Issues in Salish Syntax and Semantics

Authors


Abstract

The Salish language family is of special interest for syntactic and semantic theory because it has been argued to differ radically from Indo-European languages in both structure and interpretation (see, e.g., Kinkade 1983; Jelinek and Demers 1994; Jelinek 1995; Ritter and Wiltschko 2005, forthcoming; Davis 2006, 2009; Matthewson 2006a, forthcoming). In this article, we survey four theoretical debates in the syntactic and semantic literature on Salish, one from each of the areas of lexical semantics, super-lexical syntax, semantics and pragmatics, with an eye to pinning down the principal loci of variation between Salish and Indo-European. In the domain of lexical semantics, we argue for the hypothesis that all Salish verb roots are intransitive and unaccusative. In the area of syntax, we outline the predictions of the Pronominal Argument Hypothesis, and provide counterarguments which show that at least some and probably all Salish languages have a fully configurational syntax. Turning to tense, we argue that Salish languages are tensed, despite superficial evidence to the contrary. Finally, we present arguments that at least one Salish language differs radically from English in its pragmatics: it lacks any familiarity presuppositions. Our conclusion is that major parametric differences between Salish and Indo-European languages are not to be found in the syntax or sentence-level semantics, but in the pragmatics, and possibly the lexical semantics.

1. Introduction

The Salish language family comprises 23 languages that are or were spoken in the Pacific Northwest of North America (see Thompson and Kinkade 1990; Czaykowska-Higgins and Kinkade 1998, for overviews, and van Eijk 2008 for a comprehensive bibliography). All the languages are in advanced stages of endangerment, with the most ‘healthy’ possessing approximately 100 remaining fluent speakers. While the family is understudied compared to more familiar languages of the Indo-European family, in recent years there has been intensive work on the syntax and semantics of Salish, building on a rich descriptive tradition and incorporating insights from contemporary theoretical frameworks. Salish also enjoys a certain fame due to some high-profile proposals that it differs radically in various aspects of its grammar from better-known (mostly European) languages (see, e.g., Kinkade 1983; Jelinek and Demers 1994; Jelinek 1995; Ritter and Wiltschko 2005, forthcoming; Davis 2006a, 2009; Matthewson 2006a, forthcoming). Our goal in this review article is to report some recent findings from the literature on the syntax and semantics of Salish languages, with particular reference to potential loci of variation between Salish and more familiar languages.

For reasons of space, we restrict ourselves here to a relatively detailed discussion of four representative topics, one from each of the areas of lexical semantics, superlexical syntax, semantics and pragmatics. We have chosen these topics partly because of their wider implications for linguistic theory, partly because we ourselves have worked on them, and partly because each has engendered a lively controversy in the Salishan literature. In selecting these topics, we have had to omit discussion of many other interesting questions, including the debate over lexical category distinctions, most issues of sublexical syntax and semantics, as well as issues in the syntax and semantics of determiners, quantifiers, aspect, anaphora, and information structure. In order to compensate for the relatively narrow focus of the paper, we provide a fairly complete bibliography of work on Salish syntax and semantics, thematically structured to allow readers to explore the literature for themselves.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we present the debate about root semantics in Salish languages, and argue for the hypothesis that all Salish verb roots are (i) intransitive and (ii) unaccusative. In Section 3, we discuss configurationality. We outline the Pronominal Argument Hypothesis as applied to Salish, and present counterarguments which show that at least some Salish languages have a fully configurational syntax with a VP constituent. Section 4 is devoted to tense and tenselessness; we argue that Salish languages are tensed, despite superficial evidence to the contrary. In Section 5, we present arguments that at least one Salish language differs quite radically from English in its pragmatics, lacking any familiarity presuppositions.

In what follows, it is important to bear in mind that although by now descriptive grammars are available for most Salish languages, there is still a paucity of work on formal syntax and semantics, and virtually nothing written on formal pragmatics.1 Thus, while we endeavor to be as comprehensive as possible when reviewing literature from the entire family, most of the detailed arguments given here come from the better studied Central and Northern Interior branches, and we rely particularly heavily on the Northern Interior language St’át’imcets (Lillooet). This reflects our own research interests and experience, as well as, in some cases, the extent of the available literature. Where evidence is only available for one or two Salish languages, we adopt the default assumption that what holds for one Salish language can be extended to a generalization about the entire family. We do this in the knowledge that syntactic and semantic variation certainly exists across Salish, and any putative generalization about the entire family should be regarded as a working hypothesis, falsifiable on the basis of detailed empirical investigation of individual languages.

2. Lexical Decomposition and the Nature of the Root

Salish languages are of interest for the investigation of decompositional theories of verb meaning, since to a much greater extent than in European languages, Salish verbs wear their derivational structure on their sleeves.2 A Salish verb typically consists of the following elements (excluding inflectional morphemes such as person marking, and passive, reciprocal and reflexive suffixes):

  • (i) a root (distinguishable as the domain of various morphophonological processes, including infixation and several types of reduplication).
  • (ii) some form of aspectual marking, which may be either prefixal (e.g., reflexes of the pan-Salish stative prefix inline image), infixal (e.g., the Interior Salish inchoative infix inline image), suffixal (e.g., the Interior Salish inchoative suffix *–p), reduplicative (e.g., Central Salish ‘inceptive’ CV-reduplication) or a mixture of these (e.g., Central Salish ‘actual’ (imperfective) morphology).
  • (iii) zero or more lexical suffixes, substantive elements with root-like meanings which modify the root in various ways, but do not generally affect valence, aspect, or argument structure.
  • (iv) a transitivizing or intransitive suffix; almost without exception throughout Salish, transitive verbs (those which take object suffixes) must be suffixed with a transitivizer; intransitive verbs fall into both suffixed and unsuffixed types. Transitivity is linked to both aspect and agent control: the latter notion refers to the ability of an agent to influence the outcome of an event (Thompson 1979, 1985).

Of these four basic ingredients, only the root is essential: every Salish language has at least some ‘bare root’ verbs. However, bare root verbs are always in the minority; the majority of verb roots for any given Salish language are obligatorily affixed with one or more of the elements in (ii–iv) above to form a complex verb stem. A few examples from St’át’imcets should give an idea of the range of possible derivations:

(1)a.inline image‘boil’ 
 b.inline image‘boiled’(stative prefix)
 c.inline image‘boiling (of water)’(C2 reduplication and lexical suffix)
 d.inline image‘boil things, do boiling’(active intransitive suffix)
 e.inline image‘boil s.t. (tr.)’(directive transitivizer)
(2)a.√zax̣w‘melt’ 
 binline image‘melt (intr.)’(inchoative infix)
 c.inline image‘soft, melted consistency’(CVC reduplication)
 d.záx̣w-xal‘melt things, do melting’(active intransitive suffix)
 e.inline image‘melt s.t. (tr.)’(directive transitivizer)
(3)a.inline image‘stop’ 
 b.inline image‘stop (intr.)’(C2 reduplication)
 c.inline image‘stopped, staying’(stative prefix)
 d.inline image‘stop things, do stopping’(active intransitive suffix)
 e.inline image‘stop s.t., s.o. (tr.)’(directive transitivizer)
 f.inline image‘stop (oneself)’(autonomous intransitive suffix)

The rich and (comparatively) transparent nature of verbal derivation in Salish has been a happy hunting ground for lexical semanticists, and there is a large and growing literature in several subareas of the field, including lexical/situation aspect, agent control, argument structure and (in)transitivity. It is beyond the scope of this survey to deal with any of these topics in detail (see the bibliography for relevant references). Instead, we will focus on one issue that continues to be debated among Salishanists, with potentially important cross-linguistic implications. This issue concerns the representation of verb roots, and especially the following two hypotheses (Davis 1997, 2000b; Davis and Demirdache 2000).

(4)Intransitivity Hypothesis (IH)
 All verb roots are intransitive in Salish
(5)Unaccusativity Hypothesis (UH)
 All verb roots are unaccusative in Salish

The IH and the UH, if true, have important implications for lexical semantics, particularly in view of increasingly popular decompositional approaches to verb meaning in which transitives (and in many theories, unergatives, qua concealed transitives) are built up syntactically from monadic roots (see Hale and Keyser 2002; Ramchand 2008, etc.) However, neither hypothesis has gone unchallenged: the UH, in particular, goes against most traditional analyses of Salish, which recognize unergative (‘control’) as well as unaccusative (‘non-control’) roots (the terms are from L. C. Thompson 1979, 1985); and several authors have recently claimed that it is necessary to recognize transitive roots as well, yielding a standard three-way contrast. In what follows, we will outline evidence for both the IH and the UH (principally from St’át’imcets) and discuss some of the objections that have been raised against them in the literature.

First, however, it will be necessary to add a third hypothesis, since the issue of verb root semantics is dependent on the premise that roots have independent lexical semantic content.

(6)Primacy of the root
 The root is an active semantic unit in the Salish verbal complex

The primacy of the root is assumed in virtually all early work on Salish, on the basis of its role as a domain for phonological and morphological processes (see Czaykowska-Higgins 1993 for a particularly clear exposition). However, more recently, its utility as a lexical semantic unit has been questioned (see Hess 1993; N. Mattina 1996; Willett 2003). These authors have claimed that the root is a morphophonological but not a morphosyntactic or semantic unit; as N. Mattina puts it: ‘Salishan roots, as traditionally defined, are not relevant to semantico-syntactic relationships between underived lexemes and their derivates’ (1996: 24). Instead, the verb base (more or less equivalent to the traditional Salishan verb stem – that is, the verb root plus all derivational but not inflectional morphology) is taken as a primitive unit of lexical organization (the lexeme: see Beard 1995).

The principal arguments for a lexeme-based and against a root-and-affix-based approach to Salish verbs rely on familiar criteria of compositionality and productivity. First, the semantic relationship between roots and derivational morphemes is sometimes non-compositional; second, there are many more or less accidental gaps in the expected output of derivational operations, including many bound roots that fail to surface unless affixed.3 We do not find these arguments convincing, because they are based on the assumption that any irregularity in distribution or meaning precludes the existence of a derivational relationship. But there is nothing to stop both the input and the output of morphological operations being listed in the lexicon, just in case they need to be (i.e., if they show idiosyncratic properties). And, of course, the existence of idiosyncratic forms is not limited to the derivational morphology, nor even to the morphological component; phrasal idioms are paradigm cases of ‘listemes’, although their components are clearly syntactic. Likewise, exceptional non-application of a morphological process does not invalidate the process itself: it simply calls for a theory that allows particular lexical entries to block the application of otherwise general rules. We will therefore continue to uphold the traditional view that Salish roots are associated with lexical semantic content, and return to the issue of how many verb root classes we need to distinguish.

We begin with the IH, which claims that all Salish roots are intransitive. From a morphological perspective, this is motivated by a Salish near-universal: all formally transitive predicates (i.e., those that may occur with object suffixes) require an overt transitivizing suffix.4 This is illustrated in (7) with a selection of bare root intransitive verbs in St’át’imcets together with their transitivized alternants, derived by suffixation of the directive transitivizer -Vn/-inline image or the causative transitivizer -š/-č:

(7)IntransitiveTransitive
 inline image‘to get hit (by flying object)’inline image‘to hit s.o./s.t.’
 inline image‘to get thrown out’inline image‘to throw out s.t.’
 mayš‘to get fixed’inline image‘to fix s.t.’
 inline image‘to get here, arrive’inline image‘to bring s.o./s.t.’
 kič‘to get laid down’inline image‘to lay s.t. down’
 inline image‘to get cooked, ripe’inline image‘to cook, roast s.t.’
 zuqw‘to die’zuqw-š‘to kill s.o./s.t.’
 xwak‘to wake up, be awoken’inline image‘to wake s.o.’
 inline image‘to get seen’inline image‘to see s.o./s.t.’
 inline image‘to get left behind’inline image‘to leave s.o./s.t. behind’

The verbs on the left are associated with a single argument, obligatorily registered on the predicate in the form of a subject clitic (null in the non-plural third person indicative); those on the right have two arguments, registered on the predicate in the form of an object suffix (null in the third person non-plural) and a subject clitic or suffix:5

(8)a.inline image 
  get.hit=1.sg.su 
  ‘I got hit.’ 
 b.inline imageinline image
  get.hit-caus-1sg.obj-3ergdet=rock=exis
  ‘The/a rock hit me.’ 
(9)a.inline imageinline image
  get.seen(=3su)det=bear=exis
  The/a bear was sighted.’ 
 b.inline imageinline image
  get.seen-dir(-3obj)=1sg.sudet=bear=exis
  I saw a/the bear.’ 

The pattern shown in (7–9) constitutes prima facie evidence that the intransitive alternant is basic and the transitive alternant is derived by a process of causativization, mediated by the transitivizer. (We leave aside the important issue of whether this process is syntactic, lexical, or ‘l-syntactic’: see Jelinek 1994 for a syntactic approach, Davis and Demirdache 2000 for a lexical (event-structure) approach, and Wiltschko 2001 for a mixed account.)

However, a number of researchers have argued that in spite of surface morphology, it is necessary to recognize transitive as well as intransitive verb roots (Gerdts 1988; S. Thomason and Everett 1993; S. Thomason et al. 1994; L. Thomason 1994; N. Mattina 1996; and most recently Gerdts 2006; Gerdts and Hukari 1998, 2006a, b, forthcoming a). Gerdts and Hukari (1998), who have undertaken the most systematic investigation of the combinatorial properties of roots for any Salish language, base their findings on a sample of 489 verb roots from Island Halkomelem. Their principal arguments are based on the following considerations. First, although 93% of the roots in their sample appear with the unmarked -t transitivizer (the equivalent of St’át’imcets -Vn), 19% of these do not have a bare root alternant. Second, in another 8%, the bare root alternant only appears in a very restricted context (referred to by Gerdts and Hukari as ‘pseudo-transitive imperatives’). They conclude that only transitives that freely alternate with bare intransitives should be treated as derived from intransitive roots; otherwise, the root should be treated as transitive.6

These arguments seem to us to be problematic for two reasons. First, the division between alternating (intransitive) and non-alternating (transitive) roots means that the -t transitivizer must be given a non-unitary representation – with intransitive roots, it adds an argument, while with transitive roots, it redundantly signals an already existing transitive relation.7

Second, the idea that the productivity of an alternation should be judged by a count of the number of forms that undergo it reflects a static notion of the mental lexicon, which we suspect underdetermines the morphological resources of fluent speakers. Under this view, the lexicon is much like a dictionary, consisting of a set of actual words: the non-existence of a particular lexical entry is taken at face value and, therefore, if a transitive form has no intransitive alternant, its root must be transitive.8 However, we prefer to emphasize the dynamic nature of morphological alternations, as represented in the minds of fluent speakers, and reflected in the set of possible words. This involves asking the following question: if a non-alternating transitive had a bare root alternant, what would it mean? The fact that our consultants can answer these questions coherently (and consistently) testifies to their intuitions about possible words and their meanings; and the investigation of such intuitions is parallel to the investigation of ‘possible sentences’ and their meanings (i.e., the enterprise of generative syntax).

That the domain of possible words (or in this case, possible roots) is of more than hypothetical interest is shown by the fact that the class of non-alternating transitives is not necessarily fixed, either for a language or even for an individual speaker. For example, if we consult van Eijk's comprehensive dictionary of St’át’imcets (1987), we find, as in Halkomelem, a set of transitive verbs with no bare root alternant: these include inline image, inline image, and inline image, all of which appear in the list in (7) above with a bare root alternant. At the point at which van Eijk compiled the dictionary, the bare root alternants of these verbs had never been recorded – but they are all perfectly comprehensible to any fluent speaker, including those who have neither used nor heard them before. And such forms continue to emerge; quite recently, while editing a text collection from a speaker with whom we have worked for many years, we came across the following phrase (produced by the speaker as the title for one of her stories):

(10)inline imageinline imageinline imageinline image
 det=forgot=exisfishthereseat=exis
 the fish that got forgotten on the sofa’

Neither Jan van Eijk (personal communication, 2008) nor we had ever previously recorded the bare root inline image, though its transitive alternant inline image‘to forget s.o., s.t.’ is very common. Subsequent elicitation confirmed the acceptability of the bare root and revealed its characteristic (telic, patient-oriented) profile.

What, then, of the 19% of transitives that fail to alternate in Gerdts and Hukari's sample of Halkomelem? We suspect that this group exists because it is often difficult to find an appropriate real-world context of use for the bare root alternant. Bare roots in Salish (with the exception of the ‘control roots’ discussed below) have a very particular cluster of thematic and aspectual properties. In particular, they are non-agentive, in the sense that their single argument is a theme/patient, even when the lexical content of the root itself often strongly implies real-world agency (as with ‘forget’, ‘fix’, ‘abandon’, ‘throw away’, and others).9 Speakers often prefer to employ passivized transitives for patient-oriented readings of these predicates, since passives linguistically entail an agent, which may be expressed as an oblique argument; in contrast, with bare roots, obliques may only be interpreted as instruments. This can be seen in the contrast in (11):

(11)a.inline imageinline imageinline image
  get.hitdet=boy=exisobl=det=ball=exis
  ‘The boy was hit by/with a ball.’
 b.inline imageinline imageinline image
  get.hitdet=boy=exisobl=det=girl=exis
  !!'The boy was hit by/with a girl (flying through the air).’
 c.inline imageinline imageinline image
  get.hit-caus-3sg.passdet=boy=exisobl=det=ball=exis
  ‘The boy was hit by/with a ball.’
 d.inline imageinline imageinline image
  get.hit-caus-3sg.passdet=boy=exisobl=det=ball=exis
  ‘The boy was hit by a girl (throwing something).’

Notice that the passive covers all the meanings of the bare root, but not vice versa. In fact, the only circumstance where a bare root would be appropriate, but a passivized transitive would not, is where there is no possibility of real-world agency. In cases of bare roots whose lexical content strongly implies agency, this contingency is unlikely ever to occur. However, a bare root of this type might still be used where the speaker wished for some reason not to mention an agent that was nevertheless present in the speech situation. Strikingly, this corresponds precisely to Gerdts and Hukari's ‘pseudo-transitive imperative’ construction in Halkomelem. Here, bare roots show up when the speaker wishes to frame a polite request without making any direct reference to the agent, as in (12):

(12)inline imageinline imagekw=s=tax̣w=sinline imageinline image
 aux=futobl=heredet=nom=beach=3poss det=canoeslink-tomorrow
 ‘You will beach the canoes over here tomorrow.’
 [Literally: ‘The canoes will beach here tomorrow.’] (Gerdts and Hukari forthcoming a)

Thus, rather than undermining the generality of the bare root-transitive alternation, the 8% of bare roots in Gerdts and Hukari's sample which only surface in the pseudo-transitive imperative construction might actually provide evidence for its generality, and therefore for the IH.10

We conclude that Gerdts and Hukari's arguments do not invalidate the IH for Salish, and turn to the UH, which claims that an unaccusative root of the type seen in (7) underlies all verbal predicates in Salish.

Unlike with the IH, surface morphological evidence seems to argue against the UH, due to the existence (in every Salish language where the topic has been investigated in detail) of a set of ‘control roots’ alongside the unaccusative ‘non-control’ roots we have been investigating so far. Typically, control roots comprise a sizeable minority of all unsuffixed intransitives (there are more than a hundred in St’át’imcets; see Davis 2006b for a more or less complete list), and although they fall into several subtypes (some object-directed, some lexically reflexive), they are all clearly distinguished from unaccusative bare roots in being agentive.11 A typical selection from St’át’imcets is given below:

(13)Some ‘control roots’ in St’át’imcets
 inline image‘to peek’inline image‘to hear’
 inline image‘to steal’inline image‘to pay for’
 kwukw‘to cook’inline image‘to play’
 inline image‘to eat’ (Upper dialect)inline image‘to fly’
 inline image‘to eat’ (Lower dialect)inline image‘to speak’

As has been noted by several researchers, control roots semantically parallel unergatives in more familiar languages (see, in particular, Gerdts 1998, 2006). It might appear, then, that we need to distinguish at least two ‘macro-classes’ of intransitive root: unaccusatives (the non-control roots participating in the intransitive-transitive alternation exemplified in (7)) and unergatives (the control roots exemplified in (13)). This is the conclusion reached by Gerdts and Hukari (2006a, forthcoming) on the basis of their 489-root survey: they point out that 7% of their roots show an alternation between a -t transitive and an agentive intransitive, rather than the patient-oriented intransitive predicted by the UH.12

Despite the prima facie evidence, however, Davis (1997, 2000b) argues that all control roots in St’át’imcets are derived, by zero affixation from an underlying unaccusative root (specifically, via a zero-allomorph of the pan-Salish middle marker –Vm). The basic thrust of the argumentation is as follows.

First, every Salish language possesses an inventory of intransitive suffixes that alternate quite productively with transitivizers. In St’át’imcets (which is fairly typical in this regard), there are three main intransitive suffixes: the active intransitive -xal, which derives ‘object-directed’ intransitives, the autonomous intransitive inline image, which derives lexical reflexives, and the middle marker -Vm, which is ambiguous between the two.

Next, Davis shows that syntactically and semantically, control roots pattern identically to either object-directed or lexically reflexive middles. On the semantic side, there are many synonymous or near-synonymous pairs of predicates, one suffixed with a middle marker, the other zero-marked. Some of these are differentiated dialectally: for example, the Lower St’át’imcets word for ‘work’ is the middle-marked form inline image, while its Upper St’át’imcets counterpart is the zero-derived form inline image. On the syntactic side, zero-marked intransitives show identical behavior to their middle-marked counterparts. For example, active intransitives, object-directed middles and object-directed ‘control roots’ may all occur with overt theme DPs (although not with object suffixes; see Davis and Matthewson 2003b); they are the only intransitive predicates to do so. Furthermore, the same three classes of intransitive verb all undergo an operation of predicate nominalization, yielding a derived nominal predicate whose agent is marked by possessive morphology, as shown in (14):

(14)a.active-marked
  inline imageinline imageinline image
  good=partnonvis.deicdet=nom-smell-3poss=exis
  inline image inline image
  pl.det=impf nom-cook/roast-act-2sg.poss
  ‘What you’re cooking smells good!’
 b.middle-marked
  inline imageinline imageinline image
  good=partnonvis.deicdet=nom-smell-3poss=exis
  inline image inline image
  pl.det=impf nom-cook/roast-mid-2sg.poss
  ‘What you’re cooking smells good!’
 c.zero-marked (‘control root’)
  inline imageinline imageinline image
  good=partnonvis.deicdet=nom-smell-3poss=exis
  inline image š-kwúkw-šu
  pl.det=impf nom-cook(-Ø)-2sg.poss
  ‘What you’re cooking smells good!’

Not only do we find semantic and syntactic parallels between control roots and middles, we also find alternations between the two. This can be seen clearly with agentive intransitives containing lexical suffixes, which normally take a middle marker; in many cases, the middle is in free variation with a zero-affixed form, as shown in (15).

(15)a.inline imageinline imageinline imagezík-alč
  impfpeel-log(-mid)pl.det=impffell.log-house
  ‘The ones building the log house are peeling logs.’
 b.inline imageinline imageinline imageinline image
  impfnowpound-hand/pound-hand-midpl.det=people=exis
  ‘Then the people began to drum.’
 c.inline imagekw=a=šinline image
  neg=partdet(nom)=impf=3possanswer-mouth(-mid)
  ‘S/he's still not answering.’

These systematic parallels between middles and control intransitives stand in stark contrast to the situation with unaccusative intransitives: there are no overt intransitive suffixes which yield derived unaccusatives.13 This striking asymmetry can easily be understood if the direction of derivation goes from unaccusative roots to derived intransitives (including zero-derived ‘control roots’) and transitives, but is a mystery otherwise.14 Davis concludes in favor of the UH, and we see no reason to alter that conclusion.

Where does this leave Salish in terms of the typology of possible roots? On the one hand, there is no doubt that the existence of bare unaccusatives with strongly agentive lexical content, including many of the forms in (7), gives Salish a thoroughly exotic feel (e.g., such forms fall outside the typological parameters countenanced by Haspelmath 1993 in his cross-linguistic study of the causative-inchoative alternation). On the other hand, strongly decompositional theories of verb meaning such as that of, for example, Ramchand (2008) posit abstract atoms which correspond rather closely to the morphologically distinguished atomic elements of the Salishan verb.15 It may be, then, that the only unusual thing about the lexical semantics of the verb in Salish is the extreme transparency of its morphology, which provides a window into derivational operations which are largely obscured in more familiar languages.

3. Configurationality

Any linguist with a passing acquaintance with the syntactic literature on Salish is probably aware of the radical claim, embodied in a series of papers by Eloise Jelinek and Richard Demers, that some Salish languages are of the pronominal argument type (see, in particular, Jelinek and Demers 1994; Jelinek 1995, 1996, 1998a, 2006).

In this section, we briefly review Jelinek and Demers’ arguments for the Pronominal Argument Hypothesis (PAH) as applied to Salish, and the debate which ensued amongst Salishanists over the structure of the clause. We conclude that despite superficial morphological and syntactic evidence for the PAH, there is overwhelming evidence from a variety of syntactic diagnostics that certainly some and probably all Salish languages are conventionally configurational in their underlying structure.

Although there are multiple versions of the PAH, the intuition behind them is quite simple: in languages where core arguments are obligatorily marked on the predicate complex by pronouns, and lexical arguments are optional, it is the pronouns which are responsible for saturating argument positions; associated ‘argument’ phrases are actually adjuncts. There are two core predictions of the PAH:

  • (i) Every argument position must be occupied by a pronoun.
  • (ii) No non-pronominal constituent can be in an argument position.

In ‘radical head-marking’ systems such as Salish, where pronominal morphology takes the form of affixes and clitics, (i) translates into the claim that pronominal argument languages will have full and obligatory agreement paradigms. This is indeed a characteristic property of all Salish languages, which have up to four subject and two object paradigms. Two representative partial paradigms are given below, showing transitive indicative pronouns in St’át’imcets (Northern Interior), and the Lummi dialect of Northern Straits (Central Salish), the language on which Jelinek and Demers based their pronominal argument analysis. Both languages also have nominalized (possessive) and subjunctive (a.k.a. ‘conjunctive’) subject paradigms, and partially distinguish intransitive from transitive subject pronouns

(16) ST’ÁT’IMCETS TRANSITIVE INDICATIVE PRONOUNS

  OBJECT
  1SG2SG1PL2PL33PL
SUBJECT1SG inline image inline imageinline imageinline image
   inline image   -wit=kan
 2SG-č=kaxw,  inline image inline image-wit=kaxw
  -tumx=kaxw  
 1PL * (passive) * (passive)* (passive)* (passive)
 2PLinline image inline image inline imageinline image
  inline image     
 3SG-č-aš,-či-haš, inline imageinline image-aš-aš
  -tumx-aš-tumi-haš    
 3PL-čal-itaš, -či-haš-wit, -tumul-itašinline image-itaš, -itaš,
  -tumxal-itaš-tumi-haš-wit  -twitaš-twitaš
 PASSinline image-či-m,inline imageinline imageinline imageinline image
  inline image-tum-im  -tum 

(17) NORTHERN STRAITS (LUMMI) TRANSITIVE INDICATIVE PRONOUNS

  OBJECT
  1SG21PL3
SUBJECT1SG inline image =sn
 2SGinline image inline image=sxw
 1PL inline image inline image
 3* (passive)* (passive)* (passive)inline image
 PASSinline imageinline imageinline imageinline image

Turning to (ii), the second obvious consequence of the PAH is that lexical (DP) arguments will be freely omissible in a pronominal argument language, since they have the status of adjuncts. This is also true of all Salish languages: once introduced, discourse referents are generally referred to by null pronouns rather than by overt DPs. In fact, transitive clauses with two overt DPs are dispreferred throughout the family, and barred altogether in some Central Salish languages (notably, Lushootseed and Twana).

Third, in a pronominal argument language, lexical DPs will show the same word order freedom (or lack of it) as adjuncts. To the extent that this has been systematically investigated, this is also true of Salish. All Salish languages are basically predicate initial, although many allow subjects, and some also objects and adjuncts, to precede the predicate. Post-predicatively, adjuncts (both clausal and phrasal) may generally be freely interspersed with arguments; in the following St’át’imcets sentence, for example, every permutation of post-predicative word order is possible (Gardiner, Matthewson and Davis 1993):

(18)inline imageinline imageinline image
 eat-dir(-3obj)-3pl.ergpl.det=berry=exispl.det=children=exis
 inline imageinline image
 in=pl.det=garden=exiswhen(past)=day=3cnj 
 ‘The children ate the berries in the garden yesterday.’

Pre-predicatively, both adjuncts and arguments are more or less restricted, depending on the language. In some Central Salish languages, they may not be fronted unless clefted or dislocated; in others, particularly in the Southern Interior, both may be freely topicalized. The point is, there is no sharp argument-adjunct distinction in word order possibilities.

So far, then, the surface morphological and syntactic properties of Salish languages make them strong candidates for pronominal argument status. At the same time, however, it is important to point out that none of these properties provide knock-down arguments for the PAH – there are perfectly well-behaved configurational systems with rich agreement morphology, extensive use of null arguments, and relatively free word order. Examples of head-initial languages of this type include Malayo-Polynesian languages such as Chamorro (Chung 1998) and various Mayan languages with variable post-predicative word order (including Tzotzil, Tz’utujil, Yukateko, and Lakandon; see England 1991); in fact, it is even possible to view certain Romance languages with post-verbal subjects, null arguments, and extensive clitic-doubling as falling into this class.

Accordingly, we will now turn to a second series of predictions of the PAH, based on more subtle syntactic diagnostics. Strikingly, we shall see that all of them yield the wrong results for Salish.

We begin with the existence of unregistered arguments; that is, argument DPs that have no corresponding pronominal affix or clitic.16 In most Salish languages, arguments that are not registered by pronominal morphology are marked oblique. However, in several languages, the oblique marker is optionally omitted, and in St’át’imcets it is obligatorily absent on unregistered DP objects, including the themes of both active (‘anti-passive’) intransitive and ditransitive predicates, as discussed in Davis and Matthewson (2003b). Ditransitive themes in St’át’imcets constitute particularly strong counterevidence to the PAH prediction that all argument DPs should be registered on the predicate by pronominal morphology, since though unregistered, they are obligatorily present, either in the form of an overt DP (19a) or a null pronoun (pro) (19b).17

(19)a.inline imageinline imageinline image
  point-ind-1sg.obj-3ergdet=chief=exisdet=1sg.poss-wife=exis
  ‘My wife pointed out the chief to me.’
 b.inline imageproinline image
  point-ind-1sg.obj-3erg det=1sg.poss-wife=exis
  ‘My wife pointed *(him/her/it/them) out to me.’

Furthermore, the interpretation of overt theme DPs in ditransitives is unrestricted: they may be quantified, as in (20), or even represented by demonstratives, as in (21). This is important because it precludes a potential alternative analysis of unregistered nominals as predicate modifiers, which would not saturate an argument position, and would therefore not need to be registered by pronominal morphology.

(20)náš-xit(-Ø)=kaninline imageinline imageinline image
 go-ind(-3obj)=1sg.supl.det=children=exis[allpl.det=toy=exis]
 ‘I brought the children all their toys.’
(21)inline image
 point-ind-3pl.obj=1sg.su=dem
 ‘I pointed that out to them.’

We conclude, following Davis and Matthewson (2003b), that the unregistered theme arguments of ditransitives constitute strong evidence against the PAH for St’át’imcets.

A related problem concerns differences in interpretation between DPs and pronouns. The PAH predicts that their interpretation should be identical, since overt DPs are simply optional adjuncts to pronominal arguments. But as Jelinek and Demers (1994: 732) concede, this is not the case in Northern Straits Salish: object pronouns are definite, while overt object DPs can be either definite or indefinite:

(22)a.inline image 
  see-tr=1sg.su 
  ‘I saw her/him/it/them.’ (not‘someone/something’)
 b.inline imageinline image
  see-tr=1sg.sudet=deer
  ‘I saw the/a deer.’ 

It might be possible to appeal to a predicate modifier analysis to handle the indefinite interpretation of DPs, but this would be problematic for the treatment of determiners, which would have to be vacuous on the indefinite reading, and semantically active on the definite reading.18

A further set of counterarguments to the PAH analysis of Salish is provided by syntactic diagnostics that show two kinds of asymmetry: those between adjuncts and arguments, and those between subjects and objects. Adjunct-argument asymmetries are problematic because they should not exist: if all non-pronominal arguments are adjuncts, then the two should behave identically. Subject–object asymmetries are problematic because lexical DPs are not in conventional, hierarchically distinguished positions in pronominal argument languages: instead, they are clausal adjuncts which should show no structural asymmetries.

The clearest case of an adjunct-argument asymmetry in Salish is provided by WH-movement. Although, as pointed out by Jelinek (1998b), the Salish WH-phrase itself (a predicate) does not move, A’-movement of an operator certainly does take place in its sister, which has the form of a headless relative clause. This movement leaves an obligatory gap and can take place across a complement clause, as shown for St’át’imcets in (23):

(23)šwat[kwu=š-čut-š k=Eddie[kw=a=šqwal’út]]
 what[det=nom-say-3possdet=Eddie[det(nom)=impf=3possspeak]]
 ‘Who did Eddie say/think was speaking?’

WH-movement is subject to a standard range of island effects in the Salish languages where these have been investigated (Davis, Gardiner and Matthewson 1993; Gardiner 1993; Baptiste 2002; Davis 2008); most significantly for our purposes, it is sensitive to the Adjunct Island Condition, which bars movement from inside an adjunct, such as the temporal clause in the St’át’imcets example in (24):

(24)*šwatinline imagek=Eddieinline imageqwal’út]]
  who[det=nom-circ-sleep- 3poss-circdet=Eddie[when(past)=impf=3conjspeak]]
  Attempted: ‘Which person did Eddie fall asleep when that person was speaking?’

The contrast between examples like (23) and (24) is unexpected under the PAH, where there is no structural distinction between complement and adjunct clauses, since both are adjoined at the clausal level.19

Turning to subject-object asymmetries, a number of standard c-command-based tests clearly distinguish the hierarchical position of subjects and objects. They include the following: intra-clausal Condition C effects (Matthewson, Davis, and Gardiner 1993 on the Northern Interior Salish languages St’át’imcets, Secwepemctsín (Shuswap), and inline image (Thompson River Salish), Hukari 1996 on Halkomelem, Koch 2006 on inline image, Davis 2006a, 2009 on St’át’imcets); strong crossover effects (Demirdache 1997; Davis 2006a, 2009 on St’át’imcets), weak crossover effects (Gardiner 1991 on Secwepemctsín, Davis, Gardiner, and Matthewson 1993 on the three Northern Interior languages, Davis 2005 on St’át’imcets, Hukari 1996 on Halkomelem); the interpretation of bound variable pronouns (Davis 2005 on St’át’imcets); and superiority effects (Davis, Gardiner, and Matthewson 1993 on the Northern Interior languages, Davis 2008 on St’át’imcets). To take just one example, (25) and (26) illustrate the effects of weak crossover in St’át’imcets. In (25) we see that covaluation is possible between a name and a null pronoun (pro) inside a relative clause, whether in object or subject position; in contrast, in (26), we see that pro inside a relative clause in object position may co-vary with a WH-phrase associated with a trace in subject position, but a pro in a relative clause in subject position may not covary with a WH-phrase associated with a trace in object position.

(25)inline imagekw=š=Maryinline imageinline imagešqayxw]
 kiss-dir-3ergdet=nom=Mary[det=impflove-caus-3ergman]
 (i) ‘Maryi kissed the man shei/j loved.’or
 (ii) ‘The man shei/j loved kissed Maryi.’
(26)šwatinline imageinline imageinline imagešqayxw]
 whodet=kiss-dir-3ergdet=impflove-caus-3ergman]
 (i) ‘Whoi kissed the man shei/j loved?’or
 (ii) ‘Whoi did the man she*i/j loved kiss?’

The relevant case is the missing bound reading in (26ii).20

A related set of tests directly probes for the position of lexical DPs, by picking out a constituent (VP) that contains the (DP) object and the verb, but systematically excludes the subject. The existence of a conventionally defined VP is unexpected under the PAH, since all DPs are adjuncts, and should be outside the VP (if one exists). In St’át’imcets, three grammatical processes pick out the VP: VP-coordination, VP-pronominalization (Davis 2005), and VP ellipsis (Davis 2004, 2005, 2009). The last provides perhaps the most compelling evidence for a VP constituent (although it appears to be confined to St’át’imcets), since it rather strikingly resembles its English counterpart. It is licensed by an auxiliary, strands the subject (whether pronominal or lexical), elides all material in VP (including the verb, its object(s) and VP-level adjuncts), and allows both strict and sloppy readings, as shown in (27).

(27)inline imageinline imageinline imageinline image
 going.to=1sg.suinvite-dirallpl.det=1sg.poss-friends=exis
 inline imageinline imageinline imagekw=š=Lisa
 andgoing.to=partalsodet=nom=Lisa
  • (i) ‘I'm going to invite all my friends and Lisa is going to (invite all my friends), too.’(strict interpretation)
  • (ii) ‘I'm going to invite all my friends and Lisa is going to (invite all her friends), too.’(sloppy interpretation)

We conclude that at least for St’át’imcets, the evidence for a conventional hierarchical clausal structure with a VP-external subject asymmetrically c-commanding a VP-internal object is very strong indeed; and to the extent that parallel tests have been carried out in other Salish languages, they support the same conclusion.

With respect to the last point, it is important to acknowledge that not all the relevant tests have been carried out on all Salish languages; in fact, for most languages, we have incomplete data, and in some cases, no information at all. Worse, more than half of all Salish languages are now moribund or extinct, with no hope of recovering the relevant data, and all the remaining extant members of the family are in peril, with a 5- to 15-year window of opportunity to carry out further meaningful syntactic and semantic research. This means it is impossible to be absolutely certain that conclusions drawn from a few Salish languages are applicable to others where the relevant investigation has not been – and may never be – undertaken. Nevertheless, with respect to the PAH, we think it is possible to generalize our conclusions to less studied languages. This is because in surface syntactic and morphological characteristics, Salish languages are quite homogeneous: the superficial evidence for the PAH reviewed above is common to virtually every member of the family. This means in turn that the more subtle and deep-seated syntactic evidence against the PAH which we have reviewed here is also unlikely to vary. The reason has to do with the learnability of ‘macro-parameters’, such as that distinguishing pronominal argument systems from conventional ‘lexical argument’ systems. If Salish languages were split into pronominal argument and non-pronominal argument grammars, then the learner would need access to ‘triggering data’– surface-accessible cues as to pronominal argument status. But as far as we know, there are no such cues. The safest bet, in the absence of any positive evidence for the PAH, is to assume that no Salish language is a pronominal argument language.

In order to make this discussion more concrete, we have constructed the following table, bringing together all the relevant superficial and non-superficial predictions of the PAH for Salish (including several that we have not had space to discuss here).

(28) Predictions of the PAH for Salish

(i) Surface-accessible propertiesnorthern Straitsother centralst’át’imcetsother interior
(a) full and obligatory agreement paradigms
(b) optional overt DPs
(c) no argument-adjunct word order distinctions√ (?)√ (?)
(d) no unregistered argument DPs**?
(e) no unregistered argument CPs****
(f) no interpretive differences between pronouns and overt DPs****
(g) no VP ellipsis*
(h) no VP coordination??*?
(i) no pro VPs??**
(g) no DP anaphors
(h) no NP-movement****
(i) no infinitives**
(ii) Surface-inaccessible properties    
(j) no adjunct island effects?***
(k) no Condition C effects?***
(l) no strong crossover??**
(m) no weak crossover?**?
(o) no variable binding asymmetries??*?
(p) no superiority??*?

Two things are particularly striking about the table in (28). The first is the number of question marks, particularly in the section on surface-inaccessible properties, and particularly in the column for Northern Straits Salish, the language on which Jelinek and Demers based their pronominal argument analysis of Salish. Second, despite the gaps in our knowledge, there appears to be no variation in surface-inaccessible properties. There are two logically possible interpretations of this finding: either all Salish languages are of the pronominal argument type, or none are. Given the evidence we have presented in the rest of this section, our conclusion is clear: no Salish language is a pronominal argument language.

4. Tense

We now turn from a much-debated syntactic question to a controversial semantic issue in the study of Salish: the question of whether Salish languages are tensed or tenseless.

4.1. past and present

In Salish languages, there is no obligatory overt distinction between past and present tense. Each language possesses optional elements which indicate past time; some are illustrated in (29–31).

(29)nks=t=l t=s-múx̣w-ši-t-anxt=mé:lmx
 hab=det=pastdet=impf-pay-appl-tr-1sg.cntdet=children
 ‘I was paying it for children.’(Cowlitz; Kinkade 2004: 248)
(30)inline imagePaul 
 inline imagePaul 
 see-tr-1sg.erg=pastPaul 
 ‘I saw Paul.’ (Moses-Columbia; Willett 2003: 320)
(31)inline image 
 see-tr-(3obj)-desid=past=1sg.su 
 ‘I wanted to see it.’(Saanich/inline image; Montler 1986: 210)

In the absence of overt temporal marking, the aspectual class of the predicate gives rise to predictable default temporal interpretations. Stative predicates across the family prefer a present tense interpretation, while temporally unmarked achievements or accomplishments are by default interpreted as past:

(32)a.inline imageinline image
  get.hungrydet=Jack 
  ‘Jack is hungry.’21[stative: present](inline image; Kiyota 2008: 28)
 b.inline imageinline imageinline image
  aux=1sg.su=infget.filled-trdet=1sg.poss-bucket
  ‘I filled up my bucket.’[accomplishment: past](inline image; Kiyota 2008: 30)

The influence of aspectual class on temporal interpretation might lead one to infer that Salish systems are ‘aspect-driven’ rather than ‘tense-driven’, and that tense is a by-product of aspect in these languages (cf. Smith et al.'s (2003) approach to Navajo, or Smith and Erbaugh (2005) on Mandarin Chinese). However, the default temporal interpretations can be overridden by context in at least St’át’imcets (Matthewson 2006b), Skwxwú7mesh (Bar-el 2005), and inline image (Kiyota 2008).

(33)a.Context: A doctor talking about a specific time in the past when she was phoned by someone from Mount Currie.
  inline imageinline image 
  sickdet=chief-3pl.poss=exis 
  ‘Their chief was sick.’[stative: past](St’át’imcets)
 b.inline imageinline imagekw=š=Bill
  fix-dir-3ergdet=car=exisdet=nom=Bill
  ‘Bill is fixing the car.’[accomplishment: present] 
   (St’át’imcets; Bar-el et al. 2005, cited in Matthewson 2006b: 677)

Furthermore, the default temporal interpretations vary from language to language. For example, in inline image, activity predicates without past marking must be interpreted in the present tense (Kiyota 2008: 31), but in St’át’imcets, temporally unmarked activities are freely interpreted as either past or present (Matthewson 2006b; Davis 2006b; see also Currie 1996 for Skwxwú7mesh). This cross-linguistic variation casts doubt on an aspect-driven approach, because it shows that the correlation between aspectual class and temporal interpretation cannot be provided by a universal default mechanism.

Another interesting feature of Salish past tense marking is that it is not restricted to the verbal domain, but freely appears on nouns within noun phrases (see Burton 1997; Wiltschko 2003; Matthewson 2005, for theoretical discussion), and almost any descriptive grammar for similar facts (e.g., Hess 1995: 63 for Lushootseed; Suttles 2004: 370 for the Musqueam dialect of Halkomelem). Past tense on an animate noun often indicates that the individual has passed away.

(34)a.inline imagetu-lax̣-dxwinline imageinline image
  1sg.su=conjpast-remember-trdetpast-1sg.poss-grandfather
  inline imageinline imageinline imageinline image
  past-1sg.poss+ nom-perf-old-intrconjfem.detpast-1sg.poss-grandmother
  ‘I remember my grandfather and my grandmother who raised me.’
  (Lushootseed; Bates 2002: 18, from Bierwert 1996: 150–151)
 b.inline imageinline image
  walkdet=1sg.poss-grandfather-past
  ‘My late grandfather walked.’
    ((Upriver) Halkomelem; Wiltschko 2003: 662, from Burton 1997: 73)

The presence of past marking inside noun phrases is one of Wiltschko's (2003) motivations for arguing that Halkomelem lacks a Tense head. Wiltschko follows Pesetsky and Torrego (2001) in assuming that universally, nominative Case results from an uninterpretable T(ense) feature on a determiner which needs to be checked and deleted. Tense marking within noun phrases as in (34b) is argued to show that in Halkomelem, the T feature on D is interpretable. This has the consequence that Halkomelem lacks nominative Case, and that Tense is not necessary as a syntactic head. The absence of the T head in turn derives the optionality of overt past tense marking.

In a reply to Wiltschko's paper, Matthewson (2005) argues that in neither Halkomelem nor St’át’imcets is there evidence for interpretable T features on the determiners. Matthewson argues that the presence of temporal elements within the noun phrase does not fundamentally differentiate Salish from English, which also allows cross-categorial temporal modification – for example, with the element then, which can appear inside DPs and modify the predication time of the noun. Matthewson further observes that the temporal interpretation of the main predicate of the sentence can clash with that of the DP, as in (35). These data are hard to reconcile with the idea that an interpretable T feature inside DP is taking over the clausal function of tense.

(35)a.inline imageinline imageinline imagenašinline image
  comedeicdet=chief=exis=past22goget.stuck
  ‘Here comes the ex-chief who's going to jail.’
        (St’át’imcets; Matthewson 2004: 13)
 b.inline imageinline image
  dream[redup]-rel=1sg.su=futfem.det=1sg.poss-grandparent-past
  ‘I’ll be dreaming about my late grandmother.’
   (Halkomelem; Matthewson 2005:13, citing Nordlinger and Sadler 2002: 782)

A second tenseless analysis of Halkomelem is proposed by Ritter and Wiltschko (2004, 2005, forthcoming), who argue that Halkomelem encodes spatial rather than temporal notions in its Infl node. Instead of encoding temporal (non-)coincidence with the utterance time, Halkomelem Infl – instantiated by auxiliaries – encodes spatial (non-)coincidence with the utterance location.

(36)a.[+distal]  
  inline imageinline image
  auxdancehe
  ‘He was dancing (there).’
 b.[-distal]  
  inline imageinline imageinline image
  auxdancehe
  ‘He was dancing (here).’
  (Halkomelem; Ritter and Wiltschko forthcoming)

While Ritter and Wiltschko do provide evidence that spatial notions play an important role in interpreting Halkomelem clauses, they do not provide any convincing evidence that tense information is absent. For example, Matthewson (2006b) argues that there are obligatory temporal shifting effects in St’át’imcets embedded clauses, which crucially derive from the presence of a tense morpheme in the matrix clause (see below for discussion of Matthewson's analysis). For a tenseless analysis to be convincing, we would either have to see that such temporal shifting effects are absent in Halkomelem, or that they can be re-analyzed successfully within a location-based system.

A third tenseless analysis of Salish is that of Currie (1997) (although the main focus of Currie's research on Skwxwú7mesh was the distinction between event-time and topic-time adverbials, not the tense node itself). Currie adopts a framework in which tense is a relational head that takes the utterance time and the topic time as its arguments and orders them (see Demirdache and Uribe-Etxeberria 2007).23 Since Skwxwú7mesh lacks obligatory morphological tense distinctions, Currie argues that the relation between the utterance time and the topic time is not specified by the tense head in this language. Instead, the topic time is specified by a temporal adverbial at the right edge of the sentence, or, if no overt temporal adverbial is present, then it is a pro, and it must receive its value from a topic time set up by a prior utterance.

While Currie's observed syntactic distinction between the event-time and topic-time interpretations of temporal adverbials in Skwxwú7mesh is fascinating and deserves further attention, we are not convinced by her arguments for the lack of a tense head. In support of the claim that the topic time is provided only by a temporal adverbial or by a prior utterance, Currie writes that (37) is ‘uninterpretable if no topic time is available from the discourse’ (1997: 77).

(37)inline imageinline image
 1sg.subjeat
 ‘I eat/I'm eating (these days)/I ate.’(Skwxwú7mesh; Currie 1997: 77)

However, it is not clear that (37) is actually uninterpretable; in fact, Currie herself in an earlier paper offers the three translations given in (37) and implies that they were volunteered by her Skwxwú7mesh consultants (Currie 1996: 23). It seems that (37) is simply ambiguous or vague if uttered out of the blue; this would make (37) parallel to utterances containing pronouns whose reference is unclear in out of the blue contexts. Importantly, the temporal vagueness of (37) does not mean that it contains no tense morpheme. On the contrary, Matthewson's (2006b) tensed analysis of St’át’imcets, to which we now turn, directly accounts for Currie's facts.

Matthewson (2006b) argues that St’át’imcets is tensed: it possesses an obligatory tense morpheme, which is phonologically null but present in every finite clause. This tense morpheme restricts the topic time to being non-future, and its exact value is narrowed down by temporal adverbials or context (just as the exact value of a past topic time in an English sentence like John arrived is provided by context). The lexical entry for the tense morpheme is given in (38); the framework adopted is that of Kratzer (1998).

(38)[[tensei]]g,c is only defined if no part of g(i) is after tc. If defined, [[tensei]]g,c = g(i).

According to (38), the tense morpheme requires that no part of the topic time provided by the assignment function g follows the utterance time. If this presupposition is satisfied, the tense morpheme denotes the non-future topic time. The analysis is applied to an example in (39).

(39)a.matqkw=š=Mary
  walkdet=nom=Mary
  ‘Mary walked/Mary is walking.’
 b.inline image
 c.[[(39a)]]g,c = λw ∃e [walk(e)(w) & agent(Mary)(e)(w) & τ(e) ⊆ g(i)] (where no part of g(i) follows tc).
 d.There is an event e of Mary walking, whose running time τ is included in the contextually salient non-future topic time g(i).

According to this analysis, the St’át’imcets tense system shares fundamental similarities with that of English. The systems differ only in the semantic (under-)specification of the tense morphemes, and in phonological covertness. Both of these differences are uncontroversially admitted by standard theories: covert morphemes exist, and languages encode greater or lesser degrees of specification in their functional elements.24

Returning to the Skwxwú7mesh data in (37) above, Matthewson's underspecified analysis correctly predicts that in an out-of-the-blue situation, the temporal reference will be underdetermined. The tensed analysis predicts that Salish tenses will pattern just like pro in languages with pro-drop for nominal arguments: discourse-initially, utterances containing pro are difficult to interpret, but we do not therefore assume that there is no pronominal present.

4.2. future

In contrast to past marking, future marking is obligatory in at least some Salish languages. (40) shows that in St’át’imcets, the morpheme inline image enforces a future interpretation, and (41) shows that sentences which are unmarked for future may not be interpreted as future and are therefore incompatible with future time-adverbials.

(40)a.inline image
  hungry=1sg.su=fut
  ‘* I was hungry/* I am hungry/I will be hungry.’
 b.inline image
  dry-dir=1sg.su=fut
  ‘* I dried it/* I am drying it/I will dry it.’
  (St’át’imcets; Matthewson 2006b: 277)
(41)a.* táyt=kaninline image
  hungry=1sg.suone.day.away/one.year.away
  ‘I will be hungry tomorrow/next year.’
 b.inline imageinline image
  dry-dir=1sg.suone.day.away/one.year.away
  ‘I will dry it tomorrow/next year.’ (St’át’imcets; Matthewson 2006b: 277)

Across the Salish family, languages seem to differ in whether future tense requires obligatory overt marking. St’át’imcets represents one extreme, where even a future adverbial cannot license a future interpretation in the absence of a dedicated future morpheme.25 For Skwxwú7mesh, Currie (1996: 24) states that a future adverbial alone is sufficient to license a future interpretation, and Ritter and Wiltschko (forthcoming) state that Upriver Halkomelem allows future interpretations in the absence of any marking of future at all:

(42)inline imageinline image
 eatdet=man
 ‘The man is eating.’/‘The man was eating.’/‘The man will be eating.’
   (Upriver Halkomelem; Ritter and Wiltschko forthcoming)

Even within Halkomelem, there may be dialect differences. According to Gerdts and Hukari (forthcoming), some marking for future is obligatory, which may be merely a future adverbial. However, Donna Gerdts (personal communication) observes that the cases involving future adverbials may actually all contain some other temporal or aspectual marking (e.g., a motion verb, ‘going to’, or the perfect). Suttles (2004: 508) says of the Musqueam dialect that ‘The use of inline image to express the past is not obligatory, but the use of inline image for the future may be.’ Clearly, there is work to be done across the family on the issue of the (non-)optionality of future marking.26,27

It is important to note that the possibility of future interpretations in the absence of a future marker is not in itself problematic for a tensed analysis, as English also allows such constructions:

(43)a.I take the exam tomorrow.
 b.I'm meeting him next week.

On the other hand, any language in which a future interpretation requires obligatory overt marking is problematic for a tenseless analysis, since as argued by Matthewson (2006b), a tenseless analysis cannot adequately explain the restriction of non-future-marked sentences to non-future times. For example, Currie's analysis of Skwxwú7mesh predicts that any sentence without overt temporal marking can (in fact, must) receive the topic time of the preceding utterance. But this does not seem to be correct for futures, as shown in (44). Even though the first sentence sets up a future topic time, the second sentence is interpreted as past (and the sentences are therefore not viewed as a coherent discourse).

(44)inline imageinline imageinline imageinline imageinline image
 go=1sg.sufutgo.next.doordet=1sg.poss-auntsbd=next.day-3cnj
 ‘I'm going next door to visit my auntie tomorrow.’
 inline imageinline imageinline imageinline image
 1sg.sugotake-trdet=fish
 ‘I went to get the fish.’ (Skwxwú7mesh; Peter Jacobs, personal communication, 2008)

(44) strongly suggests that we cannot simply derive temporal interpretation from preceding context On the other hand, a tensed analysis correctly predicts (44), since the restriction to non-future times in the second sentence is lexically encoded by the non-future tense morpheme.

The reader might imagine that the non-future status of temporally unmarked clauses in at least some Salish languages follows from a distinction between realized versus unrealized events. Unfortunately for this idea, Salish future markers are demonstrably not general irrealis markers but are specific to future readings (see argumentation in Matthewson 2006b, and cf. Suttles 2004: 375 on the Halkomelem future clitic: ‘This simply indicates future time.’). Nor is it relevant to argue that the future markers encode modal semantics, since the same is true of English future will. In fact, it is standard to assume that will itself is a modal, which co-occurs with a tense (cf. Abusch 1985 and much other work), and exactly the same can be said of the Salish future markers. Rullmann et al.'s (2008) analysis of the St’át’imcets future inline image is given in (45). For current purposes, the relevant feature of the analysis is that inline image induces both quantification over worlds (as it is a modal) and a temporal ordering restriction (as it is a future).

(45)inline image is only defined if c provides a circumstantial modal base B.
 inline image = λf<st,st>. λp<s,<i,t>>. ∀w’[w’∈f(B(w)(t)) →∃t’[t<t’∧ p(w’)(t’)]]

The idea that the future markers co-occur with tense also accounts for so-called ‘past-future’ readings, which in English surface with would as in (46). In these cases, the future morpheme places the topic time after some earlier time, rather than after the utterance time.

(46)a.A child was born who would become ruler of the world.(Kamp 1971)
 b.Susan said two weeks ago that she would leave her husband in one week.

Past-future readings appear in at least St’át’imcets, Lushootseed (Bates and Hess 2001) and Halkomelem (Gerdts and Hukari forthcoming-b), and probably other Salish languages.28

(47)Situation: Mike Leech is currently chief of T’ít’q’et.
 His (deceased) mother was called Julianne.
 inline imageš=Juliannekw=a=šinline image
 know-dir-3ergnom=Julianne[det(nom)=impf=3posschief=fut
 inline imageinline image
 det=child-3poss=exis]when.past=fall=3cnj
 ‘Julianne knew when he was born that her child would become chief.’
   (St’át’imcets; Matthewson 2006b: 689)
(48)sisinline imageinline imageinline imageinline imageinline imageinline imagekwsinline image
 sbdlinkalong-make(impf)- tr-pasclear(impf)- tr-pashereplacefutthatgo-3poss
 inline imageinline imageinline imageθiinline image inline image
 along-walk-caus-pashere=futdrag(imp)-tr-pasbigwar.canoe heavy 
 ‘They cleared a path to make way to drag this big canoe, the heavy one.’ 
    (Halkomelem; Gerdts and Hukari forthcoming-b)

Bates and Hess (2001) give similar examples from Lushootseed, and argue that Lushootseed inline image is a relative future tense marker which places the topic time after an evaluation time (by default, the utterance time).29 Of course, (46) shows that the Salish futures do not (pace Mithun 1999) differ from the English future in giving rise to past-future readings. The difference between Salish and English lies not in the future modal/temporal ordering operator, but in the co-occurring tense. In English, will changes to would in the past-future, but a language with a single non-future tense is predicted to use the same surface string for both an ordinary future and a past-future. On the other hand, it is quite difficult to see how a location-based analysis (as in Ritter and Wiltschko forthcoming) would deal with past-futures.

One fascinating and as-yet unexplained issue in Salish tense is that some languages can encode future interpretations by means of word order (see Currie (1996) on Skwxwú7mesh, Ritter and Wiltschko (forthcoming) on Halkomelem, and Bar-el et al. (2004) on Halkomelem and Skwxwú7mesh). For example, the intended future interpretation of the second sentence in Skwxwú7mesh (44) above is obtained by changing the word order so that the verb precedes the person clitic (Peter Jacobs, personal communication, 2008). The Halkomelem facts are schematized in (49); note that these schemas lack any overt spatial auxiliary:30

(49)clitic-verb inline image past 
 verb-clitic inline image future(Ritter and Wiltschko forthcoming)

Ritter and Wiltschko provide convincing arguments that in the clitic-verb order, there is a null auxiliary (which they analyze as +distal; see also Davis (2000a) for arguments that clitic-first orders in St’át’imcets involve a null auxiliary).31 Ritter and Wiltschko explain the future interpretation with the verb-clitic order by suggesting that in this order, the verb must raise to Infl because there is no auxiliary (not even a null one). The absence of a locative auxiliary means that the event is not located in the actual world, and this gives rise to a future interpretation, since future events are not located in the actual world.

It is true that there is a connection between future time and irrealis. For example, in inline image, the difference between ‘yesterday’ and ‘tomorrow’ is encoded solely by a distal vs. an irrealis determiner: inline image‘yesterday’ versus inline image‘tomorrow’ (Karsten Koch, personal communication, 2008). However, events that are not located in the actual world are not limited to the future; they include any kind of possible-world event. The possible-world analysis therefore predicts that the verb-clitic order could be interpreted as any kind of modal statement, including a counterfactual, a possibility assertion, and so on. The crucial fact that the event in the verb-clitic order is placed after the utterance time is left unexplained by a tenseless analysis.

No-one has as yet attempted a tensed analysis of the use of word order to reverse temporal orderings in Skwxwú7mesh or Halkomelem. The issue remains open for now.

4.3. summary

We conclude is that there is no convincing reason to analyze the tense systems of Salish languages as radically different from those of languages like English. The cross-linguistic variation between English and Salish can be analyzed as consisting only in (i) the (under-)specification and (ii) the phonetic covertness of the tense morphemes. The tensed analysis accounts for a larger range of facts than any extant tenseless analysis, and is consistent with our overall belief that there is no radical syntactic parametrization differentiating Salish and Indo-European.

5. Presuppositions

In the previous section we argued that Salish languages do not differ fundamentally from English in their tense systems, but merely in the lexical semantics of their tense morphemes. The same theme repeats itself in other areas of the semantics that have been investigated in depth in Salish. For example, Rullmann et al. (2008) argue that while modals in St’át’imcets differ systematically from those of English in their denotations, the differences are non-fundamental and relate merely to which aspects of meaning each language chooses to lexically (under-)specify. Similarly, Matthewson et al. (2007) analyze evidentials in St’át’imcets as epistemic modals which are basically similar to epistemic modals in English, but differ in imposing additional constraints on information source, which are not lexically encoded by English modals.

In this section, we review a cluster of semantic/pragmatic differences between St’át’imcets and English, which we argue do not reduce to mere lexical (under-)specification. The phenomena reviewed in this section instead reflect a much deeper cross-linguistic difference. In particular, we argue (following Matthewson 2006a, forthcoming) that St’át’imcets lacks any presuppositions which place constraints on the hearer's knowledge or belief state at the time of utterance. If this proposal is correct, it constitutes a (rather radical) pragmatic parameter differentiating St’át’imcets from languages like English.

The first difference in presuppositional status relates to determiners, and is known to extend beyond St’át’imcets to a variety of Salish languages. As argued by Matthewson (1998) and as supported by all available descriptions of the languages, Salish determiner systems lack definite determiners (determiners which presuppose familiarity or uniqueness). This is illustrated for two languages in (50–51). We see in each case that the determiner which is appropriate for introducing a novel entity is also appropriate when referring to a familiar entity. This differentiates the Salish determiner systems from that of English, which must use an indefinite article for the novel case and a definite for the familiar.

(50)a.t’isúxwt-asinline image ...
  factsee-tr-3erg[det=snake woman] ...
  ‘He saw [a snake-woman]i ...’[novel]
 b.t’iinline images=qwal=sinline image ... 
  factthennom=speak=3poss[det=woman]: ... 
  ‘Then [the woman]i said: ...’[familiar]
  (Sechelt; Matthewson 1998: 33, cited from Beaumont 1985: 188)
(51)a.huy,inline imageinline image
  thensee-tr-now[det whale]
  ‘They saw [a whale]i.’[novel]
 b.inline imageinline imageinline image 
  pester-tr-now3pl[det whale]
  ‘They pestered [the whale]i.’[familiar]
  (Lushootseed; Matthewson 1998: 34, cited from Hess 1995:140)

Matthewson (1998) gives examples making the same point from St’át’imcets, Secwepemctsín (Kuipers 1974), and inline image (Montler 1986).

We could analyze the absence of a definite determiner in Salish languages as merely a case of lexical semantics, as we did with tense. However, Matthewson (1998) proposes that there is a deeper parameter at work here, whereby determiners are banned in Salish from accessing the common ground of the discourse in any way.32 This means that Salish determiners may not encode any distinction which places a constraint on the belief-state of the hearer of the utterance, with definites being ruled out as one subtype of a common ground determiner.

Subsequent research in a range of areas has revealed that other Salish constructions and elements also fail to encode presuppositional notions or place constraints on the common ground. For example, Davis et al. (2004) show that the cleft construction in Straits and St’át’imcets is non-presuppositional. While in English clefts introduce existence presuppositions, the same is not true in the Salish languages, as illustrated in (52) for Northern Straits. The consultant judges the clefted sentence as felicitous, even though the discourse context does not license an existence presupposition. Note the infelicity of the English translation:

(52)Context: I am looking after my daughter, Mary, as well as two other children, Bill and Jill. Mary and Jill got slightly hurt when playing. When my wife comes home, this is what I say:
 inline imageinline imageinline imageJillinline image
 focdet=MaryandJilldet=get.hurt
 ‘It was Mary and Jill that got hurt.’ (Northern Straits; Davis et al. 2004: 114)

If the Salish non-presuppositional effects were limited to determiners and clefts, we could still actually analyze the issue as being restricted to determiners, as long as we adopt an analysis of clefts according to which they involve concealed definite descriptions (as in Percus 1997; Hedberg 2000).33 However, the non-presuppositional phenomena are even more widespread. Matthewson (2006a) argues that even prototypical presupposition triggers such as elements corresponding to ‘again’, ‘more’, ‘also’ and ‘stop’ do not place constraints on the hearer's belief state in St’át’imcets. The core fact that leads Matthewson to this conclusion is that von Fintel's (2004) ‘Hey, wait a minute!’ (HWAM) test fails to apply in St’át’imcets.

The HWAM test is illustrated in (53) for the familiarity presupposition of English the. It is felicitous to challenge a failed presupposition with an expression of surprise, but it is not felicitous to challenge a previously unknown assertion in the same way. The test thus specifically detects presuppositions as opposed to asserted material.

(53)A:The mathematician who proved Goldbach's Conjecture is a woman.
 B:Hey, wait a minute. I had no idea that someone proved Goldbach's Conjecture.
 B’:#Hey, wait a minute. I had no idea that that was a woman.
  (von Fintel 2004: 271)

In English and other European languages, it is fairly easy to replicate HWAM results in a fieldwork situation.34 In St’át’imcets, in contrast, failure of the hypothesized presuppositions for presupposition triggers are never challenged by consultants in a way that distinguishes failed presuppositions from new asserted information. One example is given in (54). At the time of A's utterance, B had just walked into A's house and there had been no prior conversation apart from greetings. Despite this, B did not challenge A's use of hu7 ‘more’.

(54)A:inline imageinline imageinline imagekwu=tíh
  impf=2sg.subj=ynqwant-appldet=moredet=tea
  ‘Would you like some more tea?’
 B:inline image
  ‘Yes.’(St’át’imcets; Matthewson 2006a)

The reader is referred to Matthewson (2006a) for similar results for a range of other presupposition triggers, as well as arguments against a cultural analysis of the absence of HWAM responses. For example, Matthewson shows that St’át’imcets consultants are perfectly able and willing to challenge other types of infelicitous utterance, including utterances with unclear noun phrase reference, or utterances which entail pragmatically odd claims (such as that there are two suns).

The absence of familiarity presuppositions throughout St’át’imcets extends even to third-person pronouns. Davis (2006a) and Matthewson (forthcoming) provide evidence that third-person pronouns in St’át’imcets can be uttered in indefinite contexts; examples are given in (55–56) (note the infelicitous English translations).

(55)inline imageinline imageproerg.
 recognize-dir-3ergdet=chief=exisproerg.
 inline imageinline imageš=Mary 
 stand.up-autthennom=Mary 
 ‘Shei recognized the chief. # Then Maryi stood up.’ (St’át’imcets; Davis 2006a)
(56)inline image[táyt=wit],inline imageinline image 
 det=nom-one- 3poss=exis[hungry=3pl]then[nom=impf=3poss 
 inline imageinline imageinline imageinline imageinline image
 seek-middet=fooddet=coyote=exisanddet=fox=exis]
 #‘Once upon a time, theyi were hungry, so [a coyote and a fox]i went looking for food.’ (St’át’imcets; Davis 2006a)

Data such as these lead us to conclude that St’át’imcets, unlike English, does not require presuppositions to be shared knowledge between speaker and hearer. Presuppositions do still exist in St’át’imcets, but of a different type from those in English. Following Matthewson (2006a), we adopt Gauker's (1998) analysis of presuppositions for St’át’imcets; this approach says that a presupposition merely represents the speaker's own take on the propositional context (where the propositional context contains propositions that ‘are relevant to the conversational aims of the interlocutors, whether they are aware of these facts or not’ (Gauker 1998: 150)).35 The effect of this is that it looks in St’át’imcets like presupposition accommodation always takes place. This means that although presuppositions exist in St’át’imcets, we will not detect them as easily as in English.36

The claim that St’át’imcets lacks any presuppositions which place constraints on the hearer's belief state is a fairly radical one, involving cross-linguistic variation in the pragmatic component of a kind which we suspect many researchers would be reluctant to countenance. However, it is striking that every new area of St’át’imcets semantics which we investigate turns out to display the same absence of familiarity effects. The latest example involves discourse particles, which are frequently analyzed as placing constraints on the hearer's knowledge or belief state (cf. Kratzer 2004; Zimmermann 2007, among others). Research in progress (Kratzer and Matthewson 2009) suggests that even discourse particles in St’át’imcets do not encode anything about the hearer's knowledge. In short, we are fairly convinced that the most fundamental way in which the semantics/pragmatics of Salish languages differs from that of Indo-European languages lies in the absence of familiarity presuppositions in Salish.

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to St’át’imcets consultants Gertrude Ned, Laura Thevarge, Rose Agnes Whitley and the late Beverley Frank. We are also very grateful to our reviewers, Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins and Tom Hukari, as well as to Karsten Koch for feedback on an earlier version of this paper. Beyond that, we thank all our Salishanist colleagues, past and present, for the work on which we build here. Errors are our own. This research is supported by SSHRC grants #410-2002-1715, #410-2003-1138, #410-2005-0875 and #410-2007-1046.

Short Biographies

Henry Davis works on the syntax of languages of the Pacific Northwest. His primary focus is St’át’imcets (Lilooet Salish), but he has also published on comparative Salish and on Southern Wakashan languages. Research interests include configurationality, argument structure, aspect, binding, WH-movement, and focus. He has also worked extensively on documentation, curriculum development and teacher training initiatives in St’át’imc territory. He is currently Associate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of British Columbia.

Lisa Matthewson's main interest lies in the area of cross-linguistic semantics and pragmatics, with particular attention to St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish), on which she has been conducting fieldwork since 1992. She has worked on determiners, quantifiers, tense, aspect, modality, evidentiality, mood, and presupposition, and has produced a collection of analyzed St’át’imcets oral history texts. She is currently Associate Professor in the Department of Linguistics at the University of British Columbia.

Endnotes

  • * 

    Correspondence: Dr. Lisa Matthewson, Department of Linguistics, University of British Columbia, Totem Field Studios, 2613 West Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4. Email: henryd@interchange.ubc.ca (Davis); lisamatt@interchange.ubc.ca (Matthewson).

  • 1

    Some Salish languages that became extinct before or just at the beginning of the era of modern linguistic research on Salish (c.1965) are less well documented; these include Pentlatch, Nooksack and Twana from Central Salish, the southern outlier Tillamook, and most of the Tsamosan branch, with the exception of Upper Chehalis (and to, a lesser extant, Cowlitz). There is virtually no syntactic or semantic documentation of any of these languages.

  • 2

    We assume a three-way lexical category distinction between nouns, adjectives, and verbs, and focus here exclusively on the last. The issue of category neutrality in Salish has been the subject of intense debate, but the debate has largely now been settled in favor of recognizing at least a noun-verb distinction and probably an adjective-verb distinction as well. The reader is referred to the bibliography for relevant works.

  • 3

    A third typical argument is an appeal to speaker intuitions of what counts as a ‘word’. We are suspicious of such intuitions, given that the notion of ‘word’ involves a meta-linguistic judgment based on English grammar, with no clear-cut Salish counterpart at all.

  • 4

    Exceptions are the following: (i) Bella Coola, which has fused its object suffixes with its transitivizers; (ii) Southern Interior languages, which have developed transitive paradigms (or parts of paradigms) from nominalized intransitive predicates; (iii) two roots * inline image‘to leave’ and * inline image‘to eat’ which behave exceptionally in a number of languages in being able to take object suffixes without transitivizers.

  • 5

    Abbreviations are as follows: ACT = active intransitive, APP = applicative, AUT = autonomous intransitive, AUX = auxiliary, CAUS = causative transitivizer, CNT = continuative subject, CNJ =‘conjunctive’ (subjunctive) subject, CONJ = conjunction, DEI = deictic, DEM = demonstrative, DESID = desiderative, DET = determiner, DIR = directive transitivizer, ERG = ergative (transitive) subject, EXIS = existential, FEM = feminine, FACT = factual, FOC = focus, FUT = future, HAB = habitual, IMPF = imperfective, IND = indirective transitivizer, INF = inferential, INTR = intransitive, LINK =‘link’ particle, MID = middle, NEG = negative, NOM = nominalizer, NONVIS = non-visible, OBJ = object, OBL = oblique, PART = particle, PASS = passive, PERF = perfective, PL = plural, POSS = possessive, REL = relational transitivizer, SG = singular, SU = indicative subject, TR = transitivizer. An equals sign (=) marks a clitic boundary, a dash (-) an affix boundary, and a period (.) separates reduplicants. Not all morpheme boundaries are necessarily included: the level of detail reflects the requirements of the analysis. Glosses have been standardized in some cases for ease of cross-linguistic comparison.

  • 6

    Note that the notion of underlying transitivity can be construed in various ways. These include: a quasi-semantic approach based on thematic or aspectual roles; a classical argument structure approach (realized either configurationally or non-configurationally); and a purely morphosyntactic (‘inflectional’) approach employing, for example, case-licensing. Gerdts and Hukari do not take a stand on this question.

  • 7

    This point holds irrespective of which notion of transitivity is chosen.

  • 8

    Of course, this approach is appropriate in the domain of lexicography, as opposed to that of grammatical theory; in compiling dictionaries, decisions have to be made about actual rather than possible words. It should be remembered, however, that any dictionary contains a subset of the set of possible words, and therefore is bound to under-represent the lexical resources of fluent speakers.

  • 9

    In this regard, Tom Hukari (personal communication, 2009) remarks of his Halkomelem consultants that ‘the issue [. . .] is whether the world as they perceive it will sustain the meaning of the predicate as they understand it without outside agency. If their understanding of the meaning of the predicate is such that the described event cannot come about without an agent, then the root fails as a word.’ This points to an interesting possible cross-linguistic difference between Halkomelem and St’át’imcets, since, as noted above, our St’át’imcets consultants have no difficulty in accepting (and producing) bare root versions of predicates which strongly entail real-world agency, as long as the agent is not salient in the discourse context.

  • 10

    Tom Hukari (personal communication, 2009) comments that ‘I would be inclined to say that those [unaccusative roots] that appear in pseudo transitives, when they appear in that context, have intransitive unaccusative argument structure but possibly are assigned some sort of semantic agent.’ This is in line with our own interpretation, and seems to indicate that Halkomelem speakers do tolerate at least some bare roots with strongly agentive meanings (pace footnote 8), albeit in more restricted contexts than St’át’imcets speakers are willing to allow.

  • 11

    Note that agency does not necessarily imply a human or even an animate agent, but simply an ‘actor’; for example, substances such as medicine, poison, and disease, which act on patients, may be the subjects of control intransitives. The traditional term ‘active’ is perhaps more appropriate than ‘agentive’ for this reason.

  • 12

    Gerdts and Hukari also make the important observation that many of the roots in their survey (a full 48%, in fact) are what they term ‘swingers’– that is, they can either show unaccusative or unergative characteristics, depending on the context of use. For us, this simply reflects the free availability of the zero-middle marker introduced below, whose distribution is constrained only by ‘encyclopedic’ considerations; that is, whether a pragmatically appropriate set of contexts exists for the expression of a zero middle or a bare root unaccusative.

  • 13

    As documented in Davis (2000b), there are some inchoative verbs in St’át’imcets marked with autonomous (lexical reflexive) morphology (e.g., inline image‘to change’, inline image‘to get close (of weather)’, inline image‘to twist’). However, these verbs differ in thematic and aspectual properties from bare unaccusatives: they describe spontaneous events (i.e., they are necessarily non-agentive), and they do not necessarily culminate, unlike bare root unaccusatives. In these respects, they parallel verbs marked either with inchoative morphology or by C2 reduplication, and, in fact, they often freely alternate with forms which undergo one or the other of these processes: thus inline image also means ‘to change’, inline image means ‘to get close (of weather)’, and inline image means ‘to twist’). Note also that Gerdts (2006) describes a parallel set of ‘inchoative reflexives’ marked with the limited control reflexivizer inline image; however, these have a telic interpretation and are translated as ‘finally’ or ‘just now’.

  • 14

    This derivational asymmetry is also the reason why the zero-middle approach constitutes a genuinely empirical (i.e., falsifiable) alternative to the conventional division of intransitive roots into control and non-control classes. The latter makes no predictions about the direction of derivation – it is just as likely under this view for there to be overt morphology deriving unaccusatives as unergatives, contrary to fact. More generally, the zero-middle analysis is compatible with a fully monotonic view of morphological composition, whereby once introduced, argument structure may not be subsequently deleted (Koontz-Garboden 2008).

  • 15

    But not entirely so. One of the most intriguing properties of unaccusatives in Salish is that they have a uniformly telic event structure – unlike other Salish Aktionsarten, they entail culmination (Bar-el 2005; Bar-el et al. 2005; Kiyota 2008). This is at odds with most aspectually driven decompositional theories, which assume that states (as the most primitive type of eventuality) are basic, with transitions added compositionally by predicates such as CAUSE. We do not currently know whether the ‘atomic state’ theory can be reduced to the ‘atomic transition’ theory, or vice versa, or whether this represents a genuine parametric difference between roots in Salish and in other languages.

  • 16

    See Austin and Bresnan (1996) for parallel arguments against the PAH for Australian languages, in response to Jelinek's (1984) pronominal argument analysis of Warlpiri.

  • 17

    This leaves open the (remote) possibility that the ditransitive theme might be registered on the predicate by non-overt pronominal agreement. However, if we were to assume the existence of this type of agreement, it would have to be uniquely restricted in both its form (obligatorily Ø-marked) and distribution (confined to third person). We do not find an agreement ‘paradigm’ consisting of a single phonologically empty cell very plausible.

  • 18

    However, see Section 5, where we present evidence that third person pronouns in St’át’imcets may be interpreted as indefinites. If this finding can be extended to Northern Straits, then examples like (22a) and (22b) may have parallel interpretations after all.

  • 19

    This does not apply to versions of the PAH such as that of Baker (1996), where only DPs must be adjoined, since they are required to be licensed by Case; clauses need not be Case-marked and, therefore, show normal adjunct-argument asymmetries.

  • 20

    Different versions of the PAH make different predictions about weak crossover, depending on whether A’-movement is allowed. Theories such as that of Jelinek and Demers (1994), which disallow it, predict no effects, while theories which allow it, such as that of Baker (1996), predict effects with both subject and object. The point is that no version of the PAH predicts the subject-object asymmetry shown in (26).

  • 21

    The root in (32a) is glossed as ‘get hungry’, because Kiyota argues that stage-level states in inline image actually encode an initial change-of-state. See Bar-el (2005) for the same proposal for Skwxwú7mesh (a.k.a. Squamish).

  • 22

    The element inline image, glossed here as ‘past’, is actually analyzed by Davis and Matthewson (2003a) and Matthewson (2006b) as a temporal adverbial similar to English then.

  • 23

    The topic time (a.k.a. reference time) is the time about which an assertion is made, and may or may not coincide completely with the time of the event itself. Past tense orders the topic time before the utterance time. See Klein (1994), among many others, for discussion.

  • 24

    In fact, Chung and Timberlake (1985: 204) observe that ‘[t]he direct encoding of three tenses is not particularly common. It is more usual to find only a two-way distinction in tense, either future vs. non-future or past vs. non-past.’

  • 25

    The future morpheme is usually inline image, but inline image‘be going to’ or a motion verb such as naš‘go’ will also do the trick. See Glougie (2007) for discussion of St’át’imcets inline image, which she argues is not a progressive future (as assumed by Matthewson 2006b), but a prospective aspect.

  • 26

    Brent Galloway (personal communication, 2008) disagrees that (42) can have a future interpretation in Upriver Halkomelem; he claims that the future tense marker is obligatory here. This disagreement about the data may result either from language change, or from differing elicitation techniques.

  • 27

    N. Mattina (1999) discusses several strategies for marking future in Colville-Okanagan, but does not explicitly discuss whether they are obligatory. None of her future-time examples involve just an adverbial.

  • 28

    Tom Hukari (personal communication, 2009) confirms that the past-future reading appears spontaneously in stories in (Island) Halkomelem.

  • 29

    Bates and Hess actually say that the prefix places the situation time after the reference time, but this does not accord with the standard way of using the terms in the tense literature. Bates and Hess state that inline image is optional, and Dawn Bates (personal communication, 2008) confirms that at least in narratives, the future marker may be omitted on some predicates that signal time posterior to the moment described at that point in the narration.

  • 30

    The Skwxwú7mesh facts as reported by Currie (1996) are broadly similar, but involve some subtleties based on aspectual class. For example, Currie says that the verb-clitic order with a stative predicate gives a present-tense interpretation.

  • 31

    In St’át’imcets, the two possible orderings of clitic and verb correlate with imperfective versus perfective aspect, rather than tense.

  • 32

    The common ground is the set of propositions believed by both speaker and hearer (Stalnaker 1974).

  • 33

    It has been argued that the ‘clausal remnant’ of clefts in at least some Salish languages (including St’át’imcets) is a bare CP rather than a full relative clause (Davis et al. 2004, Koch 2008). If so, the Hedberg/Percus analysis cannot in principal be extended to Salish, because it crucially depends on the semantics of the determiner which introduces the remnant. Thanks to Karsten Koch (personal communication, 2008) for reminding us of this.

  • 34

    There are many subtleties to the application of the HWAM test, given the possibility for accommodation of a failed presupposition. The presupposition should not be too easy to accommodate by virtue of being too uncontroversial, unsurprising, or unimportant to the hearer. On the other hand, the relevant proposition cannot be too controversial, otherwise a ‘surprise’ response arises even with an unknown assertion. The personal relationship between the interlocutors and their relative social status also affect results. Nevertheless, there is a striking difference between the ease with which one can elicit HWAM responses in English, and the complete impossibility of eliciting them in St’át’imcets.

  • 35

    We do not adopt Gauker's analysis for English, since otherwise we could not explain the differences between English and St’át’imcets with respect to the HWAM test. See also arguments by von Fintel (2000) against applying Gauker's approach to English.

  • 36

    Systematic work has not yet been done on whether other Salish languages lack English-style presuppositions, although the pan-Salish absence of definite determiners and the cleft properties discussed above suggest that the lack may hold family-wide. However, Koch (2008: 90–91) shows that in inline image, use of the contrastive emphatic marker inline image and the contrastive demonstrative inline image in a condition where there is no contrasting element leads to challenges from consultants like ‘What is the other thing you are talking about?’ Such challenges potentially constitute HWAM responses.

Bibliography of Work on Salish Syntax and Semantics

This bibliography contains a fairly comprehensive selection of descriptive and theoretical work on Salish morphosyntax, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, organized by theme. It includes monographs, journal articles, book chapters, working papers, PhD dissertations, and MA theses. We have not included texts, collections of papers, dictionaries, grammars, or general overviews of Salish: to reference these, the should reader consult Jan van Eijk's comprehensive (2008) bibliography of work on Salish languages. In order to ensure accessibility, we have also excluded papers that were only read at conferences but not published. Where papers were published first in conference proceedings or working papers and later in a journal without significant changes, we have included only the later version here. Many items are cross-listed, and therefore appear under two or more headings.

Adverbials

Arregui, Ana, and Lisa Matthewson. 2001. A cross-linguistic perspective on the expression of manner. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory X. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Publications.

Bar-el, Leora. 1998. Verbal plurality and adverbial quantification: a case study of Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish Salish). MA thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Dolinina, Inga, and David Beck. 1997. The dual unselectivity of adverbial quantifiers: the case of Bella Coola. The 24th LACUS Forum, ed. by S. Embleton, 79–89. Chapel Hill, NC: Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States.

Jelinek, Eloise. 2004. Adverbs of quantification in Straits Salish and the LINK ‘u’. Studies in Salish Linguistics in Honor of M. Dale Kinkade (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics no. 10), ed. by Donna B. Gerdts and Lisa Matthewson, 224–34. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Matthewson, Lisa. 2000a. One at a time in St’át’imcets. Papers for the 35th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 133–46. UBCWPL 3. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Matthewson, Lisa. 2000b. On distributivity and pluractionality. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory IX. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Publications.

Applicatives/Ditransitives

Carlson, Barry F. 1980. Two-goal transitive stems in Spokane Salish. International Journal of American Linguistics 46.21–26.

Gerdts, Donna B. 2004a. The grammaticalization of Halkomelem ‘face’ into a dative applicative suffix. International Journal of American Linguistics 70.227–50.

Gerdts, Donna B. 2004b. Halkomelem directional applicatives. Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 189–200. UBCWPL 14, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Mercedes Q. Hinkson. 2003. An applicative use of the Halkomelem lexical suffix FACE. Papers for the 38th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 65–90. UBCWPL 11, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Kaoru Kiyosawa. 2003. Halkomelem psych applicatives. Papers for the 38th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 127–60. UBCWPL 11, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Kaoru Kiyosawa. 2005a. The function of Salish applicatives. Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages in the Americas, 84–94. UBCWPL 17, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Kaoru Kiyosawa. 2005b. Discourse functions of Salish applicatives. Papers for the 40th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 98–124. UBCWPL 16, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Kaoru Kiyosawa. 2007. Combinatorial properties of Salish applicatives. Papers for the 42nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 176–219. UBCWPL 20. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Hess, Thom, and Dawn Bates. 2004. Lushootseed applicatives and their ilk. Studies in Salish Linguistics in Honor of M. Dale Kinkade (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics no. 10), ed. by Donna B. Gerdts and Lisa Matthewson, 172–96. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1980. Columbian Salish -xí, -ł, -túł. International Journal of American Linguistics 46.33–6.

Kiyosawa, Kaoru. 1999. Classification of applicatives in Salishan languages. Papers for the 34th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 112–52. Kamloops, BC: Simon Fraser University.

Kiyosawa, Kaoru. 2004. The distribution of possessive applicatives in Interior Salish languages. Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 241–52. UBCWPL 14, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Kiyosawa, Kaoru. 2006. Applicatives in Salish languages. PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.

Kiyosawa, Kaoru, and Nile Thompson. 2000. An initial look at Twana applicatives. Papers for the 35th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 127–32. UBCWPL 3. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Mattina, Anthony. 1994. tułt, and more on Okanagan transitive forms: a working paper. Papers for the 29th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 204–31. Pablo, MT: Salish-Kootenai College.

Mattina, Nancy J. 1993. Some lexical properties of Colville-Okanagan ditransitives. Papers for the 28th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 265–84. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Nakamura, Yumiko. 2002. Disjoint reference and possessor raising in Shuswap. Proceedings of the 2001 Northwest Linguistics Conference, 133–42. UBCWPL 8, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Shapard, Jeffrey. 1980. Interior Salishan (di)transitive systems. Papers for the 15th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 229–82, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Thompson, Laurence C., and M. Terry. 1980. Thompson Salish //-xi//. International Journal of American Linguistics 46.27–32.

Auxiliaries

Beaumont, Ronald C. 1976. Two Sechelt auxiliaries: ku- and t’i-. Papers for the 11th International Conference on Salish Languages.

Davis, Henry. 2004. VP Ellipsis and its implications. Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 117–40. UBCWPL 14. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1992. Pseudo-auxiliaries in Upper Chehalis. Papers for the 27th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 22–43. Kamloops, BC: Secwépemc Cultural Education Society/Simon Fraser University.

Montler, Timothy R. 2003. Auxiliaries and other categories in Straits Salishan. International Journal of American Linguistics 69(2).103–34.

Poggi, Claudine. 1981. Klallam auxiliaries: a subclass of predicatives. The Working Papers of the 16th International Conference on Salish Languages (University of Montana Occasional Papers on Linguistics no. 2), ed. by Anthony Mattina and Timothy Montler, 63–9. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Steele, Susan, with Adrian Akmajian, Richard Demers, Eloise Jelinek, Chisato Kitagawa, Richard Oehrle and Thomas Wasow. 1981. An Encyclopedia of AUX: A Study of Cross-Linguistic Equivalence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Clause Chaining

Hukari, Thomas E. 1982. Conjunctive /so‘/ in Cowichan. Papers for the 17th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 107–17. Portland, OR.

Kroeber, Paul D. 1996. Notes on the syntax of clause chaining in Thompson River Salish. Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 197–202. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Saunders, Ross and Philip Davis. 1978. Conjunctive particle usage in Bella Coola. Linguistics 207.27–52.

Clitics

Bar-el, Leora, Carrie Gillon, Peter Jacobs, Linda Tamburri Watt, and Martina Wiltschko. Subject clitics and their effect on temporal interpretation: a case study of Skwxwú7mesh and Stó:lō Halq’eméylem. Studies in Salish Linguistics in Honor of M. Dale Kinkade (University of Montana Occasional Papers on Linguistics no. 10), ed. by Donna B. Gerdts and Lisa Matthewson, 8–29. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Davis, Henry. 1995. On the clitic-affix distinction in radical head-marking languages. Papers from the Chicago Linguistics Society Parasession on Clitics, 64–78. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

Davis, Henry. 1996. On agreement in St’át’imcets. Actes du Deuxième Colloque de Langue et Grammaire 8, 79–94.

Jelinek, Eloise. 1996. Definiteness and second position clitics in Straits Salish. Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena (CSLI Lecture Notes), ed. by Aaron Halpern and Arnold Zwicky, 271–97. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publication.

Kroeber, Paul D. 1992. Notes on the position of conjunctive enclitics in Thompson Salish. Papers for the 27th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 44–8. Kamloops, BC: Secwépemc Cultural Education Society/Simon Fraser University.

van Eijk, J. 2001. Word, clitic and sentence in Lillooet. Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages in the Americas, 119–22. UBCWPL 5, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Cognitive Semantics

Galloway, Brent D. 2001. Integrated cognitive semantics applied to Halkomelem. Papers for the 36th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 91–112. UBCWPL 6, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Galloway, Brent D. 2006. Semantic roles in Upriver Halkomelem. Papers for the 41st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 99–128. UBCWPL 18, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Hinkson, Mercedes Q. 1999. Salishan lexical suffixes: a study in the conceptualization of space. PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.

Complementation

Bates, Dawn. 1997b. Person marking in Lushootseed subordinate clauses. International Journal of American Linguistics 63.316–33.

Beck, David. 2000. Nominalization as complementation in Bella Coola and Lushootseed. Complementation: Cognitive and Functional Perspectives, ed. by Kaoru Horie, 121–47. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Davis, Henry, and Lisa Matthewson. 1996. Subordinate clauses and functional projections in St’át’imcets. Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 59–73. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Davis, Henry, and Lisa Matthewson. 1997. Unselective determiners. Proceedings of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 143–54. Calgary, AB: University of Calgary.

Davis, Henry, and Lisa Matthewson. 1998. Definiteness, finiteness, and the event/entity distinction. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 95–109. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts.

Davis, John H. 1978. Sliammon subordinate clauses with the proclitic //s// and a possible syntactic change. Papers for the 13th International Conference on Salish Languages, 237–41. Victoria, BC.

Davis, Philip W., and Ross Saunders. 1984. Propositional organization: the s- and si- prefixes in Bella Coola. International Journal of American Linguistics 50.208–31.

Gardiner, Dwight. 1985. Propositional configurations and their expression in Shuswap Salish. MA thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.

Gillon, Carrie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2004. Missing determiners/complementizers in Wh-questions: evidence from Skwxwú7mesh and Halq’eméylem. Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 215–30. UBCWPL 14, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Jacobs, Peter. 1992. Subordinate clauses in the Squamish language. MA thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.

Kroeber, Paul D. 1990. A note on case marking of subordinate clauses in Thompson Salish. Papers for the 25th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 213–20. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Kroeber, Paul D. 1991. Comparative syntax of subordination in Salish. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

Kroeber, Paul D. 1999. The Salish Language Family: Reconstructing Syntax. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Nakayama, Toshihide. 1991. On the position of the nominalizer in Squamish. Papers for the 26th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 293–300. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2006a. Inlocatives in Upriver Halkomelem. Papers for the 41st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 286–310. UBCWPL 18, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2006b. C-Selection is unique. Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Donald Baumer, David Montero, and Michael Scanlon, 444–52. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Configurationality

Davis, Henry. 1994. A configurational pronominal argument language. Proceedings of the 1993 Western Conference on Linguistics, 53–67. Fresno, CA: Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno.

Davis, Henry. 1999. Word order and configurationality in St’at’imcets. Papers for the 34th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 61–82. Kamloops, BC: Simon Fraser University.

Davis, Henry. 2000. Coordination and constituency in St’át’imcets. Papers for the 35th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 49–78. UBCWPL 3. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Davis, Henry. 2004. VP Ellipsis and its implications. Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 117–40. UBCWPL 14, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Davis, Henry. 2005. Constituency and coordination in St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish). Verb First: On the Syntax of Verb Initial Languages, ed. by Andrew Carnie, Sheila Anne Dooley, and Heidi Harley, 31–64. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Gardiner, Dwight. 1991a. Weak crossover in Shuswap Salish. Proceedings of the 4th Western Conference on Linguistics, 129–37. Fresno, CA: Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno.

Gardiner, Dwight. 1993. Structural asymmetries and pre-verbal positions in Shuswap. PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.

Hukari, Thomas E. 1983. Halkomelem and configuration. Papers for the 18th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 214–38. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Jelinek, Eloise. 1982. Adjoined Clauses in Lummi. Papers for the 17th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 201–45. Portland, OR.

Jelinek, Eloise. 1983. On the absence of empty categories in Lummi. Papers for the 18th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 313–33. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Jelinek, Eloise. 1985. Constraints on arguments in Lummi. Papers for the 20th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 169–88. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Jelinek, Eloise. 1995. Quantification in Straits Salish. Quantification in Natural Languages, ed. by Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer, and Barbara Partee, 487–540. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Jelinek, Eloise. 1996. Definiteness and second position clitics in Straits Salish. Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena (CSLI Lecture Notes 61), ed. by Aaron Halpern and Arnold Zwicky, 271–97. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Jelinek, Eloise. 1998. Prepositions in Northern Straits Salish and the noun/verb question. Salish Languages and Linguistics: Theoretical and Descriptive Perspectives (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 107), ed. by Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins and M. Dale Kinkade, 325–46. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Jelinek, Eloise. 2006. The pronominal argument parameter. Arguments and Agreement, ed. By Peter Ackema, Patrick Brandt, Maike Schoorlemmer, and Fred Weerman, 261–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jelinek, Eloise, and Richard Demers. 1994. Predicates and pronominal arguments in Straits Salish. Language 70.697–736.

Koch, Karsten. 2006. Against antisymmetry: possession marking in Nłe’kepmxcin (Thompson River Salish). Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Structure and Consistency in Languages in the Americas, 109–21. UBCWPL 19, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Control and Out of Control

Beaumont, Ronald. C. 1977. Causation and control in Sechelt. Papers for the 12th International Conference on Salish Languages.

Carlson, Barry F. 1996. Situation aspect and a Spokane control morpheme. International Journal of American Linguistics 62.59–69.

Carlson, Barry F., and Laurence C. Thompson. 1982. Out of control in two (maybe more) Salish languages. Anthropological Linguistics 24.51–65.

Davis, Henry, Lisa Matthewson, and Hotze Rullmann forthcoming. ‘Out of control’ marking as circumstantial modality in St’át’imcets. Cross-Linguistic Semantics of Tense, Aspect and Modality, ed. by Lotte Hogeweg, Helen de Hoop, and Andrey Malchukov. Oxford, UK: John Benjamins.

Davis, Philip, and Ross Saunders. 1986. Control and development in Bella Coola. International Journal of American Linguistics 52.212–26.

Demirdache, Hamida 1997. Out of control in St’át’imcets Salish and event (de-)composition. Theoretical Issues at the Morphology-Syntax Interface (Supplements of the International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology), ed. by Amaya Mendikoetxea and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria, 55–96. Bilbao, Spain: Universidad del País Vasco.

Galloway, Brent D. 1978. Control and transitivity in Upriver Halkomelem. Papers for the 13th International Conference on Salish Languages, 105–56. Victoria, BC.

Galloway, Brent D. 1997. Nooksack pronouns, transitivity, and control. Papers for the 32nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 197–243. Port Angeles, WA.

Jacobs, Peter. 2007. Txw as an out of control marker in Skwxwú7mesh. Papers for the 42nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 256–84. UBCWPL 20, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1982. Columbian (Salish) C2-reduplication. Anthropological Linguistics 24.66–72.

Saunders, Ross, and Philip Davis. 1982. The control system of Bella Coola. International Journal of American Linguistics 48.1–15.

Thompson, Laurence C. 1979. The control system: a major category in the grammar of Salishan languages. The Victoria Conference on Northwestern Languages, ed. by Barbara S. Efrat, 154–76. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Provincial Museum.

Thompson, Laurence C. 1985. Control in Salish grammar. Relational Typology (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 28), ed. by Frans Plank, 391–428. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Thompson, Laurence C., and M. Terry Thompson. 1981. More on the control system of Thompson Salish. The Working Papers of the 16th International Conference on Salish Languages (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics no. 2), ed. by Anthony Mattina and Timothy Montler, 126–31. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Van Eijk, Jan P. 1990. Intransitivity, transitivity and control in Lillooet Salish. Unity in Diversity: Papers Presented to Simon C. Dik on His 50th Birthday, ed. by Harm Pinkster and Inge Genee, 47–64. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.

Coreference and Binding

Davis, Henry. 2006. The status of Condition C in St’át’imcets. Studies in Salishan (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages 7), ed. by Shannon T. Bischoff, Lynnika Butler, Peter Norquest, and Daniel Siddiqi, 49–92. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Davis, Henry. 2009. Cross-linguistic variation in anaphoric dependencies: evidence from the Pacific Northwest. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27.1–43.

Davis, Philip W., and Ross Saunders. 1984. An expression of coreference in Bella Coola. The Syntax of Native American Languages (Syntax and Semantics 16), ed. by Eung-Do Cook and Donna B. Gerdts, 149–68. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Demirdache, Hamida. 1997. Condition C. Atomism and Binding, ed. by Hans Bennis, Pierre Pica, and Johan Rooryck, 51–88. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.

Gardiner, Dwight. 1991a. Weak crossover in Shuswap Salish. Proceedings of the 4th Western Conference on Linguistics, 129–37. Fresno, CA: Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno.

Gardiner, Dwight. 1991b. The binding properties of possessive constructions in Shuswap. Papers for the 26th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 121–28. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Koch, Karsten. 2006. Transitive word order in Nłe’kepmxcin (Thompson River Salish). Papers for the 41st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 192–220. UBCWPL 18, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Matthewson, Lisa, Henry Davis, and Dwight Gardiner. 1993. Coreference in Northern Interior Salish. Papers for the 28th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 217–32. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Nakamura, Yumiko. 2002. Disjoint reference and possessor raising in Shuswap. Proceedings of the 2001 Northwest Linguistics Conference, 133–42. UBCWPL 8, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Ergativity

Estival, Dominique, and John Myhill. 1988. Formal and functional aspects of the development from passive to ergative systems. Passive and Voice (Typological Studies in Language 16), ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Gardiner, Dwight, and Ross Saunders. 1991. Split ergativity in Shuswap Salish. Amerindia 16.79–101.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1988. Object and Absolutive in Halkomelem Salish. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.

Jelinek, Eloise. 1993. Ergative splits and argument types. Papers on Case and Agreement I (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics no. 18), ed. by Jonathan Bobaljik and Colin Phillips, 15–42. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Kroeber, Paul D. 1988. Discourse and functional factors in the development of Southern Interior Salish ergative case marking. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14.114–23.

Roberts, Taylor. 1999. Grammatical relations and ergativity in St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish). International Journal of American Linguistics 65.275–302.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2000. Is Halkomelem split ergative? Papers for the 35th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 249–68. UBCWPL 3. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2003a. On ergative (and other) splits in Salish. Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages in the Americas, 83–9. UBCWPL 12, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2003b. On the surface nature of ergative agreement in Upriver Halkomelem. Papers for the 38th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 253–73. UBCWPL 11, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2005. On ‘ergativity’ in Halkomelem Salish (and how to split and derive it). Ergativity: Emerging Issues, ed. by Alanah Johns, Diane Massam, and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 197–228. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2006. On ergative agreement and anti-agreement in Halkomelem Salish. Studies in Salishan (MIT Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages 7), ed. by Shannon T. Bischoff, Lynnika Butler, Peter Norquest, and Daniel Siddiqi, 241–73. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Grammatical Relations and Thematic Roles

Bates, Dawn. 2003. An agentive suffix in Lushootseed. Papers for the 38th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 1–6. UBCWPL 11, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Beck, David. 1996a. Is there a syntactic subject in Lushootseed? Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 1–13. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Beck, David. 1996b. Subjecthood, agency, and topicality in Lushootseed. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 15.1–29.

Beck, David. 2000. Semantic agents, syntactic subjects, and discourse topics: how to locate Lushootseed sentences in space and time. Studies in Language 24.277–317.

Davis, John H. 1973. Permutations of a Sliammon sentence. Papers for the 8th International Conference on Salish Languages, Eugene, OR.

Doak, Ivy G. 1997. Coeur d’Alene grammatical relations. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

Farrell, Patrick M. 1992. Semantic relations vs. abstract syntactic relations: evidence from Halkomelem. Berkeley Linguistics Society 18.76–87.

Galloway, Brent D. 2006. Semantic roles in Upriver Halkomelem. Papers for the 41st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 99–128. UBCWPL 18, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1988. Object and Absolutive in Halkomelem Salish. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1993. Mapping Halkomelem grammatical relations. Linguistics 31.591–622.

Hess, Thom. 1971. Prefix constituents with /xw/. Studies in Northwest Indian Languages (Papers of the 5th International Conference on Salish Languages) ed. by James E. Hoard and Thom Hess, 43–69. Sacramento Anthropology Society Papers 11, Sacramento, CA.

Hess, Thom. 1973. Agent in a Coast Salish language. International Journal of American Linguistics 39.89–94.

Hess, Thom, and Dawn Bates. 1998. Semantic role assignment in Lushootseed causatives. Papers for the 33rd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 221–35. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Jelinek, Eloise. 1995. The compositionality of argument structure in Lummi. Papers for the 30th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 18–25. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria.

Jelinek, Eloise, and Richard A. Demers. 2002. A note on ‘psych’ nouns in Lummi. Papers for the 37th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 181–88. UBCWPL 9, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Roberts, Taylor. 1994. Subject and topic in St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish). MA thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Roberts, Taylor. 1999. Grammatical relations and ergativity in St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish). International Journal of American Linguistics 65.275–302.

Imperatives

Doak, Ivy. 1996. Coeur d’Alene imperative constructions. Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 119–26. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Mattina, Anthony. 1980. Imperative formations in Colville-Okanagan and in the other Interior languages. Glossa 14.212–32.

Mattina, Nancy J. 1999. Moses-Columbia imperatives and Interior Salish. Anthropological Linguistics 41.1–27.

Information Structure: Topic and Focus

Beck, David. 1996. Subjecthood, agency, and topicality in Lushootseed. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 15.1–29. Toronto, ON.

Beck, David. 1997. Rheme, theme, and communicative structure in Lushootseed and Bella Coola. Recent Trends in Meaning-Text Theory, ed. by L. Wanner, 93–135. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Beck, David. 1998. On the syntactic expression of topic and rheme in two Salishan languages. Proceedings of the Workshop on Focus (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics no. 21), 13–36. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts.

Beck, David. 2000. Semantic agents, syntactic subjects, and discourse topics: how to locate Lushootseed sentences in space and time. Studies in Language 24.277–317.

Davis, Henry, Lisa Matthewson, and Scott Shank. 2004. Clefts vs. nominal predicates in two Salish languages. Studies in Salish Linguistics in Honor of M. Dale Kinkade (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics no. 10), ed. by Donna B. Gerdts and Lisa Matthewson, 100–17. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Gardiner, Dwight. 1998. Topic and focus in Shuswap (Secwepemctsín). Salish Languages and Linguistics: Theoretical and Descriptive Perspectives (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 107), ed. by Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins and M. Dale Kinkade, 275–304. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Koch, Karsten. 2007a. Don't get stressed! Non-stress focus strategies in Nlhe7kepmxcin (Thompson River Salish). Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. by Milica Radisic. Available at: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2007/actes2007.html.

Koch, Karsten. 2007b. Focus projection in Nlhe7kepmxcin (Thompson River Salish). Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 348–56. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Koch, Karsten. 2007c. Questions and answers in Nłe’kepmxcin: facilitating transfer from theoretical linguistics to education. Papers for the 42nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 293–323. UBCWPL 20, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Koch, Karsten. 2008. Intonation and focus in inline image (Thompson River Salish). PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Kroeber, Paul D. 1999. The Salish Language Family: Reconstructing Syntax. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Roberts, Taylor. 1994. Subject and topic in St’at’imcets (Lillooet Salish). MA thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Shank, Scott. 2001. And-fronting and the copula in Upper Chehalis. Papers for the 36th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 265–90. UBCWPL 6, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Intonation and Syntax/Semantics

Beck, David. 1996. Some notes on phonological phrasing in Lushootseed. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 15(2).37–50.

Bennet, David, and David Beck. 2007. Extending the prosodic hierarchy: evidence from Lushootseed narratives. Northwest Journal of Linguistics 1.1–34.

Jacobs, Peter. 2007. Intonation of yes/no questions in Skwxwú7mesh. Papers for the 42nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 236–55. UBCWPL 20, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Koch, Karsten. 2007a. Don't get stressed! Non-stress focus strategies in Nlhe7kepmxcin (Thompson River Salish). Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. by Milica Radisic. Available at: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2007/actes2007.html.

Koch, Karsten. 2007b. Questions and answers in Nłe’kepmxcin: facilitating transfer from theoretical linguistics to education. Papers for the 42nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 293–323. UBCWPL 20, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Koch, Karsten. 2008. Intonation and focus in inline image (Thompson River Salish). PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

(In)Transitivity

Barthmaier, Paul. 2000. Lushootseed argument structure and the discourse function of the morpheme /-b/. Papers for the 35th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 1–18. UBCWPL 3. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Barthmaier, Paul. 2002. Transitivity and lexical suffixes in Okanagan. Papers for the 37th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 1–17. UBCWPL 9, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Beaumont, Ronald. C. 1977. Causation and control in Sechelt. Papers for the 12th International Conference on Salish Languages.

Beck, David. 1996. Transitivity and causation in Lushootseed morphology. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 41.109–40.

Beck, David. 1997. Unitariness and partial identification in the Bella Coola middle voice. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 22(2).11–32.

Beck, David. 2000. Unitariness of participant and event in the Bella Coola (Nuxalk) middle voice. International Journal of American Linguistics 66.218–56.

Beck, David. 2007. A taxonomy of Lushootseed valency-increasing affixes. Papers for the 42nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 28–88. UBCWPL 20, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Brown, Jason C., Karsten Koch, and Martina Wiltschko. 2005. On certain unexpected gaps in transitive paradigms and their implication. Papers for the 40th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 65–88. UBCWPL 16, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Darnell, Michael. 1990. Squamish /-m/ constructions. Berkeley Linguistics Society 16.19–31.

Davis, Henry. 1994. Intransitive predicates in St’át’imcets. Proceedings of the 1994 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 131–42. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, Toronto, ON.

Davis, Henry. 1997. Deep unaccusativity and zero syntax in St’át’imcets. Theoretical Issues at the Morphology-Syntax Interface (Supplements of the International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology), ed. by Amaya Mendikoetxea and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria, 55–96. Bilbao, Spain: Universidad del País Vasco.

Davis, Henry. 2000b. Salish evidence on the causative-inchoative alternation. Morphological Analysis in Comparison (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 201), ed. by Wolfgang U. Dressler, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, Markus Pöchtrager, and John R. Rennison, 25–60. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Davis, Henry, and Hamida Demirdache. 2000. On lexical verb meanings: evidence from Salish. Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax, ed. by James Pustejovsky and Carol Tenny, 97–142. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Davis, Henry, and Lisa Matthewson. 2003. Quasi-objects in St’át’imcets: on the (semi)independence of agreement and case. A Festschrift for Eloise Jelinek (Linguistik Aktuell 62), ed. by Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley and Mary Ann Willie, 80–106. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Davis, John H. 1973. Permutations of a Sliammon sentence. 8th International Conference on Salish Languages, Eugene, OR.

Davis, Philip W., and Ross Saunders. 1976. The syntax of CAUSE and EFFECT in Bella Coola. Glossa 10.155–74.

Davis, Philip, and Ross Saunders. 1989. Language and intelligence: the semantic unity of -m- in Bella Coola. Lingua 78.113–58.

Demers, Richard A. 1974. Alternating roots in Lummi. International Journal of American Linguistics 40.15–21.

Dilts, Philip. 2006. An analysis of the Okanagan ‘middle’ marker -m. Papers for the 41st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 77–98. UBCWPL 18, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Doak, Ivy G. 1993. Discourse use of the Coeur d’Alene -st(u)- transitivizer. American Indian Linguistics and Ethnography in Honor of Laurence C. Thompson (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics no. 10), ed. by Anthony Mattina and Timothy Montler, 73–92. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Galloway, Brent. 1978. Control and transitivity in Upriver Halkomelem. Papers for the 13th International Conference on Salish Languages, 105–56, Victoria, BC.

Galloway, Brent D. 1997. Nooksack pronouns, transitivity, and control. Papers for the 32nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Language, 197–243. Port Angeles, WA.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1980a. Antipassives and causatives in Halkomelem. Berkeley Linguistics Society 6.300–14. Berkeley, CA.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1980b. Causal to object advancements in Halkomelem. Chicago Linguistics Society 16.83–101. Chicago, IL.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1984. A relational analysis of Halkomelem causals. The Syntax of Native American Languages (Syntax and Semantics 16), ed. by Eung-Do Cook and Donna B. Gerdts, 169–204. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1988. Object and Absolutive in Halkomelem Salish. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1991. Unaccusative mismatches in Halkomelem Salish. International Journal of American Linguistics 57.230–50.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1992. Morphologically mediated relational profiles. Berkeley Linguistics Society 18.322–37. Berkeley, CA.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1993a. Mapping Halkomelem grammatical relations. Linguistics 31.591–622.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1993b. Mapping transitive voice in Halkomelem. Berkeley Linguistics Society 19 (Special Session on Syntactic Issues in Native American languages): 22–34. Berkeley, CA.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1994. Mapping Halkomelem causatives. Proceedings of the 1993 Western Conference on Linguistics, 162–77. Fresno, CA: Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1995. The A/B parameter: a typology of unergatives, passives and antipassives. Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, 191–201. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, Toronto, ON.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1998. Intransitive verb classes in Halkomelem Salish. American Indian Languages: Description and Theory (University of California Publications in Linguistics 131), ed. by Leanne Hinton and Pamel Munro, 97–203. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Gerdts, Donna B. 2004a. Halkomelem directional applicatives. Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 189–200. UBCWPL 14, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B. 2004b. Combinatory conditions on Halkomelem causatives. Linguistics 42(4). 767–89.

Gerdts, Donna B. 2006. Argument realization in Halkomelem: a study in verb classification. Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages in the Americas, 61–81. UBCWPL 19, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Kaoru Kiyosawa. 2003. Halkomelem psych applicatives. Papers for the 38th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 61–81. UBCWPL 11, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Kaoru Kiyosawa. 2005. The function of Salish applicatives. Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Structure and Consistency in Languages in the Americas, 84–94. UBCWPL 17, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Kaoru Kiyosawa. 2007. Combinatorial properties of Salish applicatives. Papers for the 42nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 176–219. UBCWPL 20, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Thomas E. Hukari. 1998. Inside and outside the middle. Papers for the 33rd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 166–220. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Thomas E. Hukari. 2000a. Stacked antipassives in Halkomelem Salish. Papers for the 35th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 95–106. UBCWPL 3, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B. and Thomas E. Hukari. 2000b. The dual structure of Halkomelem motion verbs. Proceedings of the Workshop on American Indigenous Languages 2000, 33–46. Santa Barbara Working Papers in Linguistics 10, Santa Barbara, CA.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Thomas E. Hukari. 2004a. Determiners and transitivity in Halkomelem texts. Studies in Salish Linguistics in Honor of M. Dale Kinkade (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics no. 10), ed. by Donna B. Gerdts and Lisa Matthewson, 151–71. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Thomas E. Hukari. 2004b. Halkomelem denominal verbs. Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 201–14. UBCWPL 14, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Thomas E. Hukari. 2005. Multiple antipassives in Halkomelem Salish. Berkeley Linguistics Society 26: 51–62. Berkeley, CA.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Thomas E. Hukari. 2006a. The Halkomelem middle: a complex network of constructions. Anthropological Linguistics 48.44–81.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Thomas E. Hukari. 2006b. Classifying Halkomelem causatives. Papers for the 41st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 129–45. UBCWPL 18, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Thomas E. Hukari forthcoming. A closer look at Salish transitive/intransitive alternations. Berkeley Linguistics Society 32. Berkeley, CA.

Hagiwara, Robert E. 1989. Pronominal arguments and the syntax of Lushootseed transitives. Papers for the 24th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 61–75, Steilacoom, WA.

Hagiwara, Robert E. 1990. Lushootseed (Salish) transitives: pronominal morphology and licensing of noun phrases. MA thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.

Hébert, Yvonne M. 1982a. Transitivity in (Nicola Lake) Okanagan. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia. Dissertation Abstracts International 43A. 3896.

Hébert, Yvonne M. 1982b. Aspect and transitivity in (Nicola Lake) Okanagan. Transitivity (Syntax and Semantics 15), ed. by S. A. Thompson and P. Hooper, 195–215. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Hess, Thom. 1967. The morph inline image in Snohomish. 2nd International Conference on Salish Languages, Seattle, WA.

Hess, Thom. 1990. Another component of meaning for inline image. Papers for the 25th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 173–6. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Hess, Thom. 1993. A schema for the presentation of Lushootseed verb stems. American Indian Linguistics and Ethnography in Honor of Laurence C. Thompson (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10), ed. by Anthony Mattina and Timothy Montler, 113–27. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Hess, Thom, and Dawn Bates. 1998. Semantic role assignment in Lushootseed causatives. Papers for the 33rd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 221–35. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Hess, Thom, and Dawn Bates. 2004. Lushootseed applicatives and their ilk. Studies in Salish Linguistics in Honor of M. Dale Kinkade (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10), ed. by Donna B. Gerdts and Lisa Matthewson, 172–96. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Howett, Catherine D. 1993. On the classification of predicates in Nłe’képmx (Thompson River Salish). MA thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Hukari, Thomas E. 1976. Transitivity in Halkomelem. Papers for 11th International Conference on Salish Languages, 69–119, Seattle, WA.

Hukari, Thomas E. 1979. Oblique objects in Halkomelem. 11th International Conference on Salish Languages, 158–72, Bellingham, WA.

Hukari, Thomas E. 2001. The dual structure of Halkomelem motion verbs. Proceedings of the 2000 Workshop on Amerindian Languages, 33–46. Santa Barbara Working Papers in Linguistics 10, Santa Barbara, CA.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1981. Transitive inflection in (Moses) Columbian Salish. The Working Papers of the XVI International Conference on Salish Languages (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10), ed. by Anthony Mattina and Timothy Montler, 103–10. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1982. Transitive inflection in Moses-Columbian Salish. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics no. 7, 49–62. Lawrence, KS.

Kiyosawa, Kaoru. 1999. Classification of applicatives in Salishan languages. Papers for the 34th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 112–52. Kamloops, BC: Simon Fraser University.

Kiyosawa, Kaoru. 2006. Applicatives in Salish languages. PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.

Kiyosawa, Kaoru, and Nile Thompson. 2000. An initial look at Twana applicatives. Papers for the 35th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 127–32. UBCWPL 3, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Kuipers, Aert. 1968. The categories verb-noun and transitive-intransitive in English and Squamish. Lingua 21.610–26.

Kuipers, Aert. 1970. Shuswap transitive verbs. 5th International Conference on Salish Languages.

Kuipers, Aert. 1992. The Shuswap complex transitivizers. Papers for the 27th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 49–53. Kamloops, BC: Secwépemc Cultural Education Society/Simon Fraser University.

Mattina, Anthony. 1978. Parallels between the Colville transitives and pseudo-intransitives. Proceedings of the 8th Western Conference on Linguistics, 104–9.

Mattina, Anthony. 1982. The Colville-Okanagan transitive system. International Journal of American Linguistics 48.421–35.

Mattina, Anthony. 1994. tułt, and more on Okanagan transitive forms: a working paper. Papers for the 29th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 204–31. Pablo, MT: Salish-Kootenai College.

Mattina, Anthony. 2004. The Okanagan transitive sentence prototype. Studies in Salish Linguistics in Honor of M. Dale Kinkade (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10), ed. by Donna B. Gerdts and Lisa Matthewson, 279–88. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Mattina, Nancy J. 1993. Some lexical properties of Colville-Okanagan ditransitives. Papers for the 28th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 265–84. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Mattina, Nancy. 1994. Roots, bases, and stems in Colville-Okanagan. Papers for the 29th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 232–42. Pablo, MT: Salish-Kootenai College.

Mattina, Nancy. 1996. Aspect and category in Okanagan word formation. PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.

Reichard, Gladys A. 1945. Composition and symbolism of Coeur d’Alene verb stems. International Journal of American Linguistics 11.47–63.

Rowicka, Grażyna J. 2006. Transitive linker in Upper Chehalis (Salish). What's in a Verb? Studies in the Verbal Morphology of the Languages of the Americas, ed. by Grażyna J. Rowicka and Eithne B. Carlin, 73–92. Landelijke Onderzoeksschool Taalwetenschap (Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics) Occasional Series 5.

Shapard, Jeffrey. 1980. Interior Salishan (di)transitive systems. Papers for the 15th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages. 229–82, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Thomason, Lucy. 1994. Transitivity-related morphological alternations in Montana Salish. Papers for the 29th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 265–87. Pablo, MT: Salish-Kootenai College.

Thomason, Sarah G. 1997. Plurals and transitivity in Montana Salish. Papers for the 32nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 352–62. Port Angeles, WA.

Thomason, Sarah G., Dorothy Berney, Gail Coelho, Jeffrey Micher, and Daniel Everett. 1994. Montana Salish root classes: evidence from the 19th-century Jesuit Dictionary. Papers for the 29th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 288–312. Pablo, MT: Salish-Kootenai College.

Thomason, Sarah G., and Daniel Everett. 1993. Transitivity in Flathead. Papers for the 28th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 317–44. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Thompson, Laurence C. 1973. Thompson transitive formations. 8th International Conference on Salish Languages, Eugene, OR.

Thompson, Nile R., and Douglas Isaacson. 1984. Lexical representation of Salish verb roots (Amerindian Linguistics III). Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics no. 9(2). 31–46. Lawrence, KS.

Van Eijk, Jan P. 1990. Intransitivity, transitivity and control in Lillooet Salish. Unity in Diversity: Papers Presented to Simon C. Dik on His 50th Birthday, ed. by Harm Pinkster and Inge Genee, 47–64. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.

Watanabe, Honoré. 1996. Sliammon (Mainland Comox) transitive constructions with inline image, -ni, and -mi. Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 327–38. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2001. The syntax of transitivity and its effects. Evidence from Halkomelem Salish. Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 593–606. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Winter, Anne. 1996. Transitivity and intransitivity in Lushootseed. MA thesis, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ.

Lexical Aspect (Aktionsarten)

Bar-el, Leora. 2004. On the relevance of initial points: Skwxwú7mesh activities and accomplishments. Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 71–84. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Bar-el, Leora. 2005a. Aspectual distinctions in Skwxwú7mesh. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Bar-el, Leora. 2005b. Minimal and maximal events. Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages in the Americas, 29–42. UBCWPL 17, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Bar-el, Leora, Henry Davis, and Lisa Matthewson. 2005. On non-culminating accomplishments. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts.

Beaumont, Ronald C. 1973. Sechelt statives. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 18.102–12.

Burton, Strang, and Henry Davis. 1996. Stative aspect and possession in Salish. Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 13–22. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Carlson, Barry F. 1996. Situation aspect and a Spokane control morpheme. International Journal of American Linguistics 62.59–69.

Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 2006. Form and function in the Nxa’amxcín inchoative. Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages in the Americas, 40–52. UBCWPL 19, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Davis, Henry, and Hamida Demirdache. 2000. On lexical verb meanings: evidence from Salish. Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax, ed. by James Pustejovsky and Carol Tenny, 97–142. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Harris, Barbara P. 1974. Aspect and the pronominal system of Coeur d’Alene: a re-analysis of Reichard's material. Papers for the 9th International Conference on Salish Languages, 60–80. Vancouver, BC.

Hébert, Yvonne M. 1979. A note on aspect in (Nicola Lake) Okanagan. 14th International Conference on Salish Languages, 173–209, Bellingham, WA.

Hébert, Yvonne M. 1982a. Transitivity in (Nicola Lake) Okanagan. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia. Dissertation Abstracts International 43A.3896.

Hébert, Yvonne M. 1982b. Aspect and transitivity in (Nicola Lake) Okanagan. Transitivity (Syntax and Semantics 15), ed. by S. A. Thompson and P. Hooper, 195–215. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1989. Inchoatives in Columbian Salish. Papers for the 24th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 114–19. Steilacoom, WA.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1996. Reconstructing aspect in Salishan languages. Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 185–96. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Kinkade, M. Dale, and Masaru Kiyota. 2004. Changing state in Salishan languages. Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 231–40. UBCWPL 14, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Kiyota, Masaru. 2004. Aspectual classification of verbs in inline image. Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 253–68. UBCWPL 14, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Kiyota, Masaru. 2007. Aspectual properties of unaccusatives and transitives in Saanich. Papers for the 42nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 285–92. UBCWPL 20, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Kiyota, Masaru. 2008. Situation aspect and viewpoint aspect: from Salish to Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Kroeber, Paul D. 1980. The formation of the continuative aspect in Southern Interior Salishan. BA Honors thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Kroeber, Paul D. 1986. Antipassives and the differentiation of progressive aspect in Southern Interior Salish. Proceedings of Chicago Linguistics Society 22, Part I: 75–88, Chicago, IL.

Kroeber, Paul D. 1988b. Inceptive reduplication in Comox and Interior Salishan. International Journal of American Linguistics 54.141–67.

Matthewson, Lisa. 2004. On the absence of telic accomplishments in St’át’imcets. Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages in the Americas, 65–78. UBCWPL 15, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Mattina, Anthony. 1993. Okanagan aspect: a working paper. Papers for the 28th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 233–64. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Mattina, Nancy. 1996. Aspect and category in Okanagan word formation. PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.

Raffo, Yolanda A. 1971. Songish aspectual system. Studies in Northwest Indian Languages (Papers of the 5th International Conference on Salish Languages), ed. by James E. Hoard and Thom Hess, 117–22. Sacramento Anthropology Society Papers 11, Sacramento, CA.

Saunders, Ross, and Philip Davis. 1993. Natural aspect in Bella Coola. American Indian Linguistics and Ethnography in Honor of Laurence C. Thompson (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10), ed. by Anthony Mattina and Timothy Montler, 265–78. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Turner, Claire Kelly. 2005. Resultatives and actuals in inline image. Papers for the 40th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 245–63. UBCWPL 16, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Turner, Claire Kelly. 2006. The inline image resultive construction. MA thesis, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC.

Turner, Claire Kelly. 2007. The inline image resultive construction. Northwest Journal of Linguistics 1(3).1–92.

Lexical Categories

Beck, David. 1995. A conceptual approach to lexical categories in Bella Coola. Papers for the 30th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, Victoria, BC: University of Victoria.

Beck, David. 1999a. Adjectives and the organization of lexical inventories. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 17.18–57, Toronto, ON.

Beck, David. 1999b. The typology of parts of speech systems. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.

Beck, David. 2003. Conceptual autonomy and the typology of parts of speech. Bringing Non-Indo-European Languages into Focus, ed. by G. Casad and G. Palmer, 135–56. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Birch, Barbara M. 1993. Another look at Salish nouns and verbs. Papers for the 28th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 19–26. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Davis, Henry. 2002. Categorial restrictions on modification in St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish). Papers for the 37th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 61–76. UBCWPL 9, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Davis, Henry. 2003. Mind the gap: on plural agreement and A’-extraction in St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish). Papers for the 38th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 23–46. UBCWPL 11, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Davis, Henry, I-Ju Sandra Lai, and Lisa Matthewson. 1997. Cedar roots and singing detectives: attributive modifications in Salish and English. Papers for the 32nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 291–316. Port Angeles, WA.

Davis, Henry, and Lisa Matthewson. 1999. On the functional determination of lexical categories. Revue Québecoise de Linguistique 27.27–69.

Demers, Richard A., and Eloise Jelinek. 1984. Word-building rules and grammatical categories of Lummi. Papers for the 19th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 39–49. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria 4(2). Victoria, BC: University of Victoria.

Demirdache, Hamida, and Lisa Matthewson. 1995. On the universality of syntactic categories. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 79–94. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts.

Galloway, Brent D., George Adams, and Catalina Renteria. 2004. What a Nooksack story can tell us about morphology and syntax. Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 149–66. UBCWPL 14, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Haag, Marcia. 1998. Word-level evidence for lexical categories in Salishan languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 64.379–93.

Hébert, Yvonne M. 1983. Noun and verb in a Salishan language. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics no. 8.31–81. Lawrence, KS.

Hukari, Thomas E. 1983. Halkomelem and configuration. Papers for the 18th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 214–38. Seattle, WA.

Kuipers, Aert. 1968. The categories verb-noun and transitive-intransitive in English and Squamish. Lingua 21.610–26.

Jelinek, Eloise. 1998. Prepositions in Northern Straits Salish and the noun/verb question. Salish Languages and Linguistics: Theoretical and Descriptive Perspectives (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 107), ed. by Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins and M. Dale Kinkade, 325–46. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Jelinek, Eloise, and Richard Demers. 1994. Predicates and pronominal arguments in Straits Salish. Language 70.697–736.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1983. Salish evidence against the universality of ‘noun’ and ‘verb’. Lingua 60.25–39.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 2000. An initial study of some adjectival modifiers in Upper Chehalis. Papers for the 35th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 119–26. UBCWPL 3. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Matthewson, Lisa, and Hamida Demirdache. 1995. Syntactic categories in St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish). Papers for the 30th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 69–75. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria.

Mattina, Nancy. 1996. Aspect and category in Okanagan word formation. PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.

Montler, Timothy R. 2003. Auxiliaries and other categories in Straits Salishan. International Journal of American Linguistics 69(2).103–34.

Van Eijk, Jan P., and Thom Hess. 1986. Noun and verb in Salish. Lingua 69.319–31.

Weichel, Lindsay. 2004. The demarcation of nouns and verbs in various Amerindian languages. Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages in the Americas, 129–42. UBCWPL 15,Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2005. The syntax of precategorial roots. Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages in the Americas, 245–58. UBCWPL 17, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2009. Root incorporation: evidence from lexical suffixes in Halkomelem. Lingua 119(2).199–233.

Lexical Suffixation

Barthmaier, Paul. 2002. Transitivity and lexical suffixes in Okanagan. Papers for the 37th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 1–17. UBCWPL 9, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 2004. The morphological and phonological status of Nxa’amxcín lexical suffixes. Studies in Salish Linguistics in Honor of M. Dale Kinkade (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10), ed. by Donna B Gerdts and Lisa Matthewson, 72–99. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Davis, Philip W., and Ross Saunders. 1972. Object and instrument copying in Bella Coola lexical suffixes. International Conference on Salish Languages 7.

Davis, Philip W., and Ross Saunders. 1973. Lexical suffix copying in Bella Coola. Glossa 7.231–52.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1998. Incorporation. Handbook on Morphology, ed. by Andrew Spencer and Arnold Zwicky, 84–100. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1999. The combinatorial properties of Halkomelem lexical suffixes. Papers for the 34th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 83–95. Kamloops, BC: Simon Fraser University.

Gerdts, Donna B. 2000. The combinatorial properties of Salish lexical suffixes. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 337–47. University of California, Berkeley.

Gerdts, Donna B. 2003. The morphosyntax of Halkomelem lexical suffixes. International Journal of American Linguistics 69.345–56.

Gerdts, Donna B. 2004. The grammaticalization of Halkomelem ‘face’ into a dative applicative suffix. International Journal of American Linguistics 70.227–50.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Mercedes Q. Hinkson. 2003. An applicative use of the Halkomelem lexical suffix FACE. Papers for the 38th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 65–90. UBCWPL 11, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Mercedes Q. Hinkson. 2004. Salish numeral classifiers: a lexical means to a grammatical end. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 57.247–79.

Gerdts, Donna B., Mercedes Q. Hinkson, and Thomas E. Hukari. 2002. Numeral classifiers in Halkomelem. Papers for the 37th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 147–80. UBCWPL 9, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Hagège, Claude. 1976. Lexical suffixes and incorporation in Mainland Comox. Papers for the 11th International Conference on Salish Languages.

Hamp, Eric P. 1968. Quileute and Salish lexical suffixes. Papers for the 3rd International Conference on Salish Languages.

Hinkson, Mercedes Q. 1999. Salishan lexical suffixes: a study in the conceptualization of space. PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.

Hinkson, Mercedes Q. 2001. The semantics of the lexical suffix *wil. Papers for the 36th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 155–74. UBCWPL 6, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1998. Origins of Salishan lexical suffixes. Papers for the 33rd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 266–95. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Newman, Stanley. 1968. A comparative study of Salish lexical suffixes. Papers for the 3rd International Conference on Salish Languages.

Newman, Stanley. 1989. Lexical morphemes in Bella Coola. General and Amerindian Ethnolinguistics: In Remembrance of Stanley Newman (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 55), ed. by Mary Ritchie Key and Henry M. Hoenigswald, 289–301. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Saunders, Ross, and Philip W. Davis. 1975a. Bella Coola lexical suffixes. Anthropological Linguistics 17(4).154–90.

Saunders, Ross, and Philip W. Davis. 1975b. The internal syntax of suffixes in Bella Coola. International Journal of American Linguistics 41.106–13.

Saunders, Ross, and Philip W. Davis. 1975c. Referential suffixes in Bella Coola. International Journal of American Linguistics 41.355–68.

Watanabe, Honoré. 2001. Lexical suffixes and two intransitive suffixes in Sliammon Salish. Languages of the North Pacific Rim (Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim, vol. 6), ed. by Osahito Miyaoka and Fubito Endo, 157–70. Suita, Japan: Faculty of Informatics, Osaka Gakuin University.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2005. The syntax of precategorial roots. Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas, 245–58. UBCWPL 17, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2009. Root incorporation: evidence from lexical suffixes in Halkomelem. Lingua 119(2).198–233.

Locatives

Davis, Henry. 2004. Locative relative clauses in St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish). Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 83–116. UBCWPL 14, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gillon, Carrie. 2009. Deictic features: evidence from Skwxwú7mesh. International Journal of American Linguistics 75.1–27.

Hess, Thom. 1968. Directive phrases: a consideration of one facet of Puget Salish syntax. Papers for the 3rd International Conference on Salish Languages, Victoria, BC.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1974. Position indicators in Columbian Salish. Papers for the 9th International Conference on Salish Languages, 1–11, Vancouver, BC.

Montler, Timothy. 2004. Klallam from A to B. Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 303–16. UBCWPL 14, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Montler, Timothy. 2008. Serial verbs and complex paths in Klallam. Northwest Journal of Linguistics 2.1–26.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2006. Inlocatives in Upriver Halkomelem. Papers for the 41st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 286–310. UBCWPL 11, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Miscellaneous Morphology

Gerdts, Donna B. 1987. A relational typology of desideratives. Native American Languages and Grammatical Typology, ed. by Paul D. Kroeber and Roger E. Moore, 74–104. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1988c. Semantic linking and relational structure in desideratives. Linguistics 26.843–72.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Thomas E. Hukari. 2008. Halkomelem denominal verb constructions. International Journal of American Linguistics 74(4).489–510.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1981. Interior Salishan particles. Anthropological Linguistics 23.327–43.

Lonsdale, Deryle. 2001. A two-level implementation for Lushootseed morphology. Papers for the 36th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 203–14. UBCWPL 6, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Lonsdale, Deryle. 2002. A categorial grammar fragment for Lushootseed. Papers for the 37th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 215–32. UBCWPL 9, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Lonsdale, Deryle. 2003. Doing Lushootseed morphology by analogy. Papers for the 38th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 175–84. UBCWPL 11, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Mattina, Anthony. 1981. Colville -út. The Working Papers of the XVI ICSL (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10), ed. by Anthony Mattina and Timothy Montler, 132–42. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Mattina, Anthony, and Sarah Peterson. 1997. Diminutives in Colville-Okanagan. Papers for the 32nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 317–24. Port Angeles, WA.

Newman, Stanley. 1976. Salish and Bella Coola prefixes. International Journal of American Linguistics 42.228–42.

Thompson, Laurence C., and M. Terry Thompson. 1981. Affective derivatives in Thompson River Salish. University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 13, 119–27. Honolulu, HI.

Mood and Modality

Davis, Henry, Lisa Matthewson, and Hotze Rullmann. 2007. A unified semantics for ‘out-of-control’ in St’át’imcets. Papers for the 42nd International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, 119–60. UBCWPL 20, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Davis, Henry, Lisa Matthewson, and Hotze Rullmann forthcoming. ‘Out of control’ marking as circumstantial modality in St’át’imcets. Cross-Linguistic Semantics of Tense, Aspect and Modality, ed. by Lotte Hogeweg, Helen de Hoop, and Andrey Malchukov. Oxford, UK: John Benjamins.

Davis, Philip W., and Ross Saunders. 1985. How to get things done in Bella Coola: the expression of mood. For Gordon H. Fairbanks (Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications 20), ed. by Veneeta Z. Acson and L. Leed, 243–56. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1998. Is irrealis a grammatical category in Upper Chehalis? Anthropological Linguistics 40.234–44.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 2001. Proto-Salish irrealis. Papers for the 36th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 189–200. UBCWPL 6, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Matthewson, Lisa, Henry Davis, and Hotze Rullmann. 2007. Evidentials as epistemic modals in St’át’imcets. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 7.201–54.

Mattina, Anthony. 1996. Interior Salish to-be and intention forms: a working paper. Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 239–48. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Rullmann, Hotze, Lisa Matthewson, and Henry Davis. 2006. Modality in St’át’imcets. Studies in Salishan (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages), ed. by Shannon T. Bischoff, Lynnika Butler, Peter Norquest, and Daniel Siddiqi, 93–112. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Rullmann, Hotze, Lisa Matthewson, and Henry Davis. 2008. Modals as distributive indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 16.317–57.

Negation

Davis, Henry. 2001. On negation in Salish. Papers for the 36th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 55–90. UBCWPL 6, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Davis, Henry. 2005. On the syntax and semantics of negation in Salish. International Journal of American Linguistics 71.1–55.

Davis, Philip W., and Ross Saunders. 1978. Bella Coola Syntax: negation and particles. Papers for the the 13th International Conference on Salish Languages, 242–72. Victoria, BC.

Davis, Philip W., and Ross Saunders. 1992. The semantics of negation in Bella Coola. For Henry Kučera: Studies in Slavic Philology and Computational Linguistics, ed. by Andrew W., Mackie, Tatyana K. McAuley, and Cynthia Simmons, 101–24. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.

Davis, Philip W., and Ross Saunders. 2002. The position of negation and its consequences. Papers for the 36th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 29–42. UBCWPL 6, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Demers, Richard A. 1997. Negation and assignment of arguments in Lummi. Papers for the 32nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 189–96. Port Angeles, WA.

Gillon, Carrie. 2001. Negative generic sentences in Skwxwú7mesh Salish. Papers for the 36th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 145–54. UBCWPL 6, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1976. The copula and negatives in Inland Olympic Salish. International Journal of American Linguistics 42.17–23.

Kroeber, Paul D. 1991. Comparative syntax of subordination in Salish. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

Kroeber, Paul D. 1999. The Salish Language Family: Reconstructing Syntax. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2002. Sentential negation in Upriver Halkomelem. International Journal of American Linguistics 68.253–86.

Noun Phrase and Determiner Syntax and Semantics

Davis, Philip, and Ross Saunders. 1975a. Bella Coola deictic usage. Studies in Cultural Anthropology, ed. by Frederic C. Gamst, 13–35. Rice University Studies 61, Rice University, TX.

Davis, Philip, and Ross Saunders. 1975b. Bella Coola nominal deixis. Language 51.845–58.

Davis, Philip, and Ross Saunders. 1976. Bella Coola deictic roots. International Journal of American Linguistics 42.319–30.

Gardiner, Dwight. 1996. Determiner phrases in Secwepemctsín (Shuswap). Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 175–84. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Thomas E. Hukari. 2003. The expression of NPs in Halkomelem texts. Papers for the the 38th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 91–126. UBCWPL 11, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Thomas E. Hukari. 2004. Determiners and transitivity in Halkomelem texts. Studies in Salish Linguistics in Honor of M. Dale Kinkade (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10), ed. by Donna B. Gerdts and Lisa Matthewson, 151–71. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Gillon, Carrie. 2006. The semantics of determiners: domain restrictions in Skwxwú7mesh. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Gillon, Carrie. 2009. Deictic features: evidence from Skwxwú7mesh. International Journal of American Linguistics 75.1–27.

Jelinek, Eloise. 1993. Languages without determiner quantification. Berkeley Linguistics Society 19: 406–22. Berkeley, CA.

Jelinek, Eloise. 1995. Quantification in Straits Salish. Quantification in Natural Languages, ed. by Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer, and Barbara Partee, 487–540. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Jelinek, Eloise, and Richard A. Demers. 2002. A note on ‘psych’ nouns in Lummi. Papers for the 37th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 181–8. UBCWPL 9, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Jones, Michael K. 1974. Island Halkomelem determiners. Papers for the 9th International Conference on Salish Languages, 81–7. Vancouver, BC.

Matthewson, Lisa. 1997a. Parametric variation in determiner systems: Salish vs. English. Theoretical Issues at the Morphology-Syntax Interface (Supplements of the International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology), ed. by Amaya Mendikoetxea and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria, 255–84. Bilbao, Spain: Universidad del País Vasco.

Matthewson, Lisa. 1997b. Salish evidence on DP-internal quantification. Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics.

Matthewson, Lisa. 1997c. The semantics of Salish determiners: a parametric account. Proceedings of the 15th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics.

Matthewson, Lisa. 1998. Determiner Systems and Quantificational Strategies: Evidence from Salish. The Hague, The Netherlands: Holland Academic Graphics.

Matthewson, Lisa. 1999. On the interpretation of wide scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics 7.79–134.

Matthewson, Lisa. 2001. Quantification and the nature of cross-linguistic variation. Natural Language Semantics 9.145–89.

Matthewson, Lisa, Tim Bryant, and Tom Roeper. 2001. A Salish stage in the acquisition of English determiners: unfamiliar ‘definites.’ Proceedings of SULA: The Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 25) Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts.

Matthewson, Lisa, and Henry Davis. 1995. The structure of DP in St’at’imcets (Lillooet Salish). Papers for the 30th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 54–68. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria.

Matthewson, Lisa, and Charlotte Reinholtz. 1996. The syntax and semantics of determiners: a comparison of Salish and Cree. Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 211–38. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Mattina, Nancy J. 2002. Notes on determiner phrases in Moses-Columbia Salish. Papers for the 37th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 261–86. UBCWPL 9, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Mattina, Nancy J. 2006. Determiner phrases in Moses-Columbia Salish. International Journal of American Linguistics 72.97–134.

Montler, Timothy. 2007. Klallam demonstratives. Papers for the 42nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 409–25. UBCWPL 20, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Schaeffer, Jeannette, and Lisa Matthewson. 2005. Grammar and pragmatics in the acquisition of article systems. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23.53–101.

Van Eijk, Jan P. 1974. Deictics in Lillooet. Papers for the 9th International Conference on Salish Languages (Dutch Contributions). Vancouver, BC.

Van Eijk, Jan P. 1980. Lillooet Articles. Papers for the 15th International Conference on Salish Languages, 187–95. Vancouver, BC.

Van Eijk, Jan P. 1982. Lillooet local deictics. Papers for the 17th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 409–15. Portland, OR.

Werle, Adam. 2000. Semantic incorporation in Lillooet. Papers for the 35th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 219–26. UBCWPL 3. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Wiltschko, Martina forthcoming. What's in a determiner and how did it get there? Determiners: Universals and Variation, ed. by Jila Ghomeshi, Ileana Paul, and Martina Wiltschko. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Passive and Inverse

Blake, Susan J. 1996. Passive and object control in Mainland Comox (Salish): a reanalysis of raising-to-object. Syntax Generals Paper, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Blake, Susan J. 1997. Another look at passives in Sliammon (Salish). Papers for the 32nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 86–143. Port Angeles, WA.

Boelscher, Marianne. 1990. Passive and agency in Shuswap narrative discourse. Papers for the 25th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 61–72. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Chinchor, Nancy. 1975. A treatment of passives and pronouns in Lummi matrix sentences. Papers for the 10th International Conference on Salish Languages, 135–54. Ellensburg, WA.

Darnell, Michael. 1997. A functional analysis of voice in Squamish. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI.

Davis, John H. 1980. The passive in Sliammon. Berkeley Linguistics Society 6: 278–6. Berkeley, CA.

Davis, Philip W. 1995. The way of language: dimensions of VOICE. Alternative Linguistics: Descriptive and Theoretical Modes, ed. by Philip W. Davis, 45–76. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Forrest, Linda B. 1994. The de-transitive clauses in Bella Coola: passive vs. inverse. Voice and Inversion (Typological Studies in Language 28), ed. by Talmy Givón, 147–68. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1998a. Mapping Halkomelem voice. Salish Languages and Linguistics: Theoretical and Descriptive Perspectives (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 107), ed. by Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins and M. Dale Kinkade, 305–24. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1988b. Object and Absolutive in Halkomelem Salish. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1989. Object agreement in the Halkomelem Salish passive: a morphological explanation. General and Amerindian Ethnolinguistics: In Remembrance of Stanley Newman (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 55) ed. by Mary Ritchie Key and Henry M. Hoenigswald, 185–200. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Thomas E. Hukari. 2001a. Argument linking and passives in Halkomelem. Papers for the 36th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 113–44. UBCWPL 6, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Thomas E. Hukari. 2001b. A-subjects and control in Halkomelem. Papers from the 7th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Available at: http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/HPSG00.

Jacobs, Peter. 1994. The inverse in Squamish. Voice and Inversion (Typological Studies in Language 28), ed. by Talmy Givón, 121–46. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Hukari, Thomas E. 1977. The passive in Halkomelem. Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics, Victoria, BC.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1987. Passives and the mapping of thematic roles in Upper Chehalis Sentences. Papers for the 22nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 109–24. Victoria, BC.

Newman, Stanley. 1985. Reinterpreting the data: the Salish passive. International Journal of American Linguistics 51.521–3.

Suttles, Wayne. 1976. A note on the subordinate passive in Halkomelem. Papers for the 11th International Conference on Salish Languages.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2001. Passive in Halkomelem and Squamish Salish. Papers for the 36th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 319–45. UBCWPL 6, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Person Hierarchies

Gardiner, Dwight, and Ross Saunders. 1990. On the grammatical status of Shuswap inline image. Papers for the 25th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 153–72, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1988. A nominal hierarchy in Halkomelem clausal organization. Anthropological Linguistics 30.20–36.

Hess, Thom. 1973. Agent in a Coast Salish language. International Journal of American Linguistics 39.89–94.

Hukari, Thomas E. 1976. Person in a Coast Salish language. International Journal of American Linguistics 42.305–18.

Jelinek, Eloise. 1983. The agent hierarchy and voice in some Coast Salish languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 49.167–85.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1989. Some agent hierarchies in Upper Chehalis. General and Amerindian Ethnolinguistics: Remembrance of Stanley Newman (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 55), ed. by Mary Ritchie Key and Henry M. Hoenigswald, 213–18. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. Person hierarchy effects without a person hierarchy. Agreement Restrictions, ed. by Hrafn G. Hrafnbjargarson, R. d’Allessandro, and S. Fischer, 281–314. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wiltschko, Martina, and Strang Burton. 2004. On the sources of person hierarchy effects. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 49.51–71.

Plurality and Number Marking

Anderson, Gregory D. S. 1999. Reduplicated numerals in Salish. International Journal of American Linguistics 65(4).407–48.

Bar-el, Leora. 1998. Verbal plurality and adverbial quantification: a case study of Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish Salish). MA thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Bar-el, Leora, Peter Jacobs, and Martina Wiltschko. 2001. A [+Interpretable] number feature in Squamish Salish. Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 43–55. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Davis, Henry. 2003. Mind the gap: on plural agreement and A’-Extraction in St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish). Papers for the 38th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 23–46. UBCWPL 11, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Doak, Ivy, and Anthony Mattina. 1997. Okanagan -lx, Coeur d’Alene -lš, and cognate forms. International Journal of American Linguistics 63.334–61.

Galloway, Brent D. 1977. Numerals and numeral classifiers in Upriver Halkomelem. Proceedings of 1993 Western Conference on Linguistics, Victoria, BC.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1975. Pluralization in Upper Chehalis. Papers for the 10th International Conference on Salish Languages, 1–55. Ellensburg, WA.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1981. Singular vs. plural roots in Salish. Anthropological Linguistics 23.262–70.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1995. A plethora of plurals: inflection for number in Upper Chehalis. Anthropological Linguistics 37.347–65.

Matthewson, Lisa. 2000a. One at a time in St’át’imcets. Papers for the 35th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 133–46. UBCWPL 3. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Matthewson, Lisa. 2000b. On distributivity and pluractionality. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory IX. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Publications.

Thomason, Sarah G. 1997. Plurals and transitivity in Montana Salish. Papers for the 32nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 352–62. Port Angeles, WA.

Watanabe, Honoré. 1997. Mainland Comox ‘plurals’: a working paper. Papers for the 32nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 363–75. Port Angeles, WA.

Watanabe, Honoré. 1998. On indicating ‘plurality’ in Mainland Comox. Languages of the North Pacific Rim 4.17–32. Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2004. On number in Halkomelem Salish or the problem with ‘the two man’. Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages in the Americas, 143–58. UBCWPL 15, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2005a. A part of wood is not a tree: on the absence of the count/mass distinction in Halkomelem. Papers for the 40th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 264–88. UBCWPL 16, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2005b. Expletive categorial features. a case study of number in Halkomelem. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26.639–94.

Possession

Gardiner, Dwight. 1996. Determiner phrases in Secwepemctsín (Shuswap). Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 175–84. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1999. Mapping external possessors. External Possession and Related Noun Incorporation Phenomena (Typological Studies in Language 39), ed. by Doris L. Payne and Immanuel Barshi, 137–63. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Ghulam, Hasnain H. 1977. Morphemes of possession in Twana. Papers for 12th International Conference on Salish Languages, Colville Confederated Tribes.

Hess, Thom. 1974. How do you say ‘You are our father’ in Salish? Papers for the 9th International Conference on Salish Languages, 53–9, Vancouver, BC.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1971. Third person possessives in Cowlitz. Papers for the 6th International Conference on Salish Languages, Victoria, BC.

Koch, Karsten. 2006. Against antisymmetry: possession marking in Nłe’kepmxcin (Thompson River Salish). Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages in the Americas, 109–21. UBCWPL 19, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Matthewson, Lisa, and Henry Davis. 1995. The structure of DP in St’at’imcets (Lillooet Salish). Papers for the 30th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 54–68. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria.

Nakamura, Yumiko. 2002. Disjoint reference and possessor raising in Shuswap. Proceedings of the 2001 Northwest Linguistics Conference, 133–42. UBCWPL 8, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Thompson, Nile. 1977. Possession in Twana. Papers for the 12th International Conference on Salish Languages.

Wiltschko, Martina. 1998. Halq’eméylem possessives. Papers for the 33rd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 448–72. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Pragmatics

Davis, Henry, Lisa Matthewson, and Scott Shank. 2004. Clefts vs. nominal predicates in two Salish languages. Studies in Salish Linguistics in Honor of M. Dale Kinkade (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10), ed. by Donna B. Gerdts and Lisa Matthewson, 100–17. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Matthewson, Lisa. 2006. Presuppositions and cross-linguistic variation. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts.

Matthewson, Lisa forthcoming. Pronouns, presuppositions, and semantic variation. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory XVIII. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Publications.

Saunders, Ross and Philip Davis. 1979. The expression of the cooperative principle in Bella Coola. The Victoria Conference on Northwestern Languages, ed. by Barbara Efrat, 33–61. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Provincial Museum.

Schaeffer, Jeannette, and Lisa Matthewson. 2005. Grammar and pragmatics in the acquisition of article systems. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 23.53–101.

Pronouns/Agreement

Bates, Dawn. 1997. Person marking in Lushootseed subordinate clauses. International Journal of American Linguistics 63.316–33.

Brown, Jason C., Karsten Koch, and Martina Wiltschko. 2005. On certain unexpected gaps in transitive paradigms and their implication. Papers for the 40th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 65–88. UBCWPL 16, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Chinchor, Nancy. 1975. A treatment of passives and pronouns in Lummi matrix sentences. Papers for the 10th International Conference on Salish Languages, 135–54. Ellensburg, WA.

Davis, Henry. 1993. Levels of analysis in the Lillooet Salish pronominal system. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 61–73. Toronto, ON.

Davis, Henry. 1995. On the clitic-affix distinction in radical head-marking languages. Papers from the Chicago Linguistics Society Parasession on Clitics, 64–78. Chicago, IL.

Davis, Henry. 1996. On agreement in St’át’imcets. Actes du Deuxième Colloque de Langue et Grammaire 8, 79–94. Université de Paris, Paris.

Davis, Henry. 1999. Subject inflection in Salish. Current Research on Language and Linguistics, 181–239. UBCWPL 1, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Davis, Henry. 2000. Remarks on Proto-Salish subject inflection. International Journal of American Linguistics 66.499–520.

Davis, Henry, and Martina Wiltschko. 1999. Inflection is syntactic: evidence from Salish. Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 94–105. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Davis, John. 1978. Pronominal paradigms in Sliammon. Papers for the 13th International Conference on Salish Languages, 208–36. Victoria, BC.

Demers, Richard A., and Eloise Jelinek. 1982. The syntactic function of person marking in Lummi. Papers for the 17th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 24–47. Portland, OR.

Elouazizi, Noureddine, and Martina Wiltschko. 2006. The categorial status of (anti-) (anti-) agreement. Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Donald Baumer, David Montero, and Michael Scanlon, 150–58. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Galloway, Brent. 1997. Nooksack pronouns, transitivity, and control. Papers for the 32nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 197–243. Port Angeles, WA.

Gardiner, Dwight, and Ross Saunders. 1990. On the grammatical status of Shuswap /-s/. Papers for the 25th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 153–72, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Harris, Barbara P. 1974. Aspect and the pronominal system of Coeur d’Alene: a re-analysis of Reichard's material. Papers for the 9th International Conference on Salish Languages, 60–80. Vancouver, BC.

Harris, Herbert R. II. 1975. A case grammar of Comox ‘objective’ suffixes. Proceedings of the Mid-America Linguistics Conference, 191–201.

Jelinek, Eloise. 2006. The pronominal argument parameter. Arguments and Agreement, ed. By Peter Ackema, Patrick Brandt, Maike Schoorlemmer, and Fred Weerman, 261–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kiyosawa, Kaoru. 2004. Form and function of the two object suffix sets. Studies in Salish Linguistics in Honor of M. Dale Kinkade (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10), ed. by Donna B. Gerdts and Lisa Matthewson, 235–56. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Koch, Karsten. 2005. Double subject marking in Nłe’kepmxcin: synchronic evidence for subject paradigm shifts. Papers for the 40th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 125–39. UBCWPL 16, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Lai, I-Ju Sandra. 1998. Secwepemctsín independent pronouns: evidence for subject-object asymmetry. Papers for the 33rd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 307–21. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Lai, I-Ju Sandra, and Marianne Ignace. 1998. A preliminary analysis of Secwepemc language acquisition by a young child. Papers for the 33rd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 322–34. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Matthewson, Lisa forthcoming. Pronouns, presuppositions, and semantic variation. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory XVIII. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Linguistics Publications.

Mattina, Anthony. 2001. Okanagan sentence types: a preliminary working paper. Papers for the 36th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 215–36. UBCWPL 6, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Montler, Timothy R. 1996. Some Klallam paradigms. Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 257–64. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Newman, Stanley. 1969. Bella Coola paradigms. International Journal of American Linguistics 35.299–306.

Newman, Stanley. 1977. The Salish independent pronoun system. International Journal of American Linguistics 43.302–14.

Newman, Stanley. 1979a. A history of the Salish possessive and subject forms. International Journal of American Linguistics 45.207–23.

Newman, Stanley. 1979b. The Salish object forms. International Journal of American Linguistics 45.299–308.

Newman, Stanley. 1980. Functional changes in the Salish pronominal system. International Journal of American Linguistics 46.155–67.

Rowicka, Grażyna J. 2006. Pronominal markers in Quinault (Salish). International Journal of American Linguistics 72.451–76.

Shank, Scott. 2003. A preliminary semantics for pronominal predicates. Papers for the 38th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 215–36. UBCWPL 11, Vancouver BC: University of British Columbia.

Van Eijk, Jan P. 2006. Agreement and quantization in Lillooet. Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Structure and Consistency in Languages in the Americas, 152–59. UBCWPL 19, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Willett, Marie Louise. 1996. Some patterns of wa in Nxa’amxcín (Moses-Columbia Salish). Proceedings of the 11th Northwest Linguistics Conference, Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria 13, Victoria, BC.

Wiltschko, Martina. 1998. On the internal and external syntax of independent pronouns in Halq’eméylem. Papers for the 33rd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 428–47. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Wiltschko, Martina. 1999. The syntax of pronouns and determiners: a cross-linguistic study. Current Research on Language and Linguistics. UBCWPL 1, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2000. Is Halkomelem split ergative? Papers for the 35th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 249–68. UBCWPL 3. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2002. The syntax of pronouns. evidence from Halkomelem Salish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20.157–95.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2003a. On ergative (and other) splits in Salish. Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages in the Americas, 83–9. UBCWPL 12, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2003b. On the surface nature of ergative agreement in Upriver Halkomelem. Papers for the 38th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 253–73. UBCWPL 11, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2005. On ‘ergativity’ in Halkomelem Salish (and how to split and derive it). Ergativity: Emerging Issues, ed. by Alanah Johns, Diane Massam, and Juvenal Ndayiragije, 197–228. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2006. On ergative agreement and anti-agreement in Halkomelem Salish. Studies in Salishan (MIT Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages 7), ed. by Shannon T. Bischoff, Lynnika Butler, Peter Norquest, and Daniel Siddiqi, 241–73. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Quantification

Bar-el, Leora. 1998. Verbal plurality and adverbial quantification: a case study of Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish Salish). MA thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Demirdache, Hamida, Dwight Gardiner, Peter Jacobs, and Lisa Matthewson. 1994. The case for D-quantification in Salish: ‘all’ in St’at’imcets, Squamish and Secwepemctsin. Papers for the 29th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 145–203. Pablo, MT: Salish-Kootenai College.

Demers, Richard A, and Eloise Jelinek. 1996. Reduplication, quantification and aspect in Straits Salish. Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 75–8. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1988. Object and Absolutive in Halkomelem Salish. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.

Jelinek, Eloise. 1993. Languages without determiner quantification. Berkeley Linguistics Society 19: 406–22. Berkeley, CA.

Jelinek, Eloise. 1995. Quantification in Straits Salish. Quantification in Natural Languages, ed. by Emmon Bach, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer, and Barbara Partee, 487–540. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Jelinek, Eloise. 2004. Adverbs of quantification in Straits Salish and the LINK ‘u’. Studies in Salish Linguistics in Honor of M. Dale Kinkade (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10), ed. by Donna B. Gerdts and Lisa Matthewson, 224–34. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Jelinek, Eloise, and Richard Demers. 1997. Reduplication as a quantifier in Salish. International Journal of American Linguistics 63.302–15.

Matthewson, Lisa. 1998. Determiner Systems and Quantificational Strategies: Evidence from Salish. The Hague, The Netherlands: Holland Academic Graphics.

Matthewson, Lisa. 2001. Quantification and the nature of cross-linguistic variation. Natural Language Semantics 9.145–89.

Raising/Control

Black, Dierdre. 1994. Subject raising from tensed clauses: evidence from Bella Coola complex ‘ay constructions. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria 12, 75–91, Victoria, BC.

Blake, Susan J. 1996. Passive and object control in Mainland Comox (Salish): a reanalysis of raising-to-object. Syntax Generals Paper, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Davis, Henry. 1996. On agreement in St’át’imcets. Actes du Deuxième Colloque de Langue et Grammaire 8: 79–94. Université de Paris, Paris.

Davis, Henry, and Lisa Matthewson. 1996. Subordinate clauses and functional projections in St’át’imcets. Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 59–73, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Davis, John H. 1980. The passive in Sliammon. Berkeley Linguistics Society 6: 278–6. Berkeley, CA.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Thomas E. Hukari. 2001. A-subjects and control in Halkomelem. Papers from the 7th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Available at: http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/HPSG00.

Reference Tracking

Barthmaier, Paul. 2000. Lushootseed argument structure and the discourse function of the morpheme /-b/. Papers for the 35th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 1–18. UBCWPL 3. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Bates, Dawn. 1997. Semantic roles and referent tracking in Martha Lamont's ‘pheasant and raven’. Papers for the 32nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 1–21. Port Angeles, WA.

Bates, Dawn. 2004. The expression of NPs in Lushootseed texts. Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 1–44. UBCWPL 14, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Beck, David. 1997. Rheme, theme, and communicative structure in Lushootseed and Bella Coola. Recent Trends in Meaning-Text Theory, ed. by L. Wanner, 93–135. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Beck, David. 1998. Eliding the obvious: zero subjects in Lushootseed. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Amerindian Languages. Santa Barbara Working Papers in Linguistics 8, 15–29. Santa Barbara, CA.

Beck, David. 2000. Semantic agents, syntactic subjects, and discourse topics: how to locate Lushootseed sentences in space and time. Studies in Language 24.277–317.

Boelscher, Marianne. 1990. Passive and agency in Shuswap narrative discourse. Papers for the 25th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 61–72. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Davis, Henry. 1994. Tali-Ho! Papers for the 29th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 117–44. Pablo, MT: Salish-Kootenai College.

Doak, Ivy G. 1993. Discourse use of the Coeur d’Alene -st(u)- transitivizer. American Indian Linguistics and Ethnography in Honor of Laurence C. Thompson (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10), ed. by Anthony Mattina and Timothy Montler, 73–92. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1988. Object and Absolutive in Halkomelem Salish. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Thomas E. Hukari. 2003. The expression of NPs in Halkomelem texts. Papers for the 38th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 91–126. UBCWPL 11, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gerdts, Donna B., and Thomas E. Hukari. 2004. Determiners and transitivity in Halkomelem texts. Studies in Salish Linguistics in Honor of M. Dale Kinkade (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10), ed. by Donna B. Gerdts and Lisa Matthewson, 151–71. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1989. When patients are topics: topic maintenance in North American Indian languages. Papers for the 24th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 1–41. Steilacoom, WA.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1990. Sorting out third persons in Salishan discourse. International Journal of American Linguistics 56.341–60.

Roberts, Taylor. 1994. Subject and topic in St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish). MA thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Willett, Marie Louise. 1996. Some patterns of wa in Nxa’amxcín (Moses-Columbia Salish). Proceedings of the 11th Northwest Linguistics Conference, Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria 13, Victoria, BC.

Reflexives and Reciprocals

Davis, Henry. 2003. Disjoint anaphora and reciprocals in Salish. Proceedings of the 2002 Western Conference on Linguistics, 161–72. Fresno, CA: Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1989. Relational parameters of reflexives: the Halkomelem evidence. Theoretical Perspectives on Native American Languages, ed. by Donna B. Gerdts and Karin Michelson, 259–80. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Gerdts, Donna B. 1998. The double life of Halkomelem reflexive suffixes. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Amerindian Languages. Santa Barbara Working Papers in Linguistics 8, 70–83. Santa Barbara, CA.

Gerdts, Donna B. 2000. Combinatory restrictions on Halkomelem reflexives and reciprocals. Reciprocals: Forms and Functions, ed. by Zygmunt Frajzyngier and Traci S. Curl, 133–60. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1981. The source of the Upper Chehalis reflexive. International Journal of American Linguistics 47.336–39.

Thompson, James J., and Peter Jacobs. 2004. Prolegomenon to a new analysis of Salish inline image. Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages in the Americas, 107–20. UBCWPL 15, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Van Eijk, Jan P. 1980. Reflexive forms in Lillooet. Papers for the 15th International Conference on Salish Languages, 196–199. Vancouver, BC.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2004. Reflexives in Upriver Halkomelem. International Journal of American Linguistics 70.101–27.

Relative Clauses/Attributive Constructions

Davis, Henry. 2004. Locative relative clauses in St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish). Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 83–116. UBCWPL 14, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Davis, Philip W., and Ross Saunders. 1998. The place of Bella Coola (Nuxalk) in a typology of the relative clause. Salish Languages and Linguistics: Theoretical and Descriptive Perspectives (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 107), ed. by Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins and M. Dale Kinkade, 219–34. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Demirdache, Hamida, and Lisa Matthewson. 1995. On the universality of syntactic categories. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 79–94. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts.

Hukari, Thomas E. 1976. A comparison of relative clause constructions in two Coast Salish Languages. Papers for the 10th International Conference on Salish Languages.

Hukari, Thomas E. 1977. A comparison of attributive clause constructions in two Coast Salish Languages. Glossa 11.48–73.

Hukari, Thomas E. 1981. Cowichan relative clauses. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria 1, 79–99. Victoria, BC.

Jelinek, Eloise. 1987. Headless relatives and pronominal arguments: a typological perspective. Native American Languages and Grammatical Typology, ed. by Paul D. Kroeber and Roger E. Moore, 136–48. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Koch, Karsten. 2004. On predicate modification in Nłe’kepmxcin (Thompson River Salish). Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 269–82. UBCWPL 14, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Koch, Karsten. 2005. Prenominal modifiers in Nłe’kepmxcin (Thompson River Salish). Proceedings of the 10th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages in the Americas, 136–49. UBCWPL 17, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Koch, Karsten. 2006. Nominal modification in Nlhe7kepmxcin (Thompson River Salish). Studies in Salishan (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages 7), ed. by Shannon T. Bischoff, Lynnika Butler, Peter Norquest, and Daniel Siddiqi, 127–58. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Kroeber, Paul D. 1991. Comparative syntax of subordination in Salish. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

Kroeber, Paul D. 1997. Relativization in Thompson River Salish. Anthropological Linguistics 39.376–422.

Kroeber, Paul D. 1999. The Salish language family: reconstructing syntax. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Montler, Timothy R. 1989. Attributive constructions in Saanich. Papers for the 24th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 46–60, Steilacoom, WA.

Montler, Timothy R. 1993. Relative clauses and other attributive constructions in Salish. American Indian Linguistics and Ethnography in Honor of Laurence C. Thompson (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10), ed. by Anthony Mattina and Timothy Montler, 241–62. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Tense

Bar-el, Leora, Carrie Gillon, Peter Jacobs, Linda Tamburri Watt, and Martina Wiltschko. Subject clitics and their effect on temporal interpretation: a case study of Skwxwú7mesh and Stó:lō Halq’eméylem. Studies in Salish Linguistics in Honor of M. Dale Kinkade (University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 10) ed. by Donna B. Gerdts and Lisa Matthewson, 8–29. Missoula, MT: University of Montana.

Bates, Dawn. 2002. Narrative functions of past tense marking in a Lushootseed text. Papers for the 37th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 17–34. UBCWPL 9, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Bates, Dawn, and Thom Hess. 2001. Tense or aspect? A prefix of future time in Lushootseed. Papers for the 36th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 25–36. UBCWPL 6, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Burton, Strang. 1997. Past tense on nouns as death, destruction and loss. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 65–77. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts.

Currie, Elizabeth. 1996. Five Sqwxwu7mish futures. Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 23–8. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Currie, Elizabeth. 1997. Topic times: the syntax and semantics of SqwXwu7mish temporal adverbs. MA thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Davis, Henry, and Lisa Matthewson. 2003. A note on remote: the temporal enclitic tu7 in St’át’imcets. Papers for the 38th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 47–64. UBCWPL 11, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Demirdache, Hamida. 1996. The Chief of the United States sentences in St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish): a cross-linguistic asymmetry in the temporal interpretation of noun phrases and its implications. Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 79–100. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Galloway, Brent D. 1975. Two lessons in time in Upriver Halkomelem. Papers for the 10th International Conference on Salish Languages, 56–66. Ellensburg, WA.

Glougie, Jennifer. 2007. Aspect in St’át’imcets future expressions. Papers for the 42nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 220–35. UBCWPL 20, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Matthewson, Lisa. 2003. An underspecified tense in St’át’imcets. Proceedings of the 2002 Western Conference on Linguistics, 161–72. Fresno, CA: Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno.

Matthewson, Lisa. 2005. On the absence of tense on determiners. Lingua 115(12).1697–735.

Matthewson, Lisa. 2006. Temporal semantics in a supposedly tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy 29.673–713.

Mattina, Nancy. 1999. Future in Colville-Okanagan Salish. Papers for the 34th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 215–30. Kamloops, BC: Simon Fraser University.

Ritter, Elizabeth, and Martina Wiltschko. 2004. The lack of tense as a syntactic category: evidence from Blackfoot and Halkomelem. Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 341–70. UBCWPL 14, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Ritter, Elizabeth, and Martina Wiltschko. 2005. Anchoring events to utterances without tense. Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by John Alderete, Chung-Hye. Han, and Alexei Kochetov, 343–51. Somerwille, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Ritter, Elizabeth, and Martina Wiltschko forthcoming. Varieties of INFL: TENSE, LOCATION, and PERSON. Alternatives to Cartography, ed. by Jeroen Craenenbroeck. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2003. On the interpretability of tense on D and its consequences for case theory. Lingua 113(7).659–96.

Wiltschko, Martina. 2006. Inlocatives in Upriver Halkomelem. Papers for the 41st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 286–310. UBCWPL 11, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Verb Movement/Predicate Raising

Davis, Henry. 2004. VP Ellipsis and its implications. Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 117–40. UBCWPL 14, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Jelinek, Eloise. 2000. Predicate raising in Lummi, Straits Salish. The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages, ed. by Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle, 213–34. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Thompson, Nile R. 1979a. Predicate raising in Twana. MA thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Thompson, Nile R. 1979b. Predicate raising in Twana. University of Washington Working Papers in Linguistics 5, 54–61. Seattle, WA.

Viewpoint Aspect

Bar-el, L. 2003. Imperfectivity in Squamish. Proceedings of the Second Conference on the Semantics of Under-represented Languages of the Americas, ed. by J. Anderssen, P. Menendez-Benito, and A. Werle, 1–18. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts.

Bar-el, Leora. 2005. Aspectual distinctions in Skwxwú7mesh. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Bates, Dawn. 1999. Distance in narrative time and space: aspect markers and determiner choice in Martha Lamont's ‘Pheasant and Raven’. Papers for the 34th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 1–11. Kamloops, BC: Simon Fraser University.

Gardiner, Dwight, and Ross Saunders. 1990. On the grammatical status of Shuswap /-s/. Papers for the 25th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 153–72, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Glougie, Jennifer. 2007. Aspect in St’át’imcets future expressions. Papers for the 42nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 220–35. UBCWPL 17, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Hukari, Thomas E. 1984. The truth about Cowichan imperfectives. Papers for the 19th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 147–61. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria 4(2). Victoria BC.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1983. The non-perfective suffix(es) of Columbian (Salish). Amerindia 8.7–15.

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1994. s-Prefixation on Upper Chehalis (Salish) imperfective predicates. Survey of California and other Indian Languages. Report 8.21–30.

Kiyota, Masaru. 2006. Semantics of the particle inline image and event representations in inline image. Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages in the Americas, 95–108. UBCWPL 19, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Kiyota, Masaru. 2008. Situation aspect and viewpoint aspect: from Salish to Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Kroeber, Paul D. 1997. Prehistory of the Upper Chehalis (Q’way’áyilq’) continuative aspect. Salish Languages and Linguistics: Current Theoretical and Descriptive Perspectives, ed. by Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins and M. Dale Kinkade, 421–52. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Montler, Timothy. 1989. Infixation, reduplication, and metathesis in the Saanich actual aspect. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 99(1): 92–107.

Wh-Questions

Baptiste, Maxine. 2002. Wh-questions in Okanagan Salish. MA thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

Davis, Henry. 2008. WH-in-situ: Japanese meets Salish. Individual Languages and Language Universals (Special Issue, Kanagawa University Studies in Language), ed. by Michiko Takeuchi, 17–58. Yokohama, Japan: Kanagawa University.

Davis, Henry, Dwight Gardiner, and Lisa Matthewson. 1993. A comparative look at WH-questions in Northern Interior Salish. Papers for the 28th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 79–95. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Gardiner, Dwight, and Ross Saunders. 1990. On the grammatical status of Shuswap /-s/. Papers for the 25th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 153–72, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Gillon, Carrie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2004. Missing determiners/complementizers in wh-questions: evidence from Skwxwú7mesh and Halq’eméylem. Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 215–30. UBCWPL 14, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Hagiwara, Robert E. 1987. Lushootseed copular and wh-deixis in a government and binding model of grammar. Papers for the 22nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 101–8. Victoria, BC.

Jelinek, Eloise. 1998. Wh-clefts in Lummi. Papers for the 33rd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 257–65. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Kroeber, Paul D. 1991. Comparative syntax of subordination in Salish. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

Kroeber, Paul. 1997. Wh-question particles in some languages of the southern northwest coast. Papers for the 32nd International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 265–79. Port Angeles, WA.

Kroeber, Paul D. 1999. The Salish Language Family: Reconstructing Syntax. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Shank, Scott. 2001. And-fronting and the copula in Upper Chehalis. Papers for the 36th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 265–90. UBCWPL 6, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Word Order

Davis, Henry. 1999. Word order and configurationality in St’át’imcets. Papers for the 34th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 61–82. Kamloops, BC: Simon Fraser University.

Gardiner, Dwight. 1992. Pre-verbal positions in Shuswap Salish. Papers for the 27th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 6–15. Kamloops, BC: Secwépemc Cultural Education Society/Simon Fraser University.

Gardiner, Dwight. 1993. Structural asymmetries and pre-verbal positions in Shuswap. PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.

Gardiner, Dwight, Lisa Matthewson, and Henry Davis. 1993. A preliminary report on word order in Northern Interior Salish. Papers for the 28th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 139–58. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Hukari, Thomas E. 1974. Is Puget a VSO language? Proceedings of the 3rd Western Conference on Linguistics.

Ingram, David. 1975. A note on word order in Proto-Salish. International Journal of American Linguistics 41.165–68.

Jones, Michael K., and R. M. Richardson. 1974. An enumeration and syntax of satellites of the predicate-head in Coast Salish: a comparison of two languages. Papers for the 9th International Conference on Salish Languages, 209–37. Vancouver, BC.

Koch, Karsten. 2006. Transitive word order in Nłe’kepmxcin (Thompson River Salish). Papers for the 41st International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 192–220. UBCWPL 11, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Morgan, Lawrence R. 1990. Northwest languages in search of a universal word order. Papers for the 20th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.

Noonan, Michael. 1976. On Proto-Salish word order: a reply to Ingram. International Journal of American Linguistics 42.363–66.

van Eijk, Jan. 1995. POS and PSO in Lillooet. Papers for the 30th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 112–13. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria.

Ancillary