PresentationPDF Available

Indeterminate valency and verbal ambivalence in Chitimacha

Authors:

Abstract

Though valency has long been of interest to linguists, there are relatively few surveys of valency classes from a crosslinguistic perspective (Dixon & Aikhenvald 2000a; Kulikov, Malchukov & de Swart 2006; Malchukov & Comrie 2015; Tsunoda & Kageyama 2006). A minority but persistent perspective that appears in valency research, however, is the suggestion that valency classes may not be a concept equally applicable to all languages. This skepticism takes different forms for different researchers and languages. In some languages, valency classes claimed to be epiphenomenal, or the indirect result of other mechanisms in the grammar. For example, Martin (2000) argues that valency classes in Creek (Muskogean) are merely a side effect of changes in event perspective. Likewise for Mohawk (Iroquoian), Mithun (2006:214) shows that “voice alternations are not exploited for purely syntactic purposes. They can serve important semantic, lexical, and discourse functions, however.” The present paper offers another potential difficulty in the crosslinguistic application of valency: How does one determine valency classes in a language where there is no consistent means of deciding the number of arguments that a given verb has? While many have noted the difficulty in determining whether a given participant is an argument or adjunct in various languages, the problem presented here is more foundational, i.e., whether a given participant can be said to be present in the clause at all. I argue that Chitimacha, a language isolate of Louisiana, presents precisely this challenge for the study of valency classes. Since nearly all definitions of transitivity and valency rely crucially on knowing the number of arguments in a clause (Dixon & Aikhenvald 2000b:4; Haspelmath 2015:136; Næss 2007:6), the case of Chitimacha suggests that a more robust definition of valency than these is needed. Using data from an archival corpus collected by Morris Swadesh in the 1930s, I show that each of the potential morphological valency-adjusting devices in Chitimacha are in fact not valency-adjusting per se, but rather alter the lexical semantics of the verb in ways that license and abet – but do not require – changes in valency.
Indeterminate valency and verbal ambivalence in Chitimacha
Daniel W. Hieber
University of California, Santa Barbara
SSILA 2017, Jan 58, Austin, TX
1
1. Valency
long history, but few crosslinguistic surveys (Dixon & Aikhenvald 2000;
Kulikov, Malchukov, & de Swart 2006; Malchukov & Comrie 2015;
Tsunoda & Kageyama 2006)
minority but persistent concern: Are valency classes a concept equally
applicable to all languages?
Possible exceptions: Creek (Martin 2000), Mohawk (Mithun 2006),
Balinese (Shibatani & Artawa 2015), Sri Lanka Malay (Nordhoff 2015),
Abawiri (Yoder 2016).
2. Valency in Chitimacha
Language isolate spoken in Louisiana until 1940
Texts recorded by Morris Swadesh from speakers Chief Benjamin Paul and
Mrs. Delphine Ducloux between 1930 and 1934
How does one determine valency classes in a language where there is no consistent
means of deciding the number of arguments that a given verb has?
Answer: Each of the potential morphological valency-adjusting devices in
Chitimacha are not valency-adjusting per se, but rather alter the lexical semantics of
the verb in ways that license and abet but do not require changes in valency.
3. Overview of Chitimacha Grammar
Verbs distinguish between First and Non-First person:
First
(1) ʔam-iki
see-1SG
‘I saw’ A65 4.20
Non-First
(2) ʔam-ʔis
̌-iʔi
see-IPFV-NF.SG
‘you see’ A5 6.3
(3) ʔam-ʔis
̌-iʔi
see-IPFV-NF.SG
‘she saw’ A65 2.13
Verbs show agent-patient alignment in the First person, and nominative-accusative
alignment in the Non-First person (only subjects are marked):
Intransitive with Agent
(4) ʔaps
̌ ʔe-h-iki
back be-LOC-1SG.A
‘I returned’ A10 5.4
Intransitive with Patient
(5) hi ʔe-h-ki
AND be-LOC-1SG.P
‘it happened to me’ A70 1.6
Transitive without Patient
(6) kʼet-iki
hit/kill(SG)-1SG.A
‘I killed it’ A80 5.6
Transitive with Patient
(7) kʼet-ki-ʔi
hit/kill(SG)-1SG.P-NF.SG
‘she beat me’ A60 1.6
Verbs do not index their syntactic object, only the subject:
(8) heːc
̌pi-c
̌u-k
help-IRR-1SG.A
‘I’ll help you’ A1 2.7
(9) siksi kʼe-c
̌-s
̌
eagle kill(SG)-IRR-COND
‘if one kills an eagle’ A1 4.2
Indeterminate valency and verbal ambivalence in Chitimacha Daniel W. Hieber
SSILA 2017, Jan. 58, Austin, TX University of California, Santa Barbara
2
(10) hus tep cʼismam ʔukaːs
̌i
hus tep cʼismam ʔuka-ʔis
̌-i
his fire piece count-IPFV-NF.SG
‘he counted his pieces of fire’ A5 1.6
Any argument may be omitted if marked on the verb or understood from context:
(11) Wetk kunukʼu we pans
̌ hi s
̌am-tk-s
̌ tʼut-naʔa.
then QUOT DET people AND go.out-PTCP-SBD go(PL)-NF.PL
ʔas
̌inc
̌ʼatʼa kuns
̌in hani ʔas
̌inc
̌ʼata=nki hi tup-t-naʔa.
old some house old=LOC DIST find-TR-NF.PL
Pans
̌ his
̌ kʼet-k ʔs
̌ hup hi hoks
̌te-pa, ʔs
̌
people ERG kill(SG)-PTCP buzzard to AND feed-SBD buzzard
heps
̌i=nk kap mesti-ːkʼ c
̌i-ʔuy-i. Tutk
excrement=ABL STAT be.white-PTCP COP(VERT)-IPFV-NF.SG then
wey-s
̌ kin ʔaps
̌ neːc
̌ʼi-mi-naka.
DEM=TOP with RECIP speak-PLACT-1PL.A
‘The people got out and went on. They found an old man at an old house.
He was all white with buzzard excrement, because some people had killed
him and left him to the buzzards. We spoke with him. A3 4.1 4.4
The above two facts make it difficult to determine transitivity in Chitimacha based
on local context alone (i.e., the clause). However, tracking of discourse referents (as
above), combined with a variety of transitivity-adjusting devices, resolve this
problem in almost every case:
(12) Hi kima-ki kʼan […] ni kʼus
̌-m-puy-na.
DIST believe-1SG.P NEG DTRZR eat-PLACT-IPFV-NF.PL
‘I do not believe they ate [in that other land].’ A4 5.2
(13) Kamc
̌in ʔap s
̌am-kʼust-i-nki tʼemi-naka. Weyt
deer VEN go.out-sudden-NF.SG=TEMP kill(PL)-1PL.A thus
ni kʼus
̌-mi-ːtʼi-nakun.
DTRZR eat-PLACT-IRR(PL)-1PL.A
As the deer came out, we killed them. Thus we shall eat them.’ A19 4.4
4. Transitivity-Adjusting Devices
4.1. Preverbs
A set of preverbs form a lexical unit with the verb, and affect the verb’s lexical
aspect, directionality, reciprocity/reflexivity, and sometimes transitivity:
Preverb
Function(s) Translational Equivalent
hi
ANDATIVE ‘(going) to’
DISTAL ‘(going) there’
his
ANDATIVE REDITIVE (ADRETITIVE) ‘(going) back to’
REPETITIVE ‘doing again’
RESPONSIVE ‘doing in response’
kap
INCEPTIVE ‘starting’
INCHOATIVE ‘becoming’
PUNCTUAL ‘suddenly’
STATIVE ‘being’
SUPER-LATIVE ‘(going) up’
kaːpʼs
SUPER-LATIVE REDITIVE (SUPERREDITIVE) ‘(going) back up’
ka
TRANSLATIVE ‘across’
kas
DISLATIVE ‘(going) apart’
REVERSIVE ‘reverse’
TRANSLATIVE REDITIVE (TRANSREDITIVE) ‘back across’
ni
DETRANSITIVIZER thing
IMPERATIVE ‘do itǃ’
NOMINALIZER ‘thing’
SUBLATIVE ‘(going) down’
ʔap
PROXIMAL ‘(coming) here’
VENITIVE ‘coming’
ʔaps
̌
CIRCUMLATIVE ‘randomly, about’
PROXIMAL REDITIVE ‘(coming) here’
RECIPROCAL ‘each other’
REFLEXIVE ‘oneself’
SOCIATIVE ‘together’
(VENITIVE/SIMPLE) REDITIVE ‘(coming) back’
Indeterminate valency and verbal ambivalence in Chitimacha Daniel W. Hieber
SSILA 2017, Jan. 58, Austin, TX University of California, Santa Barbara
3
Preverbs can license or delicense arguments to the verb:
hi adds a Goal to the verbal semantics, even when that Goal is not overt or even
salient in the discourse.
No Goal
(14) mis
̌ kʼap-t-k, tʼut-naka
road take-TR-PTCP go(PL)-1PL.A
‘taking to the road, we went’ A4 3.1
Overt Goal
(15) Wetk kunukʼu kʼastʼa=nk hi tʼut-naʔa.
then QUOT north.wind=LOC AND go(PL)-NF.PL
‘Then, they say, they went toward the north.’ A3 2.1
[…]
Goal Added to Lexical Semantics of Verb
(16) hi tʼut-naʔa hesikʼen
AND go(PL)-NF.PL again
‘they went on (to there) again’ A3 2.5
ʔaps
̌ back, togetheroften adds a reflexive semantics to the verb, sometimes
delicensing an argument.
(17) Reduced Valency (Transitive Verb)
hus mahc
̌i kuh his
̌ ʔaps
̌ neh-pa-puy-na
his tail feather INSTR REFL cover-CAUS-IPFV-NF.PL
they adorn themselves with his tail feathers A10 11.2
(18) No Valency Change (Intransitive Verb)
Wetks
̌ we pans
̌ pinikank ʔas
̌inc
̌ʼata=s
̌ ʔaps
̌ c
̌uy-i.
then DET Indian old=TOP back go(SG)-NF.SG
‘Then the old Indian came back.’ A9 4.5
(19) No Valency Change (Transitive Verb)
Huyi waytm ʔaps
̌ wok-t-i.
good more REFL feel-TR-NF.SG
‘He felt (himself) better.’ A86 2.21
Reflexive without Reduced Valency (Transitive Verb)
hus nehe ʔaps
̌ kʼet-iʔi.
his self REFL kill(SG)-NF.SG
‘He killed himself.’ A3 6.7
Without ʔaps
̌, arguments like hus nehe are interpreted as emphatic rather than
reflexive pronouns:
we heki ʔatkank hus nehe=nk hi wit-mi-c
̌-s
̌
DET minister his self=NOM AND shoot-PLACT-IRR(SG)-COND
‘if the minister himself shot it’ A67 3.3
The detransitivizing preverb ni derives from a noun originally meaning ‘thing’.
Transitive without ni
(20) ʔiš=k ʔ nuːp as-ka-nki-š
1SG=NOM 1SG potato plant-PL=TEMP=SBD
‘when I planted my potatoes’ A59 2.9
Intransitive with ni
(21) hus=k ney =ki ni kʼas-t-ʼis
̌-iʔi
3sg=NOM ground =LOC DTRZR plant-TR-IPFV-NF.SG
‘he was planting in the ground’ A59 1.9
ni does not reduce valency
(22) Tutk namu=s
̌ hi c
̌uh-mi-ʔi. Hani ne
then town=TOP DIST build-PLACT-NF.SG house just
ni c
̌uh-mi-ʔi.
DTRZR build-PLACT-NF.SG
‘Then he built a town. He built houses.’ A49 1.11 1.12
4.2. Locational Suffixes
-n ‘out, on’
-h ‘in’
-k ‘at’ (?)
The locational suffixes add a Ground to the lexical semantics of the verb. These
suffixes are no longer productive; they are limited to a small set of verbs.
No Locational Suffix
(23) Weyt pe-ʔe-nki […]
thus be(HORIZ)-NF.SG-TEMP
‘while he lay thus’ A17 5.17
Locational Suffix with Overt Ground
(24) Wetk naps
̌c
̌ʼa=nk kis
̌ ʔatin pe-h-k kap tey-i.
then black=NOM horse be(HORIZ)-on-PTCP STAT stay-NF.SG
‘Now a black person on a horse stopped.’ A48 3.5
Indeterminate valency and verbal ambivalence in Chitimacha Daniel W. Hieber
SSILA 2017, Jan. 58, Austin, TX University of California, Santa Barbara
4
Ground Added to Lexical Semantics of Verb (‘land’ already activated)
(25) We kuːk=s
̌ kʼamikʼi wetk his pe-h-w-i.
DET water=TOP long then DUR be(HORIZ)-on-moving-NF.SG
‘The water was on (the land) a long time.’ A62 2.2
(26) S
̌us
̌=up kap pe-h-iʔi. Hi pe-h-i-nki
tree=to up be(HORIZ)-on-NF.SG AND be(HORIZ)-on-NF.SG=TEMP
He climbed a tree. When he had climbed it, […] A15 2.4 2.5
4.3. Transitive Suffix -t
The -t suffix usually increases the transitivity of the verb.
Without -t
(27) Wetk pans
̌ pinikank ʔoːnak kap hok-naʔa.
then Indian all STAT leave-NF.PL
‘The Indians all left.’ A43 3.7
With -t
(28) kic
̌antʼi ʔunkʼunk=s
̌ hok-t-naʔa
old.woman one=TOP leave-TR-NF.PL
‘they had left only one old woman’ A36 2.8
Without -t
(29) wetk hus hana=nki hi hu-h-ni-na
then his house=LOC AND enclosure-in-NEUT-NF.PL
‘they entered his house’ A86 5.6
With -t
(30) Wetk we pans
̌ ʔis
̌ =ki hi kimi-ːkʼ-s
̌ na
then DET people me =LOC AND believe-PTCP-SBD COP(NF.PL)
sa hana=nki hi hu-h-t-iki.
DIST house=LOC DIST enclosure-in-TR-1SG.A
‘I have put people who believe in me in that house.’ A11 1.11
Very often -t merely adds an Undergoer to the verbs lexical semantics:
(31) Weyc
̌ʼiːkʼs
̌ hiʔnis
̌ hi hok-t-naʔa.
therefore alone DIST leave-TR-NF.PL
‘Therefore they left (it) alone.’ A9 5.5
(32) Weyt hukʼu ʔ-c
̌-t-ʼis
̌-naʔa.
DEM COP turn-handling-TR-IPFV-NF.PL
‘That is the way they turn-weave.’ A73 6.3
4.4. Intransitive Suffix -(t)e
Certain verbs are derived from a noun / adjective + -(t)e INTR (which itself derives
historically from teːt- ‘be like, say’).
(33) s
̌us
̌ c
̌s
̌-e-pa=nki < ciʔis
̌ leaf
tree leaf-INTR-CAUS=TEMP
‘when the leaves bud’ A77 1.1
(34) kap naktaːs
̌iʔi < nakt ‘ice’
kap nakt-te-ʔis
̌-iʔi
STAT ice-INTR-IPFV-NF.SG
‘it (the weather) freezes’ A45 4.12
But -te sometimes creates polyvalent verbs:
(35) Waʔa=s
̌ ney kin pokti kin kap tʼik-te-mi-ʔi.
other=TOP earth with sky with STAT burst-INTR-PLACT-NF.SG
‘The earth and sky crushed the others.’ A3 9.4
(36) hak-te-ma-ːs
̌-naʔa
drink(?)-INTR-PLACT-IPFV-NF.PL
‘they had him drink it (the medicine)’ A3 7.2
In some cases a -te verb shows an unmarked valency alternation:
(37) wetk s
̌us
̌eyi hi mem-ti-ːkʼ,
then fence AND jump(?)-INTR-PTCP
‘then, jumping the fence,’ A48 3.13
(38) Wetk we was
̌tik sekʼis hi mem-t(e)-i.
then DET cow among DIST jump(?)-INTR-NF.SG
‘Then he jumped amongst the cattle.’ A55 1.13
4.5. Pluractional Suffix -ma
Chitimacha pluractional -ma preferentially indicates plurality of the subject when the
verb is intransitive, plurality of the object when the verb is transitive, or plural events
generally (i.e., frequentive, distributive, or iterative meanings):
Indeterminate valency and verbal ambivalence in Chitimacha Daniel W. Hieber
SSILA 2017, Jan. 58, Austin, TX University of California, Santa Barbara
5
Single Action, Plural Subject (Intransitive)
kaːkwa-ki kʼan ʔas
̌t ʔuc
̌iːkʼs
̌ pans
̌ ne kap nacpik-mi-naʔa
know-1SG.P NEG how doing person even INCEP begin-PLACT-NF.PL
‘I do not know how people started up’ (i.e. how humankind originated) A1 4.4
Single Action, Plural Object (Transitive)
Wetks
̌ hus naːnc
̌aːkamank=s
̌ hi hok-mi-iʔi.
then his brothers=TOP AND leave-PLACT-NF.SG
‘He left his brothers.’ A1 1.1
Plural Action, Singular Object (Transitive)
wetk ʔaps
̌ cʼit-mi-ʔi
then about cut-PLACT-NF.SG
‘then he cut him up (stabbed him in several places)’ A48 1.10
-ma is often the only marker of the syntactic object on the verb:
Overt Object with -ma
(39) Waʔa=s
̌ ney kin pokti kin ʔaps
̌ neh-t-k
other=TOP earth with sky with together strike-TR-PTCP
kap tʼik-te-mi-ʔi.
STAT burst-INTR-PLACT-NF.SG
‘The earth and the sky crushed the others by striking together.’ A3 9.4
Undergoer Added to Lexical Semantics of Verb
(40) we ʔas
̌antʼa his nuy-m-i
DET old response call-PLACT-NF.SG
‘the old man answered’ (implied by context: ‘them’) A4 3.13
4.6. Manner Suffixes
-kint ‘dropping, pushing
-kʼes ‘pouring’
-tʼuwa / -ptkʼus
̌ ‘suddenly’
-c
̌i ‘handling’
-c ‘touching’
-wa ‘moving’
Some manner suffixes have no apparent effect on valency:
Without Manner Suffix
(41) Hus waši=nk we kimu pekʼis ʔapš ʔiː-m-i.
his hand=ABS DET branch over CIRC turn-PLACT-NF.SG
He moved his hands over the limb. A9 4.3
With Manner Suffix -tʼuwa
(42) Wetks
̌ kʼastʼa=nk kas ʔ-tʼuwi-c
̌-s
̌,
then north.wind=LOC back turn-sudden-IRR(SG)-COND
‘Then, if (the wind) turns to the north,” A84 4.7
Other manner suffixes add a Patient to the verbal semantics:
Without Manner Suffix (Intransitive)
(43) c
̌ʼaː kap s
̌a-n-i-nki
sun up container-out-NF.SG=TEMP
‘when the sun rises’ A64 1.6
With -kint ‘dropping, pushing’ (Transitive, Overt Object)
(44) Wetks
̌ we nitiya-nk=s
̌ ʔis
̌ hi s
̌a-n-kint-ki
then DET master-NOM=TOP me AND container-out-drop-1SG.P
‘The (boat) master put me off.’ A10 10.3
With -kint ‘dropping, pushing’ (Transitive, No Overt Object)
(45) Tutk kuː =ki hi ni-kint-i.
then water =LOC AND water-drop-NF.SG
‘He threw (it) into the water.’ A9 3.3
4.7. Other Transitivity-Adjusting Devices
Causative -pa
Benefactive -aʔ
Patient Suffixes -ki, -kuy (Hieber, under revision)
Indeterminate valency and verbal ambivalence in Chitimacha Daniel W. Hieber
SSILA 2017, Jan. 58, Austin, TX University of California, Santa Barbara
6
5. Discussion & Conclusions
Each transitivity-adjusting device often licenses a change in argument
structure, but does not necessitate one
The same set of transitivity-adjusting devices may result in clauses of
different valency depending on the preceding discourse context.
Participants are present in the clause when they are a continuing discourse
referent.
Valency is not strongly expressed in Chitimacha.
The combination of transitivity-adjusting devices and information tracking
resolve potential ambiguities, without the need for clearly-defined valency
classes.
Verbal morphology changes the lexical semantics of the verb, enabling but
not requiring changes in valency.
Chitimacha verbal morphology is fundamentally about event perspective
and construal (transitivity) rather than argument structure (valency) per se.
6. References
Dixon, R. M. W. & Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.). 2000a. Changing valency: Case
studies in transitivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hieber, Daniel W. under revision. Semantic alignment in Chitimacha.
Kulikov, Leonid, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds.). 2006. Case, valency,
and transitivity. (Studies in Language Companion Series 77). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Malchukov, Andrej & Bernard Comrie (eds.). 2015. Valency classes in the world’s
languages, Vol. 1: Introducing the framework, and case studies from Africa
and Eurasia. (Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics 1.1). Berlin: Mouton.
Martin, Jack B. 2000. Creek voice: Beyond valency. In R. M. W. Dixon &
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Changing valency: Case studies in
transitivity, 375403. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mithun, Marianne. 2006. Voice without subjects, objects, or obliques: Manipulating
argument structure in Agent/Patient systems (Mohawk). In Tasaku Tsunoda &
Taro Kageyama (eds.), Voice and grammatical relations: In honor of
Masayoshi Shibatani, 195216. (Typological Studies in Language 65).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nordhoff, Sebastian. 2015. Case frames in Sri Lanka Malay. In Andrej Malchukov &
Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages, Vol. 2: Case
studies from Austronesia and the Pacific, the Americas, and Theoretical
Outlook, 9871014. (Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics 1.2). Berlin:
Mouton.
Shibatani, Masayoshi & Ketut Artawa. 2015. Balinese valency classes. In Andrej L.
Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s
languages, Vol. 2: Case studies from Austronesia and the Pacific, the
Americas, and Theoretical Outlook, 877940. (Comparative Handbooks in
Linguistics 1.2). Berlin: Mouton.
Swadesh, Morris. 1934a. The phonetics of Chitimacha. Language 10(4). 503521.
Swadesh, Morris. 1934b. The phonemic principle. Language 10(2). 117129.
Swadesh, Morris. 1939a. Chitimacha texts. In Morris Swadesh, Chitimacha
grammar, texts and vocabulary. (American Council of Learned Societies
Committee on Native American Languages, Mss.497.3.B63c G6.5). American
Philosophical Society Library: Philadelpha, PA.
Swadesh, Morris. 1939b. Chitimacha grammar (copy 1). In Morris Swadesh,
Chitimacha grammar, texts and vocabulary. (American Council of Learned
Societies Committee on Native American Languages, Mss.497.3.B63c G6.5).
American Philosophical Society Library: Philadelpha, PA.
Swadesh, Morris. 1946. Chitimacha. In Harry Hoijer (ed.), Linguistic structures of
Native America, 312336. (Publications in Linguistics 6). New York: Viking
Fund.
Tsunoda, Tasaku & Taro Kageyama (eds.). 2006. Voice and grammatical relations:
In honor of Masayoshi Shibatani. (Typological Studies in Language 65).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Yoder, Brendon. 2016. Valency classes in Abawiri. Manuscript.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Presentation
Full-text available
This paper seeks to determine the system of grammatical relations for verbal person marking in Chitimacha, a once-extinct isolate from Louisiana now undergoing revitalization efforts. Though the language was documented intermittently from 1802 onwards, the most extensive and reliable documentation is from Morris Swadesh's work with the last two native speakers in the 1930s. These efforts resulted in a grammar, 3,500-word dictionary, and collection of 110 texts, all unpublished and as yet untranscribed. This study examines a selection of of those texts to determine whether Chitimacha person marking follows an agent-patient system, an active-stative system, or something else entirely.
Article
Within chemistry, VALENCY refers to the capacity of an atom or group of atoms to combine in specific proportions with other atoms or groups of atoms. 1 The French linguist Lucien Tesnière is generally credited with introducing this term to linguistics, where it is used metaphorically for the capacity of a verb to combine with distinct arguments or valents (Crystal 1985). A verb like rain, which has no referential noun phrases associated with it, is said to be ZERO-PLACE or AVALENT; a verb like disappear, which takes only a subject argument, is said to be ONE-PLACE or MONOVALENT; verbs like devour and give are said to be TWO-PLACE (BIVALENT) and THREE-PLACE (TRIVALENT), respectively. This chemical metaphor has had a pervasive influence in linguistics: causative and applicative morphemes are now described as 'adding arguments,' while passives and middles are described as 'suppressing' or 'deleting' arguments, respectively. Entire sections of grammars are devoted to 'valency-changing,' 'valency-increasing,' or 'valency-reducing' processes, suggesting that the primary function of these grammatical processes is to regulate the number of arguments in clauses. The chemical metaphor contrasts with an older tradition that distinguishes just two classes of predicates—TRANSITIVE and INTRANSITIVE—and a category of VOICE. Passive voice and middle voice are seen within this tradition as altering the 'point of view' or 'centre of interest' (Jesperson 1924:167) within a clause rather than applying mathematical operations to it, and causatives and applicatives are sometimes included and sometimes excluded from the traditional range of voice-related phenomena. There are important issues here that need to be researched and clarified. One point distinguishing the theories of voice and valency, for example, is the issue of the degree to which grammars have the ability to COUNT. As an analogy, one commonly reads descriptions of stress systems in which accent is said to be placed on the third or fourth syllable from an edge, but these have generally been replaced by more restrictive theories in which rhythm operates in prosodic units of different sizes. In discovering this, we learn an important fact about language, that while counting may be a basic human cognitive process, it plays virtually no role in grammar. To an extent, then, voice and valency are competing theories of clause structure: (a) The theory of valency claims that there are at least four distinct grammatical classes of predicates (zero-, one-, two-, and three-place). The capacity of a predicate to occur with different numbers of noun phrases can itself be taken as a grammatical 1 The title of this paper extends a chain begun by Barber (1975) and continued by Croft (1994). The phonemic transcription used here for Creek is based on Mary R. Haas's work. The phonemes are /p t c k f s ł h m n w l y i i· a a· o o·/. /c/ is a voiceless palatal affricate; /ł/ is a voiceless lateral fricative. As a diphthong, /ay/ is pronounced and written /ey/; V· is a long vowel. Primary stress (realized as the last high pitch syllable in a word) is written with an acute accent an indicate falling tone and rising tone, respectively; n indicates nasalization indicates a stressed word-initial syllable (usually resulting from aphaeresis). I am grateful to Margaret McKane Mauldin and George Bunny for help with the Creek data cited in this paper, to Bob Dixon and Sasha Aikhenvald for organizing the workshop at which these ideas were developed, and to Ann Reed and two anonymous reviewers for comments. All mistakes are mine.
In Morris Swadesh, Chitimacha grammar, texts and vocabulary. (American Council of Learned Societies Committee on Native American Languages, Mss.497.3.B63c G6.5)
  • Morris Swadesh
Swadesh, Morris. 1939b. Chitimacha grammar (copy 1). In Morris Swadesh, Chitimacha grammar, texts and vocabulary. (American Council of Learned Societies Committee on Native American Languages, Mss.497.3.B63c G6.5). American Philosophical Society Library: Philadelpha, PA.
Valency classes in Abawiri
  • Brendon Yoder
Yoder, Brendon. 2016. Valency classes in Abawiri. Manuscript.