1

The Muskogean Languages: An Overview

Ives Goddard’s map of the SE:

Wikipedia map based on Goddard’s work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_languages_of_the_Americas#/media/File:Langs_N.Amer.png

Earliest and modern locations:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1dwLWc7sNY9N1K8u1_uNzXnN3_5s&ll=31.8064018320913%2C-86.39648468749999&z=6

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1CWDY0fucqF0Tno6LlGOzCbEyCb0&ll=31.8064018320913%2C-86.39648468749999&z=6

2

Muskogean family

a. Chickasaw-Choctaw: Chickasaw, Choctaw b. Alabama-Koasati: Alabama, Koasati c. Apalachee d. Hitchiti-Mikasuki e. Muskogee (Creek, Seminole Creek)

History of documentation

Vocabularies: 1730s on.

First missionary materials for Choctaw, Muskogee: 1830s on.

Typological overview

Phonology

Labial Alveolar Palatal Velar Glottal stops/affricate p b t ʧ k fricatives f s ɬ h nasals m n approximants w l j Muskogee: no /b/. Choctaw, Chickasaw: have /ʃ/ distinct from /s/. Chickasaw: has glottal stop with limited distribution. non-open i iː ĩ o oː õ open a aː ã All the Muskogean languages make use of tone (mostly to indicate aspect).

SOV (or predicate-final).

(1) ifá-t wo:hk-ís dog-T bark.SG.LGR-IND ‘The dog is barking.’

(2) ifá-t pó:si lást-i:-n á:ssi:č-ís dog-T cat black-DUR-N chase.LGR-IND

‘The dog is chasing the black cat.’

Two cases: one for subjects and one for nonsubjects (appearing at the end of the noun phrase):

3

(3) ’taló:fa-n â:y-ánk-s town-N go.SG.FGR-PAST2-IND

‘He/she went to town.’

(4) Bill ’taló:fa-n ato:tk-ačók-s Bill town-N work.LGR-DED-IND

‘Bill is working in town.’

(5) oy-mó:ɬk-i-n yahá-n akálho:y-ín water-boil-I-N wolf-N pour.on.IMPL-LGR-N

‘. . . they pour boiling water on Wolf . . .’ (1939b)

Case markers on noun phrases are generally the same as switch-reference markers on verbs:

(6) ifá-t wo:hk-ít pó:si-n á:ssi:č-ís dog-T bark.LGR-T cat-N chase.LGR-IND

‘The dog is barking and chasing the cat.’

(7) ifá-t wo:hk-ín pó:si-t á:ssi:č-ís dog-T bark.Lgr-N cat-T chase.Lgr-IND ‘The dog is barking, and the cat is chasing him.’

Postpositions (though postposition may be a type of noun):

(8) háčči tapá:la-n léyk-i:-s stream other.side-N sit.SG-DUR-IND

‘He/she lives on the other side of the stream.’

Auxiliary verbs follow main verbs:

(9) a. a:y-ís go.SG.LGR.IND ‘He/she is going.’

b. a:y-ít o:m-ís go. SG.LGR-T be.LGR.IND ‘He/she is going.’

The languages have grades or internal changes in verbs used to indicate aspect:

(10) wanay- ‘tie’ stem wanáy-as ‘tie it!’ zero grade

4

wana:y-ís ‘he/she is tying it’ lengthened grade (lgr.) wanáhy-is ‘he/she tied it (last night/today)’ aspirating grade (hgr.) wanâ:y-is ‘he/she has tied it’ falling tone grade (fgr.) wanǎ:ny-is ‘he/she keeps tying it’ nasalizing grade (ngr.)

Verbs have prefixes for instrumental and dative applicatives, location, and direction:

(11) ta:č-ís ‘he/she is cutting it’ ís-ta:č-

ís ‘he/she is cutting it with it’ Instrumental

is- ín-ta:č-

ís ‘he/she is cutting it for

him/her’

Dative im-

(12) leyk-itá ‘(one) to sit’ a-leyk-itá ‘(one) to sit at, sit on (a side or underside)’ ak-leyk-itá ‘(one) to sit in water or a low place’ oh-leyk-itá ‘(one) to sit on top of’ tak-leyk-itá ‘(one) to sit on the ground or floor, or in an

enclosed space’

(13) hič-íta ‘to look, see’ iɬ-hič-íta ‘to go a distance and look’ ɬa:-hič-íta ‘to go a short distance and look, to look

back’ (i)yi-hič-íta ‘to come and see, visit’ a:-hič-íta ‘to look this way’

Verbs agree with their subjects (and objects). Different series of agreement markers are generally used for a) agents; b) nonagents; and, c) nonagentive datives (indirect objects and a few subjects):

(14) a. aní-t míhč-ey-s I-T do.HGR-1S.A-IND ‘I did it.’ / ‘I’m the one who did it.’

b. aní-t ča-nókk-i:-s I-T 1S.PAT-sick-DUR-IND ‘I am sick.’ / ‘I’m the one who is sick.’

Number is not extensively marked on nouns, but is generally richly indicated in verbs.

(15) il-íta ‘(one) to die’ pasatk-itá ‘(two or more) to die’

5

(16) leyk-itá ‘(one) to sit’ ka:k-itá ‘(two) to sit’ apo:k-itá ‘(three or more) to sit’

Some of the languages have rich tense systems with multiple degrees of past time:

(17) Future nis-áɬi:-s ‘he/she will buy it’ Prospective nis-áha:n-ís ‘he/she is going to buy it’ Present ni:s-ís ‘he/she is buying it, bought it (up

to a few seconds ago)’ Past 1 perfective níhs-is ‘he/she bought it (today up to

last night)’ imperfective ni:s-êy-s ‘he/she was buying it (today up

to last night)’ Past 2 nî:s-ánk-s ‘he/she bought it (yesterday

to several weeks ago)’ Past 3 nî:s-imát-s ‘he/she bought it (several

weeks to about a year ago)’ Past 4 ni:s-ánta-s ‘he/she bought it (long ago,

at least several years)’ Past 5 ni:s-atí:-s ‘he/she bought it (very long

ago)’

6

Agentive/Nonagentive Agreement

Muskogee has different series of person markers:

A P D

1s -ey- ča- am-

2s -íčk- či- čim-

3 im-

1p -i:- po- pom-

2p -á:čk- či- čim-

Series A is only used for subjects:

for the subject of agentive intransitive verbs (yaheyk-éy-s ‘I’m singing’);

for the subject of most transitive verbs (na:fk-éy-s ‘I’m hitting it’).

Series P is used for:

the most directly affected object of most transitive verbs (ča-hi:c-ís ‘he/she sees me’)

the subject of nonagentive intransitive verbs (ča-híko:kk-ís ‘I’m hiccuping’);

the subject of a handful of transitive verbs (ča-yâ:c-is ‘I want it’);

inalienable possession (ča-sákpa ‘my arm’).

Series D is used for:

a benefactive or less directly affected object;

a handful of subjects;

alienable possession (am-ífa ‘my dog’).

Other points:

some verbs (generally intransitive) are fluid

translations are not always a good diagnostic of verb meaning

grammatical relations are distinct from person marking

some copular constructions use series A for the subject; others use P

some morphological processes cause shifts in agreement series o Causatives in Muskogee o Comparatives in Muskogee o Reflexives and reciprocals in Chickasaw

7

Questions: How predictable is agreement selection based on meaning? What methods can we use to access verb meaning? Approaches to agreement:

lexical: every verb has to be specified for agreement selection (Munro and Gordon 1982)

semantic

syntactic o the Unaccusative Hypothesis: the subjects of intransitive verbs with P agreement

are objects in an initial stratum (see especially Davies for work on Choctaw).

Italian (Burzio 1986).

(1) Maria ha telefonato. ‘Maria has telephoned.’ (avere ‘to have’)

Maria è arrivata. ‘Maria has arrived.’ (essere ‘to be’)

Questions: What would an ideal theory of linguistics look like? How could we express generalizations linking meaning to agreement class while also allowing for exceptions?

8

External Possession In many languages, the most common way to express possession is to have a possessor modify the possessed noun within a noun phrase: [[Jan]’s dog] We can call that “internal possession”. In some languages, possession also arises in what are called external possessive constructions. French and Spanish have what might be called a dative external possessive construction: (1) French Il me prend le bras he me takes the arm ‘he takes my arm’ (2) Spanish (Velázquez-Castillo 1999): Me lavé las manos to.me washed the hands ‘I washed me the hands.’ (3) Spanish (Velázquez-Castillo 1999): Me suda mucho la espalda to.me sweats a lot the back ‘The (=my) back is sweating me a lot.’ The possessed item is generally the direct object of a transitive verb or the subject of an intransitive verb (that is, an absolutive argument). Japanese (Uehara 1999:46) has a different construction involving multiple subjects: (4) a. John-no oneesan-ga totemo kirei-da John-GEN older.sister-NOM very pretty-is ‘John’s older sister is very pretty.’ (Uehara 1999:46) b. John-ga oneesan-ga totemo kirei-da John-NOM older.sister-NOM very pretty-is ‘John’s older sister is very pretty.’

9

These have slightly different meanings related to focus. Uehara translates (1a) as ‘It is John’s older sister who is very pretty’, while (1b) is translated as ‘It is John whose older sister is very pretty’. Discussion: a) Why is the dative pronoun in Romance interpreted as a possessor in (1-3)? b) Why must the possessee be an absolutive argument? c) In (4b), why is John interpreted as a possessor? d) In Jan’s dog, why is Jan interpreted as a possessor? What is a “possessor”? One approach to these constructions has been to posit a rule of possessor raising (Kitagawa 1986; Kuno 1973; Kuroda 1992): (5) [[John-ga] [[ t oneesan-ga] totemo kirei-da]]] Possessor raising in this case is thought to move the possessor out of the subject noun phrase and adjoin it to the sentence. An alternative analysis (Saito 1982, 1985) is to base-generate the possessor. The Muskogean languages have constructions that blend properties of the Japanese pattern and the Spanish pattern. The following are examples of intransitive verbs: (6) Muskogee a. cá:ni im-ífa-t î:l-is John D-dog-NOM die.SG.FGR-IND ‘John’s dog died’ b. cá:ni ifá-t im-î:l-is John dog-NOM D-die.SG.FGR-IND ‘John’s dog died’ (7) Chickasaw (Munro 1999) a. Jan im-ofi’-at illi-tok Jan DAT-dog-NOM die-PERF ‘Jan’s dog died’ b. Jan-at ofi’-at im-illi-tok Jan-NOM dog-NOM DAT-die-PERF ‘Jan’s dog died.’ As in French and Spanish, a dative element appears with the verb. (7b) is reminiscent of Japanese in that two noun phrases are marked in the nominative.

10

A slightly different pattern is found in transitive clauses: (8) méysti a:tamí-n im-áhopa:n-ís that.person car-OBL D-wreck.LGR-IND ‘s/he is wrecking that person’s car’ Discussion of trees for (6) and (8) and their motivation. Uses of external possession. The EP construction is automatic when a noun phrase is affected by action on a body part: (9) i-ká-n in-náfk-i: ha:y-ít o:m-êys 3II-head-OBL D-hit-DUR do.Lgr-SAME be.Lgr-though ‘Though [Rabbit] tried to hit [Alligator’s] head…’ This pattern can be extended to cases where a noun phrase is affected emotionally by action to a possession. Larger questions:

What is the function of these constructions? How are they used? What is the historical origin of these constructions?

Are terms like “possessor” important in linguistics? Do all languages have a notion of “possessor”?

Why is the possessum generally an absolutive argument (or at least not an agent)? Why is the external possessor marked in the dative?

Why is the external possessor in initial position in Chickasaw? Why is it marked in the nominative?

When we see similarities in constructions across languages, what does it mean?

11

Switch reference Background: argument tracking vs. participant tracking (these are my suggestions for names for these concepts). Argument tracking: indicating the relationship between noun phrases and verbs (e.g., case, word order, agreement). Participant tracking: indicating the relationship (coherence?) of participants across clauses. Jacobsen (1967): SR is a system where

a switch in subject or agent [...] is obligatorily indicated in certain situations by a morpheme, usually suffixed, which may or may not carry other meanings in addition.

Haiman and Munro (1983):

Canonical SR is an inflectional category of the verb, which indicates whether or not its subject is identical with the subject of some other verb.

(1) Usan a. ye nam su-ab isomei 1SG tree cut-IDENT I.went.down ‘I cut the tree and went down.’ b. ye nam su-ine isorei 1SG tree cut-NONID it.went.down ‘I cut the three down’ Van Gijn notes that aspects of that definition have been challenged: a) some have argued that the SR marker may be an independent word (as in Maxakalí); b) some have argued that SR in some languages is sensitive to discourse cohesion (e.g., different subject marking used for a change in agency, a change in time, or a change in place); c) some have pointed out the difficulty of deciding what “identical” means. Typological and theoretical issues: a) delimiting SR from other phenomena; b) identifying the ways SR systems can vary; c) identifying the function of SR; d) determining the historical origin of SR; e) embedding SR within a larger theory of language. Van Gijn: SR in contrast to other discourse tracking phenomena. Gapping: In English, a subject may be gapped when sentences are conjoined:

12

(2) I ran into a student after class and __ didn’t get home until late. Control: In English, (3) I want __ to help you (same-subject: no subject is possible) I want John to help you (different-subject: subject is required) Logophoric pronouns. (4) Igbo a. ó sìrì nà ó byàrà he said that he came ‘Hei said that hej came.’ b. ó sìrì nà yá byàrà he said that LOG came ‘Hei said that hei came.’ Various reference systems that are similar to SR: Gapping, control, logophoric pronouns, long-distance reflexives, fourth person agreement, obviation, echo-referents. (also participial clauses: While cooking, he soaked the dishes./While they were cooking, he soaked the dishes) Van Gijn’s diagnostics for SR: 1. SR systems encode mutually exclusive (paradigmatically opposed) values whose semantics include referential identity versus non-identity 2. SR systems track a particular, generalized role 3. The domain of application of SR is one level above the clause, below the entire discourse 4. SR systems are morphologically marked Sites of variability/complexity: a) overlap (Stirling) (“two men entered and one said…”); b) part-whole relations (“rabbit hit the doll and its paw got stuck”); c) resumptive clauses.

Munro’s description of SR in Chickasaw. Section 1 of her paper is a sketch of the language and provides a clear overview of some of the phenomena we are discussing in this course.