Rice Univesrity Logo
    • FAQ
    • Deposit your work
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   Rice Scholarship Home
    • Rice University Graduate Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    • Rice University Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    • View Item
    •   Rice Scholarship Home
    • Rice University Graduate Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    • Rice University Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    The semantics of Creek morphosyntax

    Thumbnail
    Name:
    8900242.PDF
    Size:
    11.93Mb
    Format:
    PDF
    View/Open
    Author
    Hardy, Donald Edward
    Date
    1988
    Advisor
    Davis, Philip W.
    Degree
    Doctor of Philosophy
    Abstract
    In Creek, a Muskogean language, nominalization is formally signalled by a loss of inflectional morphology and the occurrence of derivational morphology. A nominalization may be taken to be a concrete interpretation of the event itself or one of its participants. The verbal derivational morpheme $\{$ip$\}$ signals medio-passive voice, in which the executor of the event is not the agent of the event. The verbal derivational morpheme $\{$ec$\}$ signals increased transitivity, by which transitive verbs are derived from intransitive, transitive verbs are made more transitive through an increase of some parameter of transitivity, and causatives are created with the help of the medio-passive morpheme. The middle-voice $\{$k$\}$ morpheme signals that the executor of the event is affected by the action of the event, as in statives, intransitives, and reflexives. Participant agreement type is lexically marked for verbs, but paradigmatic contrast shows the markers to be semantically motivated. Types I and II marking vary with respect to control of the event, and Types II and III marking vary with respect to envelopment by the event. When the dependent verb of a modificational clause is non-tensed, the $\{$ii$\}$ and $\{$aa$\}$ suffixes differentiate non-identifiable from identifiable participants, respectively. When the dependent verb is tensed, the $\{$ii$\}$ and $\{$aa$\}$ suffixes differentiate mentioned events from asserted events, respectively. The semantic connection between the two uses of $\{$ii$\}$ and $\{$aa$\}$ are backgrounding and foregrounding, respectively. Non-identifiable participants and mentioned events are united in backgrounding and are suffixed with $\{$ii$\}$. Identifiable participants and asserted events are united in foregrounding and are suffixed with $\{$aa$\}$. $\{$t$\}$ and $\{$n$\}$ signal foregrounding and backgrounding, respectively, within the proposition; that is, they determine how a participant or event is foregrounded or backgrounded with respect to other participants or events within the same proposition. The $\{$ooM$\}$ suffix backgrounds participants and events with respect to other propositions, as in answering questions, or with respect to the ontology of the participant or event itself.
    Keyword
    Linguistics
    Citation
    Hardy, Donald Edward. "The semantics of Creek morphosyntax." (1988) Diss., Rice University. http://hdl.handle.net/1911/19064.
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Collections
    • Rice University Electronic Theses and Dissertations [12052]

    Home | FAQ | Contact Us
    Managed by the Digital Scholarship Services at Fondren Library, Rice University
    Physical Address: 6100 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77005
    Mailing Address: MS-44, P.O.BOX 1892, Houston, Texas 77251-1892
     

     

    Searching scope

    Browse

    Entire ArchiveCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsTypeThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsType

    My Account

    Login

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    Home | FAQ | Contact Us
    Managed by the Digital Scholarship Services at Fondren Library, Rice University
    Physical Address: 6100 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77005
    Mailing Address: MS-44, P.O.BOX 1892, Houston, Texas 77251-1892