Published: April 10, 2018

In April, the Department was pleased to welcomeÌý (University of New Mexico and University of Rochester). He gave a LingCircle talk about his work on word formation in Navajo.ÌýHe noted that of four mountains traditionally taken as markers of theÌýboundaries of Diné territory, two are located in Southern Å·ÃÀ¿Ú±¬ÊÓƵ: Dibé Nitsaa (Mount Hesperus) to the west and Sis Naajiní (Mount Blanca) to the east. Ìý

Breaking with Tradition,Ìý(Re)assessing Navajo Word-Formation: A Case Study
Wednesday, April 18
4:00-5:30
Clare Small 209

Abstract:

One of the most fundamental issues in Navajo linguistics, and more generally withinÌýAthabaskan literature, concerns the modeling of formation principles that govern verbalÌýderivation and inflection. This is necessitated by the fact that the Athabaskan verb exhibits aÌýnumber of structurally ‘aberrant’ properties. Some of the most commonly asserted featuresÌýare listed in (1) (cf. Rice 2000).

(1)Ìýa. Discontinuous dependencies are common.
ÌýÌý Ìý Ìýb. Inflection is interleaved with non-category changing derivation.
Ìý Ìý Ìý c. Classes of prefixes (e.g. adverbials) appear to have linearly fixed ‘positions’ inÌýrelation to the verbal stem.

In order to explicate verb-formation, most analyses reject the traditional templaticÌýrepresentation that reference grammars or dictionaries implicitly presuppose: OBL.OBJ + DERIV +ÌýASP + DIST/PL # OBJ + {DEICTIC.SBJ} + DERIV + ASP + SUBJ + VAL + [V.STEM] (Hoijer 1971: 125). Instead,Ìýseveral alternative approaches have been established. For instance, Speas (1990; cf. Rice 2000)Ìýargues that word-formation follows from general (morpho)syntactic principles promoted inÌýgenerative grammar; whereas, Hargus (e.g. 2007) employs OT alignment constraints toÌýaffixation whereby morphophonological factors interact directly with morpheme order. EvenÌýmore defiantly, Kari (e.g. 1992) utilizes ‘stacking templatic word formation’ in which strings ofÌýprefixes are interdigitated in cyclic derivations.

In the present analysis, I argue for yet another model that breaks with tradition(s), inÌýparticular those associated with the Navajo verb. The Construction Grammar (CxG) perspectiveÌýI assume is a departure from generative approaches to word-formation. I reassess Navajo verbsÌýas a class of constructional objects that are subject to typing and taxonomic organization (cf.ÌýMichaelis 2015). The taxonomies of constructions are established on a basic verb categoryÌýdistinction, identified by divergences in morphological productivity: ACTIVE-TYPES and NEUTER-TYPES.ÌýThese superordinate categories are furtherÌýorganized into constructional classes thatÌýare defined by their intrinsic argument structure (ARG-ST) features: INTRANSITIVE-CX, TRANSITIVE-CX,ÌýAPPLICATIVE-CX, STATIVE-CX, PASSIVE-CX and so on. Under a lexicalist framework, I show thatÌýNavajo verbs can be analyzed on a surface level, without deferring to underlyingÌýrepresentations or unrealistic procedural movement of morphemic constituents (cf. FortescueÌý2007).

As CxG states that there is no rigid division between the lexicon (storage) and syntaxÌý(computation), these ostensibly disparate components are conceptualized as networks of constructions that are organized according to constructional complexity and schematicityÌý(Croft and Cruse 2004: 255). Thus, lexical and grammatical units are treated identically,Ìýmotivating a uniform conception of constraints on form-meaning pairings (Sag et al. 2012: 5).ÌýThese factors allow for handling the Navajo verb as a constructional object, rather than anÌýabstract syntactic or morphophonological procedure.