1

Praxisforschung in der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften Stephan Maykus, Dirk Nüsken, Heinz Müller Year: 2009 Language: german File: PDF, 1.33 MB Your tags: 0 / 0

2

La Biblia de MySQL Ian Gilfillan Year: 2003 Language: spanish File: PDF, 42.91 MB Your tags: 0 / 0

M IRRO RS AND MI CROPARAMETERS

What is the nature of syntactic structure? Why do some languages display
radically free word order (‘nonconfigurationality’)? Do parameters vary independently (the micro-view) or can they co-vary en masse (the macro-view)?
Mirrors and Microparameters examines these questions by looking beyond
the definitional criterion of nonconfigurationality – that arguments may be
freely ordered, omitted, and split. Drawing on newly discovered data from
Kiowa, a member of the largely undescribed Kiowa-Tanoan language family,
the book reveals that classically nonconfigurational languages can nonetheless exhibit robustly configurational effects. Reconciling the cooccurrence of
such freedom with such rigidity has major implications for the Principles and
Parameters programme. This novel approach to nonconfigurational languages
challenges wide-spread assumptions of linguistic theory and throws light on
the syntactic structures, ordering principles, and nature of parametrization
that comprise Universal Grammar.
david adger is Professor in the Department of Linguistics at Queen Mary
University of London.
daniel harbour is a lecturer in the Department of Linguistics at Queen
Mary University of London.
laurel j. watkins is Adjunct Associate Professor of Anthropology and
Linguistics in the Department of Anthropology at Colorado College.

In this series
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122

roger lass: Historical linguistics and language change
john m. anderson: A notional theory of syntactic categories
bernd heine: Possession: cognitive sources, forces and grammaticalization
nomi erteschik-shir: The dynamics of focus structure
john coleman: Phonological representations: their names, forms and powers
christina y. bethin: Slavic prosody: language change and phonological theory
barbara dancygier: Conditionals and prediction
claire lefebvre: Creole genesis and the acquisition of grammar: th; e case of
Haitian creole
heinz giegerich: Lexical strata in English
keren rice: Morpheme order and semantic scope
april m c mahon: Lexical phonology and the history of English
matthew y. chen: Tone Sandhi: patterns across Chinese dialects
gregory t. stump: Inflectional morphology: a theory of paradigm structure
joan bybee: Phonology and language use
laurie bauer: Morphological productivity
thomas ernst: The syntax of adjuncts
elizabeth closs traugott and richard b. dasher: Regularity in semantic
change
maya hickmann: Children’s discourse: person, space and time across languages
diane blakemore: Relevance and linguistic meaning: the semantics and
pragmatics of discourse markers
ian roberts and anna roussou: Syntactic change: a minimalist approach to
grammaticalization
donka minkova: Alliteration and sound change in early English
mark c. baker: Lexical categories: verbs, nouns and adjectives
carlota s. smith: Modes of discourse: the local structure of texts
rochelle lieber: Morphology and lexical semantics
holger diessel: The acquisition of complex sentences
sharon inkelas and cheryl zoll: Reduplication: doubling in morphology
susan edwards: Fluent aphasia
barbara dancygier and eve sweetser: Mental spaces in grammar:
conditional constructions
hew baerman, dunstan brown and greville g. corbett: The
syntax–morphology interface: a study of syncretism
marcus tomalin: Linguistics and the formal sciences: the origins of generative
grammar
samuel d. epstein and t. daniel seely: Derivations in minimalism
paul de lacy: Markedness: reduction and preservation in phonology
yehuda n. falk: Subjects and their properties
p. h. matthews: Syntactic relations: a critical survey
mark c. baker: The syntax of agreement and concord
gillian catriona ramchand: Verb meaning and the lexicon: a first phase syntax
pieter muysken: Functional categories
juan uriagereka: Syntactic anchors: on semantic structuring
d. robert ladd: Intonational phonology second edition
leonard h. babby: The syntax of argument structure
b. elan dresher: The contrastive hierarchy in phonology
david adger, daniel harbour and laurel j. watkins: Mirrors and
microparameters: phrase structure beyond free word order
Earlier issues not listed are also available

C A MB RIDGE S TUDIE S IN L INGUI S TI CS
General editors: p. austin, j. bresnan, b. comrie,
s. crain, w. dressler, c. j. ewen, r. lass,
d. lightfoot, k. rice, i. roberts, s. romaine,
n. v. smith

Mirrors and Microparameters: Phrase Structure
Beyond Free Word Order

M I R RO R S A N D
M I C RO PA R A M E T E R S
P H R A S E S T RU C T U R E B E YO N D
F R E E WO R D O R D E R

DAV I D A D G E R , DA N I E L H A R B O U R
A ND L AU RE L J . WATK I N S
Queen Mary University of London and Colorado College

cambridge university press
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521517560


C

David Adger, Daniel Harbour and Laurel J. Watkins 2009

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2009
Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data
Adger, David.
Mirrors and microparameters : phrase structure beyond free word order / David
Adger, Daniel Harbour, and Laurel J. Watkins.
p. cm. – (Cambridge studies in linguistics ; 122)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-521-51756-0
1. Kiowa language – Syntax. 2. Grammar, Comparative and general – Syntax.
I. Harbour, Daniel. II. Watkins, Laurel J., 1946– III. Title.
PM1531.A34 2009
2009025311
497 .492 – dc22
ISBN 978-0-521-51756-0 Hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or
accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to
in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such
websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Contents

List of tables
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations and notation
Kiowa phonemes and orthography

page ix
x
xi
xiv

1

Introduction

1.1
1.2

What this book is about
The Kiowa language
1.2.1
Historical sketch
1.2.2
Grammatical sketch
1.2.3
Sources and methodology

1
3
3
5
22

2

Nonconfigurationality and polysynthesis

25

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4

Introduction
Grammatical functions and fixity of order
Definitions and history
Baker’s macroparametric approach
2.4.1
Derivation of nonconfigurational properties
2.4.2
Problems
Conclusion

25
25
26
29
33
46
59

3

The clausal spine

61

3.1
3.2

Introduction
The clausal mirror
3.2.1
Suffixal morphology
3.2.2
Particle syntax
3.2.3
Statement and illustration
3.2.4
The Cinque Hierarchy
3.2.5
Against a simplistic explanation
3.2.6
Digression: the imperative
The inverse base effect
3.3.1
Argument structure and adjuncts

61
63
63
68
74
76
77
79
82
82

2.5

3.3

1

vii

viii

Table of contents
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4

Argument–argument combinations
Argument–adjunct combinations
Statement

85
86
88

4

Making mirrors

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5

4.6

Introduction
Preliminary: against functional iteration
A head-final approach
Head initiality and roll-up phrasal movement
A Mirror-Theoretic approach
4.5.1
Mirror Theory
4.5.2
Deriving the generalizations
4.5.3
The agreement prefix
Conclusion

89
89
89
93
96
111
112
119
124
130

5

Interface properties of clausal domains

131

5.1
5.2
5.3

Introduction
Higher clause structure
5.2.1
Information structure, discourse structure
Semantic restrictions on clausal position
5.3.1
Focus marking
5.3.2
Adnominal elements
5.3.3
Statement

131
132
135
141
141
145
150

6

Anti-quantification and the syntax–semantics interface

153

6.1
6.2
6.3

6.4
6.5

Introduction
Wh-elements and focus
Bare quantifiers
6.3.1
Quantificational and cardinal determiners
6.3.2
A syntax–semantics mapping conjecture
6.3.3
Kiowa quantifiers
Clitic Left Dislocation
Pre-wh elements

153
154
159
160
162
166
169
173

7

Conclusion

176

Appendix
References
Index

179
183
188

Tables

1.1
3.1
3.2

Glossing system for Kiowa agreement prefixes
Selective particles
Imperative particles

page 16
70
80

ix

Acknowledgements

We wish to express our profound gratitude to Dorothy Delaune, Florene Taylor,
Dorothy Gray and Ellafay Horse, and to Gus Palmer Jr., for sharing with us
their knowledge of the Kiowa language, and to Carrie Guoladdle, Carl and
Vanessa Jennings and Lynda Delaune for facilitating many meetings. All were
unstinting in their generosity, patience and enthusiasm and, without them, the
research reported below would not have been possible.
Portions and versions of this work were presented at the Linguistic Association of Great Britain (University of Cambridge 2005), GLOW XXX (Universitetet i Tromsø 2007), the Conference on Quantification and Focus (Queen
Mary University of London 2007), and at colloquia at the University of York
(2005), the University of Newcastle upon Tyne (2006), the School for Oriental
and African Studies (2006), the University of Toronto (2006) and Universität
Potsdam (2008). We thank the organizers and audiences of those meetings. We
are furthermore grateful to Guglielmo Cinque, Roland Hinterhölzl and Andrew
Nevins for detailed comments on manuscript drafts, and to Stepanie Harves,
Richard Kayne, Alec Marantz, Vieri Samek-Ludovici and Anna Szabolcsi for
discussion of ideas at earlier stages.
The work reported below was funded by the British Arts and Humanities
Research Council, grant number RG/AN1310/APN17572, and also incorporates results from Watkins’ earlier US National Science Foundation grant,
SBR 9109866, and recordings kindly and fortuitously provided by the Summer Institute of Linguistics. We thank all three bodies.

x

Abbreviations and notation

–
—
∅
1
2
3
a
acc
act
ag
anaph
asp.∅
aux
conj
cntfl
d
dep
detr
distr
do
evid
ex
f
fact
focus
freq
gen
hab
hort

morpheme boundary
phonological boundary between agreement prefix and verb
absence of material
zero morpheme
first person
second person
third person
animate plural (an agreement type)
accusative
active
agent
anaphor
zero aspect
auxiliary
conjunction
counterfactual
dual
dependent (subordinate)
detransitive
distributive
direct object
evidential
exclusive
feminine
factive
focus
frequentative
genitive
habitual
hortative
xi

xii

Abbreviations and notation

i
imp
impf
in
indef
inf
infer
inj
instr
io
loc
mir
mod
ne
neg
nom
nonpast
nv
O
oblig
oppsex
opt
p
past
pf
poss
pres
prior
priv
proh
prt
punc
q
real
refl
rel
s

inverse (number, generally singular for inanimates, plural for
animates)
imperative
imperfective
inclusive
indefinite
infinitive
inferential
injunctive
instrumental
indirect object
locative
mirative
modal
ne (a Mohawk morpheme)
negative
nominative
nonpast
non-verbal
object
obligational
opposite sex
optative
plural
past
perfective
possessive
present
prior
privative
prohibitive
particle
punctual
interrogative
real, prototypical
reflexive
relative clause marker
singular

Abbreviations and notation
spch
stat
surm
te
z

speech
stative
surmissory
té (a Kiowa morpheme)
zoic (a Mohawk gender)

xiii

Kiowa phonemes and orthography

Consonants
Labial Dental Alveolar Palatal Velar Laryngeal
Voiceless stop
Aspirated stop
Ejective stop
Voiced stop
Voiceless affricate
Ejective affricate
Voiceless fricative
Voiced fricative
Nasals
Liquid
Glide

p
ph
p!
b

t
th
t!
d

k
kh
k!
g

(P)

x [c]
x!
s
z
m

h

n
l

w

y

Vowels
Short

High
Mid
Low

Long

Diphthong

Front

Back

Front

Back

i
e
a

u
o
O

ii
ei
aa

uu
ou
OO

Front

Back

ai

ui
oi
Oi

Vowel diacritics
High tone

Oral
Nasal

xiv

Falling tone

Low tone

Short

Long

Short

Long

Short

Long

v́
v˛´

v́v́
v˛´ v˛´

v̂
v˛ˆ

v̂v
v˛ˆ v˛

v
v˛

vv
v˛ v˛

1 Introduction

1.1

What this book is about

There is a difference between liberty and anarchy. Liberty is freedom from
some constraints; anarchy is the absence of all. Nonconfigurationality, defined
as the confluence of radical pro-drop, freedom of word order and noncontiguity of (sub)constituents, seems to represent the anarchic end of the linguistic spectrum. What is missing from current studies is the search for order
beyond these three simple criteria. In this book, we tackle this issue through
the detailed study of one particular nonconfigurational language, showing that
robust configurational effects, familiar from other languages, lie beyond the
scope of the three definitional criteria. This holds important implications for
linguistic theory as it entails that the deep phrasal architecture of nonconfigurational languages does not differ radically from that of more commonly studied
ones.
We will show that Kiowa, our language of study, has radical pro-drop,
extremely free argument order, and free splitting of constituents. These are
the hallmarks of nonconfigurationality. However, Kiowa exhibits three major
configurational restrictions and the interplay between these and Kiowa’s nonconfigurational properties is important for how we understand crosslinguistic
variation, syntactic structure and the nature of the syntactic interfaces. The
generalizations all involve mirroring of hierarchies around the axis of the verb.
In one case, preverbal particles and postverbal suffixes have inverse orders; in
another case, postverbal constituents are rigidly bound in the reverse of their
default (hierarchically induced) order; and in the last case, one and the same
set of focus-marked and quantificational elements is banned from the pre- and
postverbal extremities.
In deriving these generalizations, we develop a theory of clause structure
with several important ramifications. These relate to the nature of crosslinguistic parametrization (in particular, the notion of macro- versus microparameters), to the syntax–semantics interface (the interpretation of different varieties
1

2

Mirrors and Microparameters

of argument chains), and to the morphology–syntax interface and the theory of
phrase structure (specifically, the explanatory utility of Mirror Theory, Brody
2000a).
We begin, in chapter 2, with one of the most influential approaches to nonconfigurationality, the Pronominal Argument Hypothesis developed by Jelinek
(1984) and implemented in greatest detail, by Baker (1996), as a macroparameter (that is, as an abstract specification of deep organizing principles of the
language). We show that Kiowa bears all of the hallmarks of nonconfigurationality and yet that a pronominal argument analysis fails for this language in
a way that suggests a microparametric approach, best stated in terms of properties of functional heads in Kiowa clauses (cf. Legate 2001).
In chapter 3, therefore, we focus on the salient characteristics of the Kiowa
clause. We establish two of the generalizations mentioned in the opening paragraph and tie these to crosslinguistic work on the hierarchy of functional projections. These generalizations form the basis of chapter 4, where we compare
three accounts of phrase structure and show that Mirror Theory provides the
best account of both generalizations: the configurationality of the clausal spine,
and the configurationality this induces after the verb.
With this in hand, we turn, in chapter 5, to freedom of argument order before
the verb, arguing that much of it is due to movement operations arising from
information- and discourse-structural considerations. Against the background
of this freedom of argument placement, we elaborate a third generalization:
that certain classes of expressions, including focal-marked and quantificational
items, are forbidden from certain syntactically distinct positions.
In chapter 6, we explain this generalization by first showing that the MirrorTheoretic analysis we develop in chapter 4 gives us a range of possible chain
types. A maximally simple approach to the syntax–semantics interface gives
us an explanation for the restrictions in terms of positions that can only be
occupied in virtue of base generation (External Merge).
Overall, we argue that Kiowa nonconfigurationality is best thought of as
arising from a conspiracy of microparameters interacting with universal principles of clause structure, chain formation and the syntax–semantics interface. Moreover, we demonstrate the inadequacy of movement-based theories
of apparent rightward specifiers, even when implemented in terms of rollup remnant derivations, and show that the possibility of apparent rightward
specifiers is intimately tied to the morphology–syntax interface (1a–c). This
amounts to the claim that one of the major trends of recent syntactic research is
incorrect.

Introduction

3

For explicitness, we state here the parameters, and parameter settings,
argued for in the subsequent chapters:
(1)

Parameter settings in Kiowa
a. absence, for some heads, of any morphological realization
b. low spell out of the verb and its affixes
c. absence of Case- and EPP-related movement
d. the possibility of scrambling and, relatedly, obligatory surface scope of
quantifiers
e. the transparency of DPs to extraction of a left specifier, that is, inactivity
of the Left Branch Condition
f. the availability of Romance-like Clitic Left Dislocation structures

1.2

The Kiowa language

In the remainder of this chapter, we present a brief summary of the core properties of Kiowa grammar. This introduces both the main phenomena to be
analysed in subsequent chapters and provides general background necessary
to understanding the glossing system used throughout this book. More detail
on most of the topics summarized below can be found in Watkins 1984. We
begin with some brief notes about the people whose language this is.
1.2.1
Historical sketch
When they first entered written historical records, the Kiowa were resident in
the Black Hills of Montana. According to tribal memory, the original tribe had
split and migrated in different directions owing to a dispute between two chiefs
over the sharing of udders (Harrington 1928 records the account in Kiowa).
The Kiowas constitute the southern half of the split. The other half is supposed
to have travelled to the north. Mooney (1979[1898]: 154) writes that:
Several stories are current in the tribe in support of this belief. One woman, now [in
1898] about 80 years of age, when a child was taken by her father with others on a visit
to their old friends, the Crows, and says that while there they met a white trader from
the north, who addressed them in the Kiowa tongue, which he said he learned from a
tribe living farther north, which spoke the Kiowa language.

(We may add that similar stories continue to arise: when discussing the story
of the udders with a Kiowa singer in his mid-thirties, Harbour was informed
that, at a northern powwow, a member of another tribe claimed to have understood the words of a prayer or song that a Kiowa elder had recited.) Mooney
tentatively concludes that such stories “at least offer a suggestion concerning

4

Mirrors and Microparameters

the direction in which the linguistic affinity of the Kiowa is to be sought”
Mooney 1979[1898]: 154).
However, already by 1910, the attention of linguists was focused on the
Southwest rather than on the North, and specifically on the similarities between
Kiowa and the Tanoan languages (Harrington 1910). This relationship continued to be investigated (e.g., Harrington 1928, Trager 1951) until Hale (1962,
1967) definitively demonstrated that Kiowa and the Tanoan languages are
indeed related.
By the time of Mooney’s and Harrington’s investigations, the Kiowas had
become a Plains tribe, resident primarily in Oklahoma. The current Kiowa
Tribal Complex is located in Carnegie, Oklahoma, and members of the tribe
live mostly in Caddo, Kiowa and Comanche counties. The community’s distribution over three counties is the result of deliberate US Government policy. By
1876, white exploitation of resources, as well as deliberately excessive hunting,
had precipitated the collapse of the buffalo population, on which the Kiowas
depended for many necessities: food to last through the winter, clothing, implements, and shelter (in the shape of hides for teepees). With the continuation of
their traditional lifestyle thus rendered impossible, they at last agreed to settle
on a joint Kiowa–Comanche–Apache reservation and to receive government
rations.
The US government soon found it convenient to break its side of the
agreement with these tribes: the reservation provided the tribes with sufficient coherence for the maintenance of autonomous identities, cultures and
languages. Moreover, it placed out of reach of white settlers the valuable
grasslands that comprised the reservation. So, Congress passed two acts
(the General Allotment Act of 1887 and, more controversially, the Jerome
Act of 1901), which, by 1907, had had the effect of transferring 80% of
the reservation into white hands. Furthermore, ownership of the remaining
20% was so distributed that different tribes were substantially dispersed,
not only amongst members of other tribes, but also amongst the non-native
population.
The Kiowa language is spoken fluently now only by a few dozen elders;
however even that number risks being an overestimation. Members of the
next generation often have good comprehension of the language, but they
rarely have so intimate a grasp of grammar, lexicon and stylistics. Amongst
the younger generations, knowledge of the language rarely consists of more
than some songs and individual words (though it should be noted than some
younger singers do have extensive knowledge of song lyrics). The prognosis
for the language is therefore not good. However, there are now recordings,

Introduction

5

transcriptions and translations (many of which were inputs to this project; see
especially chapter 5) which mean that future generations of Kiowas are likely
to inherit a substantial record of their language in its cultural context, even if
direct inheritance of the language becomes impossible.
1.2.2
Grammatical sketch
Basic word order
Kiowa is a rich agreement language with relatively free word order. A basic
(informationally unmarked) order is nonetheless discernible:
(2)

Particles 
 Agent 
 Indirect Object 
 Direct Object 
 Verb

(3)

HÓn Paithalı́ı́ P!ÓÓthÓpdek!ii áádO Ó–
thêm- O˛O˛mOO
neg Vincent Daniel
stick.i 3s:3s:3i–break-make.neg
‘Vincent didn’t make Daniel break the stick’
(Harbour 2007: 14)

(4)

Hét [nÓÓ gO
ám] xégun thó˛ú˛se bédêi–
O˛O˛
hort 1 conj 2
dog bones 1in.d:3s:3d–give.imp
‘Let’s you and I give two bones to the dog’

Sentences like (3)–(4) are rare for two reasons. First, Kiowa permits prodrop of any argument DP, as in (5)–(6) (Watkins 1990), making sentences with
three overt arguments rare (two examples in our narrative corpus).
(5)

HÓn Ó–
thêm- O˛O˛mOO
neg 3s:3s:3i–break-make.neg
‘He didn’t make him break it’

(6)

Hét bédêi–
O˛O˛
hort 1in.d:3s:3d–give.imp
‘Let’s give them to it’

Second, DPs, as well as other constituents, are frequently dislocated to the left
or right edge of the sentence.
(7)

HÓn máthOn ∅– xá˛á˛nÔO
neg girl
3s–arrive.neg
‘The girl didn’t arrive’

(8)

MáthOn hÓn ∅– xá˛á˛nÔO
girl
neg 3s–arrive.neg
‘The girl didn’t arrive’

(9)

HÓn ∅– xá˛á˛nÔO
máthOn
neg 3s–arrive.neg girl
‘The girl didn’t arrive’

6

Mirrors and Microparameters

These dislocations correlate with information structure and discourse structure, leftward dislocation for topic and focus, rightward for certain kinds
of old information. These are discussed at length in chapters 4–6 (and in
Harbour, Watkins and Adger 2008).
Semantically, the particles in (2) express a variety of aspectual, modal and
evidential meanings, as well as negation. Many obligatorily cooccur with
inflection suffixes on the verb. These are discussed at length in chapters 3–4.
(10)

(11)

(12)

BéthOO hÓn ám em–dÓ˛Ó˛-mÔO-hel
neg 2 2s– be- neg- evid
mir
‘I didn’t realize it wasn’t you’

(Adger and Harbour 2007: 17)

Háyáttó hÓn ∅– de˛˛i- hé˛ı́˛-mÔO-t!OO
maybe neg 3s–sleep-die-neg- mod
‘Maybe he won’t fall asleep’

(Adger and Harbour 2007: 17)

bôu- honx!ou- yii - t!OO- dei
BéthOO an Ó–
hab :3s:3i–always-come late-impf-mod-evid
mir
‘I didn’t realize he was going to keep on coming late’
(Adger and Harbour 2007: 17)

Nouns and agreement
Nominal morphology is sparse in Kiowa. There is no case marking either
for DPs or pronouns, and the only marking for number is inverse marking
(a property wholly unrelated to the nomenclaturally identical Algonquian phenomenon). For the purposes of the investigation below, and despite its fascinating behaviour, this marking is irrelevant. However, it must be briefly discussed
as a preliminary to other aspects of the grammar detailed below.
In their simplest form, nouns are limited in the number of tokens they can
refer to. For instance, tógúl means ‘one or two young men’, áá means ‘two
or more trees’ and k!Ôn means ‘two tomatoes’. Naturally, however, speakers
may at times need to refer to pluralities of young men, singularities of trees,
or unpaired tomatoes. In such circumstances, where the inherent number of
the noun and the number of tokens talked of mismatch, the noun is inverse
marked. Curiously, one and the same suffix attaches to the nouns just given for
the plural, the singular and the non-dual: tógúúdÓ ‘young men’, áádO ‘a tree’
and k!Ô˛O˛dO ‘a tomato’ or ‘more than two tomatoes’. (However, the form of
inverse marking is subject to phonological variation; Watkins 1984, Harbour
2007.)
The inverse is integral to agreement in Kiowa. For non-inverse-marked
nouns, agreement straightforwardly reflects number (and person). For instance,

Introduction

7

in the following sentences, it is only by attending to the agreement that one can
know the number of stones referred to:
(13)

X!óú ∅– dÓÓ
stone 3s–be
‘It’s a stone’

(14)

X!óú e˛– dÓÓ
stone 3d–be
‘They’re [two] stones’

(15)

X!óú gya–dÓÓ
stone 3p– be
‘They’re stones’

Inverse-marked nouns, by contrast, trigger a separate agreement type (glossed
as i, mnemonic for ‘inverse’), irrespective of whether they refer to singularities,
dualities or pluralities:
(16)

ÁádO e– dÓÓ
stick.i 3i–be
‘It’s a stick’

(17)

NÓÓ e– dÓÓ
1
1i–be
‘It’s us (him/her and me)’

(18)

TógúúdÓ
e– dÓÓ
young man.i 3i–be
‘They’re young men’

It should be noted that there are other ways in which the correlation between
number and agreement can be obscured. The first is that there is a fifth agreement type, a (animate), restricted to pluralities of higher animates, such as
Kiowas, men, women, horses:
(19)

KÓı́gú á– dÓÓ
Kiowa.i 3a–be
‘They’re Kiowas’

The second is that some nouns, especially those that form homogeneous
(collective) plurals, use ‘singular’ agreement in the plural:
(20)

Áá ∅– dÓÓ
trees 3s–be
‘They’re trees’

8

Mirrors and Microparameters

And the third is that other nouns, especially those that are collections of heterogeneous parts, use ‘plural’ agreement in the singular and dual:
(21)

KhÓÓdé gya–dÓÓ
trousers 3p– be
‘It’s one/two/several pairs of trousers’

The semantics, syntax and morphology of this system are analysed at length
in Harbour (2007). For present purposes, the best we can do is to warn the
reader that apparent mismatch between prefix glosses and translations are the
systematic results of the system just outlined.
Nominal syntax
As ‘stick’, ‘dog’ and ‘bone’ in (3)–(4) make apparent, nouns in Kiowa may
appear bare. In fact, there are no definite or indefinite articles. However, the
language possesses other determiners (téı́ ‘all’, té- ‘every, each’, étté ‘many,
much’, háote ‘several, a few’, páá ‘some/one’, kÔl ‘some’), demonstratives
(é˛ı́˛de/gO, é˛ı́˛hOde/gO ‘this, these’, óı́de/gO, Óı́hOde/gO ‘that, those’), and numerals (páágO ‘one’, yı́ı́ ‘two’, . . . , kÓÓdokhi˛˛i mÓsÓÓkhi˛˛i Ónt!Otha˛a˛ ‘one hundred
and sixty-five’, . . . ). Except for té- ‘each, every’, which forms a compound
with its noun, all these may occur pre- or postnominally, or bare:
(22)

a. étté tóú ∼ tóú étté ‘many houses’
b. étté ‘many [houses]’

(23)

a. é˛ı́˛de áá ∼ áá é˛ı́˛de ‘these trees’
b. é˛ı́˛de ‘these [trees]’

(24)

a. yı́ı́ álOO ∼ álOO yı́ı́ ‘two apples’
b. yı́ı́ ‘two [apples]’

Of these, only the demonstratives bear inverse marking. They do so if, and
only if, their corresponding noun does (or, would, in the case of bare demonstratives):
(25)

a. é˛ı́˛gO
(áádO)
this/these.i trees.i
‘this (tree)’
b. é˛ı́˛de
(áá)
this/these trees
‘these (trees)’

Introduction

9

c. *é˛ı́˛gO
áá
this/these.i trees
‘these trees, this tree’
d. *é˛ı́˛de
áádO
this/these trees.i
‘these trees, this tree’
e. *é˛ı́˛gO
this/these.i
‘this [referring to a tree]’
f. *é˛ı́˛de
this/these
‘these [referring to some trees]’

Harbour (2007) argues that noun phrases in Kiowa have the structure in (26),
where D is the locus of inverse marking:
(26)

DP









NumberP








ClassP





Noun



D
(inverse)

Number

Class

We return to the structural position of quantifiers, demonstratives and numerals
in chapter 6.
In most cases, D is only overt when inverse marked. However, for some
nouns (including indefinite quantifiers), and for relative clauses, D is overt
in all cases. (The example below is constructed so that inverse marking on
the noun and relative clause match phonologically; this is not generally the
case.)
(27)

hÓndé gya–mOkú˛ı́˛me-de
something-D 3p– useful- D
‘something that is useful [e.g., an action]’

(28)

hÓngÓ e– mOkú˛ı́˛me-gO
something-D.i 3i–useful- D.i
‘something that is useful [e.g., an implement]’

In addition to the postnominal relative clauses above, Kiowa possesses relative clauses without an overt head.

10
(29)

Mirrors and Microparameters
HegÓ Óı́hOO [ÓgO gya–khoháı́- dOO]-de bat– thÓ˛Ó˛tÓÓ
then there rel 3p– exactly-be- D 2s:3p–find.mod
‘Then that way you will find their exact character’
(Watkins 1984: 232)

The left boundary of the relative clauses can be identified, as in (29), by the
(optional) presence of the subordinating particle Ó(Ó)gO (possibly related to
the deictic ÓÓkO ‘there’) and, as in (30), the anaphoric particle ám. This Ó(Ó)gO
may also occur in postnominal relative clauses:
(30)

Thalı́ı́ [ÓgO ám
xégun á–
p!Ôi] -de 鲖
to˛u˛tOO
boy
rel anaph dog :3s:3s–lose.pf-D 3d:3s–talk to.aux
‘They are talking to the boy who lost his dog’
(Watkins 1984: 233)

The right edge in both (29) and (30) can be identified by the near-obligatory
-de/-gO suffixes.
These elements permit one to recognize that Kiowa also has internally
headed relative clauses. The head in such cases may be pre- or postverbal,
though the former is more common:
(31)

Maayı́˛ bé– k!ı́ı́yá-dOO [ÓgO ÓlkhÓı́-t!ÓkhÔi
e– dÓÓ]-gO
woman :3i:3s–with- be rel crazy- whiteman.i 3i–be- D.i
‘A woman was with the crazy whitemen (that there were)’

(32)

∅– Tó˛ú˛nêi, [∅– khÔ˛O˛mei
k!yá˛á˛hı̂˛i˛]-de ∅– hı̂˛i˛hel
3s–say.impf 3s:3s–name.impf.evid man
-D 3s–die.evid
‘He said, naming the man, that he had died’
(Watkins 1984: 247, revised translation)

In sum, relative clauses are constructed by merging D to a clause, where
the head of the relative clause may be internal or external. D and the head
agree for whether they are inverse marked. We assume that the internally
headed relative clause contains a trace (though this is not crucial to anything
below).
(33)

IHRC





Di
Clause



... Headi ...

DP













NP

Di





 

Noun

EHRC





Clause


... ti ...

Di

Introduction

11

In addition to nominal modification via relative clauses, Kiowa also allows
the combination of nouns and a small range of adjectival predicates. In contrast
to the elements just discussed, these are strictly suffixal and form compounds
with their nouns.
(34)

x!óú-êl
rock-big.s
big rock

xégun-syan
dog- small
little dog

tou- gúl
house-red
red house

k!ı́ı́- t!á˛ı́˛- de
male-white-D
white man

As can be seen from the rightmost example here, suffixal adjectives occur
between the noun and the D. Further examples with inverse marking are:
(35)

a. áá- kyo˛˛i- mO
pole-long.s-i
‘a long pole’
b. thalii-bı̂˛i˛dO
boy- big.d/p-i
‘big boys’

Attributive adjectival modification is not an overly common strategy, as the
language generally prefers verbs, as in (36)–(37), to play this role.
(36)

x!óú gya–kót- haade
rock 3p– hard-dep.stat-D
‘hard stone’, ‘stone that is hard’

(37)

ááhyo˛˛i
e– péı́- dÓÓ-gO
cottonwood.i 3i–dead-be- D.i
‘a dead cottonwood’, ‘a cottonwood that is dead’

(Watkins 1984: 230–1)

The final relevant element of nominal syntax is focus marking, also found
only as a suffix:
(38)

nÓÓ-x!al
1- also
me too

nÓÓ-al
1- also
me too

yı́ı́- kOO
two-only
only two

áá- dO-deki
tree-i- only
only a tree

As can be seen from the rightmost example, focus marking occurs to the right
of D (it follows the inverse marking). Focus marking, and its relation with
inverse marking, is described in detail in section 5.3.1.

12

Mirrors and Microparameters
This gives us an expanded structure for the DP:

(39)

DP










DP





 






NumberP








NumberP





 

ClassP





Noun



focus
marking

D
(inverse)

Adj

Number

Class

Given Kiowa’s freedom of word order, it is, perhaps, not overly surprising
to find split DP constituents. Compare (40), which was spontaneously uttered,
with its split-free paraphrase (41).
(40)

(41)

Dôiette an pénhaa gya– ôugu
xóı́kyá
too much hab sugar 1s:3s–pour.impf coffee.loc
‘I’m always putting too much sugar in my coffee’

(Harbour 2007: 16)

An xóı́kyá
dôiette pénhaa gya– ôugu
hab coffee.loc too much sugar 1s:3s–pour.impf
‘I’m always putting too much sugar in my coffee’

(Harbour 2007: 16)

Three more examples are:
(42)

PáágO gya– bó˛ú˛ k!yá˛á˛hı̂˛i˛
one
1s:3s–see.pf man
‘I saw the one man’

(43)

É
˛ı́˛de hâatêl k!Ódál á–
dÓÓ?
that who.q car
:3s:3s–be
‘Whose car is that?’

(44)

Éı́gútk!o hâatêl yı́ı́ e˛hân?
biscuit
who.q two 3s:3d–devour.pf
‘Who ate two biscuits?’

(Harrington 1928: 45)

Similarly, externally headed relative clauses may be split from their head
noun:
(45)

KÓı́gú mÓn á– dÓÓ [ÓgO á– kı́ı́dêi] -gO
Kiowas infer 3a–be rel 3a–live.evid-D.i
‘It was probably Kiowas who were living there’

(Watkins 1984: 234)

Introduction
(46)

13

HÓn Óı́hOde k!yá˛á˛hı̂˛i˛ ∅– dÓÓmÔO [ám dÓ– tó˛ú˛tháı́] -de
neg that
man
3s–be.neg rel 3s:1d–talk with-D
‘That’s not the man who spoke to us’
(Watkins 1984: 234)

We do not analyse such split constituents here, but see chapters 5 and 6 for
some further discussion.
Pronouns
Kiowa has only two pronouns: nÓÓ for all first persons, whether singular, dual
or plural, inclusive or exclusive; and ám for second person, whether singular,
dual or plural. Generally, agreement on the verb is sufficient to identify participants and pronouns are not used. Their inclusion tends to be emphatic or
contrastive:
(47)

NÓÓ gyat– ÓmtÓÓ
1
1s:3p–do.mod
‘I will do it’

(48)

T!ÓkhÓı́k!ı́ı́ ∅– tó˛ú˛nêi, “HÓ ám em–dÓÓ an be– x!aanhóúlêi- de?”
white man 3s–said
q you 2s– be hab 2s:3a–trick.impf.evid-D
Séndé ∅– tó˛ú˛nêi, “HOO, nÓÓ a– dÓÓ,” ∅– tó˛ú˛nêi
Sende 3s–said
yes I
1s–be
3s–said
‘The white man said, “Is it you that is always cheating people?” Sende said,
“Yes, that’s me.”’

Both pronouns have apparently more emphatic forms, nÓÓhi˛˛i, ámhi˛˛i, attained
by suffixing the same hı̂˛i˛ (real) that derives k!yá˛á˛hı̂˛i˛ ‘man’ from k!ı́ı́ ‘male’,
touhı̂˛i˛ ‘teepee’ from tóú ‘house’, and sa˛a˛néhi˛˛i ‘rattlesnake’ from sa˛a˛né
‘snake’.
There are no third person pronouns, but the above described demonstratives
can be used instead, with similarly emphatic sense to pronouns:
(49)

Óı́de gya– ÓmtÓÓ
that 3s:3p–do.mod
‘He will do it’

(50)

GigÓ Óı́hO-x!al ∅– hólhel hegÓ
conj that- also 3s:3s–kill.evid then
‘And he killed that one too’

Adpositions
Kiowa uses postpositions to express a variety of locative, and related,
notions:

14
(51)

Mirrors and Microparameters
k!ÓÓ- pa
bank-against
against the bank

Indian Fair-kya
Indian Fair-at
at the Indian Fair

álOO- aadO- yOO
apple-tree.i-from
from the apple tree

Postpositions also frequently attach to relative clauses. This is expected given
our treatment of relative clauses as DPs.
(52)

[HegÓ mÓn mîn
鲖
p!Óı́dép]
dé-oi yán–
gút
then infer about to 2s:1s–forget.impf D- loc 1s:2s:3p–write.pf
‘You were probably about to forget me around the time I wrote to you’
(Watkins 1984: 235)

(53)

Dé– mOOkyá˛-phO˛˛i
[ÓgO an em–á˛á˛gya] dé-e˛˛i
1s:3i–readied- stand.pf rel hab 2s– sit.s/d D- loc
‘I placed it (a folding table) in readiness where you usually sit’
(Watkins 1984: 235)

It will be observed from (52) and (53) that we do not generally attempt
to characterize, in the glosses, the nature of different postpositions’
semantics.
Postpositional phrases differ from argument DPs in that only the latter agree.
When the applicative argument in (54a) is expressed as a postpositional phrase,
the verb agrees only for ‘boys’, as in (54b):
(54)

a. Thalyóp nÓ– xán
boy.i
:1s:3i–arrive.pf
‘The boys came to me’
b. Thalyóp nÓÓ-e˛˛i e– xán
boy.i
1- loc 3i–arrive.pf
‘The boys came to me’

(Adger and Harbour 2007: 4)

The complex verb
Verbs consist of two parts, an agreement prefix (next subsection) and a complex verb. The latter consists of the parts below:
(55)

Incorporates Root Distributive Aspect Negation Future Evidential

Incorporation is described in appendix A. The inflectional suffixes, which will
be discussed in detail in chapters 3–4, show allomorphy for a variety of different properties, including agentivity, stativity and transitivity. For instance,
the future suffix, mod, has, abstracting away from phonologically predictable
tone, an agentive form tOO (29) and a non-agentive form t!OO (11). The evidential suffix, evid, too shows variation, appearing as dei after impf-mod in
(12), as êi fused with impf as in tó˛ú˛nêi ‘say.impf.evid’, and elsewhere, as in
(10), as hel. For full exposition, see Watkins (1984) and Harbour (2004). In

Introduction

15

subsequent examples, readers should take such variation as being allomorphically conditioned.
The agreement prefix
The agreement prefix is the only obligatory part of the verbal complex other
than the root itself. It registers up to three DPs: external argument, indirect
object and direct object. There are some 100-to-160 prefixes (depending on
one’s criteria of homophony). Harbour (2003) shows that this prefix is phonologically independent from the rest of the verb, except in one regard: some
prefixes may force the entire verb to have low tone. (In our orthography, low
tone is unmarked, in contrast to hı́gh and fâlling.) As in (56) and (57), pairs of
prefixes are frequently otherwise indistinguishable.
(56)

ÁádO mén–
thêm
stick.i 2d:3d:3i–break.pf
‘You two broke the stick belonging to them two’

(57)

ÁádO mén–
them
stick.i 2d:3a:3i–break.pf
‘You two broke the stick belonging to them all’

Our glosses do not generally indicate which prefixes have this tone-lowering
effect as it can be deduced: verbs have low tone on all syllables if, and if
only, preceded by a tone-lowering prefix. However, in the few cases where
it is relevant, we mark tone-lowering prefixes with ∗ as in (61).
In our glosses, prefixes have the following structure. In z-, z is the subject of
an unaccusative predicate, as in:
(58)

A– maayı́˛- a˛a˛gya
1s–woman-be seated.s/d
‘I’m sitting like a woman’

In x:z-, x is the agent of a transitive verb and z, the direct object:
(59)

Maayı́˛ gya– bónmO
woman 1s:3s–look.impf
‘I’m looking at the/a woman’

In x:y:z-, x is the agent of a (di)transitive verb and y, the indirect object, and z,
the direct object: (56)–(57). Finally, in :y:z-, z is the subject of the unaccusative
(it triggers however agreement identical to that triggered by the z direct object
in (57)), and y is the indirect object, such as the possessor of z or a benefactor

16

Mirrors and Microparameters
Table 1.1 Glossing system for Kiowa agreement prefixes
Prefix type

Argument type

x:y:z-

x = agent of (di)transitive verb
y = indirect object / applicative of (di)transitive
z = direct object of (di)transitive

x:z-

x = agent of transitive
z = direct object of transitive

:y:z-

y = applicative of unaccusative
z = subject of unaccusative

z-

z = subject of unaccusative

of the event:
(60)

Thalyóp nÓ– xán
boy.i
:1s:3i–arrive.pf
‘The boys came to me’

Thus, in prefix glosses, something of the form :n: is an indirect object; something of the form :n is a direct object; and something of the form n is a
subject/agent. The table summarizes this information.
Note that there are no verbs without object agreement in Kiowa: even
unergatives bear overtly transitive agreement. Therefore, there are no prefixes
of the form x:-.
The linear order in this glossing system reflects the linear constituency of
the agreement prefixes themselves. Owing to tight fusion, the prefix has been
misdescribed as a portmanteau. However, a variety of work has shown that the
prefix is composed entirely of ϕ-features of the agent, indirect object and direct
object, plus morphological defaults (Merrifield 1959, Watkins 1984, Harbour
2003, 2007). When we decompose the prefixes, we find that agent exponents
precede direct object exponents. This is evident below in that the coda of
the prefixes (iá∗, ed, . . . ) co-varies with the identity of the direct object (3s,
3d, . . . ), whereas the onset and agent remain invariant. (‘∗’ indicates prefixes
with tone-lowering potential; the colons between prefix segments replace the
normal segmentation device, ‘-’, in imitation of the prefix notation. On hyphenation, see the next paragraph.)1
1 We give hypothetical underlying forms as per Harbour (2007). Such segmented forms unavoidably show allomorphy (as between [iá∗] ⇔ :3s/p and [ia] ⇔ :3s/s ). Moreover, the surface
forms arise by predictable phonological variation (e.g. dental–velar switching in the 1s:-forms,

Introduction
(61)

a. b:iá∗
2p:3s
b. g:ia
1s:3s

b:ed
2p:3d

b:iád∗
2p:3p

g:en
g:iat
1s:3d 1s:3p

17

b:éd
2p:3i

g:é
1s:3i

Similarly, we find that indirect object exponents precede direct object exponents:
(62)

a.

b:Ó
b:éd
:2p:3s :2p:3d

b:ád
b:Ód
:2p:3p :2p:3i

b.

d:Ó
d:éd
:1p:3s :1p:3d

d:iád
:1p:3p

d:Ód
:1p:3i

Lastly, and again similarly, we find that agent exponents precede indirect object
exponents:
(63)

a. b:iâ∗
2p:3s:3s

b:édê∗
b:iádiâ∗
2p:3s:3d 2p:3s:3p

b:ÓdÔ∗
2p:3s:3i

b. g:iá
g:én
g:ián
g:Ó
1s:3s:3s 2p:3s:3s 2p:3s:3p 2p:3s:3i

Together, these three pairwise orders yield the well-ordering Agent 
 Indirect
Object 
 Direct Object, the precise order that was illustrated for argument
DPs in (3)–(4).
In the glossing system, prefixes are separated from their verb by an en-dash
(–) rather than by the hyphen (-) which is reserved for segmentation of morphemes.2 The reason for this notation is that it represents the semidependence
of the prefix on the verb: linear position and tone lowering indicate that the prefix is a dependent of the verb; against this, however, lack of high tone spreading, of intervocalic voicing, of dental–velar switching, and of resyllabification
indicate that the prefix is a domain in its own right. We briefly illustrate these
properties, as they will be of some relevance in sections 2.4.2 and 4.5.3.
Beginning with properties that indicate a dependence between prefix and
verb, the first, linear position, is most obvious: every verb has a prefix (modulo zeroes), and everything that comes between a prefix and its verb forms
a phonological unit (for the purpose of tone spreading, dental–velar switching, etc.) with the verb itself. Consequently, material that linearly intervenes
between prefix and verb can be counted part of the verb’s phonological domain,
[gia] → gya, and [ge] → de). See Harbour (2007), or the other references in the main text, for
details.
2 In infrequent cases of Kiowa in the running text, prefixes are separated by a simple hyphen
and other morphemes are not separated at all. For instance, example text a–báá-t!ÓÓ would be
running text a-báát!ÓÓ.

18

Mirrors and Microparameters

and it is at the left edge of this domain that the prefix is located. The second property, tone lowering, was illustrated above (56)–(57). This lowering
affects every syllable in the verb’s phonological domain, including incorporates and suffixes. Hence, compare sémÓÓpı́˛phóútóúdÔO following a– in (64),
with semOOpi˛phoutoudOO following bá∗– in (65):
(64)

HÓn a–
sém- ÓÓpı́˛-phóú- tóúdÔO
neg 2s:3s–secretly-fish- catch-send.neg
‘You didn’t secretly send him fishing’

(65)

HÓn bá∗– sem- OOpi˛-phou- toudOO
neg 2p:3s–secretly-fish- catch-send.neg
‘You all didn’t secretly send him fishing’

This type of tonal interaction also occurs within the verb. For instance, if we
replace sém- ‘secretly’ with óbÓı́∗- ‘really’, all subsequent tones are lowered:
compare sémÓÓpı́˛phóútóúdÔO with óbÓı́OOpi˛phoutoudOO:
(66)

HÓn a–
óbÓı́- OOpi˛-phou- toudOO
neg 2s:3s–really-fish- catch-send.neg
‘You didn’t really send him fishing’

The fact that tone lowering is a property both of agreement prefixes and elements within the complex verb suggests that the former is part of the latter.
However, more considerations weigh against this conclusion than favour it.
First, high tone, in contrast to low tone, does not spread from prefix to verb.
Let us first illustrate the high tone spreading within the complex verb. When
incorporated, t!Om- ‘first’ and thOO- ‘sit’ have low tone. Hence:
(67)

A– t!Om-thOO- xán
1s–first- sit.nv-arrive
‘I was born first’

If we further incorporate sém- ‘secretly’, its high tone spreads, raising the
successive lows:
(68)

A– sém- t!Óm-thÓÓ- xán
1s–secretly-first- sit.nv-arrive
‘I was secretly born first’

However, high tone does not spread from prefixes onto successive lows:
(69)

Á– t!Om-thOO- xán
3a–first- sit.nv-arrive
‘They were born first’

(*Á–t!ÓmthÓÓxán)

suggesting that prefixes are not in the same domain as the verb.

Introduction

19

A similar point is made by final devoicing. Consider the following prefix
pairs: bét∼bédêi :2p:3d∼2p:3s:3d, bát∼bágîi :2p:3p∼2p:3s:3p, bÓt∼bÓdÔO
:2p:3i∼2p:3s:3i. In each pair, the final devoiced -t of the first prefix corresponds to the intervocalic voiced -d- (→g/ i) of the second. This is clearly
a phonological alternation (Watkins 1984 observes that the language forbids
syllable-final voiced obstruents). The same effect occurs in other parts of the
language, as in suffixation of the locative -ÔO: xát∼xáádÔO ‘door’∼‘at/on the
door’, bót∼bóúdÔO ‘belly’∼‘at/on the belly’. It does not, however, occur
between prefix and verb: gyát-Ó˛Ó˛ ‘they gave us it’ and bat-Ôm ‘do it’, for
instance, are not pronounced as *gyá(á)d-Ó˛Ó˛ ‘they gave us it’ and *ba(á)d-Ôm
(the bracketed vowels represent lengthening of the type that occurs with ‘door’
and ‘belly’).
Likewise, the process of dental–velar switching just illustrated
bát∼bádîi→bágîi emphasizes the separation between prefix and verb.
The process affects suffixes, as in hîite∼hîikii ‘vomit.imp’∼‘vomit.impf.imp
and sÓt+hı̂˛i˛ → sÓkhi˛˛i ‘just.real’. However (with only one exception,
attributable to a performance effect), speakers do not permit switching
between a prefix and verb: bat-hı́ı́ ‘2s:3p–take.imp’, for instance, does not
become *bakhı́ı́.
It is therefore evident agreement is dependent on but not wholly integrated
into the verb. This is the rationale behind the en-dash notation, separating prefixes from their verbs.3
Clausal complementation
Clausal complements are encoded by a number of means. Most commonly, for
verbs of communication, a direct quotation is used:
(70)

Nen– bôu- to˛u˛tOO
“Ma–á˛á˛”
ba–
tÓ
1s:3d–always-talk.aux 2d– come.imp 1s.spch–act
‘I talked to them a long time and I convinced them to come’
(Watkins 1984: 236)

Alternatively, an unquoted thought may be juxtaposed to the main clause:
3 If we restrict attention to (de)voicing and dental–velar switching, it is possible to view the
boundary between prefix and verb simply as a syllable boundary. This is because the processes
depend on syllabification: where syllable boundaries are flexible, as in inflection, both processes
occur; where syllable boundaries are more rigid, as in incorporation and compounds, we find
exceptions. For instance, in sét+ii ‘bear cub’, the syllable boundary remains rigid, sétı́ı́, and we
find neither voicing nor switching (*sédı́ı́, *ségı́ı́, *sékı́ı́). (Note that one says bá.gîi, etc., not
*bág.îi. In the Mount Scott dialect of the late Mr Bointy, syllabification was different, bát.îi,
and voicing and dental–velar switching did not apply.) However, the lack of high tone spreading
cannot be explained by positing a mere syllable boundary.

20

Mirrors and Microparameters

(71)

NÓÓ an a– Ó˛Ó˛dep
... mÓn nÓÓ OOzá- t!O˛O˛- hop
ba– dÓÓ
1
hab 1s–think.impf
infer 1 udder-angry-traveller.i 1in.p–be
‘I believe that we are those who travelled off angry over an udder’

(72)

HÓndó
t!ÓkhÓı́-k!ı́ı́ ∅– khoháı́- xanx!al hétÓ hÓn
why.indef white- man 3s–exactly-arrive.pf-also still neg
gyat– ÓÓguuguu
1s:3p–catch on.neg
‘I haven’t yet ascertained exactly why the white man came’

Complements may also have the appearance of relative clauses:
(73)

HÓ gya– háı́gyádOO [ÓgO em–t!ÓÓ]-dé
q :3a:3p–known
rel 2s– stay- D
‘Do they know you’re here?’

(74)

[Hábêikhii em–Ôi- tou- ba˛a˛niit!OO]- de hÓn em– xááyÔO
which.indef-day 2s– again-house-go.impf.mod-D neg 1s:2s–ask.neg
‘I did not ask you which day you would be going back home’

Wh-movement
Wh-words in Kiowa differ from the corresponding indefinite only in terms of
tone – hÔndé ∼ hÓndé ‘what.q’ ∼ ‘something’, hÔndó ∼ hÓndó ‘why.q’ ∼
‘for some reason’, hâagyá ∼ háágyá ‘where.q’ ∼ ‘somewhere’ – and, sometimes, not even there – hááxo ‘how.q, somehow’.
Although arguments and adjuncts may be freely positioned in Kiowa, occurring before the preverbal particles, after them, or after the verb, wh-elements
may only occur preparticularly (or, in the absence of particles, simply preverbally):
(75)

HÔndé an bét–
pı́˛ı́˛- k!úttO?
what.q hab 2s:3i:3p–food-lay.p.impf
‘What do you feed them [horses]?’

(76)

Hâagyâi-xe˛˛i an án–
pı́˛ı́˛- k!úttO?
which.q- horse hab 2s:3s:3p–food-lay.p.impf
‘Which horse do you feed?’

(77)

HÔndó hÓn bat– pÓÓdÔO?
why.q neg 2s:3p–eat.neg
‘Why aren’t you eating?’

They are, however, unacceptable if postparticular:
(78)

*An hÔndé bét–
pı́˛ı́˛- k!úttO?
hab what.q 2s:3i:3p–food-lay.p.impf
‘What do you feed them [horses]?’

Introduction
(79)

*An hâagyâi- xe˛˛i án–
pı́˛ı́˛- k!úttO?
hab which.q-horse 2s:3s:3p–food-lay.p.impf
‘Which horse do you feed?’

(80)

*HÓn hÔndó bat– pÓÓdÔO?
neg why.q 2s:3p–eat.neg
‘Why aren’t you eating?’

21

or postverbal:
(81)

*An bét–
pı́˛ı́˛- k!úttO
hÔndé?
hab 2s:3i:3p–food-lay.p.impf what.q
‘What do you feed them [horses]?’

(82)

*An án–
pı́˛ı́˛- k!úttO
hâagyâi- xe˛˛i?
hab 2s:3s:3p–food-lay.p.impf which.q-horse
‘Which horse do you feed?’

(83)

*HÓn bat– pÓÓdÔO hÔndó?
neg 2s:3p–eat.neg why.q
‘Why aren’t you eating?’

We will argue in chapter 4 that the particles mark layers of clausal structure
up to the lower part of the complementizer domain. We therefore interpret the
obligatory fronting of wh-elements as syntactic wh-movement to the specifier
of CP.
The only possible extraction site for wh-elements is the matrix clause. This
fact is to be emphasized, as there will be several points in later chapters where
seasoned syntacticians will wonder why we do not test rival hypotheses using
crossclausal extraction. The answer is that the language does not permit it:
extraction from subordinate clauses is unacceptable.4
(84)

*Hâatêl nÓÓ-p!ii gO– tét
hâatêl Carnegie-ku ∅– bá˛á˛nêi?
who.q 1- sister 3s:2s–tell.pf who.q Carnegie-loc 3s–go.impf.evid
‘Who did my sister tell you was going to Carnegie?’

4 The late Dorothy Kodaseet did, seemingly, permit crossclausal wh-dependencies, involving whmovement to the lowest complementizer position and pleonastic hááxo ‘how’ in the higher
positions:
(i)

Hááxo Ó
P!ÓÓthOpdek!ii xégun ∅– hól?
˛ ú˛maa ∅– tó˛ú˛gyaa hÔndé- tto
how.q Oumaa 3s–say.impf what.q-instr Daniel
dog 3s:3s–kill.pf
‘What did Oumaa say Daniel killed the dog with?’

However, it is possible that these clauses are merely juxtaposed, independent questions: ‘What
did Oumaa say? What did Daniel kill the dog with?’. Unfortunately, Mrs Kodaseet became too
ill for further collaboration shortly after this study began. We do not know of other speakers
who permit such structures.

22
(85)

Mirrors and Microparameters
*Háote
k!yá˛á˛hyóp yán– háı́gyádOO [ÓgO háote
k!yá˛á˛hyóp
how many.q man.i
:2s:3p–know
rel how many.q man.i
á– t!ÓÓ]-de?
3a–stay- D
‘Do you know how many men are staying?’

In a related vein, we note that extraction from adjunct clauses is also degraded:
(86)

??HÔndé- maa
háyá
hÔndé- maa
∅– Ómgyá
dotto
what.q-woman somewhere what.q-woman 3s–make.detr.impf because
em–ÓÓlya?
2s– cry.impf
‘Which woman is such that you are crying because she died?’

(87)

??Hâatêl Ó˛gOl
yán–
thá˛á˛OmtOO negÓ yán–
Ómdét!OO?
who.q if.cntfl 3s:2s:3p–help.mod conj 3s:2s:3p–make.detr.mod
‘Who is such that, if they had helped you, you would have finished?’

Wh-movement is discussed in chapters 4–6.
1.2.3
Sources and methodology
Sources
In addition to published materials about the Kiowa language (which are always
cited as such), the current study builds on three further resources: unpublished
writings of the late Dr Parker McKenzie, recordings from the Summer Institute
of Linguistics, and fieldnotes by Harbour and by Watkins.
Dr McKenzie (1897–1999) was a native Kiowa and meticulous self-trained
documenter of the Kiowa language. His writings consist of personal correspondence and transcriptions of stories. During their long collaboration, Dr
McKenzie gave Watkins copies of all of these. After his death in 1999, the
originals were deposited with The Oklahoma Historical Society, in Oklahoma
City.
The Summer Institute of Linguistics recordings, made in Norman, Oklahoma, in the 1950s, were generously, and serendipitously, sent to us, in their
original reel-to-reel format, at the start of the grant during which the research
reported below was undertaken. Digitized copies have been deposited with the
Kiowa Tribal Museum in Carnegie, Oklahoma.
Both McKenzie’s writings and the SIL recordings are almost exclusively
in monolingual Kiowa. Translation of the former has been undertaken by
McKenzie and Watkins; transcription and translation of the latter, by Harbour
and Watkins, working with Dorothy Delaune, Florene Taylor, Dorothy Gray,

Introduction

23

Ellafay Horse and the late Dorothy Kodaseet. We expect the results of these
labour-intensive processes to be made available in the coming years.
Methodology
Working on the syntax and semantics of languages of which one is not a native
speaker, or even a frequent speaker, is, to put it mildly, a challenge. Enormous care must be taken in the elicitation and interpretation of native speaker
judgments, so as to guard against one’s own biases and so as to ensure that
one understands, at least to some extent, what the native speaker thinks they
are being asked to do. It is, for instance, all too easy for the speaker to think
that the linguists are wondering whether the test sentences are comprehensible,
while the linguists, assuming they are comprehensible, are wondering whether
they sound anywhere near to native. And such misunderstandings can arise
from one sentence to the next, even in well-controlled settings. Therefore, we
feel some comments are warranted on the methodology employed in this study.
Most of our sessions involved a single native speaker, one, or more often
two, linguists (Harbour and Watkins), and one (or sometimes more) younger
Kiowas. In total, we worked with five speakers during the research period April
2004 to May 2007, though previous work with a further eight speakers is incorporated. The advantage of working as a pair of linguists was that we were able,
during the sessions, to spot each other’s miscommunications or misinterpretations, and, after the sessions, to discuss how the consultant had interpreted
questions about grammaticality and which methods of framing such questions
had proved most successful.
In order to prevent fatigue during the session, we alternated grammatical work with vocabulary documentation (Dorothy Delaune and Florene
Taylor would frequently surprise us with rare words that had occurred to them
between sessions), with recording and transcription of songs, and with transcription and translation of old recordings.5
Crucial sentence types were tested with the same speaker at different times,
and/or with different speakers. Where possible, the departure points for elicitation were previously recorded sentences, though in some instances, mock
narratives, or even pictures, were used. Only examples that are relatively easily accessible and replicable have been reported here and incorporated into
the theory we construct. We believe that these approximated to cases where
5 The transcription of these spontaneous narratives fulfilled a second aim of the grant that funded
the research reported below, namely, to see how a language with word order as free as Kiowa
deploys that freedom in spontaneous usage. On which, see Harbour, Watkins and Adger 2008.

24

Mirrors and Microparameters

our consultants had an idea of how that sentence in question, even if deviant,
might be intended.
To give an impression of our self-imposed limits, we mention that one particular line of research (to do with relativized minimality and feature intervention)
was abandoned because the judgments were too hard to replicate (as they took
so long to contextualize and set up) and because we had no notion of what the
speakers thought we were asking them. This last point perhaps deserves some
explanation, which we give by relating an incident. At one point, we were using
pictures to test the relative scope of only and negation in sentences describing
positions of animals and furniture relative to one another. Asked whether she
could use a particular sentence to describe the picture, one consultant said she
did not know why you would want to say it. This reaction made us realize that,
as presented, the sentence served no communicative function, as we could see
the picture just as well as she could. Watkins then suggested pretending that
she was speaking to Harbour about the situation in the picture and that they
were in different rooms. At which point, the consultant gave a judgment that
was subsequently confirmed on later occasions. Clearly, the speaker wanted to
know what the sentence was for and was not assessing its grammaticality or
interpretation in the abstract. Unfortunately, some of the sentences needed to
test relativized minimality violations (with controls for other hypotheses) are
so tortuous, and possess such straightforward paraphrases, that a reasonable
speaker can hardly imagine that they would be ‘for’ anything.
We are acutely aware that Kiowa is a gravely endangered language and that
the time and knowledge of our consultants is very precious. We believe we have
an obligation to the people whose tongue this is to present as true a reflection
of their language as possible, without overbending it to pursue theoretical ends.
What follows, therefore, is a methodological balance, between the demands of
theoretical investigation and the practicalities of work in the field.

2 Nonconfigurationality and
polysynthesis

2.1

Introduction

In this chapter, we discuss a number of the properties that make a syntactic analysis of Kiowa challenging, focusing on the freedom of argument order
which the language displays. We show how Kiowa falls into the broad typological class of nonconfigurational languages, and outline a number of theoretical
approaches to such languages. A landmark study in this area is Baker 1996,
which proposes a theoretical system intended to provide a unified view of these
languages, bringing them under a single ‘macroparameter’, the Polysynthesis
Parameter. Baker’s proposal is a development of an older idea for dealing with
free word order languages first suggested by von Humboldt (1836): apparent
overt arguments are to be thought of as being in adjoined positions, linked to a
clause-internal clitic.
We use this theory as a lens through which to investigate the structures of
Kiowa, and we show that Kiowa indeed displays almost all of the hallmarks
which one would think should firmly place it under the Polysynthesis Parameter’s purview. However, the approach, in the end, turns out to be inadequate
for DPs whose semantic type is more complex than that of a simple referential element. We show that Kiowa has a number of nominals which have
semantic types incompatible with the kind of analysis of the language that the
Polysynthesis Parameter would predict: quantificational elements, especially
bare quantifiers, and focus-marked elements. It turns out then, that we need a
different theory of clause structure which is compatible with a nonconfigurational typological profile. We argue here that such a theory is ‘microparametric’ (cf. Legate 2001): the nonconfigurational profile is the result of a conspiracy of a number of interacting parameters, each of which can be tied down to
the specification of a particular functional element of clause structure.
2.2

Grammatical functions and fixity of order

The traditional notions of subject and object conflate (at least) two distinct
types of configurationality in the way that they have been applied to familiar
25

26

Mirrors and Microparameters

languages such as English: the order and hierarchical placement of DP
arguments depends partially on their thematic role and partially on their Case
and agreement properties. Within the Principles and Parameters framework,
this dual nature is dealt with via the idea that the clause is split into distinct
domains: one for thematic licensing and another for Case/agreement licensing.
Specifically, within the thematic-related domain of the clause (the verb
phrase), agents are generated hierarchically superior to patients, while within
the Case/agreement domain, hierarchically differentiated positions act as the
landing sites for movements of the arguments generated in the verb phrase.
These movements may broadly preserve the thematic configuration (e.g., in
transitive active clauses) or disrupt it (e.g., in passives). This kind of theory
is intended to capture the rather strict ordering constraints that languages like
English observe.
However, as has been long known, many languages do not impose such strict
ordering on DP arguments. In fact, in some languages, the order of arguments
is rather free, with the thematic status of arguments being ‘tracked’ instead
by case or agreement morphology. Such languages, which have rich agreement or case systems, also usually allow arguments to be freely omitted, and
sometimes freely split apart (with adjectives or determiners appearing at some
distance from their associated nouns). The traditional term for such languages
is nonconfigurational (to be precisely defined below).
Nonconfigurational languages pose a challenge for approaches to clause
structure built on the basis of languages like English: is the phrase structure
of configurational and nonconfigurational languages radically different, or is it
broadly the same? Our eventual conclusion will be that the basic phrase structure of the clause is the same, but that operations which disrupt that order are
more widely available in free word order languages. As we will see, this is a
rather different viewpoint from that taken elsewhere in the previous generative
literature on nonconfigurationality.

2.3

Definitions and history

One of the earliest generative treatments to tackle the question of nonconfigurationality was Hale’s (1983). There, Hale focused on the syntax of Warlpiri, a
Pama-Nyungan language of Western Australia. Warlpiri displays a remarkable
freedom of word order. Indeed, Hale remarks:
to an extraordinary degree, it is true of Warlpiri that sentences containing the
same content words in different linear arrangements count as repetitions of one
another.
(Hale 1983: 5)

Nonconfigurationality and polysynthesis

27

Hale proposed an initial typological characterization of nonconfigurational
languages which we can summarize as follows:
(1)

A language is nonconfigurational if its arguments may be:
a. freely ordered
b. freely omitted
c. freely split

Hale’s analysis of nonconfigurational languages (exemplified by Warlpiri)
is that they have a dual structure: while their argument structure is configurational, their phrase structure is essentially flat. He implements this by assuming
the following phrase structure rule for finite clauses:
(2)

V
 → Aux X
 * V X
 *

Here X
 is a categorially undetermined phrase, and the asterisk is read as the
Kleene star, so that this phrase structure rule forces clauses to have an initial
auxiliary, followed by any number of phrases of any type, followed by the
verb, followed again by any number of phrases of any type. The auxiliary is
then moved to second position by a phonological rule.
Hale’s approach to the phrase structure of nonconfigurationality generates
free word order as follows. Since there are no categorial restrictions on the
non-verbal elements of (2), lexical insertion can instantiate these nodes with
words in any linear order. So for a sentence like (3), we also have the possible
orders in (4):
(3)

(4)

Ngarrka-ngku ka
wawirri panti- rni
manerg pres.impf kangaroo spear-nonpast
‘The man is spearing the kangaroo’

(Hale 1983: 3)

Wawirri ka pantirni ngarrkangku
Pantirni ka ngarrkangku wawirri
Ngarrkangku ka pantirni wawirri
Pantirni ka wawirri ngarrkangku
Wawirri ka ngarrkangku pantirni

(Hale 1983: 3)

Similarly, Hale analysed discontinuous constituents, like (5), as emerging from
this general schema. Since the X’s in the phrase structural rules impose no constraints on the categorical identity of the elements they dominate, it is possible
to have an ergative NP preceding the verb and an agreeing ergative adjective
afterwards:
(5)

Maliki-rli- ji yarlku-rnu wiri-ngki
dog- erg-1sO bite- past big- erg
‘A big dog bit me’

(Hale et al., 1995: 1434)

28

Mirrors and Microparameters

Finally, since the Kleene star allows a zero occurrence of X, it is possible to
omit arguments entirely:
(6)

Purra-nja- rla
nga-rnu
cook- inf-C.prior eat- past
‘Having cooked (it), (he/she/it) ate (it)’

(Laughren 1989: 326)

However, it is not the case that there are no selectional restrictions between
verbs and their arguments in Warlpiri, and Hale proposes that Warlpiri does
have hierarchical structure, but only in the lexical structure associated with
words. At the level of lexical structure, the subject of a transitive does in fact
asymmetrically command its object, but, at the level of phrase structure, this
hierarchical asymmetry does not obtain. This idea was adopted into the LFG
literature as one general approach to nonconfigurationality in that framework
(see Austin and Bresnan 1996).
An alternative perspective, developed in some detail by Jelinek (1984),
builds on the intuition originally expressed by von Humboldt (1836), that it
is actually the agreement morphemes on the morphologically rich verb that
are the arguments, and that the language is configurational at a morphological
(rather than lexical) level. In Jelinek’s system, any overt nominal arguments
are essentially adjuncts, but they are linked to clitic elements in the clause via
a set of matching rules (for Warlpiri, these rules involve compatibility of case
marking between the DPs and the clitics).
From this perspective, nonconfigurational languages are actually configurational, with agreement morphemes/clitics doing the work of full DPs in
languages like English. The elements that look like overt DP arguments are
actually structurally akin to adjuncts. This means that we have the following
rough structure:
(7)

TP














 






DP j

TP





 






Verb

DPi










Agreementi

Verb






 

Agreement j

Verb

Nonconfigurationality and polysynthesis

29

Here the apparent overt DP arguments are adjoined to the clause, and are
loosely related to these agreement morphemes by sharing features with them.
Since it is the agreement affixes that are actually the true arguments, overt
DPs are unnecessary, leading to apparent free omission of arguments. Since
the overt DPs are loosely related to the agreement morphemes, they may be
freely ordered. This general approach has also been taken by Baker (1996),
who assumes that the relation is akin to that of a kind of left dislocation. We
take up Baker’s proposal in the next section.
More recently, Legate (2001) has argued that there is no single macroparameter responsible for nonconfigurationality, but rather that the characteristics
of such languages arise from a confluence of lexical parametric choices. The
fact that a number of languages work in this way does not demand an explanation in terms of a deep parameter with massive ramifications through the grammar; rather, clusters of phenomena are explained by the interaction of a number
of lexical parameters. Perhaps, following Newmeyer (2005), the appearance of
the same clustering effects in genetically diverse languages can be explained
also in broadly functionalist terms: certain clusterings simply make languages
easier to use. Alternatively, the formal nature of a particular parameter setting may preclude certain values of other parameters, leading to clustering
effects. Legate’s work prefigures the conclusions we will reach in the following
discussion.
Within current minimalist theory, Hale’s approach has generally been abandoned. The phrase structural view of syntax which allowed flat structures has
been replaced with a highly hierarchical system, where all nodes are binary
branching. In addition, much of current theory takes argument structural properties of verbs to be encoded syntactically, with no separate lexical representation of any significance (Borer 2005, Ramchand 2008). On the other hand,
Jelinek’s approach has been developed further by Mark Baker, as part of an
argument that differences between human languages can be tied down to deep
abstract parameters that have major impacts on the structural properties of
human languages.
2.4

Baker’s macroparametric approach

The approach to nonconfigurationality that we focus on here is that of Baker
(1996). Baker is strictly concerned with what he terms the Polysynthesis
Parameter, which provides an account of the nonconfigurationality of certain
languages. Polysynthesis, as Baker defines the term, describes those languages
which have robust noun incorporation together with the general properties of

30

Mirrors and Microparameters

nonconfigurationality discussed above. Noun incorporation shows considerable crosslinguistic variation, and indeed Kiowa noun incorporation is somewhat different from that discussed by Baker (see Appendix A). In this book,
we are interested in the kinds of configurational effects that emerge once we
look beyond Hale’s three core criteria of nonconfigurationality. For this reason, we will concentrate on how the kind of approach that Baker develops to
nonconfigurationality might be applied to Kiowa.
The core of the account for nonconfigurationality builds on the intuition
developed from Jelinek (1984): overt DP arguments in nonconfigurational languages are in adjoined, rather than in specifier, positions. The true arguments of
the verb are pronominals (or, for Jelinek, affixes), which are in specifier positions. Overt DP arguments are coindexed with these. For example, an apparent
overt object in such a language would actually look as follows:
(8)

[TP . . . V proi] DPi

Structures where the overt object is the complement of V are ruled out:
(9)

*[TP . . . V DP]

Baker ensures that such languages have this structure via a parameter:
(10)

Morphological visibility condition
An XP is visible for θ-role assignment from a head Y only if it is coindexed
with a morpheme in the word containing Y via (a) Agreement or (b) Movement (incorporation).
(Baker 1996: 17)

Let us leave option (b), movement, aside, and focus on agreement, granting (at
least for the moment) that ‘morpheme in the word containing Y’ is a coherent
notion. (10a) ensures that a DP, if it is to receive a θ-role from a verb, must be
coindexed with an agreement morpheme on the verb, as follows (we use ‘+’
to denote Baker’s notion ‘in the same word as’):
(11)

[TP . . . Agri+V DPi ]

However, this is not enough to generate the right structure, as it will merely
force rich agreement without preventing DP arguments from appearing in the
specifier of vP, TP, or other projections. So, Baker introduces an auxiliary
assumption:
(12)

An agreement morpheme adjoined to a head X receives that head’s Case at
S-structure/PF.
(Baker 1996: 86)

Nonconfigurationality and polysynthesis

31

If Agr on V absorbs V’s Case, then the DP object cannot be overt, since an overt
element must have Case. However, Baker makes the assumption that covert
pronouns (that is, pronouns without phonological content) do not need Case,
so the following structure is legitimate:1
(13)

[TP . . . Agri+V proi]

This gives us a case of object pro-drop. Much the same structure is motivated
for the subject argument. (Baker assumes the specifier of TP to be the universal
position for subject licensing. Consequently, for him, the verb must raise to T
so that the Agr morpheme adjoined to T is in the same word as the θ -assigner.)
This successfully prevents DPs from occurring in argument positions.
However, languages have overt DPs as well as null pronominals. Since the
null pronominals fill the argument positions in the clause, the overt DPs cannot be in these positions (for the Case-theoretic reasons just mentioned). Baker
argues that overt DPs in nonconfigurational languages are in the same basic
construction as overt DPs in the familiar Clitic Left Dislocation (CLLD) constructions found in Italian and many other languages (see, e.g., Cinque 1990,
Rizzi 1997).
CLLD is a construction where a referential element in the left periphery of
the clause is ‘resumed’ by a clitic pronoun internal to the clause. It is distinct
from Focus Movement constructions (14), where the left peripheral element
is connected to a trace, and from Left Dislocation constructions (15), where
the left peripheral element is connected to a full pronoun (examples from
Alexopoulou and Kolliakou 2002):
(14)

Fish I never eat.

(15)

A man like that, I’d run a mile before I trusted him with a secret.

Languages like Italian have both Focus Movement constructions:
(16)

Il tuo libro ho
letto (non il suo)
the your book aux.1s read not the his
‘I read your book (not his)’

(Rizzi 1997: 286)

and also Left Dislocation/Hanging Topic constructions:
1 Baker’s assumptions about Case are rather non-standard. In classical Government and Binding
theory, empty referential pronominals (‘little pro’) are usually thought to need structural Case.
Baker seems to assume that the Case that is actually relevant is morphological, so that null
elements in general, which have no morphological form, require no Case checking. He makes
this same assumption for the traces of wh-moved elements, as we will see below.

32
(17)

Mirrors and Microparameters
Quella città, non sono
mai stato là
that
city neg aux.1s never been there
‘That town, I’ve never been there’

(Cinque 1990: 59)

However, in addition to these, they also have Clitic Left Dislocation constructions, where the resumptive element in the clause is a clitic in place of a full
pronoun.
(18)

In quella città, non ci
sono mai stato
in that
city neg there aux.1s never been
‘In that town, I’ve never been’
(Cinque 1990: 59, our translation)

Greek too has a contrast between Focus Movement constructions and CLLD
(Alexopoulou and Kolliakou 2002):
(19)

a. tin
parastasi skinothetise o
Karolos Kun
the.acc show
directed.3s the.nom Karolos Kun
‘Karolos Kun directed the show’
b. tetia paputsia de tha
foruse pote i
Maria
such shoes
not would wear.3s never the.nom Maria
‘Maria would never wear such shoes’

(20)

ta klidia ta
stilame sti
Maria
the keys them sent
to the Maria
‘We sent the keys to Maria’

We return to the properties of CLLD in more detail below.
Baker proposes that the specific CLLD properties in nonconfigurational languages derive from a licensing condition for DP adjuncts, which he states as
follows:
(21)

Adjunct licensing condition
An argument-type phrase XP generated in an adjoined position is licensed if
and only if it forms a chain with a unique null pronominal in an argument
position.
(Baker 1996: 112)

The effect of this condition is to allow the adjunction structure illustrated in
(8), repeated below as (22). Combining the adjunction and agreement structures, the overall structure for an argument DP in a polysynthetic language is
tripartite, consisting of a CLLD DP coindexed with an in situ pro, coindexed,
in turn, with an agreement morpheme on the verb:
(22)

[TP . . . Agri+V proi] DPi

Nonconfigurationality and polysynthesis

33

In the next section, we show how this approach fairly successfully captures the basic phenomena of free ordering, omission and also, to a certain
extent, the splitting of (apparent) arguments. However, we will see in subsequent sections that Baker’s theory faces a number of empirical and theoretical
problems.
2.4.1
Derivation of nonconfigurational properties
Free omission of arguments
The most straightforward nonconfigurational property to illustrate and explain
is free omission of arguments. Since the overt DPs in Baker’s system are simply adjuncts, they may be omitted without violating the θ -criterion – none of
his conditions demands their occurrence. This gives us a straightforward analysis of a Kiowa example like the following, where all three arguments (agent,
patient and malefactive) are encoded in the agreement morphology, but there
are no overt DPs:
(23)

MÓÓ tsó˛ú˛ Ó–
Ómhêl
like awl 3s:3s:3i–make.evid
‘He [Sende] made it [his nose] awl-like [to the coyote’s ill effect]’

Under the CLLD analysis, a ditransitive with no overt arguments simply contains three in situ instances of pro, each coindexed with agreement morphemes
on the verb (we have positioned the verb after its arguments, but this is not
crucial):
(24)

[TP prox proy proz Agrx:Agry:Agrz+V]

The example above occurs midway through a story, at a point at which all three
entities – Sende, the coyote, and the coyote’s nose – are familiar and, so, freely
omitted. It is instructive to contrast this with a sentence such as (25), which
occurs at the end of the same story. By this stage, the storyteller has reached
the moral of the story and so mentions all three entities explicitly. Observe,
however, that the agreement on the verb is identical whether argument DPs are
present or not.
(25)

Séndé
mOOtho˛xó˛ú˛hi˛˛i mOOk!Ôn Ó–
só˛ú˛hêl
Sende.AG coyote.IO
nose.i.DO 3s:3s:3i–file.evid
‘Sende filed the coyote’s nose’

A sentence such as (25) simply involves adjunction of the DPs to (24):
(26)

[TP Sendex [TP coyotey [TP nosez [TP prox proy proz Agrx:Agry:Agrz+V]]]]

34

Mirrors and Microparameters

Free ordering of arguments
Given that DP arguments are, in Baker’s system, structurally adjoined, free
ordering and omission of arguments amounts to free ordering and omission
of adjuncts. These properties of adjuncts are widely accepted as basic: Baker
illustrates them with free ordering and omission of temporal clausal modifiers
in English:
(27)

a. I will go to the store
b. I will go to the store in the afternoon
c. In the afternoon I will go to the store

To provide an exhaustive illustration of free argument ordering – examining
all argument types in all positions relative to each other, to the verb and to the
verbal particles discussed at length in the next chapter – would be a waste,
not merely of space, but of the reader’s patience. Therefore, we confine attention to some representative examples. In particular, we restrict ourselves to the
three types of morphosyntactically distinguishable arguments: agents, indirect
objects and direct objects.
The previous example sentence (25) illustrates the possibility of preverbal
occurrence for arguments. This is the overwhelmingly common position for
overt arguments. However, postverbal placement is possible. We provide two
examples each, all unsolicited, for agents:
(28)

xégu˛u˛dO
HegÓ kı́- thap t!Ó˛ı́˛ba an et–
Ô˛O˛mei
then meat-dry bare hab 3i:3a:3p–do.impf.evid dog.i
‘The dogs would clean out their dried meat’

(29)

Hét bat– Ôi- Om,
nO
dá
hÓn em– thá˛á˛- houguutOO nÓÓ
inj 2s:3p–again-do.imp conj oblig neg 1s:2s–whip-kill.neg.mod I
‘You do it again and see if I don’t whip you’

indirect objects:
(30)

MÓn hétÓ hÓn x!álii á–
dÓ˛Ó˛mÔO áxOOde
infer still neg calf :3s:3s–be.neg its mother
‘The calf probably still hadn’t been born to its mother’

(31)

T!ÓkhÓı́k!yá˛á˛hyóp o˛u˛ éı́tÓ˛Ó˛ égîi–
settO
Segyâi-do
white men
um corn 1ex.p:3s:3p–pick.impf uncle- because
‘[We were there] to help uncle pick some white men’s corn’

and direct objects:
(32)

thó˛t!ólO˛O˛gO gO . . .
NegÓ dÔO–
O˛O˛hel
and
then 3a:3s:3i–gave.evid oranges
‘When they gave her the oranges . . . ’

Nonconfigurationality and polysynthesis
(33)

35

HegÓ mÓn á–
hOOgya ÓlhÓ˛Ó˛gya
money
then infer 3a:3s–got
‘So they got their money’

A second range of freedom of placement available to arguments is their relative order. The basic, default, order is Agent  Indirect Object  Direct
Object, as in (25). However, such examples are extremely rare in natural discourse, owing, amongst other things, to the prevalence of argument omission
(Watkins 1993: 141). Three similar examples (all spontaneous, even though
(34) arose in an elicitation session) are:
(34)

HÓn P!ÓÓthÓpdek!ii Paithalı́ı́ áádO
Ó–
thêm- O˛O˛mOO
neg Daniel.AG
Vincent.IO stick.i.DO 3s:3s:3i–break-make.neg
‘Daniel didn’t make Vincent break the stick’

(35)

xégun thó˛ú˛se
bédêi–
O˛O˛
Hét [nÓÓ gO ám]
hort [1
conj 2 ].AG dog. IO bones.DO 1in.d:3s:3d–give.imp
‘Let’s you and I give two bones to the dog’

(36)

Ám
háátêl [hÓndé-kOi- maa
∅– dÓÓ-kyá] -dé
á-dómanaph someone some- Kiowa-woman 3s–be- surm-D.AG 3-son-in-lawÓ–
thâlOm- O˛O˛- hel
de hÓndé-aadO
D.IO some- board.i.DO 3s:3s:3i–bore.nv-make-give?-evid
‘Someone, whatever Kiowa woman it was, asked her son-in-law to bore a
hole in some kind of board’

The default argument order is more readily gleaned on the basis of pairwise
comparisons. The following examples illustrate Agent  Indirect Object (the
deprivees; 3p agreement is for an unspecified direct object):
(37)

BéthOO Óı́hOde
[k!yá˛á˛hı̂˛i˛ gO
maayı́˛ e˛– kı́ı́dêi
]-de
mir
that same.AG man
conj woman 3d–live.impf.evid -D.IO
béthOO mén–
khyáhÔn-hel
mir
3s:3d:3p–deprive- evid
‘Unbeknown, that same [man] had deprived the man and woman who lived
[there]’

Indirect Object  Direct Object:
(38)

[KÓı́gú gO
[háote hÓ˛Ó˛k!yagO á– dÓÓ]-gO ]
ÓlhÓ˛Ó˛gya
[Kiowas conj several foreigner.i 3a–be -D.i].IO money.DO
gya–
gúttO
1s:3a:3s–write.impf
‘I was writing cheques for Kiowas and a number of other Indian tribes’

and Agent  Direct Object:

36
(39)

Mirrors and Microparameters
Yal k!yá˛á˛hı́˛pi˛˛igO k!Ôn
á–
pOttO!
opt man-eaters.AG tomatoes.DO 3a:3s–eat.impf
‘Let’s hope man-eaters eat tomatoes!’

However, this basic argument order is subject to variation, such as Indirect
Object before Agent:
(40)

Kho˛u˛te Haitsiki
T!óúkút
k!OOk!ôutO édÔO– O˛O˛hel
Grandfather Haitsiki.IO Wichitas.AG pumpkin 3i:3s:3i–give.evid
‘The Wichitas gave a pumpkin to Grandfather Haitsiki’

Direct Object before Agent:
(41)

HétÓ thén
Séndé
á–
góúbêi
still heart.DO Sende.AG 3s:3s:3s–miss.impf.evid
‘Still, Sende kept missing [the monster’s] heart’

Finally, a third way in which arguments display freedom of position is with
respect to particles. We argue, in subsequent chapters, that at least some preverbal particles in Kiowa, like the adverbs of Cinque’s hierarchy (Cinque 1999),
occupy fixed clausal positions and, so, serve as diagnostics of noun phrase
position. Consequently, it is correct to view the facts below – that preverbal
arguments may be either pre- or postparticular – as demonstrating freedom of
argument position, rather than freedom of the particles with respect to immobile arguments. This freedom is not dependent on argument type (nor on particular particles). It occurs for agents and subjects of unaccusatives (here, with
an evidential particle):
(42)

BéthOO T!á˛ı́˛k!op 鲖
példoudei
mir
Laurel
3s:1s–think about.impf.evid
‘I didn’t realize Laurel was still thinking about me’

(43)

Thalii-kı́ı́gya béthOO hétÓ yᲖ t!ÓÓdêi
mir
still :1s:3p–stay.impf.evid
boy- fear
‘Apparently, my boyhood fears were still with me’

with indirect objects (here, with an aspectual particle):
(44)

HÓn an êlk!yoi gyát– sém- hÓ˛Ó˛nÔOde
neg hab old man.i :1p:3p–longing-give up.neg-D
‘[We] old men don’t give up our desires’

(45)

an téı́ âa–
Né Tha˛a˛te
O˛O˛
Ot
but Grandmother hab all 3a:3s:3s–give.pf yet
‘But they would give it all to Grandmother’

and with direct objects (here, with a negative particle):

Nonconfigurationality and polysynthesis
(46)

(47)

37

Onk!îi é˛ı́˛hOde tó˛ú˛gya bát–
guudOO
HÓn hábé
neg sometime past this
word 1in.d:3p–write.neg
‘We never wrote this word in the past’

ÓlhO˛O˛gya

hÓn 鲖
Ó˛Ó˛mÔO
money
neg 3s:1s:3s–give.neg
‘He hasn’t given me the money’

This freedom with respect to particle position extends even to interparticular placement, of which we can distinguish two types. In the first, arguments
appear between different particles:
(48)

BéthOO kÔOgO- al k!ó˛ú˛bÓ xÔO an á– hotgû˛u˛yi˛˛i
mir
other.i-also elder.i thus hab 3a–run around.impf.evid
‘We didn’t realize that other old people ran around like that’

(49)

HétÓ KÓı́to˛gya
étté hÓn gyát– háı́gÔO
still Kiowa language much neg :1d:3p–know.neg
‘We still do not know much of the Kiowa language’

In the second, arguments or other phrases appear between iterated instances of
a single particle:2
(50)

BéthOO ÓÓpahOO p!Ósót béthOO ∅– kı́ı́dêi
mir
there
thunder mir
3s–live.impf.evid
‘Unbeknownst, Thunder dwelt there’

(51)

HétÓ é˛ı́˛hOO-al hétÓ xÔO ∅– dÓÓ
still now- also still thus 3s–be
‘She’s still that way now’

To capture all these positional freedoms – preverbal and postverbal, preparticular, interparticular and postparticular – within a CLLD-based account, we
must assume the possibility of variable adjunction sites and variable directionality of adjunction. In Baker’s system, DP arguments are usually represented
as adjoined to the sentence (that is, at TP level). This will nicely capture the
cases where DPs may be at the left or right extremities of sentences. However,
if the particles do mark positions in the Cinque Hierarchy, then the DPs that
2 Harrington gives an example with iteration of the negative particle. The example is, however,
rejected by our consultants. Thus, the negative particle is somewhat different from the others.
See chapter 4 for some discussion of other differences.
(i)

*HÓn [gya– hóltOO ]-do
hÓn a– á˛á˛mÔO
neg 1s:3s–kill.mod -because neg 1s–come.neg
‘I have not come here to kill him’

(Harrington 1928: 56)

38

Mirrors and Microparameters

appear after particles but before the verb will best be analysed as adjoining to
VP, with the pro subject in the specifier of VP:
(52)

TP





 

Part

VP





DP

VP



 


pro

V




V

pro

Interparticular placement of DPs can then be seen as adjunction to higher functional projections in the clausal structure. In fact, at this stage, it would appear
to be a strength of Baker’s analysis that Kiowa exploits all the types of adjunction that one can imagine (but see the next chapter for detailed analysis of
such approaches to Kiowa clausal structure, showing that they are ultimately
untenable).
Free splitting of arguments
According to Baker there are only three types of discontinuous constituents
permitted in Mohawk: certain quantificational expressions, demonstratives and
wh-expressions. (Baker’s examples are reglossed for consistency with ours.)
(53)

(54)

(55)

Akwéku wa’- e- tsh2́ri-’
ne onhúhsa’
all
fact-3fs-find- punc ne egg
‘She found all the eggs’

(Baker 1996: 138)

Ka nikáy2 wá- hse- nut- e’
ne kwéskwes?
which
fact-2s:3zs-feed-punc ne pig
‘Which pig did you feed?’

(Baker 1996: 138)

Kı́k2 wa- hiyéna- ’
ne kwéskwes
this fact-1s:3ms-catch-punc ne pig
‘I caught this pig’

(Baker 1996: 138)

Moreover, the elements of the split constituent must be in the order just given.
(The judgments ‘*?’, ‘?*’ are as reported by Baker. We were unable to find a
sentence bearing the same relationship to (54) as (55) bears to (57).)
(56)

*?Onhúhsa’ wa’- e- tsh2́ri-’
akwéku
eggs
fact-3fs-find- punc all
‘She found all the eggs’

(Baker 1996: 140)

Nonconfigurationality and polysynthesis
(57)

?*Kwéskwes wa- hiyéna- ’
kı́k2
pig
fact-1s:3ms-catch-punc this
‘I caught this pig’

39

(Baker 1996: 140)

Baker points out that these sentences become grammatical when either the preverbal or the postverbal element is dropped. What this suggests is that Mohawk
in fact does not allow two different adjoined expressions to both be linked
interpretatively to the same argument position. That is, we cannot have the
following structure:
(58)

*XPi [proi Agr-V] ZPi

Baker proposes to capture this constraint by building a uniqueness condition
into the Adjunct Licensing Condition introduced above:
(59)

Adjunct licensing condition (revised)
An argument type XP generated in adjoined position is licensed if and
only if:
a. it forms a chain with a unique null pronominal Y in an argument position,
and
b. For each integer i contained in the index sets of both XP and Y, there is
no phrase ZP distinct from XP that forms a chain with Y by virtue of
sharing i.
(Baker 1996: 142)

The effect of this condition is to allow each adjoined XP to be licensed as long
as it is coindexed with a pro (59a), and to ensure that only one XP is coindexed
with each pro (59b). To see how the second clause works, consider the structure
in (58) above. Here XP bears the index i in its index set, and, in accord with
(59a), so does pro. However, (59b) requires there to be no ZP, distinct from
XP, which also forms a chain with pro by virtue of having the index i. Yet, in
this structure, there is such a ZP, so the structure is ruled out. In sum, then,
the Adjunct Licensing Condition bars analyses of discontinuous constituents
as involving two separate chains.
From this, it follows that the apparent discontinuous DPs in (53)–(55) cannot
be analysed as reflexes of the Morphological Visibility Condition (that is, as
CLLD structures). Instead, Baker argues that the various different kinds of
discontinuous constituent found in Mohawk arise from the different syntactic
behaviours of quantifiers, demonstratives and wh-expressions.
This approach predicts, then, that languages which allow discontinuous
constituents may have subtly different syntaxes for these constructions, since
there is no single deep underlying factor. For example, in Mohawk, the only

40

Mirrors and Microparameters

quantifiers that freely and naturally appear separated from their NPs are
akwéku ‘all’ and éso ‘a lot’. Baker argues that the syntax of these is similar to that of the quantifiers tous and beaucoup in French.
The idea behind the analysis is that these quantifiers are adjoined either to
the noun, giving a ‘non-split’ construction, or to VP, giving a split construction.
In the former situation, akwéku ‘all’ can be adjoined to a full DP, and it is this
lower DP that enters into a binding relation with the agreement element. For
the split constructions, Baker proposes a configuration like the following:
(60)

IP





















IP











Infl

NPi



eggs

VP





akwékui






VP





 

NPk

proshe

V̄





V

NPi

find

prothem

In this structure, the apparent quantifier is treated as an adverbial adjunct, leading to an apparent split between the quantifier and the noun. This makes the
split cases parallel to a quantificational adverbial analysis of a French example
like (61):
(61)

Ces livres, elle les a tous lus
these books she them has all read
‘These books, she’s read all of them’

Note that, since akwéku ‘all’ in this structure is treated as a true adverb, the
Adjunct Licensing Condition, which controls ‘argument-type phrases’, does
not apply, allowing both the apparent quantifier and its apparent restriction to
appear in the same clause. Baker’s analysis of éso ‘a lot’ goes along similar,
although not identical, lines.
Mohawk further allows demonstratives to split from their NPs (although
Baker notes that this phenomenon appears to be rare).

Nonconfigurationality and polysynthesis
(62)

41

Kı́k2 wa- hiyéna- ’
ne kwéskwes
this fact-1s:3ms-catch-punc ne pig
‘I caught this pig’

Baker argues that this construction in Mohawk is something rather different
from the constructions with quantifiers, proposing as analysis a kind of internally headed cleft. Intuitively, a split demonstrative in Mohawk is a little like a
cleft such as English It is this pig that I caught except that the head of the relative clause part of the cleft is in its canonical position (hence, approximately,
It is this that I caught pig):
(63)

IP





 

NP

Ī





 

Infl

CP








this

CP













C̄

Opi





 







C

IP











IP

NPi





 

NP

proI

pig

VP





caught

NP




ti

proi

This approach makes the (correct) prediction for Mohawk that the split demonstrative element must precede its nominal. We will see that this is not true of
Kiowa split demonstrative constructions.
For wh-splitting, Baker suggests that ka nikáy2 ‘which’ has a
demonstrative-like syntax, adjoined to NP. In the cases under discussion, it
adjoins to the null pronominal and then raises to the specifier of CP, without
pied-piping the pronominal, as follows:

42
(64)

Mirrors and Microparameters
CP












NPi

which

C


















C

IP





 







IP

NPi





 

NP

prohe

pig

I






 

I

VP





 

V

see

NP





which

NP

proi

When we turn to Kiowa, we see that it is rather different from Mohawk in
the kinds of splitting it allows; this is consistent with the kind of variation that
Baker’s approach is forced to admit. Kiowa is a language extremely comfortable with split nominal constituents.
Like many languages, Kiowa permits an externally headed relative clause to
split from its head nominal. However, this is rare to the extent that the following
sentence may be unique in our non-elicited corpus:
(65)

KÓı́gú mÓn á– dÓÓ [ÓÓgO á– kı́ı́dêi
]-gO
Kiowa.i infer 3a–be rel 3a–live.impf.evid -D.i
‘It was probably Kiowas who were living there’

Kiowa also permits quantifiers to split from their complement nominals. As
with relative clauses, these splits may cross particles:
(66)

Páá hÓn kÓı́to˛gya
yᲖ pêide- haigOO
some neg Kiowa words :1s:3p–straight-know.neg
‘There are some Kiowa words I don’t really understand’

(67)

KÔl mÓn nÓÓ-thalii-kut
gyá– dou hagya
some infer 1- boy- picture 3a:3p–hold perhaps
‘Maybe they have some pictures of me as a boy’

Nonconfigurationality and polysynthesis
(68)

ɲı́˛gO áádO étté an álOOgO e– dOO
this.i tree.i many hab apple.i 3i–be
‘This tree produces a lot of apples’

(69)

HÓ kÔl xóı́gúl ∅– tóp? Heg’ an kÔl ∅– obÓı́- top xóı́gúl
q some tea
3s–left then hab some 3s–really-left tea
‘Is there some tea left?’ ‘There’s always some tea left’

(70)

Háote úúpkOO á– t!ÓÓdêi
KÓı́gú émgOO Arizona
several way over 3a–live.impf.evid Kiowa.i loc
Arizona
‘There are several Kiowas [reportedly] living way over in Arizona’

(71)

Páá maayı́˛ ∅– bó˛ú˛hêl . . . Páá- al ÓÓkO ∅– p!éı́dehel
maayı́˛
some woman 3s:3s–see.evid some-too there 3s–appear.evid woman
‘A woman saw him . . . Another woman appeared there’

43

The same freedoms are afforded to demonstratives (recall that the language
lacks definite articles):
(72)

É
˛ı́˛de an p!ÓÓ ∅– té˛ı́˛gya-O˛O˛ma
this hab river 3s–ice- make.detr.impf
‘This river usually freezes’

(73)

Poi é˛ı́˛de gya–dÓÓ thO˛O˛tégya
again this 3p– be story
‘Here is another account’

and to some wh-elements:3
3 This freedom does not extend to other wh-elements, however, for possibly extraneous reasons.
In ‘which X’ and ‘what type of X’, the complement, X, is compounded with, and tonally subordinate to, the wh-element. For instance, in hâagyâik!ya˛a˛hi˛˛i ‘which man’ and hÔndék!ya˛a˛hi˛˛i
‘what type of man’, the complement, k!ya˛a˛hi˛˛i ‘man’, is deprived of its usual tones, k!yá˛á˛hı̂˛i˛.
These are unsplittable:
(i)

*HÔndé
a–
bó˛ú˛
k!ya˛a˛hi˛˛i?
what (type of) 2s:3s–see.pf man
for ‘What type of man did you see?’

In this, these words resemble possessives, which also subordinate the complement possessee
and are unsplittable:
(ii)

a.

Laurel-té-xegun a– bó˛ú˛
Laurel-poss-dog 2s:3s–see.pf
‘You saw Laurel’s dog’

b. *Laurel-té a-bó˛ú˛ xegun / Laurel a-bó˛ú˛ té-xegun
Presumably, these are to be treated on a par with other compounds in their unsplittability.

44

Mirrors and Microparameters

(74)

Háote
bé– bó˛ú˛ kúútogO?
how many 2s:3i–see.pf bird.i
‘How many birds did you see?’

(75)

Án– pı́˛ı́˛- Óm- phátkyáOt,
háote
an ÓÓthá˛t!a˛˛i
:3s:3p–food-make-finish.detr.pf-when how much hab salt
gya–tóp?
3p– left
‘How much salt is usually left, when she’s done cooking?’

In the splitting of quantificational and deictic modifiers just exemplified,
Kiowa resembles the Mohawk data discussed by Baker. However, Kiowa is
more permissive than Mohawk in a number of regards.
First, the nominal may precede the modifier from which it is split, something
which Baker reports as ungrammatical in Mohawk, as we saw above. This may
arise with a numeral (76) or other quantifier, such as a demonstrative (77),
and the inversely split constituent may precede (76) or straddle (77) the verb
(though the latter possibility is more restricted as discussed in chapter 5):
(76)

Éı́gútk!ó hâatêl yı́ı́ e˛–
hân?
biscuit
who two 2s:3d–devour.pf
‘Who ate two biscuits?’

(77)

Hê˛i˛tegya gya–dÓÓ é˛ı́˛hOde
story
3p– be this
‘This is the story’

Kiowa and Mohawk differ also in terms of the internal order of DP constituents, in a way that reflects the order constraints on these same subparts
when split. Mohawk does not allow the nominal to precede its modifiers. In
Kiowa, this order is fully possible:4
(78)

é˛ı́˛de thalı́ı́ ∼ thalı́ı́ é˛ı́˛de
this boy
boy this
‘this boy’

(79)

yı́ı́ xáádó
∼ xáádó
yı́ı́
two prairie dog
prairie dog two
‘two prairie dogs’

(80)

tóú
étté ∼ étté tóú
house many
many house
‘many houses’

4 Nonetheless, the Kiowa DP is clearly configurational, as we will see in chapter 6.

Nonconfigurationality and polysynthesis

45

The covariation between acceptability of the split and unsplit order noun
(. . . ) modifier in Kiowa, and the unacceptability of both in Mohawk suggests
that there are further microparametric differences between the two.
One final issue in split constituency worth pointing out here is noted by
Baker (his footnote 26 to chapter 3). Mohawk and Kiowa freely split numerals
from nominals. We give Kiowa examples here. Again, both splits may appear
before the verb (81), or they may straddle it (82):
(81)

Yı́ı́kya hegÓ sâ˛a˛dO dÓt– dÓÓ
four
then child.i :1d:3i–be
‘We had four children’

(82)

HegÓ yı́ı́ yᲖ xán kút xóxo
already two :1s:3p–arrive letters thus
‘Two letters have already come in reply’

Baker notes that none of the approaches to split constituency he adumbrates
straightforwardly predict such splits.
In Baker’s system, one obvious approach for dealing with split constituency
is unavailable. This is the approach where the splits arise through movement of
some subpart of the DP to a position external to that DP. In Baker’s approach,
where the arguments are in adjoined positions, such movements would be ruled
out, given the general bar on extraction from adjoined constituents (Huang
1982). However, in an approach where the arguments are in specifiers, we
might expect to see subextraction of the sort familiar from European languages which allow violations of the Left Branch Condition. For example,
Polish allows wh-extraction from DP arguments:
(83)

Jakich
Adam otworzył [NP pudełko [NP ti czekoladek
]]?
what kind of Adam opened
box.acc
chocolates.gen
‘What kind of chocolates did Adam open a box of?’
(Rutkowski and Maliszewska 2007: 790)

We return to this option in chapter 5.
Baker’s suggestion that discontinuous constituency should be treated differently from order and omission is necessitated by the tight connection his system draws between the structure of overt DPs in polysynthetic/nonconfigurational languages and CLLD. CLLD constructions are, in
general, incompatible with split constituents, as can be seen from the following Spanish examples:
(84)

a. Este hombre, lo vı́
en la fiesta
that man
him see.1s.past in the party
‘That man, I saw him at the party’

46

Mirrors and Microparameters
b. *Este, lo vı́
en la fiesta, (el) hombre
that him see.1s.past in the party the man
‘That man, I saw him at the party’

Since