Cover not available
Part of
Switch Reference 2.0
Edited by Rik van Gijn and Jeremy Hammond
[Typological Studies in Language 114] 2016
► pp. 377–424

Chickasaw switch-reference revisited

| University of California Los Angeles
Chickasaw, an endangered Western Muskogean language spoken in south-central Oklahoma, has SOV order, active verb agreement, nominative-accusative case marking, and a pervasive switch-reference system that is used in almost every non-finite clause. Chickasaw examples have appeared in many general discussions of switch-reference and other grammatical phenomena, but this paper presents the first comprehensive description of Chickasaw switch-reference, drawing on data and analyses in earlier work as well as original field data. Important questions for Chickasaw include what counts as a subject, which subordinate clauses are not marked for switch-reference, the interaction of switch-reference with the language’s internally-headed relative clauses, and how switch-reference works in multi-clause sentences.
Published online: 25 October 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.114.11mun
References (28)
References
Acker, Ann Michelle [Foster]. 2010. A Quantitative Analysis of the Chickasaw Switch-Reference Markers -cha and -na. UCLA MA thesis.Google Scholar
Appel, Fern. 1984. On the coordinating status of the Chickasaw switch-reference markers -cha and -na . Ms.Google Scholar
Booker, Karen M. 1980. Comparative Muskogean: Aspects of Proto-Muskogean Verb Morphology. PhD dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Broadwell, George Aaron. 1990. Extending the Binding Theory: A Muskogean Case Study. UCLA PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2006. A Choctaw Reference Grammar. Lincoln NB: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Carden, Guy, Gordon, Lynn & Munro, Pamela. 1982. Raising rules and the projection principle. LSA Colloquium Paper.Google Scholar
Gordon, Lynn. 1987. Relative clauses in Western Muskogean languages. In Muskogean Linguistics [UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6], Pamela Munro (ed.), 66-80. Los Angeles CA: UCLA Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Gordon, Lynn & Munro, Pamela. 2016. Relative clauses in Western Muskogean languages. Ms.Google Scholar
Linker, Wendy. 1987. On the coordinating status of the switch-reference markers ‑chah and ‑nah in Choctaw. In Muskogean Linguistics [UCLA Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6], Pamela Munro (ed.), 96-110. Los Angeles CA: UCLA Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Martin, Jack B. 2009. Switch reference and case marking in Muskogean languages. Handout, Society for the Study of Indigenous Languages of the Americas summer meeting , Berkeley.
McClaren, Marlys & Herrod, Gene. 1977. Choctaw 'articles' in discourse. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 3: 233-243.
Munro, Pamela. 1982. On the transitivity of 'say'. In Studies in Transitivity [Syntax and Semantics 15], Paul J. Hopper & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 301-18. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1983. When 'same' is not 'not different'. In Switch Reference and Universal Grammar [Typological Studies in Language 2], John Haiman & Pamela Munro (eds), 223-244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1984. Auxiliaries and auxiliarization in Western Muskogean. In Historical Syntax, Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 333-362. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. Diminutive syntax. In In Honor of Mary Haas, William Shipley (ed.), 539-56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. The Muskogean II prefixes and their significance for classification. International Journal of American Linguistics 59: 374-404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Chickasaw subjecthood. In External Possession [Typological Studies in Language 39], Doris L. Payne & Immanuel Barshi (eds), 251-289. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. The Leaky grammar of the Chickasaw applicatives. In The Proceedings from the Main Session of the Chicago Linguistic Society's Thirty-Sixth Meeting, Vol. 36(1), Arika Okrent & John P. Boyle (eds), 285-310. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
. 2003a. Unmarked complements in Chickasaw. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of Indigenous Languages of the Americas .
. 2003b. 'But' without switch-reference. In Language in Space and Time. A Feststchrift for Werner Winter on the Occasion of his 80th Birthday, Brigitte L.M. Bauer & Georges-Jean Pinault (eds), 293-312. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Chickasaw. In Native Languages of the Southeastern United States, Janine Scancarelli & Heather K. Hardy (eds), 114-156. Lincoln NB: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
. To appear. Chicasaw Quantifiers. In Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language: Volume II. Springer, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, Denis Paperno and Edward L. Keenan (eds.).
Munro, Pamela & Gordon, Lynn. 1982. Syntactic relations in Western Muskogean: A typological perspective. Language 58: 81-115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munro, Pamela & Willmond, Catherine. 1994. Chickasaw: An Analytical Dictionary. Norman OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. Let's Speak Chickasaw: Chikashshanompa' Kilanompoli'. Norman OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Payne, Doris L. 1980. Switch-reference in Chickasaw. In Studies of Switch-reference [UCLA Papers in Syntax 8], Pamela Munro (ed.), 89-118. Los Angeles CA: UCLA.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ulrich, Charles H. 1986. Choctaw Morphophonology. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Martin, Jack B.
2024. From Switch-Reference to Case Marking In Muskogean: The Role of Clefts. International Journal of American Linguistics 90:4 ► pp. 445 ff. DOI logo
Bárány, András & Irina Nikolaeva
2020. Possessive and non-identity relations in Turkic switch-reference. Studies in Language 44:3 ► pp. 606 ff. DOI logo
Bárány, András & Irina Nikolaeva
2021. On Adjoined Possessors. Linguistic Inquiry 52:1 ► pp. 181 ff. DOI logo
Tyler, Matthew
2019. Absolutive Promotion and the Condition on Clitic Hosts in Choctaw. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 37:3 ► pp. 1145 ff. DOI logo
Tyler, Matthew
2021. Two Kinds of External Possession in Mississippi Choctaw. Syntax 24:1 ► pp. 78 ff. DOI logo
Munro, Pamela
2017. Chickasaw Quantifiers. In Handbook of Quantifiers in Natural Language: Volume II [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 97], ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.