Chickasaw Quantifiers

Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 97)


After presenting some basic genetic, historical and typological information about Chickasaw, this chapter outlines the quantification patterns it expresses. It illustrates various semantic types of quantifiers, such as generalized existential, generalized universal, proportional, definite and partitive which are defined in the Quantifier Questionnaire in chapter “The Quantifier Questionnaire”. It partitions the expression of the semantic types into morpho-syntactic classes: Adverbial type quantifiers and Determiner type quantifiers. For the various semantic and morpho-syntactic types of quantifiers it also distinguishes syntactically simple and syntactically complex quantifiers, as well as issues of distributivity and scope interaction, classifiers and measure expressions, and existential constructions. The chapter describes structural properties of determiners and quantified noun phrases in Chickasaw both in terms of internal structure (morphological or syntactic) and distribution.


Chickasaw Quantification patterns Semantic Morpho-syntactic Quantifiers Classifiers Determiners Quantified noun phrases 



My greatest debt, as always, is to my beloved Chickasaw teacher Catherine Willmond, as well as to the scores of other speakers in Oklahoma and California who have shared their language with me. I’m also grateful to the other linguists who have joined me in work on Chickasaw over the years, and to Lynn Gordon and Edward Keenan, who offered helpful comments on this paper.


  1. Carden, G., Gordon, L., & Munro, P. (1982). Raising rules and the projection principle. LSA annual meeting colloquium paper.Google Scholar
  2. Dryer, M. S. (2013). Order of adjective and noun. In M. S. Dryer, & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at Accessed on 2 Aug 2015.
  3. Gordon, L. (1987). Relative clauses in Western Muskogean languages. In P. Munro (Ed.), Muskogean linguistics (UCLA occasional papers in linguistics, Vol. 6, pp. 66–80). Los Angeles: UCLA Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  4. Gordon, L., & Munro, P. (2014). Relative clauses in Western Muskogean languages. Ms.Google Scholar
  5. Keenan, E. L. (2012). The quantifier questionnaire (E. L. Keenan, & D. Paperno, Eds., pp. 120). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Keenan, E. L., & Paperno, D. (2012a). Overview. (E. L. Keenan, & D. Paperno, Eds. pp. 941–950). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Keenan, E. L., & Paperno, D. (Eds.). (2012b). Handbook of quantifiers in natural language. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Martin, J. B. (2009). Switch reference and case marking in Muskogean languages. Handout, Society for the Study of Indigenous Languages of the Americas summer meeting, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  9. Munro, P. (1983). When ‘same’ is not ‘not different’. In H. John & M. Pamela (Eds.), Switch-reference and universal grammar (pp. 223–244). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Munro, P. (1984). The syntactic status of object possessor raising in Western Muskogean. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 10, 634–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Munro, P. (1988). Diminutive syntax. In W. Shipley (Ed.), A festschrift for Mary R. Haas (pp. 539–556). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  12. Munro, P. (1993). The Muskogean II prefixes and their significance for classification. International Journal of American Linguistics, 59, 374–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Munro, P. (1999). Chickasaw subjecthood. In D. L. Payne & B. Immanuel (Eds.), External possession (pp. 251–289). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Munro, P. (2003). ‘But’ without switch-reference. In B. L. M. Brigitte & G.-J. Pinault (Eds.), Language in space and time. A feststchrfit for Werner Winter on the occasion of his 80th birthday (pp. 293–312). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyte.Google Scholar
  15. Munro, P. (2006). Chickasaw positional verbs. Presented at the annual meeting of the society for the study of indigenous languages of the Americas.Google Scholar
  16. Munro, P. (2013). The typology of indefinites: What do Oklahoma languages have to say? Keynote address at the Oklahoma workshop on Native American Languages, Tahlequah.Google Scholar
  17. Munro, P. (2014a). Chickasaw switch-reference revisited. Ms.Google Scholar
  18. Munro, P. (2014b). Interrogative verbs in Chickasaw. Presented at the Syntax of the world’s languages VI conference, Pavia.Google Scholar
  19. Munro, P. (2016). Chickasaw switch-reference revisited. In R. van Gijn & J. Hammond (Eds.), Switch reference 2.0. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins [Typological Studies in Language 114], pp. 377–424.Google Scholar
  20. Munro, P., & Gordon, L. (1982). Syntactic relations in Western Muskogean: A typological perspective. Language, 58, 81–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Munro, P., & Willmond, C. (1994). Chickasaw: An analytical dictionary. Norman/London: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  22. Munro, P., & Willmond, C. (2008). Let’s speak Chickasaw: Chikashshanompa’ Kilanompoli’. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  23. Partee, B. H. (1995). Quantificational structures and compositionality. In E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, & B. H. Partee (Eds.), Quantification in natural languages (pp. 541–601). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Stassen, L. (1985). Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. Ulrich, C. H. (1986). Choctaw morphophonology. UCLA Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)Los AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations