Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 239–274

On case concord: the syntax of switch-reference clauses



This paper discusses switch-reference (SR) systems in Pano and Muskogean languages, and proposes that grammatical case plays an essential role in licensing same-subject SR constructions in these languages. Specifically, case activates an agreement relationship between two clauses, allowing for transmission of information about participant coreference. different-subject SR, on the other hand, does not involve case concord, but signals the activation of a discourse participant that was either inactive in the background or not present.


Switch-reference Agreement Shipibo Muskogean Case concord Argument coreference 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aoun, Joseph. 1981. The formal nature of anaphoric relations. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. Google Scholar
  2. Aoun, Joseph. 1985. A grammar of anaphora. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  3. Aoun, Joseph. 1986. Generalized binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  4. Austin, Peter. 1981. Switch-reference in Australia. Language 57: 309–334. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, Mark. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Black, Andrew. 1992. South American verb second phenomena: evidence from Shipibo. Syntax at Santa Cruz 1: 35–63. Google Scholar
  7. Broadwell, George A.. 1997. Binding theory and switch-reference. In Atomism and binding, eds. Hans Bennis, Pierre Pica, and Johann Rooryck, 31–50. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  8. Broadwell, George A.. 2006. A Choctaw reference grammar. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Google Scholar
  9. Camacho, José. 2003. The structure of coordination. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  10. Camacho, José, and José Elías-Ulloa. 2010. Null subject systems in Shipibo switch-reference. In Information structure in languages of the Americas, eds. José Camacho, Rodrigo Guitérrez-Bravo, and Liliana Sánchez, 65–85. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter. Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Step by step: essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–156. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  13. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken hale: a life in language, eds. Michael Kenstowicz and Samuel Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  14. Dench, Alan. 1988. Complex sentences in Martuthunira. In Complex sentence constructions in Australian languages, ed. Peter Austin, 97–139. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  15. Dench, Alan, and Nicholas Evans. 1988. Multiple case-marking in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 8: 1–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elías-Ulloa, José. 2000. El acento en Shipibo. Graduation Thesis, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima. Google Scholar
  17. Elías-Ulloa, José. 2009. The distribution of laryngeal segments in Capanahua. International Journal of American Linguistics 75: 159–206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Faust, Norma. 1973. Lecciones para el aprendizaje del idioma Shipibo-conibo. Yarinacocha: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. Google Scholar
  19. Finer, Daniel. 1985. The formal grammar of switch-reference. New York: Garland. Google Scholar
  20. Fuchshico. 1998. Non Requenbaon Shinan. El Origen de la Cultura Shipibo-Conibo: Leyendas, Historias, Costumbres, Cuentos. Ucayali/Lima: Arteida editores. Google Scholar
  21. García Rivera, Fernando. 1994. Aspectos de la fonología shipiba. Iquitos: Programa de Formación de Maestros Bilingües de la Amazonía Peruana. Google Scholar
  22. Grimshaw, Jane. 2000. Extended projections and locality. In Lexical specification and insertion, eds. Peter Coopmans, Martin Everaert, and Jane Grimshaw, 115–133. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  23. Hornstein, Norbert. 2007. Pronouns in a minimalist setting. In The copy theory of movement, eds. Norbert Corver and Jairo Nunes, 351–385. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  24. Kimball, Geoffrey. 1991. Koasati grammar. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Google Scholar
  25. Loos, Eugene. 1969. The phonology of Capanahua and its grammatical basis. Mexico: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Google Scholar
  26. Loriot, James, and Barbara E. Hollenbach. 1970. Shipibo paragraph structure. Foundations of Language 6: 43–66. Google Scholar
  27. Loriot, James, Erwin Lauriault, and Dwight Day. 1993. Diccionario Shipibo-castellano. Lima: Ministerio de Educación-Instituto Lingüístico de Verano. Google Scholar
  28. Montag, Richard. 2005. Participant referencing in Cashinahua. SIL electronic working papers (SILEWP) 13.
  29. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: causes and consequences. In Ken hale: a life in language, eds. Michael Kenstowicz and Samuel Keyser, 355–426. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  30. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2006. Probes, goals and syntactic categories. In Proceedings of the seventh Tokyo conference on psycholinguistics, ed. Yukio Otsu, 25–60. Tokio: Hituzi Syobo Publishing Company. Google Scholar
  31. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and clausal architecture: syntactic derivation and interpretation, eds. Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian, and Wendy Wilkins, 262–294. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  32. Rising, David. 1992. Switch-reference in Koasati discourse. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Google Scholar
  33. Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan. 1987. Exceptional -t-/-n- marking in Oklahoma Seminole Creek. In Muskogean linguistics, UCLA occasional papers in linguistics, ed. Pamela Munro, vol. 6, 146–160. Los Angeles: University of California Los Angeles. Google Scholar
  34. Sparing-Chávez, Margarethe. 1998. Interclausal reference in Amahuaca. In Handbook of amazonian linguistics, eds. Desmond Derbyshire and Geoffrey Pullum, 444–485. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  35. Stirling, Lesley. 1993. Switch-reference and discourse representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Valenzuela, Pilar. 2002. Relativization in Shipibo-Konibo: a typologically-oriented study. Germany: Lincom Europa. Google Scholar
  37. Valenzuela, Pilar. 2003a. Evidentiality in Shipibo-Konibo, with a comparative overview of the category in Panoan. In Studies in evidentiality, eds. Alexandra Aikhenvald and R.M.W. Dixon, 33–62. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  38. Valenzuela, Pilar. 2003b. Transitivity in Shipibo-Konibo. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon. Google Scholar
  39. Valenzuela, Pilar. 2006. Syntactic distributions and co-referentiality in Shipibo-Konibo. L’ergativité en Amazonie. Paris, CNRS: Centre d’Etudes des Langues Indigènes d’Amérique (CELIA).
  40. Wilkins, David. 1988. Switch-reference in Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): form, function and problems of identity. In Complex sentence constructions in Australian languages, ed. Peter Austin, 141–176. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  41. Zepter, Alex. 2003. Phrase structure directionality: having a few choices. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Spanish and Portuguese, Linguistics DepartmentRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations