This item is not viewable because it is not yet digitized or has special access permissions. Please log in or request access.
The Case for D-Quantification in Salish: 'All' in St'át'imcets, Squamish, and Secwepemctsín
Academic Work
This paper presents evidence that there is determiner-type quantification in several Salish languages. We undertake a comparative study of one quantificational element, the word for all, in three languages from two separate divisions of the family: Squamish, from the Central Coast Salish branch, and St'át'imcets (Lillooet) and Secwepemctsín (Shuswap), both from the Northern Interior Salish branch. We show that in each of the three languages, all is neither a main predicate nor a second-order predicate, but a quantifier syntactically associated with an argument. The evidence, and hence our analysis, differs in major respects from that presented by Jelinek (in press) for Straits Salish.
In section 1 we give background information, beginning with a brief discussion of Jelinek's analysis of Straits Salish. In this section we also outline, for each language, basic syntactic information which will be relevant to subsequent discussion and argumentation. The following sections systematically test which syntactic category all belongs to for each language. Section 2 shows that, as Jelinek predicts, all does not function as a main predicate. However, unlike Straits, we have evidence that all is not a second-order predicate in the languages studied here (section 3). Thus, it is neither an auxiliary nor an adverb. Section 4 argues that all and the DP which defines its range form a single constituent, but that all is neither an adjective nor a relative clause. In section 5 we argue that when all occurs sentence-initially, it has been extracted from a DP. In sections 6 through 8 we present our analysis. We derive the distribution of all from a single base-structure: all is base-generated within DP in the position of a non-predicative adjective. If it remains in-situ it has a non-quantificational reading. However, since it has inherent quantificational force, it may raise by S-Structure to an operator position: Spec, DP. Once this has taken place, Quantifier-raising or Focus movement of the entire DP to an operator position may then occur, or all itself may undergo Quantifier-raising at S-Structure, thus, stranding the DP which defines its range. The analysis extends to cases where the range is a null pronominal. In section 8, we discuss a restriction on the quantifier's range and on the distribution of the topical object marker -táli, when all is separated from its range in St'át'imcets. We derive these two restrictions from the requirement that a quantifier bind a topic, since it presupposes the existence of the set over which it ranges.
If a case can be made for D-type quantification in Salish, as we argue here, then there are significant consequences for the debate on the existence or non-existence of lexical distinctions in Salish. If there is determiner quantification, then we must reorganize the existence of noun phrases in these languages.
Because quantification is a vast subject area, there are many interesting issues we have been forced to avoid. For example, we do not examine the behavior of wh-indefinites which can combine with all to produce meanings such as everyone, everything. We also do not discuss in detail the distributive universal quantifier zí7zeg' 'each' in St'át'imcets, which will be the subject of future research. Nor do we deal with other quantifiers such as many, or cardinality expressions, except in passing.
In section 1 we give background information, beginning with a brief discussion of Jelinek's analysis of Straits Salish. In this section we also outline, for each language, basic syntactic information which will be relevant to subsequent discussion and argumentation. The following sections systematically test which syntactic category all belongs to for each language. Section 2 shows that, as Jelinek predicts, all does not function as a main predicate. However, unlike Straits, we have evidence that all is not a second-order predicate in the languages studied here (section 3). Thus, it is neither an auxiliary nor an adverb. Section 4 argues that all and the DP which defines its range form a single constituent, but that all is neither an adjective nor a relative clause. In section 5 we argue that when all occurs sentence-initially, it has been extracted from a DP. In sections 6 through 8 we present our analysis. We derive the distribution of all from a single base-structure: all is base-generated within DP in the position of a non-predicative adjective. If it remains in-situ it has a non-quantificational reading. However, since it has inherent quantificational force, it may raise by S-Structure to an operator position: Spec, DP. Once this has taken place, Quantifier-raising or Focus movement of the entire DP to an operator position may then occur, or all itself may undergo Quantifier-raising at S-Structure, thus, stranding the DP which defines its range. The analysis extends to cases where the range is a null pronominal. In section 8, we discuss a restriction on the quantifier's range and on the distribution of the topical object marker -táli, when all is separated from its range in St'át'imcets. We derive these two restrictions from the requirement that a quantifier bind a topic, since it presupposes the existence of the set over which it ranges.
If a case can be made for D-type quantification in Salish, as we argue here, then there are significant consequences for the debate on the existence or non-existence of lexical distinctions in Salish. If there is determiner quantification, then we must reorganize the existence of noun phrases in these languages.
Because quantification is a vast subject area, there are many interesting issues we have been forced to avoid. For example, we do not examine the behavior of wh-indefinites which can combine with all to produce meanings such as everyone, everything. We also do not discuss in detail the distributive universal quantifier zí7zeg' 'each' in St'át'imcets, which will be the subject of future research. Nor do we deal with other quantifiers such as many, or cardinality expressions, except in passing.
AW.00084
1994
Language and Linguistics
Papers for the International Conference on Salish Languages (ICS(N)L)
29, 145-203
29, 145-203
Copyright remains with the authors.
Working Papers
Do you have a comment, story, or something you would like us to know related to this item?