Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 36:2 (2019) ► pp.262–293

Differential grammaticalization of copulas in Tsúùt’ínà and Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì

| Memorial University of Newfoundland
The languages of the Dene (aka Athapaskan) family in North America almost universally employ two copular verbs. In several languages of this family, copular forms are also employed as verbal auxiliaries: forms of one copula mark clausal focus while forms of the other mark TAM (tense/aspect/mode) categories. With reference to two Dene languages in particular, Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì and Tsúùt’ínà, I explain this difference by positing distinct grammaticalization paths and motivations for each copula: both focus and TAM markers originate in a uniclausal reanalysis of biclausal constructions, the former from constructions where the matrix clause asserts the truth of the embedded clause, and the latter from those where the matrix clause supplies extra TAM information to the embedded clause. Both grammaticalizations involve an upward reanalysis of copulas as functional heads.
Keywords: copula, grammaticalization, focus, temporal, Dene
Article outline
  • 1.Dene copulas and grammaticalization
    • 1.1Copulas and predication
    • 1.2Dene copulas, arguments, and interpretation
  • 2.Clausal focus
    • 2.1Structure of clausal focus constructions
    • 2.2The source: Copular constructions with clausal complements
  • 3.TAM marking
    • 3.1Structure of TAM markers
    • 3.2Reanalysis of copulas as TAM markers
    • 3.3Stages of grammaticalization
    • 3.4Cross-linguistic implications
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 22 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.15031.wel
References (75)
References
Ackroyd, Lynda. 1982. Dogrib grammar. MS, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Arche, María J. 2006. Individuals in time: Tense, aspect and the individual/stage distinction. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bommelyn, Loren and Talmy Givon. 1998. Internal reconstruction in the Tolowa Athabaskan verb. In Cuarto encuentro internacional de linguística en el noroeste, 269–310. Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora.Google Scholar
. 2000. The evolution of de-transitive voice in Tolowa Athabaskan. Studies in Language 24(1). 41–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowers, John. 1993. The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 241. 591–656.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg N. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist program, vol. 281. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cook, Eung-Do. 1978. The verb ‘be’ in Sarcee. Amerindia 31. 105–114.Google Scholar
. 1984. A Sarcee grammar. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. A grammar of Dëne Sųhné (Chipewyan). Winnipeg: Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2013. A Tsilhqút’in grammar. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria. 2000. The primitives of temporal relations. In Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 157–186. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. The syntax of time arguments. Lingua 1171. 330–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dogrib Translation Committee. 2003. Nǫ̀htsı̨ nı̨htl’è: Zezı̀ wegǫ̀hłı̨ tł’axǫǫ̀ [Dogrib New Testament]. Toronto: Canadian Bible Society.Google Scholar
Elford, Leon W. and Marjorie Elford. 1998. Dene (Chipewyan) dictionary. Prince Albert, Saskatchewan: Northern Canada Mission Distributors.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2011a. The pronominal copula cycle. In E. van Gelderen (ed.), The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty, 128–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. The tense, mood, and aspect (TMA) cycles. In E. van Gelderen (ed.), The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty, 247–290. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. The copula cycle. Lingue e linguaggio 21. 287–301.Google Scholar
Golla, Victor Karl. 1970. Hupa grammar. Ph.D. thesis, University of California Berkeley.Google Scholar
Green, Lisa. 2014. Force, focus and negation in African American English. In Raffaella Zanuttini and Laurence R. Horn (eds.), Micro-syntactic variation in North American English, 114–142. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gyuris, Béata. 2009. Quantificational contrastive topics with verum focus. Lingua 119(4). 625–649. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ha, Seungwan. 2008. Contrastive focus: Licensor for right node raising. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 371, 247–261.Google Scholar
Hargus, Sharon. 2007. Witsuwit’en grammar: Phonetics, phonology, morphology. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Hargus, Sharon and Siri G. Tuttle. 1997. Augmentation as affixation in Athabaskan languages. Phonology 14(02). 177–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 1251. 34–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge, Cambridgeshire; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hucklebridge, Sherry. 2016. Internally-headed relative clauses in Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì. Master’s thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N. 1992. Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In J. Jacobs (ed.), Informationsstruktur und grammatik, 112–141. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaker, Alessandro, Nicholas Welch & Keren Rice. 2019. Na-Dene languages. In Daniel Siddiqi, Michael Barrie, Carrie Gillon, Jason Haugen and Éric Mathieu (eds.), The Routledge handbook of North American languages. New York; Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaker, Alessandro. 2012. Prosodic reversal in Dogrib (Weledeh dialect). Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Jetté, Jules, Eliza Jones and James M. Kari. 2000. Koyukon Athabaskan dictionary. Fairbanks, Alaska: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Kari, James M. 1990. Ahtna Athabaskan dictionary. Fairbanks, Alaska: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Kari, James M. and Ben A. Potter (eds.). 2010. The Dene-Yeniseian connection. Fairbanks, Alaska: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 2009. How time is encoded. In Wolfgang Klein and Ping Li (eds.), The expression of time, 39–82. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. On times and arguments. Linguistics 48(6). 1221–1253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1989. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In Emmon Bach, Angelika Kratzer and Barbara Partee (eds.), Papers on quantification. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
. 1995. Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In Greg N. Carlson and Francis J. Pelletier (eds.), The generic book, 125–175. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krauss, Michael. 1963–1965. Athabaskan-Eyak cognates and correspondences for consonants. URL [URL]; [URL]
. 1970. Eyak dictionary. URL [URL]
Leer, Jeff. 2000. Athabaskan-Eyak-Tlingit morphs sorted by language number and morph, identified by cognate set in AET comparative lexicon database. URL [URL]
Li, Fang-Kuei. 1930. Mattole, an Athabaskan language. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lohndal, Terje. 2006. The phrase structure of the copula. Working papers in Scandinavian syntax 781. 37–75.Google Scholar
. 2009. The copula cycle. In Elly van Gelderen (ed.), Cyclical change, 209–242. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst. 2005. Verum focus and phases. Linguistic Analysis 35(1). 109–133.Google Scholar
. 2016. Verum focus. In Caroline Féry and Shinichiro Ishihara (eds.), The Oxford handbook of information structure, 290–313. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Luján, Marta. 1981. The Spanish copulas as aspectual indicators. Lingua 541. 165–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, Patrick. 1999. Dene gudeji. Kaska Tribal Council, Integraphics.Google Scholar
. 2002. Point of view in Kaska historical narratives. Ph.D. thesis, University of Indiana.Google Scholar
Morice, Adrien Gabriel. 1932. The Carrier language (Déné family): A grammar and dictionary combined, vol. 11. Vienna: Anthropos.Google Scholar
Petitot, Émile. 1876. Dictionnaire de la langue dènè-dindjié: dialectes montagnais ou chippewayan, peaux de lièvre et loucheux. Paris: Ernest Leroux.Google Scholar
de Reuse, Willem J. and Phillip Goode. 2006. A practical grammar of the San Carlos Apache language. München: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1989. A grammar of Slave. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Morpheme order and semantic scope: Word formation in the Athapaskan verb. Cambridge, Cambridgeshire; New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. On incorporation in Athapaskan languages: Aspects of language change. In Thôrhallur Eythórsson (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory: The Rosendal papers, 375–410. Johns Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren and Leslie Saxon. 2005. Comparative Athapaskan morphosyntax: Arguments and projections. In Guglielmo Cinque and Richard S. Kayne (eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, 698–774. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rice, Sally. 2014. Corporeal incorporation and extension in Denë Sųłıné (Athapaskan) lexicalization. In Matthias Brenzinger and Iwona Kraska-Szlenk (eds.), The body in language: Comparative studies of linguistic embodiment, 71–97. BRILL. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar: A handbook of generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roldán, Mercedes. 1974. On the so-called auxiliaries “ser” and “estar”. Hispania 57(2). 292–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saxon, Leslie. 2000. Head-internal relative clauses in Dogrib (Athapaskan). In Andrew Carnie, Eloise Jelinek and Mary A. Willie (eds.), Papers in honour of Ken Hale, 93–108. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2015. The Tłı̨chǫ syntactic causative and non-nominal CPs. University of Toronto. Presented at Dog Days Syntax Workshop, August 12.
Saxon, Leslie and Andrea Wilhelm. 2016. The “possessed noun suffix” and possession in two Northern Dene (Athabaskan) languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 82(1). 35–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Cristina. 1992. Ser and estar: A matter of aspect. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 221, vol. 221, 411–426.Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. 1996. The phrase structure of tense. In Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 277–291. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tenenbaum, Joan M. 1978. Morphology and semantics of the Tanaina verb. Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Turtle, Siri and Sharon Hargus. 2004. Explaining variability in affix order: The Athabaskan areal and third person prefixes. Working papers in Athabaskan languages. Alaska Native Language Center Working Papers 41. 70–98.Google Scholar
Tłı̨chǫ Community Services Agency. 2007. Tłı̨chǫ yatıı̀ multimedia dictionary. Behchokǫ̀, Northwest Territories: Tłı̨chǫ Community Services Agency. URL [URL]
Welch, Nicholas. 2008. Northwest passage: Northern Athabaskan copulas and auxiliaries. Master’s thesis, University of Victoria.Google Scholar
. 2012. The bearable lightness of being: The encoding of coincidence in two-copula languages. Ph.D. thesis, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
. 2015a. Deducing clause structure from the right periphery in Tłı̨chǫ Yatıı̀. International Journal of American Linguistics 81(2). 261–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015b. Obligatory future in a Dene language. International Journal of American Linguistics 81(1). 41–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Structures et interprétations des phrases copulaires en langues dénées. MS, McMaster University.Google Scholar
Young, Robert W., William Morgan and Sally Midgette. 1992. Analytical lexicon of Navajo. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1st edn.Google Scholar
Zagona, Karen. 2012. Ser and estar: Phrase structure and aspect. In Chiyo Nishida and Cinzia Russi (eds.), Building a bridge between linguistic communities of the Old and the New World, (Cahiers Chronos 25), 303–327. Amsterdam; New York: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar