Possessors
as
Arguments:

Evidence
from
Blackfoot



 
 Elizabeth
Ritter
 Sara
Thomas
Rosen

 
 University
of
Calgary
 University
of
Kansas
 
 This
paper
argues
for
a
strict
parallel
between
the
syntactic
structure
of
possessed
DPs
and
 intransitive
clauses
in
Blackfoot,
a
Plains
Algonquian
language
spoken
in
Southern
Alberta
and
 Northern
Montana.

Our
point
of
departure
is
the
observation
that
the
morphological
structure
of
 possessed
nouns
in
Blackfoot
is
strikingly
similar
to
that
of
intransitive
verbs.

Both
have
a
stem
 final
morpheme
whose
content
determines
the
availability
of
arguments,
as
well
as
nearly
identical
 person
agreement
prefixes
and
number
agreement
suffixes.

In
Ritter
&
Rosen
2010,
we
developed
 an
analysis
of
verb
stem
finals
as
v,
a
light
verb
that
semantically
selects
external
arguments
and
 syntactically
licenses
direct
or
indirect
objects.

Here
we
extend
this
analysis
to
noun
stem
finals,
 arguing
that
they
are
n,
and
that
they
have
the
same
function
as
unergative
v,
viz.
semantically
 selecting
external
arguments.
 
 Our
analysis
will
address
two
puzzling
facts
of
possessed
nouns
in
Blackfoot:

First,
the
noun
stem
 final
possessive
morpheme
–(i)m
always
signals
the
presence
of
a
possessor,
but
as
observed
by
 Frantz
(1991),
not
all
possessed
nouns
require
this
stem
final
morpheme.

The
question
is
why.

We
 propose
that
–(i)m
licenses
possessors
as
external
arguments,
and
that
it
is
not
required
for
 possessors
that
are
internal
arguments.

This
proposal
is
motivated
by
the
fact
that
there
is
a
 semantic
distinction
between
the
nouns
that
require
a
final
and
those
that
don’t:

More
specifically,
 possessed
kinship
terms
and
body
parts
(as
well
as
other
nouns
that
refer
to
manufactured
items,
 including
tools,
instruments
and
clothing)
do
not
require
an
overt
final.

However,
nouns
that
 denote
entities
that
have
an
independent

existence,
such
as
animals
and
naturally
occurring
objects
 do.

We
suggest
that
this
corresponds
to
the
division
between
inalienable
and
alienable
possession,
 and
that
only
alienable
possessors
are
external
arguments.

Inalienable
possessors,
in
contrast,
are
 internal
arguments,
whose
contribution
to
interpretation
is
determined
by
the
meaning
of
the
 possessed
noun.

 
 A
second
critical
characteristic
is
the
order
of
intrinsic
number
marking
and
number
agreement
on
 the
possessed
noun.

In
most
languages
that
have
both
an
intrinsic
number
suffix
and
a
possessor
 agreement
suffix
on
the
noun,
agreement
marking
follows
plural
marking
(i.e.
N‐pl‐AGR),
but
in
 Blackfoot
the
order
is
reversed
(i.e.
N‐AGR‐pl).

Moreover,
possessed
nouns
are
like
intransitive
 verbs
in
that
subject/possessor
agreement
is
spread
over
two
positions
–
a
person
agreement
 prefix
and
a
number
agreement
suffix
(i.e.
AGRPERS‐N‐AGRNUM‐pl).

We
propose
a
clause‐like
structure
 for
possessed
DPs
that
includes
a
person
agreement
prefix
based
upon
a
person
hierarchy
and
a
 number
agreement
suffix.
The
form
and
position
of
these
agreement
morphemes
is
almost
identical
 to
the
form
and
position
of
agreement
on
intransitive
verbs.

 
 Together,
these
two
characteristics
of
the
possessive
construction
support
an
analysis
of
the
 Blackfoot
DP
as
parallel
to
the
structure
of
the
clause,
including
a
matching
v/n
structure
and
 similar
extended
functional
projections
of
the
lexical
level.

 
 REFERENCES
 Frantz,
Donald.

1991.

Blackfoot
Grammar.

Toronto.

University
of
Toronto
Press.
 Ritter,
Elizabeth
and
Sara
Thomas
Rosen.

2010.

Animacy
in
Blackfoot:

Implications
for
Event
 Structure
and
Clause
Structure.

In
Malka
Rappaport‐Hovav,
Edit
Doron
and
Ivy
Sichel,
eds.
 Lexical
Semantics,
Syntax,
and
Event
Structure.

Oxford/New
York:

Oxford
University
Press.
 Pp.
124‐152.