Is Tense (T)ense in Nêhiyawêwin? An exploration of Nêhiyawêwin anchoring
Abstract
This paper proposes an account of the optionality of tensed clauses in Nêhiyawêwin (Plains Cree, y-dialect). The Minimalist framework is largely based on the research of Indo-European languages (Chomsky 2015). Because of this, many of the hypotheses have failed to adequately account for the cross-linguistic variation found amongst many non-Indo-European languages, specifically Indigenous languages in Canada. In Nêhiyawêwin, tense markers are not mandatory to infer when an event happens in relation to when an utterance is being said (i.e. past tense may be interpreted when lacking the past tense morpheme). Examples (1) and (2) demonstrate this, though they both are interpreted to have taken place in the past: example (1) lacks the past tense morpheme -kî-, whereas example (2) has the past tense morpheme. As the data demonstrates, Nêhiyawêwin does not require an utterance to be marked for tense in the same sense as is mandatory in English. Referencing Ritter and Wiltschko’s analysis of tenseless languages (2014), where it is argued that Blackfoot (a related Algonquian language) is not required to use tense, this paper will further explore the methods Nêhiyawêwin uses to anchor its sentences under the category INFL (i.e. IP), instead of a TP. In the present paper, I apply Ritter and Wiltschko’s diagnostics to a new language in an effort to account for an Indigenous language. The syntactic categories of tense, locatives, order, and obviation will be analyzed using Wiltschko’s Universal Spine Hypothesis (2014). Also using the Universal Spine Hypothesis, I will consider possible options of the content which substantiates the anchoring category in Nêhiyawêwin. I will argue that order and obviation interact within the IP domain in order to anchor Nêhiyawêwin utterances via C:PERSPECTIVE.
Collections
- 2022 [1]
The following license files are associated with this item: