Cover not available
Part of
Language Contact and Change in the Americas: Studies in honor of Marianne Mithun
Edited by Andrea L. Berez-Kroeker, Diane M. Hintz and Carmen Jany
[Studies in Language Companion Series 173] 2016
► pp. 33–66

The role of passives in the formation of hierarchical systems in Northern California

| California State University, San Bernardino
Passive constructions have been considered as possible sources for grammatical systems based on person hierarchies (Mithun 2007, 2010, 2012). Mithun (2012: 285) shows how patterns of core argument marking in Northern California could have spread areally as a result of language contact. In this paper I build on Mithun’s work, examining core argument patterns and passive constructions in ten Northern California languages and exploring why passives have led to hierarchical systems in some languages, but not in others. A number of features are shown to always be present in languages with hierarchical systems, though passive constructions are not always involved. The results indicate that the grammatical systems crystallized at different stages of development, which explains many of the irregularities.
Keywords: hierarchical system, inverse, Northern California, passive
Published online: 19 April 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.173.03jan
References (41)
References
de Angulo, Jaime & Freeland, Lucy Shepard. 1930. The Achumawi language. International Journal of American Linguistics 6(2): 77–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balodis, Uldis. 2011. Yuki Grammar in its Areal Context with Sketches of Huchnom and Coast Yuki. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Bickel, Balthasar & Nichols, Johanna. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 169-240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bright, William. 1957. The Karok Language [University of California Publications in Linguistics 13]. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2013. The referential hierarchy: Reviewing the evidence in diachronic perspective. In Languages Across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska, Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath (eds), 69-94. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 2014. Basic Yurok. Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, Report 16. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike. 1994. Semantic and pragmatic inverse: ‘Inverse alignment’ vs. ‘inverse voice’ in Carib of Surinam. In Voice and Inversion [Typological Studies in Language 28], Talmy Givón (ed.), 187-230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike & Zúñiga, Fernando. 2012. Referential hierarchies: A new look at some historical and typological patterns. Handout from the EuroBABEL Final Conference inLeiden, August 23-26.
Givón, Talmy. 1994. The pragmatics of detransitive voice: functional and typological aspects of inversion. In Voice and Inversion [Typological Studies in Language 28], Talmy Givón (ed.), 3-44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golla, Victor. 2011. California Indian Languages. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary. 1976. The Northern California Linguistic Area. In Hokan Studies: Papers from the First Conference on Hokan Languages, Margaret Langdon & Shirley Silver (eds), 347-360. The Hague: Mouton.
Heizer, Robert E. (ed.). 1978. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
Jany, Carmen. 2009. Chimariko Grammar: Areal and Typological Perspective [University of California Publications in Linguistics 142]. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. Grammatical relations in Mixe and Chimariko: Differences and similarities. In Responses to Language Endangerment: In honor of Mickey Noonan [Studies in Language Companion Series 142], Elena Mihas, Bernard Perley, Gabriel Rei-Doval, & Kathleen Wheatley (eds), 119-140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Dryer, Matthew S. 2006. Passive in the world’s languages. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1: Clause structure, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 325-361. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klaiman, M.H. 1991. Grammatical Voice [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 59]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Monica. 1992. Inverse marking in Karuk: The function of the suffix -ap . International Journal of American Linguistics 58(2): 182-201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Obviative marking in ergative contexts: The case of Karuk ’îin . International Journal of American Linguistics 66(4): 464–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McLendon, Sally. 1975. A Grammar of Eastern Pomo [University of California Publications in Linguistics 74]. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1991. Active/agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 67: 510-46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. Grammar, contact, and time. Journal of Language Contact. (e-journal) THEMA 1: 133-155. <[URL]>Google Scholar
. 2008a. The emergence of agentive systems in core argument marking. In The Typology of Semantic Alignment Systems. Mark Donohue & Søren Wichmann (eds), 297-333. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008b. Does passivization require a subject category? In Case and Grammatical Relations: Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie [Typological Studies in Language 81], Greville Corbett & Michael Noonan (eds), 211-240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Contact and North American languages. In The Handbook of Language Contact, Raymond Hickey (ed.), 673-694. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Core argument patterns and deep genetic relations: Hierarchical systems in Northern California. In Argument Structure and Grammatical Relations: A Crosslinguistic Typology [Studies in Language Companion Series 126], Pirkko Suihkonen, Bernard Comrie & Valery Solovyev (eds), 257-294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moshinsky, Julius. 1974. A Grammar of Southeastern Pomo [University of California Publications in Linguistics 72]. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nevin, Bruce. N.d.. The Achumawi Language: A Restatement of de Angulo & Freeland (1930). Ms. Personal communication.
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olmsted, David. 1961. Atsugewi morphology, I: Verb inflection. International Journal of American Linguistics 27: 91-113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, Harvey. 1984. Wintu grammar [University of California Publications in Linguistics 94]. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Robins, Robert H. 1958. The Yurok Language: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon [University of California Publications in Linguistics 15]. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1910. Yana texts, with Yana myths collected by R.B. Dixon. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 9: 1-235. Berkeley CA.Google Scholar
. 1923. Text analyses of three Yana dialects. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 20: 263-294. Berkeley CA.Google Scholar
Shepherd, Alice. 1989. Wintu Texts [University of California Publications in Linguistics 117]. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sherzer, Joel. 1973. Areal linguistics in North America. In Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 10: Linguistics in North America, Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), 749-795. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2006. On the conceptual framework for voice phenomena. Linguistics 44(2): 217-269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silver, Shirley. 1966. The Shasta Language. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Robert M.W. Dixon (ed.), 112-171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Walker, Neil Alexander. 2012. A Grammar of Southern Pomo: An Indigenous Language of California. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.