.(The relevant inflections of pronouns arecharted in table 1.) This apparent patternof ergative inflection for nouns versusaccusativeinflection for pronouns is analo-gous to that described in a number oflanguages and has been called a split

2 Alfred L. Kroeber, The Languages of theCoast of California North of San Francisco,University of California Publications in AmericanArchaeology and Ethnology 9 (1911): 320-47.3Jaime deAngulo and L. S. Freeland, "The'Clear Lake' Dialect of the Pomo LanguageinNorth-Central California" (manuscript in theBoas collection of the American PhilosophicalSociety, Philadelphia;circa 1935).4 Sally McLendon,A Grammar of the EasternPomo Language, UCPL, vol. 75 (Berkeley andLos Angeles: University of California Press,1975).

ergative system.5 If one examines onlyEastern Pomo translations of typical ex-amples of transitive and intransitive sen-tences in English,suchas (7), the accusativepatterningof pronouns seems clear:(7) ha61wa-du'kiya2.I'ml going2.ha1. mi.pal2 sa-ka3.I1 killed3 him2.Nevertheless,if one considers somethingclose to the entire repertory of verbs, thepronominal forms which at first seem todistinguish subjects and objects in thistypically accusative manner turn up invariousperplexingcombinationswith whatseem to be both transitiveand intransitiveverbs. Thus, although some apparentlyintransitiveverbs suchas wa-du'ki'go away

and kaMit always select the same form ofthe pronounto translate what is the subjectin English, as do clearly transitive verbssuch as kill (column I in table 1), otherapparentlyequally intransitive verbs suchasfall, be burned,be blistered,orget, bleed,split open,feel heat, dream, sneeze, belch,be stuck, be tired,feel good, think of, getcrippled, become crazy, become wrinkled,5 See, for example,MichaelSilverstein,"Hier-archyof FeaturesandErgativity,"n GrammaticalCategoriesn AustralianLanguages, d. R. M. W.Dixon (in press).

2 VOL.44


4/10

ERGATIVITY N EASTERNPOMObecome sick or choked, become full, befrightened, become frightened, and getcramped require the use of Eastern Pomopronominal forms which are also used totranslate the objects of transitive verbs(column II in table 1). Thus:(8) mi'pal1xa'2 ba'ku'ma3.He1fell3 in the water2.wil ?eckiya2.I1 sneezed2.(9) mi'pall pha-beka2.He' got burned2.

wi' da'sula2.I1 misplaced (something)2.Still other, apparently intransitive verbscan occur with either the form associatedwith the subjects of transitive verbs or thatassociated with the objects of, transitiveverbs, the change in the form of thepronoun being associated with a lexicalchange in the English translation, as in:(10) wi' ce'xelka2.I'ml slipping2.hal ce-.xelka2.I'm sliding2.(11) ha' ba-tecki'I got bumped onpurpose).wi- ba'teckiI got bumped accidentally).66 Stephen Anderson (in his article, "On theNotion of Subject in Ergative Languages," inSubject and Topic, ed. Charles Li [New York:AcademicPress, 1976],p. 5) distinguisheda third

type of language from ergative and accusativeones, of which he cites Dakota, Wichita, and aCaucasianlanguage, Bats, as examples.He pro-vides the following Bats examples which arestrikingly parallelto the Eastern Pomo phenom-enon described:as woie Ifall; Ifell [onpurpose];so woze me fall; I fell [by accident]. Curiouslyenough, however, the verb tofall behavesdiffer-ently in EasternPomo and Bats, since in EasternPomo, fall may only occur with a single patientunless further suffixed with the causative orreflexive.Thus Eastern Pomo and Bats seem tohave similar systems, but verbs with the samesemanticreferents are assignedto differentpartsof the systemin each language.

Those verbs which select for the pro-nominal forms that mark the objects oftransitive verbs (column II in table 1) canoccur with the pronominalforms that markthe subjectof transitive verbs (column I intable 1), however, if suffixed with thereflexive {-k} or the causative {-qa}; com-pare (12) below with (9) above:(12) ha'l da-sul/ka2.IP can'tfind something2.mi.pl iuy- u.wi2 pha'bekhqaya3He' burned3his eyelashes2.Or:(13) mi'p1x6he2 si'naqa3.He' put3 thefire2 out3.versus:

mi'pal1x6he72 si'naya3.The ire2 went out3 on him'.Otherverbs like di'kh6 hit can occur witheither pronominal form, similar to verbslike ce'xel in (10) above, but with a non-lexical change in their translation:(14) ha1l di.kh6ya2.I' hit (it)2.wil di'kh6ya2.I1 got hit2.Some verbs, such as to miss someone orto love/like someone can occur with notone but two pronominal forms marked aspatient:(15) be-kall wi2 phile-mka3.12 miss3 them'.mi'rall wi2 ma'ra'3.I2 love3 herl.The Eastern Pomo pronominal system,then, can hardly be called accusative, butit does not conform to the classic definitionof ergativity either, since it marks thesubjects of some transitive verbs like kill inthe same way as the subjects of someintransitive verbs like go, while it marks thesubjects of still other intransitive verbs likefall in the same way that it marks the

objects of transitive verbs, and still otherintransitive verbs can take either or bothtypes of pronominal forms, while some

NO. 1 3


5/10

INTERNATIONALOURNALOF AMERICANINGUISTICSapparently transitive verbs like love occurwith two objectforms, but no subjectforms.The problem seems to lie in part with thedefinition of ergativity in terms of atransitive-intransitive dichotomy, in partwith the essentially syntactic notions ofsubjectand object. The semantic notions ofagent and patient seem more revealing,butagain not in the context of a transitive-intransitive dichotomy. Rather, agentsnaturally occur with verbs that involve asignificant degree of what I would like tocallprotagonistcontrol(to avoid notions ofcausality and responsibility).7 Patients7Larry Thompson (personal communicationof an extract from his paper presented at theConference on American Indian Linguistics ofthe LinguisticInstituteat SUNY, Oswego, 1976)has independently identified an analogous dis-tinction operating in Thompson, a Salishanlanguage spoken considerablynorth of EasternPomo: "The rough semantic coverage is anopposition between those acts, events, or circum-stances over which some individualentity exertsfull or considerablecontrol and those over whichat best limited control is exerted. Probablyin allSalishan languages a few roots are by naturecontrol roots-e.g. 'go', 'come'; other roots (thevast majority)are non-control roots, and it is anatural result of this fact that predicates con-sisting of just simple roots are typically glossedby passiveswhen a concretesubjectis mentioned-or, alternatively phrased, the subjects of suchpredicates are patients." Jane Hill ("Volitionaland Non-Volitional Verbs in Cupeno," Papersfrom the Fifth Regional Meeting of the ChicagoLinguistic Society [1969]: 348-56) has pointedout the necessityof recognizinga similar distinc-tion between volitional, nonvolitional, andnaturalverbs n Cupeno,a Uto-Aztecanlanguagespoken quite far south of Eastern Pomo. BothCupenoand Thompsonseem to employ differentmechanisms or indicatingthis sort of distinctionfrom those described for Eastern Pomo. How-ever, KashayaPomo, which is related to EasternPomo, has virtuallythe same system of markingthis distinction (Robert L. Oswalt, personalcommunication), while Kroeber's 1911 descrip-tion of Yuki (The Languages of the Coast ofCalifornia North of San Francisco, pp. 371-72)suggests that it also existed in that language,which was spoken just to the north of Eastern

naturallyoccur with verbs that presupposea lack of protagonist control, verbs thatpresuppose that the protagonist(s) is/aresignificantly involved in the activity, butwithout a controlling role. The protagonistis caught up in the activity described, aswhen one is overcome with a fit of sneezingor suddenly faints. Verbs which naturallyoccur with patients and not agents canaccept agents if a causative or reflexivesuffix is added (as in [11] and [12]). Stillother verbs can occur with either patientsor agents depending on the speaker'sperception of the presence or absence ofprotagonist control, as in (10) above.

2. In Eastern Pomo, verbs do not con-trast merely with a class of nouns and oneof pronouns as seems usually to beassumed in descriptionsof languages thesedays, and as the discussion has so farimplied. Rather, verbs in Eastern Pomoare distinguished morphologically andsyntactically from several classes of non-verbs which can be hierarchicallyorderedwith respect to the features of specificity,animateness, and humanness.Thus pronouns together with kinshipterms and proper names8 are set off fromPomo, but is unrelated to Eastern Pomo. It isunfortunatelyvirtuallyextinct.8 Although propernames exist (everyEasternPomo individualformerlyhad at least one), theyarein principlealmost neverused, and in fact areused quite restrictedly, heiruse beingtabooed inmost contexts. The precise contexts in whichpersonal names may be used are poorly under-stood at present (and may never be completelyidentified since Eastern Pomo is increasinglyrarely used these days by its few remainingspeakers).It seemsclear, however,that one doesnot use the name of an individual n his presenceor in the presenceof any of his kinsmen,since,asthe EasternPomo put it, it makes them feel bad.Thus,althoughEasternPomo canreadilyprovidea translation or a sentence ike JohnkilledMary,they do not in fact speak that way. Insteadsentences like He killed her or Her father killedhis wife are usual.

4 VOL.44


6/10

ERGATIVITY N EASTERNPOMOall other nonverbs by both their inability tooccurwith the specifyingsuffixes{-he?}and{-he)e} and their unique ability to occurwith patient-markingsuffixes({-al}for kin-ship terms and pronouns, {-yiy} forpersonal names), thus constituting a superclass which I call Animates.9 Pronouns,kinship terms, and proper names areinherently specific, hence their inability tooccur with the specifyingsuffixes.They arealso inherently human (there being nopronoun "it" and the Eastern Pomo havingno named pets or domesticated animalsprior to contact). Pronouns, kinship terms,and proper names are inflected for a fullrange of cases, while categories of location,direction, and instrument are distinguishedwith the majority of nonverbs which con-stitute a class called Common Nouns, all ofwhich do occur with the specifyingsuffixes,but do not occur with the patient-markingsuffixes {-al} or {-yiy}.'1 Pronouns andkinship terms may be directly marked fornumber, common nouns may not.The distinction of number sets offstill another class of nonverbs-PersonalNouns, a small, closed set of nouns refer-ring to age grades and statuses of peoplecharted in table 2. Like pronouns, kinshipterms, and proper names, but unlike com-mon nouns, all personal nouns have bothsingular and plural forms, most of whichare suppletively related. Like commonnouns, but unlike pronouns, kinship terms,and proper names, personal nouns cannot

9 McLendon, p. 82.10John Lyons (in his Introduction to TheoreticalLinguistics [Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1968], p. 293) has pointed out a similarfeature in Indo-European languages: a distinctionbetween a nominative and an accusative form isnever made for neuter (i.e., nonanimate) nounsin an Indo-European language. He goes on to addthat this may be regarded as "a consequence ofthe greater importance of the distinction betweensubject and object with respect to animatenouns."

TABLE 2THE CLASS OF EASTERN POMO

Singularboy..............girl..............man.............woman...........young man.......young woman.....old man..........old woman.......

qa'wi'daxacka.khdase'ladayawalbufiikedaqa'ra

PERSONAL OUNSPlural

qa'wikhqa'ra'ya qa'wikhhi-baya4a'ra'yas6'la'yama'yawalabuc'iyamaiqathora

be directlysuffixedwith the patientsuffixes,but do occur withthe specifyingand agent-marking suffixes. Thus personal nouns areinherently animate and human, like pro-nouns, kinship terms, and proper names,but are not inherently specific (or naturalagents, it would seem).Proper names, kinship terms, and pro-nouns are all primecandidatesfor agentiveroles, but must be explicitlymarked for thepatient function, the unmarked form of allthree classes being the agent. Commonnouns are the most likely candidates forpatients, and therefore agent function isexplicitly marked by the affixation of anagent-marking suffix, the unmarked formbeingused for patients.Thus the unmarkedorder would have an Animate as agent anda Common Noun as patient:(16) ka-cil1bu-raqal2sa-ka3.Ka'cil1 [a man'spropername]killed3[a] bear2.mi'pl bu-raqal2sai-a3.He' killed3 [a] bear2.But a reversal of these roles would requireexplicit marking:(17) bu-raqalla-1ka-ciliy2 sa-ka3.[A] bear-agent' killed3 Ka cil-patient2.bu'raqalla mi'pal saf'ka3.[A] bear-agent' killed3 him-patient2.

3. Thus, insteadof abinaryclassificationof verbs as either transitive or intransitive,at least a fivefold classification seems

NO. 1 5


7/10

INTERNATIONAL OURNAL OF AMERICANLINGUISTICSneeded: (1) agent-takingverbs, which mayalso take patients such as sa'k kill or qa'ne'bite; (2) singlepatient-takingverbs, such asba'kuifall, ?eckisneeze, or da'sul misplace[something],which may only take an agentif suffixed with the causative suffix {-qa},the reflexive {-k}, or the transitivizingsecondary stem /-ki'ya-/; (3) two patient-taking verbs such as ma'ra' love, ma?ashate; (4) verbs which can occur with eithera patient or an agent depending on thespeaker's perception of the presence orabsence of participant control, such asce'xel slip/slide; (5) a small class of verbsof location and directed motion whichtake the agent form of pronouns, kinshipterms, and proper names, but the patientforms of common nouns and personalnouns, and indicate protagonist numbersuppletively (this class includes verbs likeka'/na'ph6 sit, dwell,wa l/phi'lal go, walk,travel, k6phki/phuaphki stand up [from anonstandingposition]).The first class of verbs could be calledtransitive, and the fifth class, intransitive,but classes 2 through 4 cannot be squeezedinto this dichotomy without distortion.Moreover, both the first and the fifthclasses of verbs have only a small numberof members, albeit of high frequency ofoccurrencein actual speech, and are there-fore not representativeof the majority ofverbs. At the same time, the members ofthese two classes of verbs cannot be deter-mined on the basis of some universaldefinition of transitive-intransitive,such as"takes an object or not," but only byexamining the case marking and numbermarking characteristicallyassociated witheach verb.If one were to talk meaningfullyabout asplit system in Eastern Pomo, then, onewould have to say that the system splitscommon nouns and personal nouns forwhich agent function must be marked,from pronouns, kinship terms, and proper

names for which patient function must bemarked,and that while common nouns areunmarked with verbs of class 5, followingan ergative pattern, pronouns, kinshipterms, and proper names are also un-marked with members of this class, whichdoes not conform to the ergative model.(Sandra Chung [personal communication]has suggestedthat pronouns,kinshipterms,and proper names in Eastern Pomo con-form to what would appearto be a stative-active pattern [following Stephen Ander-son's terminology], while common nounsfollow an ergative pattern.)4. It has been hypothesizedthat ergativelanguages (presumably whether split ornot) are only morphologically ergative,butcan be seen to be syntacticallyaccusative.1lEastern Pomo seems to provide a counter-example to this claim.EasternPomo distinguishessingularandplural in pronouns, kinship terms, andpersonal nouns. Plurality is cross-refer-enced in the verb in at least two ways. Theplural suffixes, {-yaki-} indicating thatmore than one individual is involved and{-ma-} the extentive plural suffixindicatingthat more than one individual is involved,each acting individually in an extendedaction or state, may be affixed, or, as wasmentioned earlier, suppletive stems arepaired to distinguish plurality of patientsfor a number of verbs of high frequencyinactual speech. Although the two pluralsuffixeshave previously been described asdistinguishing pluralsubjects,12hey in factreflect only plural agents and only occuraffixed to agent-takingverbs of class 1 orclass 4 (when these are taking agents):(17) mi'pl mi'pal2duyka3.He' instructed/commanded3im2.

be-khl mi-pal2 duykakiya3.11 See Anderson (n. 6 above).12 Kroeber, p. 340; and McLendon, pp. 82 and85.

6 VOL. 44


8/10

ERGATIVITY N EASTERNPOMO

They' instructed/commanded3im2.mi'pl mi'pal2sa'ka3.Hel killed3 him2.be-khl mi-pal2sakakiya3.Theyl killed3 him2.Many of these verbs, such as kill, alsocross-referencethe plurality of the patient

suppletively:(18) be'khl be-kal2du-leyakiya3.They' killed3 them2.A few single patient-taking verbs cross-reference the plurality of the patientsuppletively,but most patient-takingverbsdo not cross-referencethe plurality of thepatient in the verb at all. Thus:(19) mi'pall qa-lal-maya2.He' got sick2.be'kall qa'lal-leya2.

Theyl got sick2.wil sakh62so'yo6ya3.II got cramp3[in] leg2.be-kall sa.kh62soy6oya3.They' got cramp3[in] leg2.wi1 siphikh-maya2.I1 choked2.be'kall siphukhmaya2.They' choked2.Verbs which can occur with either

patients or agents, depending on thespeaker's perception of the presence orabsence of protagonist control, cross-reference the pluralityof the agent with theappropriateone of the two plural suffixes,but do not cross-referencethe plurality ofthe patient. Thus:(20) be'khl ce'xelkhma 2They' are sliding2.be-kall ce-xelka2.

They' slipped2.Finally, the small class of verbs oflocation and directmotion (which includesverbs such as go, come, run, dwell, and belocated) always take the unmarked agentform of Animates (pronouns, kinshipterms, and proper names), but also theunmarkedpatient form of common nouns

and personal nouns. Members of this classall have suppletive stems which indicatethat plural protagonists are involved. Atypically Animate argument associatedwith such a verb, therefore, is both "incontrol" and "undergoingthe activity."(21) mi'pi kaluhuya2.He' went home2.

be-khl kailphi?ya2.They' wenthome2.mi-pl ka2.He's sitting2.be'khl na'ph6'2They're' sitting2.Thus pluralityof protagonists is markedergatively, with affixes indicating pluralityof agents, but suppletion or no changeindicating plurality of patients (whichincludes the nonverb argument associatedwith class-5 verbs of directed motion and

location).Finally, EasternPomo, like manyHokanlanguages, has an elaborate system ofswitch-referencing suffixes (in fact onlyKashaya Pomo has more as far as I know).There are four pairs of suffixes, given intable 3, which simultaneously (1) mark theclause suffixed as embedded in a matrixclause, (2) distinguish categories of sequen-tiality, priornecessity, or simultaneity,and(3) indicate whether coreferentialityexistsbetween a nonverb argument in eachclause. The examples in (26) and (27)illustrateall three functions. The suffix/-y/in (26) below signals that the nonverbargumentsof these two one-placeverbs arecoreferential, and that hence the nonverbargument of the second, matrix clause isroutinely deleted.(26) hai' kaluhuy2,si'ma' merqaki'hi3.I1 wenthomeand then2wentto bed3.(27) ha"1kaluhuqan2,mi p3 merqaki-hi4.I1 went home and then2he3 went to

bed4.This coreferentiality has usually beendescribed in terms of the notion "subject,"

NO. 1 7


9/10

INTERNATIONAL OURNALOF AMERICANLINGUISTICSTABLE 3

SWITCH-REFERENCINGUFFIXESUnchanged Changed

Action of verb suffixedprecedes in time that ofmain verb ................................ {-iy} {-qan}Action of suffixedverb(1) explains, ustifies hat ofmainverb,(2) is simultaneouswith that of mainverb..................................... {-in} {-sa}1Actionof suffixedverb s priorto and a prerequisitefor the realizationof the actionexpressedby themain verb ............................... { i {-phila}Action of main verbcontinuesoversameperiodorbeginswith time specifiedby suffixedverb .... {-bya} {-iday}1 Only meaning (1) applies.

but sentences such as those in (28) belowoccurin which a patient-takingverb occursin one clause and an agent-taking verboccurs in the other, and the switch-reference, noncoreferential suffix fromcolumn II is used, even though the pronounoccurringin both clauses actually referstothe same individual in reality.13(28) haPlxai qakkiqan2,wi3 qa-lal tala4.

I1 took a bath, so2 13 got sick4.wil q4alalmaqan2, a3 khuyhi4q6yuhu'5.I1 got sick, that's why2 P3 didn't4come5.Example (29) illustrateshow the systemof switch-referencing uffixes nteractswiththe classificationof verbs, to keep track of13 Such sentencesnormallyoccur in the mostspontaneousand naturalsettings, such as narra-tives andconversations. n elicitingfromEnglish,however, EasternPomo speakerssometimesusethe coreferential suffix of each pair in suchsentences, presumablyunder the bilingual pres-sure of translatingthe English pronouns whichare coreferential.In such cases, Eastern Pomo

speakers will also accept the sentence with theswitch-referencesuffix of the pair substituted.This variation is not possible when the nounargumentsare not coreferential n reality(as in:When I got sick, he ran away) or when they areclearlycoreferentialwithrespectto case as well asreality, that is, when both verbs are agent takingor both verbs are single patient taking (as in:Whenhe gave her the book, he kissed her).

who is doing what to whom in a complexsentence that at first glance strikes mostEnglish speakers as quite opaque. Onemust keep in mind that the second andthird verbs, mu'tut.ki curl up and mu'daldie, are single patient-taking verbs ofclass 2.(29) mi'pall ki2 k6xqan3mu'titkiy4him he shot SR curl up COR

mu'dala4.dieHel shot3 (+switch-reference{-qan})him' [and he2] curled up4 (+co-referential{-iy}) [andhe2]died5.

Example (29) presumably should bederivedfrom underlying (30), with routineequi-deletion of the second and thirdoccurrenceof the coreferential hird-personmasculine singular control pronominalpatient mi'pal,:(30) mi'pal, khi2k6xqan mi'pal,mu'titkiy mi'pall mu'dala.

5. A definition of ergativity tied to thenotion of transitivity and associated withthe distinction of subjectsand objectsdoesnot seem, then, to account simply for theEastern Pomo facts. Recognition ofan agent-patient distinction (differentiallymarked in the inherently specific andhuman classes of pronouns, kinship terms,

8 VOL.44


10/10

ERGATIVITY N EASTERNPOMOand propernames versus the noninherentlyspecific and human class of commonnouns), which interacts with a feature ofprotagonist control characterizing verbs(and cuts across traditionalcategorizationsof verbs based on transitivity) seems toaccount simply for a range of morpho-logical and syntactic phenomena. Onething at least seems clear: Eastern Pomo isnot an accusative language. Neither is it auniquely aberrant variety of speech as Ionce feared. Rather, I would like to sug-gest that Eastern Pomo is typical of avariety of languages, different from both

classically ergative languages like Basqueand accusative languages like English,which are probably a great deal morecommon than current descriptions oflanguages might lead one to suspect, andwhich could be productively studied inmuch greater detail. In addition, EasternPomo providesstill anotherexampleof theremarkable degree to which semanticproperties which frequently are onlyindirectly inferable for languages likeEnglish are directly reflected in both thesurface morphology and syntax of NativeAmerican languages.

NO. 1 9

eargativity case and trasitivity in eastern promo

Documents