2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.12.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Temporal restrictions on personal pronouns: The composition of Blackfoot proclitics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
(42 reference statements)
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As such, the next logical option is eventuality time, generally taken to be represented within the VP (cf., e.g., Enç 1987;Zagona 1990;Stowell 1993Stowell , 1995Stowell , 2007Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria 1997, 2000. Further developing work published in Bliss and Gruber (2015), Gruber (2013) shows that one such language is Blackfoot (Algonquian) which consistently uses personal proclitics that lack the D-layer in contexts that do not involve a temporally restricted eventuality (e.g., inalienable possession). However, proclitics which do contain a D-layer appear in cases in which the relationship between the individual denoted by the pronoun and the eventuality under discussion is temporally restricted.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…As such, the next logical option is eventuality time, generally taken to be represented within the VP (cf., e.g., Enç 1987;Zagona 1990;Stowell 1993Stowell , 1995Stowell , 2007Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria 1997, 2000. Further developing work published in Bliss and Gruber (2015), Gruber (2013) shows that one such language is Blackfoot (Algonquian) which consistently uses personal proclitics that lack the D-layer in contexts that do not involve a temporally restricted eventuality (e.g., inalienable possession). However, proclitics which do contain a D-layer appear in cases in which the relationship between the individual denoted by the pronoun and the eventuality under discussion is temporally restricted.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first crucial ingredient is the basic function of D: As in Bliss and Gruber (2015), I follow Gillon (2006) who argues on the basis of data from the Salish language Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish), which has an elaborate system of determiners, that D is universally associated with domain restriction. To briefly illustrate domain restriction in general, consider the sentence in (15):(15) The girls are exceptionally smart.…”
Section: The Contribution Of Dmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“… Though (40) depicts a situation observed in a subset of Romance languages, it is not without crosslinguistic correlates. A D alternation conditioned by TMA categories characterizes for instance Blackfoot (Algonquian) clitics, as described by Bliss & Gruber (:175): ‘one series of Blackfoot proclitics consists of morphosyntactically simplex pro‐KPs that only encode person features, while the other series are morphosyntactically complex pro‐DPs composed of a KP plus a D head. The semantic contribution of the D head is temporal: it restricts the denotation of the proclitic to a contextually relevant stage of an individual … The short form proclitics, which lack this temporal restriction, appear in contexts that do not refer to specific stage’. …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…shown by Gruber (2013) and Bliss and Gruber (2015), their distribution is governed by the presence or absence of temporal deixis. To see this, let us consider the inalienable vs alienable possession contrast.…”
Section: Person Is More Than φmentioning
confidence: 90%