Advertisement

Morphology

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 33–63 | Cite as

A future modal in Cherokee: a special case of distributed exponence

  • Sylvia L. R. Schreiner
  • Megan Schildmier StoneEmail author
Article

Abstract

In this article we argue from distributional and semantic evidence that the affixal combination of ta- plus -i in Cherokee is a circumfixal marker of modality rather than a marker of future tense plus one of motion, as claimed in previous descriptive accounts. We then provide a morphosyntactic analysis within the Distributed Morphology framework, in which ta-/-i instantiates a (deontic) Modal head that has undergone Enrichment and subsequent Fission. Our analysis of ta-/-i as a modal opposes previous characterizations of ta-/-i as future tense, accounting for the various meanings yielded by these affixes and for the fact that ta-/-i can co-occur with other tense markers in the language. Furthermore, the Distributed Morphology analysis constitutes an important contribution to the literature on the phenomenon of distributed exponence and paves the way for future formal treatments of TAMM morphology in Cherokee and other Iroquoian languages.

Keywords

Cherokee Modality Morphosyntax Distributed exponence Iroquoian Distributed Morphology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Brad Montgomery-Anderson for help understanding crucial examples. Thanks also to Hiroto Uchihara and the audiences at ALC7 and the 2014 SSILA meeting for insightful discussion; to Ed Fields, for sharing his beautiful language; and to two anonymous Morphology reviewers for valuable feedback. Finally, thanks to Heidi Harley for useful discussion of some of the finer points of Distributed Morphology. We take sole responsibility for any remaining errors.

References

  1. Ackerman, F., & Stump, G. (2004). Paradigms and periphrastic expression: a study in realization-based lexicalism. In L. Sadler & A. Spencer (Eds.), Projecting morphology (pp. 111–157). Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, S. R. (2001). On some issues in morphological exponence. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2000 (pp. 1–18). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arka, W. (2012). Projecting morphology and agreement in Marori, an isolate of southern New Guinea. In N. Evans & M. Klamer (Eds.), Language documentation & conservation special publication no. 5 (December 2012): Melanesian languages on the edge of Asia: challenges for the 21st century (pp. 150–173). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Google Scholar
  4. Baerman, M., & Corbett, G. G. (2012). Stem alternations and multiple exponence. Word Structure, 5(1), 52–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baerman, M., Brown, D., & Corbett, G. G. (2010). Morphological complexity: a typological perspective. Surrey: University of Surrey. Online: http://www.morphology.surrey.ac.uk/Papers/Morphological_complexity.pdf. Google Scholar
  6. Baker, M. (1985). The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry, 16(3), 373–415. Google Scholar
  7. Binnick, R. I. (1991). Time and the verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  8. Bobaljik, J. D. (2000). The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, 10, 35–71. Google Scholar
  9. Caballero, G., & Harris, A. C. (2012). A working typology of multiple exponence. In F. Kiefer, M. Ladányi, & P. Siptár (Eds.), Current issues in morphological theory: (Ir)regularity, analogy and frequency. Selected papers from the 14th international morphology meeting, Budapest, 13–16 May 2010 (pp. 163–188). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cable, S. (2010). Radically discontinuous exponence in the inflectional morphology of Na-Dene languages, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Handout from talk given at 2010 LSA meeting. Online: http://people.umass.edu/scable/papers/RDE-in-NaDene.pdf.
  11. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (1987). Allomorphy in inflexion. New York: Croom Helm. Google Scholar
  12. Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: a cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  13. Cook, W. (1979). A grammar of North Carolina Cherokee. Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale. Google Scholar
  14. Copley, B. (2009). The semantics of the future. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  15. Dik, S. C. (1989). The theory of functional grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  16. Demirdache, H., & Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (1997). The syntax of temporal relations: a uniform approach to tense and aspect. In E. Curtis, J. Lyle, & G. Webster (Eds.), Proceedings of the WCCFL 16 (pp. 145–159). Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  17. Demirdache, H., & Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (2008a). On the temporal syntax of non-root modals. In J. Guéron & J. Lecarme (Eds.), Time and modality (pp. 79–113). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Demirdache, H., & Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (2008b). Scope and anaphora with time arguments: the case of ‘perfect modals’. Lingua, 118, 1790–1815. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Demirdache, H., & Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (2011). Non-root past modals. Cahiers Chronos, 23, 43–60. Google Scholar
  20. Gurevich, O. (2006). Constructional morphology: the Georgian version. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Google Scholar
  21. Haag, M. (2001). Cherokee tone associations with overt morphology. Chicago Linguistics Society, 37(2), 413–425. Google Scholar
  22. Hale, K. (2001). Navajo verb stem position and the bipartite structure of the Navajo conjunct sector. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 678–693. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Halle, M. (1997). Distributed Morphology: impoverishment and fission. In B. Bruening, Y. Kang, & M. McGinnis (Eds.), MIT working papers in linguistics 30: PF: papers at the interface (pp. 425–450). Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Google Scholar
  24. Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20 (pp. 111–176). Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  25. Harbour, D. (2008). Discontinuous agreement and the syntax-morphology interface. In D. Harbour, D. Adger, & S. Béjar (Eds.), Phi theory: phi-features across modules and interfaces (pp. 185–230). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  26. Harley, H., & Noyer, R. (1999). State-of-the-article: distributed Morphology. Glot International, 4, 3–9. Google Scholar
  27. King, D. (1975). A grammar and dictionary of the Cherokee language. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Georgia. Google Scholar
  28. Klein, W. (1992). The present perfect puzzle. Language, 68, 525–552. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  30. Klein, W. (1995). A time relational analysis of Russian aspect. Language, 71, 669–695. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kratzer, A. (1991). Modality. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics: an international handbook of contemporary research (pp. 639–650). Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  32. Landman, F. (1992). The progressive. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 1–32. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.) (2013). Ethnologue: languages of the world (17th ed.). Dallas: SIL International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com. Google Scholar
  34. Matthews, P. H. (1972). Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  35. Matthews, P. H. (1974). Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  36. Montgomery-Anderson, B. (2008). A reference grammar of Oklahoma Cherokee. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Kansas. Google Scholar
  37. Müller, G. (2007). Extended exponence by enrichment: argument encoding in German, Archi, and Timucua. In T. Scheffler, J. Tauberer, A. Eilam, & L. Mayol (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th annual Penn linguistics colloquium (pp. 253–266). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Google Scholar
  38. Munro, P. (Ed.) (1996). UCLA occasional papers in linguistics: Vol. 16. Cherokee papers from UCLA. Los Angeles: University of California. Google Scholar
  39. Noyer, R. (1992). Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT (Published by Garland, New York, 1997). Google Scholar
  40. Poot, A. G., & McGinnis, M. (2005). Local versus long-distance fission in Distributed Morphology. In C. Gurski (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2005 Canadian linguistics association annual conference. Online: http://westernlinguistics.ca/Publications/CLAACL/GonzalezPoot_McGinnis.pdf. Google Scholar
  41. Portner, P. (1998). The progressive in modal semantics. Language, 74(4), 760–787. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pulte, W. (1985). The experienced and nonexperienced past in Cherokee. International Journal of American Linguistics, 51(4), 543–544. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pulte, W., & Feeling, D. (1975). Outline of Cherokee grammar with Cherokee-English dictionary. Tahlequah: Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. Google Scholar
  44. Racy, S. K. (2008). Towards a unified treatment of modality. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona. Google Scholar
  45. Reed, S. (2014). A distributed morphology analysis of tense and aspect in Greek. In A. Bartolotta (Ed.), The Greek verb. Morphology, syntax, and semantics. Proceedings of the 8th international meeting on Greek linguistics, Agrigento, October 1–3, 2009 (pp. 277–290). Walpole: Peeters, Louvain-la-Neuve. Google Scholar
  46. Rice, K. (2000). Morpheme order and semantic scope: word formation in the Athapaskan verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scancarelli, J. (2005). Cherokee. In J. Scancarelli & H. K. Hardy (Eds.), Native languages of the Southeastern United States (pp. 351–384). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Google Scholar
  48. Speas, M. (1984). Navajo prefixes and word structure typology. In M. Speas & R. Sproat (Eds.), MIT working papers in linguistics 7. Cambridge: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Google Scholar
  49. Stone, M. S. (2010). Nominalizations without tense: evidence from Cherokee. Ms., University of Arizona. Google Scholar
  50. Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional morphology: a theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Trommer, J. (2002). The interaction of morphology and syntax in affix order. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), The yearbook of morphology 2002 (pp. 283–324). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  52. Uchihara, H. (2013). Tone and accent in Oklahoma Cherokee. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University at Buffalo, State University of New York. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylvia L. R. Schreiner
    • 1
  • Megan Schildmier Stone
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations