Quantification in Gitksan

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

Abstract

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of quantification in Gitksan, an endangered Interior Tsimshianic language spoken in British Columbia, Canada. This is the first published work devoted to the topic of quantification in any Tsimshianic language. The main syntactic and semantic division within the Gitksan system is between quantifiers over entities and quantifiers over events. Quantifiers over entities can be both D-type and A-type, but quantifiers over events are always A-type. While quantifiers over entities may be subdivided into universal and non-universal subcategories, no such clear-cut division holds within the class of event quantifiers. We include discussion of indefinite, existential, negative and interrogative expressions, and we introduce two aspects of Gitksan grammar which are particularly important in understanding the quantificational system: plurality and the count-mass distinction.

References

  1. Alonso-Ovalle, L., & Menéndez-Benito, P. (2003). Some epistemic indefinites. In M. Kadowaki & S. Kawahara (Eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 33 (pp. 1–12). Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, J., & Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, D. (2002). Tsimshianic from a Central Northwest areal perspective: I. In S. Gessner & S. Oh (eds.), Papers for the 37th international conference on Salish and neighboring languages (UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 9, pp. 35–60). Vancouver: UBC.Google Scholar
  4. Beghelli, F. (1994). Structured quantifiers. In M. Kanazawa & C. Pinon (Eds.), Dynamics, polarity and quantification (pp. 119–147). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  5. Boas, F. (1902). Tsimshian texts (Bureau of American Ethnology. Bulletin 27). Washington: G.P.O.Google Scholar
  6. Cable, S. (2010). The grammar of Q: Q-particles, Wh-movement and pied-piping. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across language. Natural Language Semantics, 6(4), 339–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, H. (2010). Salish lacks generalized quantifiers after all! Paper presented at Semantics and Linguistic Theory 20. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, H. (2013). All about ‘all’ in (some) Salish languages. In K.-H. Gil, S. Harlow, & G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Strategies of quantification (pp. 214–259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, H. & Brown, J. (2011). On A’-Dependencies in Gitksan. Papers for the 46th international conference on Salish and neighbouring languages (UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 30, pp. 43–80). Vancouver: UBC.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, H. & Forbes, C. (2015). Connect Four: The morphosyntax of argument marking in Tsimshianic. Papers for the 50th international conference on Salish and neighbouring languages (UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 40, pp. 155–185). Vancouver: UBC.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, H. & Van der Zwan, S. (2011). Very weak universals in Gitksan. Paper presented at the 46th international conference on Salish and neighbouring languages. University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  13. Davis, H., Gillon, C., & Matthewson, L. (2014). How to investigate linguistic diversity: Lessons from the Pacific Northwest. Language, 90(4), e180–e226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forbes, C. (2012). Gitxsan adjectives: Evidence from nominal modification. In J. Dunham, J. Lyon, & N. Weber (eds.), Papers for the 47th international conference on Salish and neighbouring languages (UBCWPL 32, pp. 49–68). Vancouver: UBC.Google Scholar
  15. Forbes, C. (2013). Coordination and number in the Gitksan nominal domain. MA forum paper, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  16. Gillon, C. (2006/2013). The semantics of determiners: Domain restriction in S k w x wú7mesh. Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia. Published 2013, Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Gutzmann, D., Hartmann, K. & Matthewson, L. (2016). Cross-linguistic evidence that verum is not focus. Paper presented at the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft. Universität Konstanz, February 2016.Google Scholar
  18. Heins, T. J. & Matthewson, L. (2015). Gitksan gi: A marker of past evidence. Papers for ICSNL 50, The fiftieth international conference on Salish and neighbouring languages (UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 40, pp. 123–153). Vancouver: UBC.Google Scholar
  19. Hindle, L., & Rigsby, B. (1973). A short practical dictionary of the Gitksan language. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes, 7(1), 1–60.Google Scholar
  20. Huettner, A. (1984). Semantics seminar paper on few and many. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  21. Hunt, K. (1993). Clause structure, agreement, and case in Gitksan. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  22. Ikegami, Y. (2007). Possessives, passives, and middles: External argument deletion in Gitksan. In Seok Koo Chin & Hudu Fusheini (eds.), Proceedings of WSCLA XII (UBCWPL 21, pp. 72–85). Vancouver: UBC.Google Scholar
  23. Jelinek, E. (1995). Quantification in Straits Salish. In E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer, & B. Partee (Eds.), Quantification in natural language. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  24. Keenan, E. L. (1987). Mutiply-headed NPs. Lingusitic Inquiry, 18(3), 481–490.Google Scholar
  25. Keenan, E. L., & Moss, L. S. (1984). Generalized quantifiers and the expressive power of natural language. In J. van Benthem & A. ter Meulen (Eds.), Generalized quantifiers in natural language (pp. 73–127). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  26. Kobele, G. M., & Zimmermann, M. (2012). Quantification in German. In E. L. Keenan & D. Paperno (Eds.), Handbook of quantifiers in natural language (pp. 227–283). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lyon, J. (2013). Predication and equation in Okanagan Salish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  28. Matthewson, L. (1998). Determiner systems and quantificational strategies: Evidence from Salish. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
  29. Matthewson, L. (1999). On the interpretation of wide-scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics, 7, 79–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matthewson, L. (2001). Quantification and the nature of cross-linguistic variation. Natural Language Semantics, 9, 145–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Matthewson, L. (2009). An unfamiliar proportional quantifier. In A. Giannakidou & M. Rathert (Eds.), Quantification, definiteness, and nominalization (Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics, Vol. 22, pp. 23–52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Matthewson, L. (2014a). Finding out what or does, by looking at languages without or. Paper presented at the University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  33. Matthewson, L. (2014b). What natural language disjunction is: Evidence from St’át’imcets, Tlingit and Gitksan. Paper presented at the Berkeley Linguistic Society, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  34. Matthewson, L. (2015). Verum focus ISN’T focus. Paper presented at Stanford University, January 2016.Google Scholar
  35. Milsark, G. (1977). Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis, 3(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
  36. Partee, B. (1988). Many quantifiers. In J. Powers & K. de Jong (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth ESCOL. Columbus: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  37. Peterson, T. (2010). Epistemic modality and evidentiality in Gitksan at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  38. Peterson, T. (in press). Alignments across Tsimshianic. In D. Massam, J. Coon & L. Travis (eds.), Handbook of ergativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Rigsby, B. J. (1986). Gitksan grammar. University of Queensland.Google Scholar
  40. Rigsby, B. J. (1989). A later view of Gitksan syntax. In M. R. Key & H. M. Hoenigswald (Eds.), General and Amerindian ethnolinguistics in remembrance of Stanley Newman (pp. 245–260). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  41. Sapir, E. (1921). A characteristic Penutian form of stem. International Journal of American Linguistics, 2(1/2), 58–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tarpent, M.-L. (1983). Morphophonemics of Nisgha plural formation: A step towards Proto-Tsimshian reconstruction. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 8(2), 123–214.Google Scholar
  43. Tarpent, M-L. (1987). A grammar of the Nisgha language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Victoria.Google Scholar
  44. Tarpent, M.-L. (1988). Below the surface of Nisgha syntax: Arguments and adjuncts. Papers for the ICSNL, 23, 103–143.Google Scholar
  45. Tarpent, M.-L. (1997). Tsimshianic and Penutian: Problems, methods, results, and implications. International Journal of American Linguistics, 63(1), 65–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. TFS Working Group. (2010a). The fortune teller. Totem Field Storyboards. Retrieved from http://www.totemfieldstoryboards.org on December 12, 2014.
  47. TFS Working Group. (2010b). Chore girl. Totem Field Storyboards. Retrieved from http://www.totemfieldstoryboards.org on December 12, 2014.
  48. TFS Working Group. (2011). Bake-off. Totem Field Storyboards. Retrieved from http://www.totemfieldstoryboards.org on December 12, 2014.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations