No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Abstract
Thesis (M.A.)--University of Washington. Microfilm. s
... Aside from lists of forms in dictionaries, passing mention in grammars, and practical lessons in counting elaborated for teaching, there is very little in the literature on Salishan numerals and countinghence, the modest goal of this paper, which is to synthesize what we know about numerals and numeral phrases in Lushootseed and make it available in a single place. In what follows, I present whatever can be gleaned from the existing descriptive and pedagogical grammars (Hess & Hilbert 1976;Hess 1995Hess , 1998Hess , 2006Cort 1998), a brief technical sketch (Tweddell 1950), the Lushootseed Dictionary (Bates et al. 1994), extant published texts (Hilbert & Hess 1977;Beck & Hess 2014, 2015, and a few forms from as-yet unpublished recordings collected by Vi Hilbert, Thom Hess, and Leon Metcalf (transcribed by Hilbert and Hess) in the current Lushootseed corpus. What emerges is a surprisingly complete picture, a tribute to the quality of earlier documentation of the language, but there are nevertheless some unanswered questions, particularly with regards to the productivity of certain derivational patterns and ordering restrictions in numeral phrases. ...
... (Hess & Hilbert 1976), which would have the same literal gloss. † Tweddell (1950) reports SL 1,100 as padac sbək'ʷačiʔ yəxʷ kʷi dč'uʔ sbək'ʷačiʔ; however, this form does not follow the pattern for the other thousand-hundred forms found in the same work and in Hess and Hilbert (1976). ...
Summarizes current knowledge of numerals in Lushootseed (Salishan). Published in ICSNL 55 [http://lingpapers.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2020/07/01_ICSNL55_Beck_final.pdf]
The story of linguistic research in the Northwest is a complex and varied one.1 Inextricably intertwined with the rich and varied cultures of the indigenous peoples who speak those languages, it has drawn fascinated field researchers from all over the world, and it promises to yield yet untold riches in the variety of human expression and the ways human beings systematize the natural and supernatural phenomena of their universe and their reactions and attitudes in response to them. Not surprisingly, the linguists who have attempted to record and study these tongues have usually been to greater or lesser extent also anthropologists — interested as well in the cultural relationships, and concerned about the fate of those earlier Americans.
In the preceding sections I have argued that Lushootseed and Thompson/Shuswap differ in certain important ways, and that these differences can be accounted for in a unified fashion by assuming that in Lushootseed the diminutive morpheme is a prefix, while in the Interior Salish languages it is an infix. The differing forms of doubly reduplicated words were argued to follow from these differences in word structure, and the principle of subjacency, interpreted to prohibit the copying of phonemic melodies across two cyclic nodes, was argued to be a universal principle constraining the operation of morphological rules. The larger conclusion suggested by this analysis is that the morphological and the syntactic components of the grammar are not so disparate as they might appear to be at first glance; we can see the same principles operating on the level of the word and the level of the sentence.
The analysis presented above involves certain assumptions which deserve further discussion. In particular, it was assumed that infixing is the attachment of a morpheme to a phonological constituent rather than to a morphological constituent; in terms of the infix discussed above, this means that the diminutive in the Interior Salish languages is subcategorized to occur before a stressed syllable rather than before a stem, as in Lushootseed. The infix is not, at least in surface structure, integrated into the tree structure of the word; instead, it is attached in a linear fashion to some element in the phonological representation, and certain operations — the copying of the phonemic melody of a stem, in this case — can take place independently on the phonological and on the morphological tiers. This assumption raises the question of at what level and in what way infixes are related to the other morphemes of a word. A treatment of this question is beyond the scope of this paper; I will note here only that this problem is the same one faced in describing the morphological structure of languages, such as Semitic languages, which make extensive use of nonconcatenative systems of morphology (McCarthy 1981). An analysis of the relationship between the phonological structure and the morphological structure of Salish infixal words should generalize to other, more consistently nonconcatenative languages.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.