INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the originid or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and on copies are in typewriter face, while others may be
from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and ph print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright materidhad to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back ofthe book

Photographs included in the o manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photo hs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.

A Bell & Howell Information Company

300 North Zecb Road.Ann Alfaor N1 48106-1346 USA
3 13/761-47OO 800/52 1-0600
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Santa Barbara

Information Flow and Grammatical Structure

in Barbarefio Churnash

A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy
in
Linguistics

by
Tsuyoshi Ono

Committee in charge:
Professor Marianne Mithun
Professor Wallace Chafe
Professor Sandra A. Thompson
Professor William Ashby
Professor W. Randall Garr

August 1996
 UMI Number: 9807454

UMIMicroform 9807454
Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17, United States Code.

300 North Zeeb Road

Ann Arbor, ME 48103
The dissertation of Tsuyoshi Ono i s approved

Committee Chairperson

August 1996
Copyright by
Tsuyoshi Ono
1996

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are countless people who have made the

present work p o s s i b l e and who have provided various
types of support throughout my graduate education at UC
Santa Barbara. Rather than try to l i s t them all and
r i s k revealing how poor my memory is, I l i s t here only
t h e people who were most d i r e c t l y involved in this work.
I would l i k e to thank Marianne Mithun, Wally Chafe,
Sandy Thompson, B i l l Ashby, Randy Garr , Suzanne Wash,
and Pat Mayes. I am especially g r a t e f u l to Marianne
Mithun for her constant help and encouragement, and t o
Suzanne Wash, who generously provided m e with the
Barbareno discourse data.
M y work on Barbareno Chumash has been made p o s s i b l e
by grant BNS90-U018 from the National Science
Foundation (Marianne Mithun, Principal I n v e s t i g a t o r ) .
1 am a l s o grateful to the Santa Barbara Museum of
Natural History for kindly providing the microfilms of
J. P. Harrington's manuscript materials as w e l l as M. S .
Beeler's o r i g i n a l manuscripts, thereby making this study
possible.
 VITA

1982 B.A., Konan University

1985-1987 Teaching Assistant, Department of East
Asian Languages and Literatures,
University of Oregon
1987 M.A., University of Oregon
1992 Winter Visiting Instructor, Department of East
Asian Languages and Literatures,
University of Oregon
1987-1994 Research Assistant and Teaching
Assistant, Department of Linguistics
and Department of Germanic, Oriental,
and Slavic Languages and Literatures,
University of California, Santa Barbara
1994-1996 Adjunct Instructor, Department of East
Asian Studies, University of Arizona
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
1990 &g, L, and a Clauses in Japanese Recipes : A
Quantitative Study. Studies in Language 14:73-92.
1992 With R. Suzuki, Word Order Variability in
Japanese Conversation: Motivations and
Graimnaticization. Text 12:429-445.
1992 With R. Suzuki, The Development of a Marker of
Speaker's Attitude: The Pragmatic Use of the
Japanese G r m a t i c i z e d Verb s h h a u in
Conversation. Proceedings of the 18th Annual
Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 204-
213.
1992 The Grmaticizatian of the Japanese Verbs oku
and shimau. Cognitive Linguistics 3:367-390.
 With P. Mayes, The ~ c c p i s i t i o r iof t h e Japanese
S u b j e c t Marker m and Its T h e o r e t i c a l
I m p l i c a t i o n s . In P. Clancy, ed*, JapaneseIKorean
L i n g u i s t i c 8 Vol. 2. Stanford: Center for t h e
Study of Language and Infarmation, S t a n f o r d
U n i v e r s i t y . 239-247-
With M. H t h u n and S* Wash, The S h i f t i n g S t a t u s
of I n i t i a l G l o t t a l Stop i n Barbarefia Chumash.
Proceedings of t h e 1993 Hakan-Penutian Workshop.
199-207

With S. Wash and M. Kithun, F i n a l G l o t t a l i z a t i a n

i n Barbarefiu Chumash and I t s Neighbors.
Proceedings of t h e 1 9 9 3 Hokan-Penutian Workshop.
208-21'7
With S. Thompson, Unattached W s in English
Conversation. Praceedinqs of t h e 20th Annual
Meeting of t h e ~ e r k e l e ~ - ~ i n ~ i sStoicci est y . 402-
419.
With S. Thompsmn, What Can Conversation T e l l U s
about Syntax? I n P. Davis, ed., D e s c r i p t i v e and
T h e o r e t i c a l M d e s i n t h e New L i n p i s t i c s .
Amsterdam: Benjamins. 213-271.
With S * Thompson, The Dynamic Nature of
Conceptual Stricture Building; Evidence from
Conversation. I n A * Goldberg, ed., Cunceptual
S t r u c t u r e , Discourse and Language. Chicago:
Center f o r the Study of Language and Information,
U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s . 391-399.
With E. Yoshida, A Study of CO-Canstmctian i n
Japanese; W e Don't -Finish Each O t h e r f s
S e n t e n c e s O mI n N. Akatsuka & S * Iwasaki, eds.,
Japanese/Korean L i n g u i s t i c s 5. Chicago: C e n t e r
f o r t h e Study of Language and Information,
U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s m 115-129.
To Appear With S. Th~mpson, I n t e r a c t i o n and Syntax i n
t h e S t r u c t u r e o f Conversational Discourse. In E.
Hovy & D m S c o t t , eds., Diecourse Processing: An
I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a q P e r s p e c t i v e . Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag-
To Appear With S * C&ngF A d HOC Hierarchy: L e x i c a l
S t r u c t u r e s f o r Reference i n Cansumer Reports
Articles. I n B* FoxF e d m FS t u d i e s i n Anaphosa.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
To Appear With S * Cmming, D i s c a u r s e Syntax* I n T. A *
van Dijk, ed., Discourse: A M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a q
I n t r o d u c t i o n . London: Sage.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major F i e l d : D i s c o u r s e and G r a m m a r
S t u d i e s i n D i s c o u r s e and G r a m m a r ; Gr-aticization
P r o f e s s o r s Wallace Chafe, P a t r i c i a Clancy,
Susanna Cmming, John Du B o i s , Marianne
M t h u n and Sandra Thampson
S t u d i e s i n N a t i v e American Languages; D e s c r i p t i v e
Linguistics
Professors Wallace Chafe and Marianne Mithun
S t u d i e s i n J a p a n e s e Linguistics
Professor P a t r i c i a Clancy
Studies i n P h o n e t i c s
Professor H a S * Gopal

vii
 Infoz=mation Flow and G r a m m a t i c a l S t r u c t u r e
i n Barbarefio Chumash

by
Tsuyashi Ono
This d i s s e ~ a t i o np r e s e n t s a d e s c r i p t i o n of some of
the f u n c t i o n a l aspects of the grammar of Barbarefio
Chumash, a C a l i f o r n i a language, by c l o s e l y examining
actual discourse d a t a with respect t o one area of
research called ' i n f o m a t i a n f l o w 8 .
I begin with a brief grammatical sketch of
Barbareiio, and t h e n discuss t h r e e d i f f e x e r i t b u t t i g h t l y
connected areas of t h e grammar. 1 f i r s t demonstrate t h e
importance of the cure-oblique distinction in t h e
argument structure of t h e language by e x m i n i n g s e v e r a l
different aspects2 pronominal affixes, eanstituent
o r d e r , and core a r w e n t - b u i l d i n g devicese
1 t h e n d e s c r i b e t h e v a r i o u s r e f e r e n t i a l forms and
their r e s p e c t i v e discouxse functionse These i n c l u d e
viii
pronominal affixes, full NPs, independent pronouns, and
the demonstrative be?. 1 suggest that pronominal
affixes are the default choice because they are
grmatically recpixed and are most commonly used for
the least cognitively demanding task of keeping track af
e s t h l i s h e d p m i c i p a n t s in the discourse. In contrast,
f u l l W s are used for the more cognitively demanding
tasks of introducing/reintrod~cing pa*icipants and
clarifying potentially ~ i g u o u s referents in the
discaurse. Independent pronouns and the demonstrative

-
he2 are used for such tasks as making a contrast and

referxinq ta p a ~ i c i p a n t sthat are referentially complex

or whose exact identities have been l e f t unspecified.
Finally, I describe different constituent order
types and t h e i ~respective functions. I suggest that
the basic constituent order in Barbare50 is a verb
perhaps fallawed by either the intransitive subject or
the transitive direct object, and perhaps further
followed by an ablique, and that NPs occurring befare
the verb are associated with such marked functions as
t o p i c and focus.
Acknowledgments ........................W.......iv
V i t a ............................................ v

Abstract ...m....................................viii
Table of Contents ............................m.e X

List of Uhreviations ..............ern........... xiii

l . Intxoduction ..............m..m..............l.
L 1 . Language and people
................W....m 2
1.2. Previous work .............m..............3
1.3. Theoretical foundation .............W..... 4

1.4. Data and methodology ....................m6

1.5. Organization .....................W......8.
Hates for chapter l ........................... 10

2 . Grammatical sketch .....................~..m..

l1

2.L Distinctive sounds ............W..........11

2 - 2 0 Basic mo~pho~ogical
structure
and lexical categories .W......e..........
14
2 * 3 m Argument structure and pronominal
affixes .................................. 20
2.4. Constituent arder ........................ 25
4 . Referential choice . a . e e e e o e e e . e e . e . o e m . . . e . . e 72

4.1. Pronominal affixes . . e o e e * e o . o e . . e . . o e e e m . 72

4 . 2 * Full noun p h a s e s . e . e e o . e . o e o . . . . e . e . e . e . 79

4 * 3 . Independent pronouns o . . e e e e e e e e e . e . . e e . . . 94

4.4. Daonetrative he2- . e e . . . e . e . . e . e e e e o e e . . . . 103

4 - 5 * Summary e o e e . e o . e . . . o . e . e . e e o e e e o o ~ e e o . . . . 113
Bibliography a o e e m e e e * w . * * w m . e e m * a e . m m m * a m . a o e * a . 168

xii
1 first person
l0 = f i r s t person direct object
1FL = f i r s t person pluxal
2 second person
20 = seeand person direct abject
2PL = second person plural
3 - third person
3PO = third person plural direct object
AGT = agentive
A2 = Alienable possessiun
ART = article
CA = causative
COB! = comitative
DAT dative
DIR = directional
DIS = distal
DP = dependent
DU = dual
Drn = dusative
EM = emphatic
EVT = future
habitual
indefinite
inst m e n t a l
locative
negative
nominalizer
noun past
plural
proximate
past
reduplication
resultative
reflexive
remote
repetitive
superlative
transitive

xiv
1. Introduction
Baxbarefio Chumash is a North h e r i c a n Indian
language indigenaus to Santa Barbara, C a l i f o r n i a . This
d i s s e r t a t i o n descxibes some f u n c t i o n a l aspects of t h e
grammar of t h e Barbzueiio Chumash by c l a s e l y examining
a c t u a l ckiscourse data. S p e c i f i c a l l y g t h i s w i l l be done
based on t h e findings and t h e asswtptions i n one area of
research c a l l e d 5nfonnation flowF (Chafe 1987, 1994}g
which suggests that t h e u s e of d i f f e r e n t grammatical
foms is motivated by t h e changing c o g n i t i v e s t a t e of
the information i n t h e speaker% and t h e hearer*^ minds.
Aspects of t h e grammu which will be dealt with in t h i s
disse-ation are axgument structureg r e f e x e n t i a l choice,
and c o n s t i t u e n t ozder. These have been chosen because
they axe t h e a r e a s where the i n t e r f a c e of grammar and
discourse function i s most evident.
Since studies of linguistic farms based on
discourse data have been xather scarce, p a r t l y because
of a general l a c k of t e x t u a l materialg a8 w e l l as t h e
dominance of uconstmcted sentencem methodolagy, this
d i s s e r t a t i o n w i l l make an impoz=txint new contxibution t o
the field. F ~ i c u l a r l ybecause o f i t s r i c h morphology,
the s t r u c t u r e of Baxbarefio Chumash i s r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t
from inany well-docmented languages* For t h i s reasonp
the present diseertation will provide the f i e l d with a
much-needed database which should help to genexate new
ideas and to evaluate a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g t h e o r i e s of
language.

1.1. Language and people

The Chuniash languages w e r e o r i g i n a l l y spoken by

between S a n L u i s Obispo and Malibup at the western edge

of the San Joaquin Valley? and on t h e i s l a n d s i n t h e
S a n t a Barbara Chanriel. The family i n c l u d e s at l e a s t six
d i f f e r e n t languages, now referred to by the names aÂ
~ s s i ~ around
n s which t h e i r speakers l i v e d *
Ohispeiio
Central Chumash
Ventureiio
Barbareiio
Ynesefio
P u r i sh e 5 0
I s l a n d Chumash
Barbazefio Chumash belongs to the Central Chumash
subfamily and was spoken u n t i l 1965. The l a s t s p e d c e ~ ~
Masy Yee? who died in 1965, w a s a l s o t h e last speaker of
any Chumash language* The g e n e t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e
Chumash languages t o any larger f d ~ y ~ s t o chas
k not
been e s t a b l i s h e d -

1.2- Pzevious work

There has been little published woxk on t h e Chumash
languages in general, and on Bazbazefio i n p a r t i c u l a r .
There is a s h o r t Barbarefio Chuxnash grammatical s k e t c h
(Beeler 19761, a Barbaxeiia n a r r a t i v e with a s m a l l word
list of a p p r o x a a t e l y 1,000 words (Beeler 19781, and a
longer version of the same n a r r a t i v e (Beeler and
Whistler 1980)- There is a r a t h e r e x t e n s i v e grammar of
Ynesefio Chumash (Applegate 1972)- There are some works
on r e d u p l i c a t i o n in Ynesefio and Basbarefia (Applegate
1976; Wash 1995aIt on glottalization in Barbarefio
(fithun e t al. 1994; Ono et a l . 1994a1, and on a
phenamenan called F s i b i l a n t harmony in Barbarefio and
Ventusefio ( B e e l e r 1970b; Harrington 1974; Puser 1982;
Mithun t o appear)- There is also some comparative waxk
on the Chuxnash family ( K l u 1973, 1977# 1981).
Additionally t h e x e ie an unpublished w o ~ k i n gd i c t i o n a r y
of Barbareiio Chumash which c o n t a i n s a p p s o x h t e l y 2,000
wards (Whistler 1980) This i t e m has been widely
c i r c u l a t e d amang s c h o l a r s who are i n t e z e s t e d in Chumash.
There is alsa an unpublished manuscript c o n t a i n i n g a
grammatical sketch, a word list, and a n a r r a t i v e (Eeeler
19'70a) which was the b a s h for some of Beelerrs
publications listed above.

1 * 3 * T h e o r e t i c a l foundatian
Thie d i s s e e a t % o n is based on an approach o f t e n
called functional linguistics. The c h a a c t e r i s t i c s of
t h i s approach can be summarized as f ~ l l o w s : it focuses
on the f u n c t i o n a l aspects of language; it examines t h e
relationship between particular forms and their
functions. The f u n c t i o n s propased by t h i s approach are
o f t e n psycholugi~allyandior socio-culturallymutivated.
This tendency is partly due to the working a s s m p t i ~ n s
that language is a part of the human cognitive
mechanism, and t h a t it i s used foz s o c i a l f u n c t i o n s in
a large sacia-cuXtura1 context*
As a natural consequence of these warking
assumptions, f u n c t i o n a l ~ yariented l i n g u i s t s very often
use natural discourse as a database rather than
constructed data, which are the standaxd f o r many o t h e r
schools af linguistics~ When epaken discourse is
examined by functianally oriented linguists, for
example, audiotapes or videotapes are made af naturally
aecuxring discourse. These are l a t e r transcrfied, o f t e n
u s i n g a d e t a i l e d transcription system (@.g*, nu B o i s e t
al. 1993)* Using these data, eithex very rich
q u a l i t a t i v e analyses ( e m g m ,s t u d i e s i n Chafe 1 9 8 0 ) a r
q a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s e s axe p e r f a m e d ( e * g m , s t u ~ e si n
Giv6n 1983; Du B a i s 1987 1 . Sometimes, even e q e r h e n t a l
method01aq-y is emplayed to evaluate pre-existing
theories (e.g., Tomlin 1987)- The care taken by
f u n c t i o n a l l y a r i e n t e d l i n g u i s t s with t h e data as w e l l as
t h e i r methodological c o n s i d e r a t i o n 8 may be seen as a
natural progression of t h e f i e l d .
There ase two othex chuacteristics of this
appxoacb which c u t a c r o s s i t s emphasis an p s y c h a l ~ g i c a l
and s a c i o - c u l t u r a l factors m One c h m a c t e r i s t i c i s an
i n t e r e s t i n d i a c h r o n i c aspects of language* T h i s can be
seen i n t h e n o t i o n af g r m a t i c i z a t i o n , which h a s played
a major role i n t h e work of numy f u n c t i o n a l l y o r i e n t e d
linguists ( @ . g m , s t u d i e s in m a u g o t t and Heine 1991;
Hopper and T r a a g o t t 1993). It i s based on t h e idea t h a t
language is f l u i d and c ~ n s t a n t l y changing; tkough
h i s t o r i c a l praeesses, new grammatical c o n s t m c t i o n s are
canstantly evolving to fulfil1 various functional
purposes. The other c h a x a c t e r i s t i c is an intexest in
examining not only one language but a n&ez of
languages i n the woxld and in learning from t h e
diffexences mci s ~ l ~ i t i among
e s them ( e. g g , Hopper
and Thompson 1980: Given 1984, 1990; Mithun 1987; C o m r i e
1989) g

Among many different approaches and areas of

investigation in functional 1 i n ~ i s t i .,c ~ t h i s
dissedation will focus on one broad area called
finfoxmation flowf (Chafe 1 9 8 7 , 1994) which suggests
t h a t t h e use of particular l i n g u i s t i c forms i s motivated
by t h e changing cognitive s t a t e o f the information i n
t h e speaker's and the hearer's minds.

1 . 4 . Data and methodology

There are t w o main sources of data for t h e study of

Baxbaxefia Chumash. F i s s t , enunnous amounts of data were
collected by the late John Harringtan, an
anthopological linguist for the Sndtheunian
InstitutionF from t h e e a r l y 1910's u n t i l h i s death in
1961. During this period, he worked with several
epeakers, including the last Chumaeh speaker, M a r y Y e e .
Barrington's data exist in t h e farm o f micrafibs of
5 0 , 0 0 0 to 100,000 pages of his o r i g i n a l f i e l c i n ~ t e s ,slip
files and texts (Haxrington 1912-1961). The textual
materials, which are most relevant to this dissertation,
include many different genres such as traditional tales,
ethnographic accounts, personal narratives, historical
narratives, myths, and religious texts. Second, the
late Madison Beeler, a Berkeley linguist, worked with
Mary Yee during the 1950's and 1960's and left
fieidnotes and texts, as well as audio recordings of
some of these materials (Beeler 1954-1961). Both
Harrinqt.on8s and Heeler's data are in the collections of
the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, from which
all of the data for "this dissertation come.
Approximately 250 texts from microfilm reel # S 9 of
Barrington's data have been given an interlinear,
morpheine-by-morpheme analysis by Suzanne Wash for the
Chumash Language Project headed by Dr. Marianne
Mithun. These texts are primarily ethnographic
accounts, all from Mary Tee. I will make my functional
analyses of Barbareno grammar based on these textual
data. Though these texts will be the primary source for
this dissertation, I will be complementing then with
examples from BeelerOs data as well as other published
sources .
 Analyses of each a s p e c t of Barbareno Chmnash w i l l
be based on detailed examinations of t h e discourse
context where the linguistic forms i n q u e s t i o n occur
. .,
(i e particular constituent order variation,
particular r e f e r e n t i a l forms, etc.). Thus my analyses
w i l l p r i m a r i l y be q u a l i t a t i v e i n nature. Based on. these
analyses, I w i l l i d e n t i f y t h e f u n c t i o n a l categories
which are a s s o c i a t e d with linguistic forms i n question.
I w i l l p r e s e n t the results a s f u n c t i o n a l d e s c r i p t i o n s
and I w i l l a l s o seek t h e i r t h e o r e t i c a l implications by
p l a c i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Barbareno Chumash i n t h e
context of the existing functional theories of
linguistics in general and the information flow
literature i n particular.

1.5. Organization
T h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s organized in t h e following

way. I n c h a p t e r 2, I w i l l give a grammatical sketch of

Barbareno Chumash s o t h a t readers w i l l have enough f a c t s
about Barbareiio t o follow t h e rest of the d i s s e r t a t i o n .
I n chapter 3, I will describe the b a s i c argument
s t r u c t u r e of Barbareno and the prominent morphological
and s y n t a c t i c f e a t u r e s associated with it. I w i l l also
discuss other devices which are closely associated with
the basic argument structure. In chapter 4, I will
discuss factors involved in using different referential
forms. In chapter 5 , I w i l l describe the structures of
different constituent order types and the functions
associated with them. In chapter 6 , I w i l l summarize
the findings of this dissertation and their theoretical
implications. I will also discuss problems of this
investigation and suggest directions for future
research.
 N o t e s for Chapter 1
1. Suzanne Hash (p.c. ) states t h a t the analyses of these
t e x t s were done several years ago and not all of them
reflect her current analysis.
2. Grammatical sketch
This chapter gives a brief overview of the grammar
of Barbarefio Chumash in order to provide readers with
basic facts of the language. Included are distinctive
sounds, basic morphological structure and lexical
categories, argument structure and pronominal affixes,
constituent order, and clause-combining. It should be
noted that many of the analyses given in this chapter
are based on work by Beeler (particularly l970a, 1976;
Beeler and Whistler l980 ) .
2.1. Distinctive sounds
Barbarefia Chumash contains the following vowels:
Table Is Barbarena vowels
i a: U

e 0

a
The front and back vowels M , /e/, /U/, and /o/
tend to be low. This conclusion is based on the
following two observations. First, often these sounds
are written with symbols [I], [ g ] , [v],and [ a ] ,
respectively, in Beeler s fieldnotes . Second, the
audio-recordings of Mary Tee's speech clearly support
this. In general,
*
the vowels seem to be higher in open
syllables and lower in closed s y l l a b l e s .
Barbarego Chumash contains the following
consonants:
Table 2: Barbareno consonants

P t k q 2

k A
S S X h
S X
c c
6 &

W Y
W 9
Barbarefio's relatively large set of consonants consists
of plain consonants and their glottalized counterparts.
The sole exception for this reqular-glottalized pairing
is [ S ] for which no [h 1 counterpart is attested in the
existing data. Glottalized sonorants do not occur word
initially.
 Some previous studies o f Chumash (Applegate 1972;
Beder 1976) have treated aspirated consonants as
d i s t i n c t i v e sounds. However, following K l a r (1977) and
Wash ( 1995a) , I w i l l treat them as a combination of a
regular consonant plus an /h/; most of the instances of
aspirated consonants r e s u l t f r o m a morphological process
illustrated in the following example (a list of
abbreviations i s provided on page x i i i ) :
(1) JH59.128L-l28R, t x t 11' line 004 59.128L
&^at t&tty.
s-sa?-tuhuy
3-FUT~r&in
'it is g. to rain. '
The symbol [h ] indicates aspiration. Aspirated
consonants are found when two identical (or similar)
consonants are placed next to each other. Remaining
aspirated consonants in a few lexical items are
interpreted as a combination of a regular consonant and
an /h/ (e.g., [sha] 'toothp as /*ha/).
Barbareno is known f o r a phenomenon called sibilant
harmony i n which s i b i l a n t s within words harmonize w i t h
the last s i b i l a n t of t h e word in terms of tongue
position. Thus words contain e i t h e r only apical ( o r
alveolar) s i b i l a n t s [S], [ & l , [c], and [&l, or only
ldnal/blade ( o r p a l a t a l ) s i b i l a n t s [ g 1, [c], and [ c]
(For details, see Beeler l970b; Harrington 1974.)
Examine the following examples:
(2) JH59.24&241R, txt 26, line 006 59.243X
- -ui hi~etgtidew,
a e ~ i ~ a ~ ~ i&S
&e=s-iy-aqniwili8 hiçAe=fitani
EM=3-PI.--think DP=EM=little
'they just do a little thinking.r
(3) JH59.407R-409&, txt 58, line 004 59.408L
k5.m kaGyw6fi.
k b ka =B-iy-wefi
and thens3-PL-go.to.bed
'then they would go to bed'

Notice that in these examples the third person

pronodnal prefix is realized as [S ] and [S] ,
respectively, depending on t h e final sibilant of each
word (for ( 3 ) , itself is t h e last sibilant ) It
should be noted, however, t h a t this harmony i s very
often not observed in the data I looked at ( c f . Mithun
to appeal: ) .
2.2. Basic morphological s t r u c t u r e and l e x i c a l
categories
As could be seen i n the examples above, another
interesting characteristic of Barbare60 Chumash is
polysynthesis. Examine the following examples:
(4) JH59.299L-300L, txt 55, line 003 59.2991,

?alauksukepwon holS?lfi?iwn
?&l-R-su-kep -won ha -1 -win
NU -B-CA-bxthe-3P0 DIS-ART-chlld-PL
'She's bathing the childrenF
(6) JES9.7R-8R, txt 5, line 001 59.81.

Barbareno words generally contain multiple morphemes.

As the examples show, most structures axe agglutinative,
and segmentation of words into morphemes is relatively
straightforward.
The two main lexical categories in Barbareno are
nouns and verbs. Here are some examples of nouns:
(7) JH59.205L-205R, t x t 21, line 002 59.205L
iheitub&+
hi=he?=l -tubu<r
DP=PRX=ART=rain
"rain'
(8) JH59.665Rw666R, txt 69, line 002 59.665R
( 9 ) JH!59.656R-657Lt txt SO, Line OOlb 59.656R

m i c a l l y , nouns are marked with t h e dependent p x o c l i t i c

hi=, as shown i n ( 9 l f and ( I O ) . ~ Nouns are a l s o
often marked w i t h one of t h e three p r o e l i t i c s he?=
*proximate* ( ( 7 ) ) , h02= F d i s t a l F( ( g ) ) , and hu= @remote0

( (8} ) . These c l i t i c s can CO-accurwith h i = an nouns, a s

shown i n ( 7 ) and ( g ) * The sound of hi=, heZ=, ha?=,
and hu= i s o f t e n e l i d e d , which i s seen i n ( 7 ) m The
proclitic in (7) and (8) seems to be best
c h a a c t e r i z e d as a d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e . I n ( 9 ) and (XO),
possession i s i n d i c a t e d by prefixes and g= on t h e
nouns . (See below f o r more details about these
prefixes. ) In plurality is indicated by
reduplication accompanied by lengthening and
g l o t t a l i z a t i o n of t h e final s y l l a b l e (Wash 1995a). In
( 10 ) , the suffix -iwaS i n d i c a t e s t h e defunct status of
t h e referent i n d i c a t e d by t h e noun. In this particular
examplef it i n d i c a t e s a rib of a dead whale.
 Here are some examples of vexbs:

(13) J'H59*3OOR-301R0 txt 56, line 002 59.300R

( 13 1 and &
,.- in (14) are all pronouns. (See below
for mare details 1 These prefixes are the same as t h o s e
used for nouns to indicate possession* In ( I1 ) & is
a ciurative pref In ( 12 ) , sa2- i s a future t e n s e

aspect* In (Id), is a negative p r e f i x , dli- is a

habitual prefix, and -wag is a past tense suffix*
Notice that both in tenns of form and functionf the
suffix -was is very t 3 h i l a r to -iwaGf which is used for
nouns to indicate the defunct status of the referent*
It suggests that these suffixes may be related
histaricalLy. Finally, as can be seen in ( 7 ) and (12),
often the same (or a s i m i l a r ) moqheme is used either as
a noun ox a vezb ( 9 a i n F and tuhuv %a rainp)* In
this particular case, glattalization is functioning as

absence of an adjective category (cf. Dhon 1977;

Schachter 1 9 8 5 ) . The pxedicating functian of adjectives
in o t h e r languages seems ta be served by verbs in
As can be seen in these examples, the morphemes ,hotF#
@goadt, @healthye, and @tastyFi which would be
adjectives in some languages, are serving a predicating
function while being treated m o ~ h o ~ o g i c a l las
y vezbs:
notice the presence of pronou~e S - ~ V - and
~ k,the
negative prefix e,and the past tense s u f f i x -wag.
Similarlyi the attributive function of adjectives
in other languages appears to be gemred by nouns in
Barbarefio. Examine the following examples:
(19) JHS9.262R-263L, t x t 32, l i n e 001 59.262R

(211 m59-658R-659L, tart 63, l i n e 0 0 % 59-658R

~
( 2 2 ) -59-656R-657Lr txt 50, line 004 59.656R

As can be s e e n in the above examplesf t h e morphemes

tmanyt, % n a l l ~ , t s t r o n g r f and # o t h e r t , which would be
a d j e c t i v e s in some languages, are s e s v i n g an a t t r i b u t i v e
a l nouns:
f u n c t i o n w h i l e being t r e a t e d m o ~ h o l ~ ~ i c as ~ y
n o t i c e t h e presence of p r o c l i t i c s bi= and &. In (221,
the noun s t a t u s of the a t t r i b u t i v e element t o t h e r ? i s
i n d i c a t e d f u r t h e r by t h e r e d u p l i c a t i o n accompanied by
q l o t t a l i z a t i o n and LenGhening on t h e f i n a l s y l l a b l e
(seen a b o v e ) m

2m3o & p e n t s t r u c t u r e and pronominal a f f i x e s

I n terns of argument s t r u c t u r e , Barbare50 shows
nodnative-accusative patteming. Examine t h e following
examples :
(23) JE59.47R-57R, txt 170# l i n e 0 3 6 59.S2R
( 2 5 ) JE59.633L-635R, txt 128, line 0 0 1 59.633L
naq?fiw b i M - d hititfi,
na q-?uv his3
whens3-eat. D P à ˆ A R T gg DPçdo
*When a dog ate eggs, p

The sole argument of t h e intransitive clauses in (23)

and (24) is marked by t h e prefix on t h e verb,
regardless of Its agency (agent in the former and
patient in the latter). Similarly in ( 2 5 ) , the agent of
a tzansitive clause is marked by t h e same prefix =.
The verb does not show any marking for the patient.

This shows that Barbarefio exhibits nominative-accusative

patterning in terms of verbal marking, and can thus be
said to recognize subject and d i r e c t object categories.
One thing we should keep in mind is that these
verbal affixes are not "agreement markersw, which are
simply copies o f features of independent NPs. They are
full referential pronouns in the form of affixes. For
this reason I will refer t o then as pronominal affixes.
The best evidence for this analysis is that Barbareno
utterances can be complete without full NPs. So
examples (23)-(25) would still be complete utterances
without the noun phrases after t h e verb. Examples ( 3 )
and ( 4 ) above illustrate such cases. Consider (4)which
is repeated here as (26):
( 2 6 ) JH59.299L-300L, txt 55, line 003 59,2991.
siyalisoKo3,R6 in,
-iv-~i-aoqolitoy-in
-
3-K.-DO&-aurroand-20
@they are surrounding your

The s u b j e c t 'they* and t h e d i r e c t object @your are

expressed by prefixes 8-iv- and a suffix -in

respectively. There are no full NPs i n t h e u t t e r a n c e ,
but it still constitutes a complete predication,
suggesting t h a t these a f f i x e s are not agreement markers
but full-fledged pronouns. The question of when t o use
t h i s kind of u t t e r a n c e rather than an u t t e r a n c e with a
f u l l HP w i l l b e addressed in chapter 4.
Since it i s crucial to have a good understanding of
how t h e s e pronominal a f f i x e s work i n order to follow any
Barbareno examples, I w i l l present t h e s p e c i f i c s of t h e
Barbarefio pronominal system i n t h e remainder of t h i s
section. The following table lists the subject
prefixes :
Table 3: Barbareno s u b j e c t pronouns
SG DU PL IDF
I k- k-is- Ic-iy-

3 S s-is- s-iy- s-am-

Subject marking i n d i c a t e s person and number: lst, Znd,
and 3rd persons; singular, dual, and p l u r a l . That is,
the p r e f i x e s br and indicate lst, 2nd, and 3rd
persons r e s p e c t i v e l y . The prefixes i S k - and &v- i n d i c a t e
dual and plural respectively, and t h e l a c k of t h e s e
prefixes i n d i c a t e s singular. The indefinite 9-am-
i n d i c a t e s a nonspecific r e f e r e n t 'someone * o r 't h e y 8 .
For the 3rd person dual, p l u r a l , and indefb i t e , t h e
pxefix is o f t e n not used:
(27) JEf59.662R-663R, txt 67, line 0 0 1 59.662R
?awaly6nt'e kalaina~liil~r&
PS huln6 1%~' -
?awalyente ka=l m? -am -awl-wag-g? hu=l asaioloq
brandy KA=ARTçSM-IDF-&ink-PST-E RM=ART=long.ago
'Brandy was the favorite drink, '

The l i t e r a l translation of this example would be

something l i k e 'Brandy i s what they drank l o n g ago'.

Only the i n d e f i n i t e am- without t h e t h i r d person E is
used to i n d i c a t e t h e nonspecific r e f e r e n t 'they'. It
should also be noted that t h e third person g= i s o f t e n
replaced with t h e nominalizer Pal-:
(28) JH59.27Lg29R, tast 172, l i n e 013 59.28R

( 2 9 ) JH59.27L-29R, t x t 172, line 012 59.28L

?ik%i ?alKut6-wnKi.
?ik&uU--qutuwuqs
but NM -whistle
*but he whistles.'
These examples are taken f r o m t h e same text. In ( 2 8 ) ,
a fox i s referred to by the t h i r d person prefix g=, and
in (291, it is refesred to by the n a d n a l i z e r 2al-
instead o f g=. 2
The following table lists the direct object
pronominal s u f f i x e s :
Table 4: Barbareno d i r e c t object pronouns
SG NON-SG

Object pronouns make fewer d i s t i n c t i o n s : lst, Znd, and

3rd persons; singulax and nonsingular. The s u f f i x - i w w
marks both 1st and 2nd person nonsingular. 3rd person
singular i s unmarked, as i l l u s t r a t e d i n ( 2 5 ) above.
When t h e 3rd person direct object i s p l u r a l , it may be
marked by t h e non-singular suffix -wn. Hawever? as the
following examples suggest, speakers seem to have had
t h e option of using -WUQ or not:
(31) JH59.299L-300L, txt 55, line 002 59.2991,
indicated by the reduplication on the ward 'eyer, and
the verb b t i y 'to see@ is marked by the third person
plural suffix -mn. In (321, the dixect object 'many
houses@ is plural as i n d i c a t e d by the reduplication on
the word rhouser; however the same verb bti 'to seer
does not take the plural s u f f i x - a n (kutiv and m are
t w o variants of the Bme verb).

2.4. Constituent order

Many of the above examples may suggest that
Barbarefia is a verb initial language in which t h e
arguments follow the verb. Examinatian of the data
shows t h a t t h i s is in fact the most common pattern;
however, other types of c a n s t i t u e n t order are also
found. Examine the follawing examples:
(34) JH59.662Rw663R, ?xt67, l i n e QOX 59.662R

These examples are taken front the 8-e text. In (33)

pelu ePedxo which appears to be the subject , is placed
before the verb. In (341, discussed above as (271, t h e
morpheme am- in the second word is another pronominal
prefix indicating a nonspecific referent @someoner or
%heyf (called rindef&nite8]. The literal translation
of thie example would be ~umethinglike @Brandyis what
they drank long agar. As c m be seen, in this example

2awalvente rbrandyr, which appeaxs to be the direct

object, is expressed before the verb (see chapter 5 for
the syntactic status af preverbal NPs).
Even when the axcpments follow the verb, their
order does not seem to be rigid$

nas?aw ilkti
na ==S-?uw =h
when=3-bite DP=ART=pexaon DP=mWrattleanee
'When a pexson gets bitten by a rattlesnd~e~~
 'When the lightning struck the house an 3aley Street in Santa
Bazbaxa, *

In ( 3 5 ) the d i r e c t o b j e c t pxecedes t h e subject whereas

in (36) the subject precedes the direct object. Unlike
preverbal NPs i n ( 3 3 ) and (341, postverbal HPs axe
typically muked with the dependent p r o c l i t i c hi=, a8
shown i n ( 3 5 ) and (36)m
In c h a p t e r s 3 and 5 , I will discuss in more detail
the statistical skewedness of these different
constituent orders and the motivations behind c h o i c e s
among them in discauxse.
Xn terns of the ordexing of elements w i t h i n noun
p h r a s e s , though t h e modifier o f t e n follows t h e head, the
apposite order [ i. e m ,t h e madif ier + the head) is not
uncommon. The following examples illustrate these t w a
types :
( 3 7 ) JH59.345L-347Lt txt 59, line 001 59.345R
(38) JE59.20R-2lR, t%t4, line 001 59.2X5

We saw above that pzonodnal prefixes mark the subject

on verbs. As seen in (9) arid (IQ), they are also used
to maxk possessors on nouns. In (37) the third person
singular pronominal prefix marks the possessor of
#fat0# 'sheeptm As can be seen' in ( 3 7 ) t h e modifier
sheep * follows the bead @ fat F and in ( 38) the modifier
'long ago0 precedes the head @Indiansg (the modifiers
are underlined).

This section presents a brief overview of clause-

caxnbining in Barbarefio Chumash. Included axe a relative
clause constructiont a sexial verb construction,
sentential subjects and sentential camplements,
conditioaal and time adverbial c l a u ~ e s ~
reason and
purpose clauses, and sequential clausesm
In relative clause constmctiona, the relative
clause follows the head:
 ?<a house which they lived in a t the a i ~ s i o n > ~
In (39) the head is the subject o f the relative clause,
and in (40) the head is the direct object af the
relative clause. In ( 4 1 ) t h e head appears to be t h e
locative oblique of the r e l a t i v e clause. In a l l of
these cases, the relative clause is marked by a
dependent p s o c l i t i c hi=, which, as I showed above,
appears on nouns. In ( 39 ) , there is no third pexson
subject prefix g= on the verb marking the head gpersonO
who t a l k s . This l a c k of the prefix is frequently
found in relative c l a u s e s .
 Two verbs me often juxtaposed, and when t h i s
happens, the first verb seems to indicate the manner or
the aepect in which the event expressed by t h e second
verb takes place:

( 4 3 ) J.3590275R-276L, txt 31, a line O O X S9.27SR

gyuxl6 - &K hisn&& h&,

g - m l e l e k bi*m-R-~+nah
3-tiptoe DP=3-R-R+gu
'he goes t i p t o e i n g (raising h e e l s and going an balls ef
feet). @

( 4 4 ) JE5gO525R-S2'7Lr t x t 100, Line 004

lcid~asiyn6-W& hi~iyan8i.n~
kint+ka =S-iy-nowon h%=s-iv-angin
adith%n=3-PL-stap D-3-PL-8at.a.meal
*<and then they would step mating>'

As can be seen i n each of t h e s e examples, the t w o vexbs

take t h e same pronoun (S-iv- in (42) and ( 4 4 1 , and in
( 43 ) ) . The secand vexb is marked by a dependent

Sentential subjects and a e n t e n t i a l camplements

follow the main c l a w e :
(48) JH59-209L2O9Rf t x t 20, line 003 59.2095

rThey have no word in the Indian lainguage meaning "to lockmf

In each o f these examples, the main clause is followed

by the sentential subject or the eentential complement.
In this type of c o n s t ~ c t i o n , the sentential
subject/complement i s typically marked by a dependent
proclitic U,
which i s seen in examples ( 4 5 1 - ( 4 8 ) . In

which is a d i r e c t quote.
 Below we will examine s e v e r a l repxesentative
c o n d i t i o n a l and t h e a d v e r b i a l c ~ a u s e si n Barbareiia.
These tmes of clause^ appear e i t h e r b e f o r e or after the
main c l a u s e , thaugh it h much more common to f i n d them
before t h e main clause:

siYeq8t6 hinab&? hha~tuhtuh&y

S-iv-erne8 hi==noho+-?hi==na =s-R-tuhay
3-PL-sing DP==much+EHD-hens3-R-rain
HUB TmE
Vl%ey sing a l o t when it is raining.'

As can be seen in t h e s e examples, the proclitic na=

means e i t h e r if OS @whenm In (50 t h e p=-marked
c l a u s e precedes t h e main clause, and in (51) it follows
the main clause. I n t h e farmex, the main clause is
marked by a prac1iti.c 2i=, sad i n t h e liittez the
dependent c l a u s e i s marked by a dependent p r o c l i t i c hi.=.
This is a t y p i c a l p a t t e r n a s s o c i a t e d with c o n d i t i o n a l
and t h e adverbial clauses: when the dependent clause
precedes t h e main clau8e, t h e main clause is marked by
t h e p r a c l i t i c 3i-; and when the dependent clause follows
the w i n clause, t h e dependent c l a u s e i s marked by t h e
dependent p r o c l i t i c &. Here are nore examples:

-
UmD
*If a conet leeks red or ha8 a xeddish color,

cam
if they have thoughts.'

-
a-iv-R+anSin -? he?=l =~+?invu- - 7
when 3-PL-R+eat.a.meal-? PRX=ART=R+Indian-EM
TInE
#-en Indims are eating a mealr>
-
?i=s-iy-e-tieawi&
?X=3-PL-N-talk
mmi
they don't talk.'
The particles ham and may mark c o n d i t i o n a l and
time adverbial clauses respectively. As can be seen i n
-
( 5 2 1 ( 55 ) , they can occux befoxe or after the main verb.
The following examples i l l u 8 t r a t e the use o f reason
purpose clauses:

lmxle
'We &ink the ocean

to vomit a t both enda m

The reason c l a u s e is mukeci by a p a r t i c l e b y k & and the -

puxpose clause is maxked by a p r o e l i t i c Eukanu. Shorter

foxm @uk4, m, and are o f t e n used to mark purpose
clauses. As can be seen i n t h e s e examples, these types
of clauses follow t h e main c l a u s e .
Finally, t h e following example illustrates haw
sequential events are typically expressed in Barbarefio:
( 5 8 ) JH59.36R-40L, txt 175, line 015 59.38R
*The n e x t a.m. very early the rooster crowed. His crowing
sounded very sad.
-
h i k a s h han
Jrii+kq==s-sdan
isiw?I-won
hi=$-R+iwon
DP+so~3-continue-toDP=3-R+aound
And he kept on crowing

<and t h e o l d man got sad at him,>'

Each sequential clause is marked by a combination of

2 . 6 . Summary

I have presented an overview of the grammar of

Barbareno Chumash so that readers may have enough f a c t s
to follow t h e rest of the d i s s e r t a t i o n . S p e c i f i c a l l y we
examined distinctive sounds, basic morphological
structure and lexical categories, argument structure and
pronominal affixes, constituent order, and clause-
35
combining.
 Motes for Chapter 2
1. The examples i n t h i s dissertation are given i n t h e
format illustrated in t h e following example:
1 JE59.3L-SR. t a c t 166, GN line 013 59.5L
\\
2 hilled h i l t i p A -wil hilr?kiyaKllir,
3 h i d =h hi-l çtipawi hi=he?*k-iy-?aqli&
4 DPçARTçpera DPÈARTçtal DPÇPRXçl-PL-langua
5 a person who talks our <1anguaqe>.

Line 1 gives t h e text reference information. In t h e

above example, 'JH59.3L-5R' indicates that the example
is taken out of the text which appears from the Left
page of frame # 3 to the r i g h t page of frame t 5 of reel
# 5 9 of the Earrington microfilms. (Each frame c o n t a i n s
t w o o r i g i n a l pages. ) 'Tact 166 * refers to the number
assigned t o t h e t e x t and ' l i n e 013 refers to t h e line
number within the text, both assigned by Suzanne Wash.
'GNP indicates t h a t t h e example i s taken from t h e
grammatical notes found with t h e text, which Harrington
often gave. Finally, the last item on the reference
l i n e '59.5Lr indicates t h e exact location where t h e
example is found: t h e l e f t page of frame #S of reel #59.
S i m i l a r y 'MB, FN2, p74' would mean that t h e example i s
taken from page 7 4 of Heelerrs f i e l d notebook # 2 . Line
2 gives the way t h e o r i g i n a l data w e r e recorded. Some
substitutions in Harringtonss original orthography have
been made. They are as follows: g -> g, - ->
6 h 9
-, - -> 2.e

Glottalized consonants as written by Harrinqton (e.g.,

^\
S, G , g, S, ff, 2)are written here as &, U , g, &, A,
L. Line 3 and line 4 are the morphological analysis and
the morpheme-by-morpheme gloss respectively, given by
Suzanne Wash or myself. A hyphen (-) and an equal sign
(=) on those lines indicate an affix and a clitic
boundary respectively. Though not illustrated in the
above example, a plus sign (+) there would indicate a
morpheme boundary in a lexicalized expression. Line 5
gives the English translation for the example. If the
translation is given in c>, it means that it is provided
by Suzanne Wash or myself because either it was not
provided by the original recorder or it was given in
Spanish. Often, the original translation does not
exactly cover the meanings of all the words and the
morphemes found in each example; it represents o n l y what
the relevant example basically means. I chose to
represent exactly the translations of the original
recorders in order to stay as close as possible to what
is intended not only by them but also by the speaker
M a r y Yee. This may sometimes cause readers difficulty
in matching up the word-by-word gloss and the
translation* I will t r y to explain when necessaq.

2. The tern @dependent was first introduced by Wash

(1995b) to describe bi*.

3* Certain verbs, such as eha @goodp, wil 'be' and

univiw znecessaryt, seem to prefer t h e p r e f i x 2 a L ,
e s p e c i a l l y when they have a s e n t e n t i a l subject as in t h e
following example:
( 3 0 ) JB59-327L-332&, t x t 138@ line 021 59.331R
3. Argument s t r u c t u r e

The puqpase of t h i s chaptex i s t o d e s c r i b e the

argument s t r u c t u r e of Ba.rbaxefio Chumash* By examining
t h e pronominal system of Barbarefio, I will first suggest
t h a t certain arguments of verbs are t r e a t e d as integxal
parts of t h e vexb because they are expressed i n t h e form
of gr-tically required psonaminal a f f i x e s . I will
take this as c r i t e r i a 1 far t h e claim t h a t t h e y are core
arguments m Next I will show that facts about
constituent order c o r x e l a t e with t h i s observation: when
both core arguments and obliques are expressed as f u l l
NPs i n clauses, t h e c o r e arguments d i r e c t l y follow t h e
vex% and are folluwed by t h e obliqnes. Then I w i l l
describe t h e m o ~ h ~ l o g i c a ls,y n t a c t i c , and pragmatic
c h ~ a c t e r i s t i c sassociated with t h e two v e r b a l suffixes
-us and -in* I w i l l suggest t h a t these suffixes are
core = m e a t - b u i l d i n g devices, devices u m d t o c r e a t e
d i r e c t o b j e c t s from argwnents t h a t might atherwise be
c a s t as obliques. T h e presence of these devices i n the
grammar i t s e l f f u r t h e r suggests t h e importance of t h e
core-oblique d i s t i n c t i o n i n Barbaxeiio* Finally, I w i l l
briefly d i s c u s s t h e gsamauatical status of patients
occurring with verbs maxked by ane uf t h e c o r e argument-
building devices*

nodnative-accusative pattenling i n which t h e agent

argument of t r a n s i t i v e clauses and t h e s i n g l e argument
of i n t r a n s i t i v e clauses are treated in one w a y and t h e
patient argument of t z a n ~ i t i v eclauses is t r e a t e d in
another way. W e observed this p a t t e m i n g with r e l a t i o n
to t h e pzanuminal marking on the verb. L e t us go back
to the examples in 2*3. which illustrated this

In t h e s e examplea, the subjectss me marked w i t h t h e

prefix cm t h e verb regardless of t h e i z agency or t h e
t r m s i t i v i t y of t h e verb, and t h e r e is no mzufing for
the ciixect abject* Thus the pronominal marking on t h e
verb exhibits n o d n a t i v e - a c c u s a t i v e p a t t e m i n g .
I n 2*3., w e further examined the s p e c i f i c s of this
pronominal marking, and observed t h a t it makes fairly
elaborate dietinetions for both subjects and dixect
o b j e c t s i n tern of pexson and number (see Tables 3 and
4 in chapter 2 ) . What seems to be most s i g n i f i c a n t

&out t h i s pronominal system i s t h a t i t s e l a b o r a t e

marking is qrmatically xequired and only certain
arguments of verbs are marked by it. Xn terms of the
argument s t r u c t u r e of t h e verb, t h i 8 f a c t seems t o
suggest that the arguments expressed by t h e pronouns may
have a g p e c i a l s t a t u s i n t h e g r m x of Barbaxefia
Chumash: they are c o r e arguments of t h e verb ( C r o f t
1991; Thompson t o a p p e a r ) *
The p r e s e n t hypothesis n i c e l y agrees with t h e
moqhologicd, syntactic, and p ~ a g m a t i cc h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e t w a v e r b a l s u f f i x e s -us and -in
d i s c u s s e d i n 3 . 3 * : t h e s e m e devices which give coxe
status (as d i x e c t o b j e c t s ) t o arguments t h a t would
otherwise be oblique* I n o t h e r wards, t h e behaviar of
t h e s e suf f h e s farthex demonstrates that the distinction
between coxe azquments and obliques plays an important
role in the grammar of Bubarefio. Befare we examine
these suffixes, howeve=, I will discuss another area of
BazbaxeEo grammar which displays the impartancze af this
distinction: constituent order.

3.2. Constituent order

1x1 accordance w i t h t h e pronominal m ~ k i n gon verbs,
facts of constituent order seem to correlate with the
core-obli-e distinction made for t h e arguments of
verbs* Specifically, when both core arguments and
obliques appeax as Cull SIPS in a clause, nomally the
core arguments follaw the verb and are then followed by
the obliques. X t has been found cross-lin~istically
that the subjects of transitive clauses are rarely
expressed as full NPs in discourse (Du Bois 1987 ) . I
found this to be the case with Barbaxefio* (Far more
detail, see chaptez 5 1 In the unusual instances in
which transitive eubjects are expressed as full NPs, it
is extremely rare to find them with obliques, which are
=extra argumentsa. For this reason, below we will only
look at the order of intransitive subjects and
transitive dimet objects in r e l a t i o n t o abliques
[ 4 ) JHS9.6L-?S, 3, line 002 59e6R
( 1 0 ) JH59*96Z-97R8 t%t 18S8 l i n e 001 59-96L
h- - iik i & - k ~ ~ khifa?
t t ~ ~ ~ ~ hiho~wdUd$,
hi=mafi k-i&-R-IcupuiS us1 =?o? Q-,&
D h h e n l-DW-R-dip DBARTwater DP-DIS=ART'-bucket
v Do/PM! SuURcE
'when we are dipping water out of a bucket,'
(11) JH59*676R-681L8 txt ?S8 l i n e 005 59.679R

(12) JH59*474L-475R8 txt 83, line 005 59.474L

(13) m59.518R-S20G862%G629L8 ts& 9T8 line 016 59.628%

\l
?apS kigeKw&l *i,
?apZ k-i5-eqwel =I =a
l e t 1-DV-maJce D-3-seat DP=ART=IDF
W m/Pl4T =C
* L e t s make a seat for 8amebody,#
( 1 4 ) JE59.466L-467R8 t x t 798 l i n e 007 59.466L

v m / P ~ msTR
'she had her face c o v e r e d w i t h a cloth8

Notice that there is no formal marker which indicates

t h e semantic r e l a t i o n s h i p of these obliques to the verb
(Beeler and Whistler 1980). In each of these examples,
a core argument precedes an oblique in a clause
regardless of the semantic type of the oblique.
S p e c i f i c a l l y, i n (4 ) -( 8) , the subject precedes the
oblique i n btrmsitive clauses and in ( 9 ) - 14 , the
( )

direct object precede8 the abLique in transitive

clauses. This particulax ordering can be i n t e r p r e t e d as
iconically motivated: aquments semantically more
closely t i e d t o the verb are placed closer t o it than
less c ~ u s e l yt i e d anes. This further suggests that the
grammar of Barbmefio attends t o t h e ~ s t i n c t i o nbetween
core arguments and obliquese
As we wiL1 see i n t h e next section, certain
argument8 which might otherwise be oblique are c a s t as
core arguments when one of the core u m e n t - b u i l d i n g
s u f f ~ ei s~ attached. Xn such c a s e s , these arguments
are normally expressed immediately a f t e r t h e verb,
reflecting the status change. This order further
supports the present analysis.

3.3* Care a r w e n t - b u i l d i n g device3 -us and -in

E3axbaxefio has two verbal suffixes, -us and -in,
which change the =guntent stricture of the verb.
S p e c i f i c a l l y , the w e of these s u f f i x e s indicates t h a t
c e r t a i n arguments which would otherwise be obliques are
d i r e c t objects of t h e verb, that ist cure arguments. l
This type of device ia found i n many other languages and
1988; Croft 1991; Mithun 1994; F a h e r 1994; Ichihashi-
Nakayama 1996; Shibatani 1996; Austin to appear).
Belowp w e w i l l discuss the mo~holagical,syntactic, and
pragmatic e h ~ a c t e x i s t i c sa s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e use of -us
and -in. These c h e a c t e r i s t i c s w i l l indicate t h a t
relevant arguments have direct a b j e c t status ( L e , core
argument status 1 . We will f i x s t discuss the suffix -us,
which gives direct object status t o datives, and then
discuse t h e saffix --in, which gives direct object status

3.3.1. The dative -us

The vexbal s u f f i x -us CO-occuxs with a c e r t a i n type
of NP i l l u s t r a t e d t h e following examples:
(15) JH59.563R-57lR, t a c t 107, line 020 59*566L
(17) JHS9.4OR-44L, txt 176, line 0 0 8 59.41R

( 2 0 ) JH59.63lR-632R, t x t 127, line 0 0 8 5 9 - 6 3 2 s

?and have the m e who is to be a, mother <&ink its'

Note that, in ( X 6 ) , the patient 'itrrefers ta pitch or

~ l k e e d - j u i c e , which is not expressed as a full HP.
Readers may xemember that, in & ~ ~ b a r e f i fau~ l l W s axe
not requixed fox a clause to be grammatical, and that
the third person singular direct object has no mulcing
on the verbe Note also that, in (201, the verb @drinkr
appears w i t h the causative prefix su-, and the @mother8
is t h e person who i~ made to &inke The patient @it8
refexs ta tea, which is not expreesed as a full NP.
Naw, in all of the above examples, the suffix -us
is found at t h e end of the verb and i.8 followed by a
f u l l HP expressing an e n t i t y which seems to b e b e s t
c h a r a c t e r i z e d as t h e t a r g e t of an a c t i v i t y or emotion,
o r an e n t i t y i n d i r e c t l y affected (Blake 1994 ) . Further,
t h e r e f e r e n t of t h e NP co-occurring with -ua is a
s e n t i e n t being, a n a t u r a l self-moving e n t i t y like 'wavef
i n (19) o r an e n t i t y s u b j e c t e d to a r e l i g i o u s a c t i o n
because it is associated with a supernatural b e i n g such
as 'a rock p l a c e which was blessed by a p r i e s t because
t h e Devil was appearing t h e r e * in ( 1 8 ) . Similar sets of
NPs are found to be l i n g u i s t i c a l l y t r e a t e d as a c a t e g o r y
i n d i f f e r e n t languages and are o f t e n called 'dativef
(Blake 1994; Palmer 1994). I w i l l adopt t h i s t e r m to
refer t o t h e type of NPs i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h e above
examples.
The use of the dative s u f f i x -us seems to be
lexically determined t o a l a r g e extent. There are
several observations which suggest this analysis.
F i r s t , only c e r t a i n verbs appeax with us. I n examining
t h e d a t a , paying a t t e n t i o n t o t h e cases i n which -us
appeaxs, one n o t i c e s t h a t t h e v e r b s that occur with -us
are r a t h e r limited i n number. Second, some v e r b s seem
always ta occur with t h e s u f f i x -us; 1 have not seen
them without -ua i n my d a t a . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , t h e s e v e r b s
t o g e t h e r with -U% a ~ etzeated a8 independent l e x i c a l
i t e m s by earlier researchers i n c l u d i n g Whistler (1980),
and fo- without -us are n o t found in these suuxces.
One such example i s t h e verb yikus # t o g i v e * , seen i n
( 1 6 ) above. Notice t h a t t h e e v e n t described by t h i s
verb always involves a recipient, which may be
responsible for the lexicalization of this verb
involving t h e d a t i v e r e c i p i e n t . Third, t h e r e a r e o t h e r
verbs which c o n t a i n -us whenever a d a t i v e argument is
p r e s e n t i n t h e u t t e r a n c e ; speakers do n o t seem t o have
had a choice . One such example i s t h e verb a 'to sayp

seen i n ( 15 ) above. Whenever 'a person who i s t a l k e d

t u g i s discussed by t h e speaker, ? i appears
~ with the
suffix -us. Fourth, o f t e n t h e semantics i n d i c a t e d by
the use of -us i s r a t h e r i d i o s y n c r a t i c ; each verb seems
to have had a p a r t i c u l a r meaning a s s o c i a t e d with t h e use
of --uso That i s , t h i s suffix sometimes i n d i c a t e s t h e
r e c i p i e n t of t h e event, o t h e r times t h e b e n e f i c i a r y of
t h e event, depending on t h e verb; o t h e r meanings do n o t
seem t o be p o s s i b l e . So, f o r example, t h e e u f f i x -us on

t h e verb alwaye i n d i c a t e s the person who i s t a l k e d

to, n o t t h e b e n e f i c i a r y of t h e event, which should
c e r t a i n l y be a p o s s i b i l i t y i n a sentence l i k e 'I s a i d
that f o r himr. These observations seem to suggest that
the uses af -ua are laxgely lexically determined*
The addition o f -us to the verb seems ta change i t s
argument structure. S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e dative acquires
core argument status by becoming the direct o b j e c t . One
i n d i c a t i o n o f this may b e seen i n the f a c t t h a t t h e
marker -12s is expressed as a part of the verb. There
are several other observations which support this
analysis* F i r s t , appearing after -us an t h e verb, the
3rd person plural suffix -wun marks the p l u r a l i t y of the

dative, not of the p a t i e n t . Examine the following

examples :
(21) JH59.70R-76R, t x t 181, line 021 59.76R

' t h e y bring food to the Indians*Â

(22} JS59.214L-214R, txt 222, line 002 59.214L

In (21), it i s 'the Indians which is p l u r a l , not

'food', and t h e verb takes t h e t h i r d person plural
markex -wun a f t e x the d a t i v e marker -us. Similarly, in
( 2 2 ) , it is ' t h e people' which is p l u r a l , not ,it ( a
whale) c , and t h e wezb again takes t h e same s u f f i x e s -us-
-
wun. W e have t h u s seen t h a t the d a t i v e s appearing with
-us a r e treated moqhologically like d i r e c t o b j e c t s a
Second, a fact about constituent oxder also
supports t h e p s e s e n t analysie. In t h e above examplesf
the d a t i v e NI? directly follaws t h e verb i n a c l a u s e .
How, when both the dative and the p a t i e n t a r e expressed
as f u l l Ws in a c l a u s e f t h e d a t i v e typically follows
the verb and i s followed i n turn by the p a t i e n t , as
shown in ( 2 1 ) and in t h e follawing example:

I n t h e s e examples, t h e verb i s masked by t h e s u f f i x -us,

and t h e d a t i v e W precedes t h e p a t i e n t i n t h e clause.
This o r d e r is e x a c t l y t h e a p p o s i t e of the ane shown by
t h e p a t i e n t direct object and the oblique i n regular
t r a n s i t i v e c l a u s e s , discussed i n 3 - 2 . We have t h u s seen
that when d a t i v e NPe appear with the suffix -us on the
vezb, they are treated sptactically like direct
abjects .
Finally, when we examine t h e s e m a t i c e of datives
as well as the discourse c a n t e x t s i n which they appear,
w e f i n d t h a t they are c e n t r a l p m i c i p a n t s i n the event
d e s c r i b e d by t h e verb, e~pecially compared t o t h e
patient. It was noted above t h a t t h e r e are Borne verbs
which a l w a y s a c c u r w i t h t h e suffix -us and t h e r e are
ather verbs which occxu with the suffix -us whenever a
d a t i v e is p r e s e n t in t h e u t t e r a n c e * 1 would like t o
hypothesize t h a t t h i s may be related to t h e often-
propcased euqgestian t h a t humans like to t a l k about
themselves {Giv6n 1983 Thampson 1990 ) . That is,
because af t h e i n h e r e n t semantics of d a t i v e s ( L e * ,
humanness), it i~ l i k e l y t h a t t h e y aze viewed by t h e
speakexxi as central pa*icipants in an event*
E s p e c i a l l y w h e n thexe are both a d a t i v e and a patient i n
the uttezance, it i s l i k e l y t h a t t h e speaker views the
d a t i v e as a more c e n t r a l p a r t i c i p a n t to t h e event than
the p a t i e n t because the f o m e r is normally human b u t the
lattez is not m It seems that far this reason datives
are t r e a t e d l i n ~ i s t i c a l l yas an i n t e g r a l part of t h e
verb (i.e., by the verbal -us),
8~ffi.3~ just l i k e
subjects and direct objects in regular transitive
clauses. In othex wordsf I am suggesting here t h a t
since datives are viewed as c e n t r a l p e i c i p m t s i n t h e
event, t h e i r pxesence itself normally guaxantees that
their involvement is expressed as a coxe iiqtzment ( i. e.,

t h e direct o b j e c t ) and accordingly they appeaz w i t h the

However, there are a f e w cases in which t h e

presence of a dative doe5 not seem to be enough to
result i n t h e use of -us. One such example i s seen
regarding t h e use of t h e verb euwel ,makeg, which
typically appears w i t h -us when the d a t i v e i s present i n
the event:
( 2 4 ) JH59.27L49R, tact 172, GN l i n e 004 59.29L

We have already seen one exception to t h i s tendency

in (13) abovef reproduced here w i t h the e n t i r e t e x t as

Twa little g i r l s w e d ta play making a s e a t with by p a s p i n g

each athests arms. One Little gixL would with her zight hand
gxaap he= own left a m neaz her hand, and the other I L t t L e
girl wauld do likewise. Then with their left hands they
wauld grasp each othexxe m , amking a square seat, on which
a t h k d little gLr1 would sit. They wd say:
In this example, the vexb appeaxe without the
dative suffix -us and the dative r e c i p i e n t HE! tsameaneF
is expressed a f t e x the patient direct object NI? @ a
seat? As can be seen, the d a t i v e 8someoner is non-
referential and nan-identifidle* The text ie about a
game of making a seat using hands* In the context in
which this example appearst the speakex is saying that
when they didnet have anything else to do, they played
this game of making a eeat* Thus neither the
referentiality nor the identifidility of t h e dative
seems to really matter here. Probably for that reason,
it is the patient seatF which is treated as a core
argument { i e . , the direct object ) , not the dative in
this example*
S o these examples suggest that datives, unless they

are playing a minor role in the discauxse as seen i n

( 25 ) , tend to be viewed as central peicipants in
events because of their inherent semantics (Le.,
humanness)* Accnrdingly, datives are t r e a t e d as central
peicip-ts also in the language by being expressed as
an integral part of the verb. In other waxds, 1 am
suggesting that speakers axe indicating the centrality
of dative p e i c i p a t s by expressing their involvement
as core arguments.
Thus the m a ~ h a ~ a g i c a syntactic,
~, and pxagmatic
facts all seem to suggest that when the verb is marked
with -us, the dative becames the direct object, and this
suggests t h a t the s u f f i x -us is a device for building
care arguments. Interestingly, Barbarefio has another
device which turns semantic instruments i n t o direct
abjects. This is the t o p i c of the next section.

3.3.2. The instrumental -in3

The instmental marker -in seems tu be another
core arvent-building device: it allaws speakers to
cast semantic instruments as direct objects. There are
several ch~actezistics associated with this suffix
which are similar to the ones which we saw regarding the
dative marker -us in the last section. Examine the
following examples$
( 2 7 ) JH59.551L-552R, t x t 105, line 002

( 2 8 ) JH59.535L-538R, txt 102, line 015

*There w e r e 2 kinds of money made of <olivella>*

In these examples, the s u f f i x -in i s attached to the end
of the verb and i n d i c a t e s the instrumental function of
the associated HP. In ( 2 7 ) , the patient direct object
'itr refers to a child, which is not expressed as a full
NP. The reader nay remember that in Barbareno, full NPs
axe not r e q u i r e d for a clause to be grammatical, and
that the third person singular direct object has no
marking on the verb. As discussed in 2.3., the s u f f i x
-an, which appears between the verb a d t h e suffix -in
i n (281, i n d i c a t e s the plurality of the patient direct
object 'two kinds of moneye.
One thing which should be pointed out here is that
the term 'instrumental' is used not only for roles like
that i n ( 2 7 ) , which contains a canonical example of an
instrument, but a l s o for roles l i k e t h a t in ( 2 8 ) , in
which 'olivella' is clearly not an instrument for making
money. A better descriptive term for the latter may be
something like Omaterial* or 'source8. It seems that
both of these types of objects represent what the agent
manipulates in order to make t h e event take place. I am
using the tern 'instrumentalr for both types partly to
account for the fact that these two somewhat different
roles are indicated by the sane marker in Barbarefio.
There are several phenomena which suggest t h a t
instruments, like the datives discussed in t h e last
section, are dizect ub jects when they occur with -in.
First of a l l , when the instruments are plural, their
plurality may be indicated by the third person plural
marker -wun which i s suff5xed a f t e z t h e instrumental
marker -in:
( 2 9 ) JH59.313L-316R, t x t 163, l i n e 005 59.314R
'The Indians had many kinds of seeds which they used as food.

They used to make pinole out of them or boil them as mash.'

The suffix -WUQ marks the plurality of the instrumerit
@seedsr which are used to make 'pinole*. This is
similar t o t h e use of to maxk the p l u r a l i t y of the
patient d i r e c t object i n a regular transitive clause.
W e have thus seen t h a t the instruments appearing w i t h

- i ~are treated moqhologically l i k e direct objects.

Notice in the second line of (29) t h a t the same referent
'seedsr i s kept track of as the patient d i r e c t object of
the transitive verbs 'to boil' and ' t o mush' by the
plural suffix -wun.
Constituent order patterns also support the present
analysis. In the above examples, the instrumental HP
directly follows the verb in a clause. Interestingly,
when the patient is also a full HP, it typically fallows
the instrument, as shown in (28) and the following
examples :
(30) JH59.18lL-l82L, txt 17, line 001 59.1811,

(31) JH59.367R-38E, t a r t 142, GÃ line 0 0 4 59.370R

i$n
gKili?~~w6 - h i ~ p 6 h h+lxÈ6 hilstok,
S-qili-eqwel-?-h Jii-S-wft h a . 4 =%go? bi=i =stuk
3-H&B -sake -?-=S DPm3-wood DPmARTç8yca3~orDP=ARTÈbow
V IMSTR PAT
'he always made a bowl of sycamore wood. '

Notice t h i s order is exactly the opposite of t h e one

taken by the patient direct object and t h e oblique i n
regular transitive clauses, examples of which were
discussed in 3.2. We have thus seen t h a t when
instruments occux with the suffix -in on the verb, they
are treated syntactically like direct objects.
Finally, when we examine the roles of these
instrumental arguments in t h e discourse contexts where
they appear, we find that they are t r e a t e d as more
central participants than t h e patients at the level of
discourse. Examine the following example:
(32) JH59.165L-166L, txt 202, line 00lab 59.1651.
*The people long ago used to be in a hurry to get ready for
war, they would take deer-arrows and break each in t w o ,
maJu.ng two arrows out of one,

hiiaba? hilkuhku ?
hi=l =?&h&? hi=l =R+ku
.
-?
DP=ART*aany DP=ARTsR+person-EM
PAT
and w i t h the short arrows "they k i l l e d many people.'

This is t h e entire text. Though it is untitled, one can

tell from t h e content that the text is about the arrows
(instrument) not about the people (patient). As can be
seen, the instrument 'short, arrows' occurs with the
suffix -in on the verb, and in terns of constituent
order, the instrument precedes t h e p a t i e n t .
Examine ( 3 3 ) , which is a reproduction of ( 2 9 ) with
more context:
(33) Title: Native Seeds Do N o t B l o a t One
JH59.313L-316R8 txt 163, line 001 59.313R
Â¥<Thei seeds that they used to grow here and there, after
they would eat them,> they don't bloat you. Only the
brought-in beans produced bloatedness. The Indiana had many
kinds of seeds which they used as food.
a) siyKwelinvun ilpin6 li-
s-iy-eqvel-in -win hi=l q i n o l i
3-PL-make -IHS-3P0 DP=ART=pinole
PAS
They used t o make pinole out of them
b) kehafcu aiya&lnwun siysumoSwfin.
k e h h s-iy-?a*in-wun a-iy-su-moS -wun
or 3-PL-boil -3P0 3-PL-CA-mush-3P0
or boil them as mush.
None of these seeds bloated a person, as beans do. The
Indians had to learn to stand eating beans as Mexicans do.'

As the content as w e l l as the title suggest, t h i s t e x t

i s about Chumash n a t i v e seeds. The seeds are more
central to the text than 'pinole8, which is mentioned in
passing. As shown in a), the instrument 'seedsp appears
with the suffix ?in an the verb. In the follawing
clauses given i n b ) , t h e referent 'seeds8 is sustained
as the patient d i z e c t o b j e c t by t h e suffix -wn.
Cases such as these seem to suggest that because of
the centrality of some participants in the discourse,
they are treated as such also i n t h e language by being
expressed as an integral part: of the verb, much as are
subjects and direct objects in regular transitive
clauses. In other words, I am suggesting here that
speakers are indicating the centrality of those
participants by expressing their involvement as core
arguments.
Supporting t h e above observations, instruments
expressed as obliques do not s e e m t o play a c e n t r a l role
in the discourse. One such example i s ( 14 ) above, which
i s reproduced here with t h e entire t e x t as ( 3 4 ) :
( 3 4 ) JH59.466Lv467R, t x t 79, line 001 59.466L

'There were some Japanese wood-choppers cutting chaparral a t

S a n Rogue.It was chaparral 'that they were cutting. It was
a single family, consisting o f a man and a woman and some
children. The woman was cutting wood the same as t h e man --
-> kesiKm&ywaS iho?stek iio^row ilaaxi-&S,
Re =S-iqmay-wag bi=ho?=s-tier -? hi=l =?o&ow h i = l =inaxaki&
and=3-cover-PST DP=DIS=3-face-? DP-ARIawhite DP=ARTÈclot
DO/PAT IHSTR
she had her face covered with a cloth
She said that it is so I donet get tanned by the h e a t . '

In the utterance marked by the arrow, the verb is not

suffixed by -iq. Further, the p a t i e n t 'her face'
directly follows t h e verb and is followed by the
instrument 'white c l o t h ' . These facts suggest that 'her
face* is the direct object and 'white cloth* is an
oblique argument of the verb. The text is about a
Japanese woman trying to keep her face from getting
tannede4 Thus #white cloth' i s probably not as c e n t r a l
ta the s t a r y as %er face' itself. That fact seems ta
be responsible for the fact that t h e former is expzessed
as an oblique and the latter the dizect abject.
Ta sum up, moqhological, syntactic, and pzagmatic
patterns a l l seem to indicate that when the verb is
marked w i t h -in, the instrument has core argument status
as a direct object, which suggests t h a t t h e euffix -in
is a core a w e n t - b u i l & n g device; it turns instruments
i n t a direct objects.

3 * 4 * The status of the patient

One t h i n g we need to discuss befaze we c l o s e t h i s

chapter is the grammatical status of the patient
occurring w i t h a verb marked by one of the core
a r m e n t - b u i l d i n g devices. The different areas of t h e
language which we examined above do not seem t o give us
a clear picture. In terms af murphology, the patient
can s t i l l be marked by - w n , as can be seen in (28)
above, reproduced hexe as ( 3 5 ) :
The p l u r a l i t y of t h e p a t i e n t @ 2 kinds of money8 As
marked by --Q which appears befaze the i n s t r u m e n t a l
suffix ? i n on the verb. Obliques cannot be xnaxked with
- m n , which suggeste t h a t t h e p a t i e n t i n (35 ) i s t r e a t e d
a5 the direct object. However, s y n t a c t i c a l l y this type
of p a t i e n t i s not t r e a t e d as t h e direct object: it
occupies t h e s y n t a c t i c p u s i t i o n i n which obliques are
normally expzessed, as i l l u s t r a t e d in ( 3 5 ) . Finally, as
we have discussed above, p r a m a t i c a l l y t h i s type of
p a t i e n t does not p l a y a c e n t r a l role i n t h e d i s ~ o u r s e ,
compared to the dative or the instrument. Thus
examination uf t h e s e areas of the g r m a x s u g g e s t s t h a t
the patient a c c u ~ ~ i nwith
g a verb marked by one of t h e
c o r e a r m e n t - b u i l d i n g devices e x h i b i t s only one of t h e
f e a t u r e s aseociateci with ciixect o b j e c t s . This euggests
it may i n s t e a d be a rSecandary Object* i n t h e sense of
Dryer ( 1 9 8 6 ) .
3.5. S
--

We have looked a t the ~ ~ e s tn ~ ctt u r e of

Barbarefiu Cht~mash. W e f k s t saw that in terms of v e r b a l
moqholo~itexh3itn
s o h a t i v e - a c c u s a t i v e patterning:
the agent argument of ii txansitive c l a u s e and the s i n g l e
argument of an i n t r a n s i t i v e c l a u s e are t r e a t e d i n one
way (nadnative): and the patient argument of a
txansitive clause is treated in another way

(accusative). S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e farmer is expressed by

verbal p r e f i x e s , and t h e l a t t e r by v e r b a l s u f f i x e s .
These p a r t i c u l a r u g t m e n t s are thus treated as integral
parts of the verb by being expressed in t h e form of
g r m a t i c a l l y required a f f i x e s . This fact seems to
s u g g e s t that they have a s p e c i a l s t a t u s with relation to
t h e verbz they are core arguments. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , there
i s a syntactic phenomenon which carrelatee with t h i s .
Core arguments t e n d t o be expressed before a b l i e p e s i n
clauses: they are placed claser to the v e r b t h a n are
ubliques. W e then examined 8 e v e r a l c h m a c t e z i s t i c s
associated w i t h two vexbal suffhea -us and -in. These
c h ~ a c t e r i s t i c s 8uggest t h a t -us and -in axe core
=went-building devices that cast datives and
instruments as direct objects.' The pxesence of t h i s
type of device itself further suggests that the coze-
oblique distinction play8 an important role in the
grammar of Baxbarek Chumash* Finally, we saw that t h e
patient occurring w i t h t h e verb marked by one of t h e
core = v e n t - b u i l d i n g devices exhibits only one of the
characteristics associated with direct objects*
 Notes for Chapter 3
l. Beeler and Whistler (1980:94, Footnote 13) first
suggested this analysis for -U@.

2. Earlier studies have suggested that -us is a pronoun:

in essence it has been analyzed as a dative pronoun
(Beeler 1970a, 1976; Beeler and Whistler 1 9 8 0 ) . The
dative pronoun analysis of -us has certain appeal.
First, -us accupies the peaition in the verb where
direct object suffixes appear. Second, -us is not used
for the first and the second persons$

Unlike (19) above, the involvement of the second person

is indicated not by -us but by the direct object
pronominal suffix A. If -us is a core argument-
building device as the present study suggests, this is
a puzzling phenomenon: -us should also appeax in the
above example. Based on this type of data, the dative
pronoun analysis would present a pranount&le including
-us, as shown belaw:
 Table l: Baxbaxefio d i x e c t o b j e c t pronouns
SG (PAT) SG (DAT) MOH-SG (PAT) NON-SG (DAT)
l -it -it -iyuw -iyuw
2 -in -in -iyuw -iyuw
3 -us -wun -us -wun
how eve^, t h e r e i s a problem a l s o far t h e d a t i v e pronoun

analysis: why does only the third person make a

d i s t i n c t i o n between p a t i e n t and d a t i v e ?
T h e p r e s e n t d i s s e ~ a t i o ni n s t e a d analyzes -us a s a
core a r m e n t - b u i l d i n g device (applicative) f o r t h e
following r e a s o n s * ( B e e l e r and Whistler ( 1 9 8 0 ) a l s o
suggest this possfiility.) First, the highly
l e x i c a l i z e d n a t u r e of -us suggests it i s a d e r i v a t i o n a l
morpheme: t h e f u n c t i o n of 'core = v e n t - b u i l d i n g p is
much more likely to be expressed by derivational
morphology t h a n are pronouns. Second, more importantly,
the d a t i v e pxanoun a n a l y s i s would need t o account f o r
the moqholagical, syntactic, and pragmatic
c h m a c t e r i s t i c s a s s o c i a t e d with -us, which all suggest
t h a t it i s a c o r e = w e n t - b u i l ~ n g device. Pronouns
a r e not known f o r 8uch c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s * Third, under
t h e d a t i v e pronoun analysis, m e would a l s o have t o set
up a category @ i n s t m e n t a lpronoung f o r a n a t h e r suffix
-in, which, as w e w i l l see later in this chapter,

instruments.

3. Many of the idea8 expressed in this section were

first presented in Ono et ale (1994b].

4. It should be mentioned that for a woman to keep hex

face from getting tanned (that is, keeping it "whiteu}
is traditionally valued in Japanese c u ~ t u ~ e .

5 . There axe t w o other s u f f i x e s -pi and -mu2 which may

also be care =vent-building d e v i c e s * These suffixes

are used mostly as locative n o d n a l i z e r s as in$
(36) ~59.518R-S20L,628&-629&, t x t 97, l i n e 002[2]59-518R

( 3 7 ) J859.458R-464, t a c t 158, line 024 59.463R

@ the storelaouses @

However, 1 have found a few interesting examples:

 tThere in the willows was where the bad women hung around far
men.
In ( 38) , the locative - ~ i
appears as part of the verb
and s e a s to indicate t h e location where t h e moon was
shining: on t h e mussels. is further
Interestingly, - ~ i
followed by the third pexson singular direct object
suffix - a n a In (391, the location pwillowsrwhere the
bad women hung around for men is expressed preverbally
(see chapter 5 regarding this constituent order), and
the locative -mu2 is suffixed to the verb and again
ioll~wedby - w n a I have not found enaugh examples in
my data to determine whether -mi. and -mu2 are core
=vent-building devices. The rare occurrences of the
type of examples illustrated in ( 3 @ ] and (391 could be
precisely because locations are usually m t viewed by
the speaker as central t a t h e event, and thus are not
expreeseci as direct objects. Further investigation of
these morphemes i s necessary.
4 . Refez-ential choice

Like ather languages, Barbare60 has several

d i f f e r e n t ways of r e f e r r i n g t o a given p a r t i c i p a n t
(e.g. , diffexent f amus Feitb, t h a t wf and can r e f e r
t o e x a c t l y t h e same man i n E n g l i s h ) (Clancy 1980; Giv6n
1983; Chafe 1987; Fox 1987, 1 9 9 6 ) . I n t h i e section, I
w i l l d i s c u ~ er e f e r e n t i a l c h o i c e i n Barbareiio and examine
f a c t o r s which motivate t h e use of d i f f e r e n t forms i n
discourse. W e w i l l f i r s t l a a k a t the two most cwunonly
used refexential fom in Barbarego discourse:
pronominal a f f i x e s and f u l l noun phxases. Then w e will
look at two minor forms: independent pronouns and the
proximate demonstrative he?. W e w i l l see t h a t the use
of each form i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h specific factors which

are manifested i n discourse c o n t e x t s *

4 . L Pronadnal affixes

I n the preceding c h a p t e r s , w e saw t h a t verbs i n

Basbarefio are marked by pronominal affixes for c o r e
a n p m e n t s f and t h i s i s a grammatical requirement f o r
Barbare60 verbs. This requirement has been
g r m t i c i z e d to such an e x t e n t t h a t t h e r e axe even
cases of pronominal a f f i x e s which seem ta be present
only t o satisfy it. This is particularly evident in
subject pronouns, illustrated in the following examples:
(1) JH59.667I.-668R, txt 71, line 024 59.668R

"then they have t o throw the <bowl> awayt

( 2 ) JH59.327L-332I,, txt 138, line 021 59.331R
?aletih6 hisaakaywun iltoht6?
?al-e-Eho hi=s-am -kuy -W h i 4 =R+to -?
MM -8-good DPÈ3-IDF-talce-3P DP=ART=R+mussei-EM
'<It i s not good to gather mussels>'

As discussed in chapter 2, the prefix 2al- in (2) is

used as a replacement for the thizci person prefix e.
The use of t h e subject pronouns i n t h e s e examples seems
to be motivated by grammar: their main function i s t o
refer to the s i t u a t i o n expressed in the embedded clause
(similar to the 'it - thatR construction in English).
The following set of data f u r t h e r Illustrates the
highly grammaticized nature of Barbareno subject
pronouns :
( 3 ) JH59.128L-l28R, txt 11, line 004 59.1281.

sha~t~htt~.
8-8a?-tuhuy
3-FUT-rain
'it is g. to rain.?
 ijAi noho saxtatax;
ikhu noho &-&&tax
but vezy.much 3-cold
*But i f s very ccold;
' 1 1 first make a fire.'
( 5 ) JH59.181L-182L. tact 17, line 003.8 59.1811.
tguma?ii p-t
£ - m a i l g-naxyit
and=when 3-be. morning
'in the morningf

In ( 3 ) - ( 5 ) , none of t h e s u b j e c t pronouns i s r e f e r e n t i a l .
They are t h e r e simply because Barbareno grammar requires
them (i.e., t h e y can be thought of as 'dummy subjects').
Thus, the above examples suggest that Barbareno
pronominal affixes are h i g h l y grananaticized. (Unlike
other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , Barbareno i s similar to English
at least i n t h i s one r e s p e c t . ]
However highly graamiaticized the uses of t h e
pronominal a f f i x e s may be, it seems t h a t t h e i r main
f u n c t i o n s t i l l i s t o i n d i c a t e t h e involvement of some
p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e e v e n t d e s c r i b e d by t h e verb. They
a r e always on t h e verb, and that i s what i s minimally
r e q u i r e d by the grammar. This suggests t h a t , i n terms
of t h e r e f e r e n t tracking system i n Barbareno, pronominal
affixes may be t h e d e f a u l t referential choice.
And i n fact when one looks at Barbareno d a t a with
this hypothesis in mind, one finds that the use of
pronominal affixes alone Is by far the most common w a y
of keeping track of referents in discourse. The
following examples are t y p i c a l discourse segments in the
data. They are indicative of the high frequency of
reference by pronominal, affixes alone:
(6) JH59.407R-409L, txt 58, line 001 59.408L
h6?€ilfk n i i i i s i y - d u t a p i n ~ a i,
ho =?alikon maii =S-iv-ahtapin -wag
DIS=In<iian.Orchard afte-3-PL-eat.supper-PST
'<At Indian Orchard, after they ate supper,>

iroe=tSi siyRili?alas&l,
?i=&eEi S-iy-qili-?alaa&l
? I=always 3-PLHAB -pray
<they used to pray,:
t ~ d isifraldalwag %as*-saKutlhan,
Eu ==BM&. S-iv-?alas&l-wag Uika=s-iv-saqt*m
but=after 3-PL-pray -PST DPiso=3-PL-tell.a.story
<but after they prayed> they told bed-time stories
kXffl kasiyw6n.
k h ka =s-i~-weh
and then*-PL-go.to.bed
then they vd go to bed'
( 7 ) JH59.88R-89R, txt 9, l i n e 001 59.89L
m&- ii si$v&ahSgh he?li~in@: ?,
mail S-iy-R+anBin -? he?=l =R+?inyu - - ?
when 3-PL-R+eat.a.meal-? PRX=ARTçR+Indian-E
^When Indians axe eating a meal,>
i-siye-tip& wil -
?i=s-iv-e-tipawil
.
?Id-PL-N-talk
they don't talk.
-
? iy6 -he p s ~ h - ~ h a ~ h a l a-nus^^ttn,
l&
? i y e h 2-R+saqhalalm-us -man
though 2-?%+holler -PAT-3P0
the you holler at them
 they don't hear you.'

In ( 6 ) , the participant 'they8 is kept track of by

several instances o f the 3rd person plural subject
prefixes S-iv-. In (7 1 , the participant 'Indians is
kept track of again by the same prefixes as well as the
3rd person plural dixect object suffix m-n, and
similarly the generic 'you' is kept track of by both the
2nd person singular subject prefix g= and the 2nd person
singular direct object suffix -in. These examples thus
illustrate that much of the referential work in
Barbarefio is performed by pronominal affixes alone.
Now the amount of information which these affixes
encode is rather small ( o n l y person, number, and case).
For this reason, they seem to be used in situations in
which that much information is sufficient for clear
identification of the referents. That is, these affixes
are used to talk about participants whose referents have
already been fully established in the discourse ('given
information' in Chafe's term (1976, 1987, 1994)).
Example (7) above, which is taken fromthe beginning of
the text, illustrates this point. In (71, the
participant 'Indians' is established at the beginning by
being explicitly introduced by the pronominal affixes -
and a full HP. The participant 'you' is a generic
reference which does not require an explicit
introduction. (Example (6) is discussed below.)
Here is another example taken from the beginning of
a text,:
(8)JH59.205L-205R, txt 21, line 001 59.2051,
a) nasiyexpftS ihe?lt&&* ?i?alsa?tuh&y .
na =s3-iy4qeE w=he?=l =&U? ?i=?al-sa?-tuhuy
when=3-PL-sing DP*PRX=ART=bird.sp ?I=NM -FUT-rain
'When the huitacoches sing, it is going to rain.

^I \\
?iyalth&-&in hi?alsa?aktinlr2: hiiuw6-&U,
ly-?al-&akin hi=u-sa?-akti-nuna him1 =?uwthu
likely PL-MM -know DP=NM -EWT-come-bring DP=ART==food
they know it is going to bring food,
e) siyexp8t5 hinoh67 hina~tuhtubfl~
fi-iv-expeE hi=naho+-? hi-a =a-R-tuhuy
3-PL-sing DPçnuch+E DPawhenm3-R-rain
They sing a lot when it is raining. '

Again bu2 F huit-acoches is explicitly introduced in

p

line a) with the third person plural subject prefixes

iv- and a full W . After this introductionf it i8 kept

subject prefix &= ( ~ s c ~ ~ s in

e c2.
i 3.). Xn line d), the
participant 'rain, F explicitly introduced in line b) , is
r e f e r r e d to by t h e prefix Jal-.
Example ( 6 ) above, which i s a l s o t a k e n from t h e
beginning of t h e text, e x h i b i t s a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t way
i n which p a r t i c i p a n t s are e s t a b l i s h e d i n discourse. In
t h i s example, t h e p a r t i c i p a n t 'they' is introduced by
t h e s u b j e c t pronouns S-iv- t o g e t h e r with t h e p l a c e name
'Indian Orchardr, and t h a t seems t o be s u f f i c i e n t t o
establish the referent i n t h e discourse: apparently
' t h e y r are ' t h e people a t Indian OrchardF. That i s , i n
t h i s example, though the i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e p a r t i c i p a n t
i n t h e discourse i s not done as e x p l i c i t l y as i n ( 7 ) and
( 8 1 , t h e r e f e r e n t s t i l l s e e m s t o be c l e a r enough t h a t it

can b e r e f e r r e d back t o by t h e s u b j e c t pronouns i n t h e

rest of t h e discourse.
Among different. activities dealing with
participants i n discourse, it seems t h a t maintaining
e s t a b l i s h e d r e f e r e n t s i s n o t a task which demands much
c o g n i t i v e effort.. The verbs appearing with pronominal
a f f i x e s alone i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e same p a r t i c i p a n t s are
s t i l l being t a l k e d about. W e s a w above t h a t pronominal

affixes a r e p a r t of what is minimally r e q u i r e d by t h e

grammar. That is, what w e have here i s t h e following:
t h e smallest l i n g u i s t i c device, minimally r e q u i r e d by
the graimnar, is reserved for a task requiring probably
the least amount of cognitive effort in handling
discourse participants. In other words, this pairing of
form and function in Barbareno is iconically motivated,
as has been found cross-linquistically (Clancy 1980;
Given 1983). Interestingly, we noted above that this
grammatically least marked referential choice is most
prevalent in Barbarefio discourse in terms of its
frequency. We will examine in the next section the
other extreme of this iconic pairing in which a
linguistically larger device than pronominal affixes is
used for tasks which seem to require more cognitive
effort than maintaining established participants.
Thus w e have seen that pronominal affixes are part
of what is minimally required by the grammar. They are
used when the referents have already been fully
established in the discourse, and they are the most
common referential choice h Barbareh discourse.

4.2. Full noun phrases

In the last section, we saw some instances of
pronominal affixes co-occurring with a full noun phrase.
Specifically, we saw that full NPs are used along with
pronominal a f f i x e s when t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s are introduced
i n t h e d i s c o u r s e f o r t h e f i r s t time. Unlike t h e task of
maintaining a l r e a d y established p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the
discourse, the introduction of participants can be
argued to be a more cognitively demanding task,
r e q u i r i n g a m o r e e x p l i c i t form than pronominal affixes.
Thus for this t a s k n o t o n l y t h e pronominal a f f i x e s , t h e
d e f a u l t marking r e q u i r e d by t h e grammar, b u t also f u l l
Nfs are used. As f o r obliques, t h e y are not marked an
t h e verb by a f f i x e s , so only full NPs are used t o
express them. In this section, we will examine
s i t u a t i o n s in which full NPs are used f o r d i f f e r e n t
tasks which seem to r e q u i r e more c o g n i t i v e effort t h a n
maintaining r e f e r e n t s i n the discourse.
As j u s t noted, one obvious s i t u a t i o n i n which full
NPs are used i s t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of p a r t i c i p a n t s into
t h e discourse . Examples (7 1 and ( 8 ) are two such cases.
Here i s another one:
(9) JH59.656R-657L, t x t 5 0 , line OOla 59.656R

?iaiyXilihlk hilati~wit~'!? B hiho?siyy&?,

?i=a-iy-qili-hik as1 S? at- * W - 5 '=ho?=s-iv-va?
?l=3-PL-H&B -apply DPÈARTçpois DP*DIS=3-PL-arrow
ethey used to apply poiaon to their arrows,>
 siykfty -
iho?smol6 &n hi~co~k8~,
S-iy-kuy
3-PL-take DP=DIS=3=saliva DPÈARTçfrog.
<tailcing the saliva of a frog,>

siyuÈ?-tap hilt$ofi$oÈn ? -
hiUOhkiki - 7 ,
a-iy-uS?itap hi-l =R-&ovni--? his1 =~-Icxlb> -W?
A
-
3-PL-ffiix DPçART=R-other- DP=ARTçR-thing-
They mix it with other things'

This is the beginning of the text. As can be seen,

several different participants (underlined) are

introduced f o r t h e f i r s t time i n the discourse. Full
noun phrases (along w i t h pronominal prefixes f o r t h e
subject) are used for this purpose. After the
introduction, 'the Tularefios', 'a frog', and 'the
s a l i v a F are kept track o f by pranominal a f f i x e s S-iv-,
, and non-marking r e s p e c t i v e l y . (Remember t h a t the
third person singular direct o b j e c t i s unmarked.;
It should be noted that the introduction of
participants by one explicit mention does not always
e s t a b l i s h them i n t h e discourse. There are cases i n
which participants axe repeatedly mentioned by f u l l NPs
a t t h e introductions
(10) JH59.583L-584L, txt 49, line 001 59.5831.
a) mal&*&e ki& anan&-&, '?i& s i i a i k - t i ' l t6,
mal* MU. snanahu ?ikhu a i i a A e 5 i t o
any what kind but mostly mussel
'any kind of shell, but mostly mussel shell
b) ftaykg he?gtu?l-w&fhilt6
ftayk6 )Èe?=(tu?iwa hi=l =&a
because PRX=shell DP=ARTaaaussel
because ethe shell o f a mussel,>

They put. "the mussel-shell on the hot coals,

\ i

e) hikaaa- ii s?aluipaw& -tun,

hi+ka=maii S-?aluSpawatun
DP+so=when 3-bum.to.ashes
and when it is reduced to ashes

hihulSBw,
hi=ho =l =Sow
DP=DIs=ART-wild. tobacco
t h e y take it and mix it with t h e Sow8

This i s a t the beginning of t h e text. The discourse

participant 'mussel s h e l l 0 i s explicitly mentioned t w i c e
w i t h a full ftP along with a pronominal a f f i x , and after
that it is kept. track of only by t h e pronominal a f f i x e s .
Notice i n l i n e a), a t the very beginning of this
sequence, 8mussel' itself i s introduced with a f u l l NP
first. It shows t h a t sometimes it takes more than a
s i n g l e explicit mention t o e s t a b l i s h participants i n the
discourse.
Here i s another example:
(11) JH59.334L-344R, txt 137, line 001-1 59.334R
'The old-time Indians had only f i r e l i g h t in the house. <They
would make a. f i r e in. the middle of the house. So that as the
flame burned, the whole inside of the house was lit up. The
old-time Indiana had only f i r e l i g h t in the house.

When the Spaniards came they brought t a l l o w candles, from

Mexico,
- v\
b) 6 he?lvelweiS-? ?i-At6 -wits higiyapl-
?ikhu he?=l =R+wela -? ?i=s-SutowiE hi.==s-iy-apiqen
but ?RX=ARTÈR+candle-E ?I=3-be.quick DP=3-P&-bum

but candles burned down q&Ac3.y and w e r e expensive.'

Again, the participant 'tallow candlesr i s expressed

t w i c e w i t h a f u l l HP. N o t i c e here that it is expressed
for the first time a s 'tallow candlese and then
'candlese suggesting t h a t the second mention may not
have t o be as explicit as t h e first mention (Given
1983). These examples show t h a t sometimes f u l l NPs are
repeated i n order t o e s t a b l i s h t h e participants fully i n
the discourse. We have thus examined participant
introduction in discourse, for which full NPs seem to be
the primary device. As we saw in the last section, once
participants are fully established in t h e discourse,
they are kept track of by pronominal affixes.
Interestingly, however, even after participants are
fully established, they are sometimes still expressed by
f u l l NPs. Several factors seem t o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r
this. One obvious factor i s the presence of o t h e r
semantically compatible participants in the discourse
context (Clancy 1980; Giv6n 1983; Fox 1987). Examine
the f o l l o w i n g example:
( 1 2 ) Title: ?anafianfcAy
JH59.9L-15L0153L, txt 167, line 001 59.9R
*<Itis called> ?aiia&unfi&y,<but> in Spanish l a llorona. The
Indians believed much in him. ?ana&a~fi&y < c r i e s out like a
recently born baby>. <When it cries out near a house>, <it
means that some person is going to dies.

rt
?ik% he ? a l i i a t & o hikl- lkL
? m u &e ?*l-i8a -?&xi hiam-
but EH UK -seat-different DPçthin
but somewhat different.
A v\
suxwalkA tu his?eKw6- lefi.
s-uxwal 4 a t u himas-? -eqwel-Vfi
3-resemble-cat DP=3-NM-make -RES
It looks l i k e a cat.
The above segment is taken from a text entitled
?anabamb&w, a mythical figure. As can be seenr
is discussed as the main topic in the segment
leading up to line d) . In line d}, Jana&mb&~is
expressed with a full NI? probably because there are t w o
p e i c i p m t s being contrasted in the utterance. Unless
they are expressed explicitlyr it would be difficult to
i d e n t i f y the referents correctly.
Here is another example:

*They say that the t e c o l o t e t a l k s j u s t like tha XnciiansD

Take notice when you hear an -1 aound! H e says it very
plain: d4 good person will die.% They used ta be afzaid of
?Ae tecolote- They say that when he sounds near a house, it
is a bad amen.
 <The coyote3 comes r i g h t to the house
el ?i-siw-?S-w8n w6? we? we? w6? P
?i=s-Riiwon w6? we? we? we?
?1=3-R+sound woh w a h w o h woh
and he starts woh woh w o h wah.'

This example comes f r o m the beginning of a t e x t . As can

be seen, several animals aire introduced in this segment:

t h e t e c o l o t e (a type o f o w l ) , the coyote, and the fox.
The coyote i s explicitly mentioned i n line d ) probably
because otherwise it would be difficult to h o w which
animal is being referred t o . In particular, the coyote
has just been introduced in line b), and as we s a w
above, that may be part of the reason why it i s repeated
with a full B?P in line d ) . Eowevez, more importantly,
in line b) the fox is also introduced fox the first time
in t h e discourse, and that 3eems t o be the p x b a r y
reason for the use of a full HP to refer to the coyote
i n line d ) . If a f u l l N P w e z e not used there, i t would
be very d i f f i c u l t t o identify t h e referent correctly.
Thus w e have seen that the presence of semmtically
compatible pwicipants in the discourse cantext
motivates the use of full noun phrases.
WO related factors which seem to be r e s p o n s 3 1 e

far t h e use of full NPs after t h e participants have

become fully established are thematic break and
perspective change (Clancy 1980; F o x L987; T o n d i n 1987).

[14) 3HS9.287L-280R, t a c t 3 4 , line OOla 59.287L

'They were a l l numb with fear when that 1ewLew came in. They
say it is samething terrible, it is just like a little child
but it stxikes yau numb. In spite c i f the lewlew being there,
J a d e xeached evex and tcmk a &ink of pispibata and L t gave
hin strength.

J a b e was the bravest of all the Indians

He was ~cultured.> He knew haw ta read Spanish and a little
Latin. '
This excerpt is also from the beginning of the t e x t . It
appeare to be divided i n t o t w o p a r t s . The first is a
description of a s p e c i f i c event$ what J a h e did when a
mythical f i g u r e hwlew came i n . The second, maxked by
the azxow, is a description of J a b e e s assets
Interestingly, J a h e is expressed w i t h a full NP when
the second part begins even though the segment just
before t h a t describes a series of actions i n which J a b e
i s a p r i n c i p a l participant ( p Jahe reached over and took
a drink af pispibata and it gave him s t r e n g t h f ) . This
e f f e c t of thematic breaks on r e f e r e n t i a l choice has been
observed c x o s s - l i n ~ i e t i c a l l y . It is almost as i f a f t e r
the thematic break the p m i c i p m t s that have been
established i n the discourse are cleared from the
memories of t h e speakers, so they must be re-introduced
into t h e discouxse with e x p l i c i t f o r m .
Here is another example. It i s taken from the
beginning of (131, reproduced here as (15):
(15) JH59*289L-292R, txt 159, line 001-112 59-289L

eThey say that the tecolote talks just like the Indians.

nafio? -
ahaxtawti g i n
noha-? S-saxtawasin
vexyeEl4 3-say-clearly
he says it very plain:
 \F
g) @&P namutey bihaiikp hi@,w-?i*won,
swam -Tip na =mutey -? =l =?&p hi=s-R+iwen
3-IDF-say when=be.neax-2 D ~ D I S = ~ h o u sDP=3-R+sound
e
They say that when he sounds near a house,
l..
h) ?i-?a=l&LyU&-
?i=?al-qilalyiqs
?I =a-bad.omen
it is a bad omen- p
Again, @teco1oteRis a type of owl which is introduced
in line a) f o r the f h s t t h e in t h e discourse. The
segment leading to line f) i s about the Chumash
perception of the t e c o l o t e t a l k i n g j u s t l i k e themselves.
Line f) b e g i n s a new sequence which describes haw t h e
Chumash were a f r a i d af t h e tecolote. So t h e r e seem to
be a minor thematic break after l i n e e), and in l i n e f)
the tecolote is expressed as a f u l l W even though it
has been t a l k e d about i n t h e pzeceding c o n t e x t . That
is, the use of a f u l l W h e r e coincides w i t h a thematic
break. W e have thus seen that a thematic bzeak is
another factor which motivates the use of full noun
phrases for t h e p m i c i p m t s which have a l r e a d y been
e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e discouse.

Another p o i n t which should be made r e g a r d i n g (15)

i s t h e u s e of a full HP for t h e t e c o l o t e i n l i n e c ) .
One can s a y t h a t a f u l l HP i s repeated t h e r e because t h e
t e c o l o t e was j u s t introduced (see t h e d i s c u s s i o n above
regarding the repetition of full NPs for newly
introduced p a r t i c i p a n t s ) . However, a n o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y
i s t h a t t h i s i s due t o a change i n p e r s p e c t i v e . That
i s , t h i s i s quoted material (see t h e exclamation mark
provided by Harrington), which seems t o p r e s e n t the
p e r s p e c t i v e of t h e Chumash, who would s a y what i s i n t h e
quote. The quoted material does not d i r e c t l y belong t o
t h e s t o r y l i n e but t o t h e world of t h e q u o t e , and that
may be why the t e c o l o t e i s expressed as a f u l l HP. In
o t h e r words, I am s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e r e i s a c e r t a i n
kind of break i n p e r s p e c t i v e f r o m t h e s t o r y l i n e t o the
quoted material, which i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e use of a
full HP t o r e f e r to t h e t e c o l o t e i n line c ) , j u s t as t h e
use of full MPS can be motivated by a break in

H e r e i s another example:
(16) JH59.36R-40&, txt 175, line 008 59.37R

'<When the Spaniards first came here, they gave a rooster to

an old man who lived on the island across. And he took the
rooster,> he said; <I thank you much>. And he took it to the
island heading for the island
 can be seen, t h e rooster is intxuduced at the
beginning of t h e d i s c o u s e , and it i s re-introduced with
a full ?iIP h line a) after the thematic beak ( i . e . , the
next morning after the old m bzm~ghtthe raoater back
to the i s l a n d ) . A f t e r that, the rooster i s kept track
of w i t h pronominal affixes and seems to be fully
established in the sequence preceding line f). Notice,
howevez, t h a t i n line f) the rooster is referred to with
a fuI.1 NP t b i r d r o again, what is represented in l i n e f]
i s quoted material, which seems t o be responsible for
the use of a f u l l there. This is similar t o t h e use
of full NP3 motivated by thematic break: in t h e former,
t h e r e i s a break c r e a t e d by a change i n p e r s p e c t i v e fram
the s t o r y line to the world of the quote and i n t h e
latter t h e r e i s a break in t h m a t i c i t y * Thus w e have
seen that the use of full NPs far estdlished
p a e i c i p m t s i n the discourse is partly motivated by a
break in t h e m t i c i t y ar a change in p e r s p e c t i v e e
Finally, another factor which has often been
discussed in the literature regarding t h e use of'
explicit form for e s t a l i s h e d p m i c i p a n t s is the
absence of mention or mention only by i n e x p l i c i t ~O~IUS

for a certain duration of discourse (Clancy 1980; Given

1983 } . That i s , p a ~ i c i p a t sare often e x p l i c i t l y re-
introduced after not being mentioned a r a f t e x being
mentioned only by such i n e x p l i c i t fanus as pranouns fax
a s t r e t c h of d i ~ c a u r s e o It has been suggested t h a t t h i s
happens because t h e r e f e z e n t s fade fxom t h e memoxies of
t h e speakers. However, 1 d i d not f i n d t h i s factar
playing a z o l e in l3arbarefio discoursee This particular
r e s u l t could be because mast o f the t e x t s i n my data are
r e l a t i v e l y 8hort; they axe not appzopxiate far examining
t h i s factor. But it is a l s o p a s s i b l e that t h i e f a c t o r
is only an epiphenomenon of such factors as thematic
break and p e r s p e c t i v e change (Fox 1987 ; Tamlin 1987 ) .
That isf it i s oftem suggested that the longer a s t r e t c h
extends without e x p l i c i t mention of the p a ~ i c i p a t,s
the snore likely it w i l l be t h a t t h e p-icipants w i l l be
referred t o with more e x p l i c i t foms* However, this
could be simply because of t h e fact t h a t t h e longer t h e
s t r e t c h , t h e more likely it i s that t h e r e are breaks in
thematicity and changes in perspective in the stretch.
This suggests that the real factor in t h e use ~f
e x p l i c i t fcmw i n such cases may n o t be the absence of
explicit mentions but breaks i n thematicity and changes
in p e r s p e c t i v e * And i n f a c t , as X have discussed above,
I found in my data t h a t t h e s e l a t t e r two f a c t o r s p l a y a
significant r o l e i n t h e s e l e c t i o n a f full naun phrases
in Bazbarefio.
Thus we have seen t h a t full naun phrases are used
for such p u q a s e s a s to introduce particzipants in t h e
discourse, to d i s t i n g u i s h some p a a i c i p a n t s from o t h e r
pa&icipmts clearly, and to re-intraduce p e i c i p a n t s
after thematic breaks or when there are changes i n
perspective In the last section, we saw that
pronominal affixesf which axe the smallest referential
devices in BarbareEof are used far probably the least
cognitively demanding task of maintaining established
pa-icipats in the discouxse. In the present section,
w e have seen that f u l l NPs, which are lin~istically
much larger? are used for a variety of possibly much
more cognitively d m ~ ~ tasks.
n g
In t h e past two sections, we saw two referential
forms in Barbarefio: pronominal affixes, which are
gr-atically required on verbs? and full NE%, which are
used along with pronominal affixes fox core ~ ~ e n t s .
Even a glance at Baxbareiio discourse data shows that
these two forms axe responsible for most referential
work in Barbarefio: they axe the t w a most commonly used
referential forms*

4.3. Independent pronouns

In the preceding sections, I have suggested that
most referential wark in Barbareiio is performed by full
NPs and pronominal affixes; however occasional~y one
comes across other referential forms in the data* These
are the independent pranauns and the proximate
daunstrative bet?. Since verbs always take pronominal
affixe~for the core arguments, if independent pronauns
or the d-anstrative be2 axe used for the core
arguments, they appear along with the pxonominal
affixes . Each of these two less commonly used
referential forms seems to be associated with particular
discaurse function8 and pmicular syntactic
c ~ n ~ t m c t i ~which
n s aze used to expzess certain semantic
content* In the present and the following sections, X
will illustxate the uses of these forms*
Among these two referential f o m , 1 will focus un
the independent pzonouns in this section. The following
are the independent pronouns in Bzubarefio Chumash
(Beelex 197Ua, 1976):
Table 12 Barbare50 independent pronauns
singular dual plural
1st pexson no2 ki6E m USki kAyM
2nd person pi2 pig& piski piyu
Two categories of person and three of number are
dietinwished in these pxonouns. There do not seem to
be any grammatical restrictions regarding the use of
these pronouns; a8 the examples below suggeet, it
appears that they can be used fox any grammatical
r e l a t i o n s (i.e., s u b j e c t , direct o b j e c t , obliques). The
readers should keep i n mind the fact that these pronouns
are n o t like pronouns i n English because they occur very
i n f r e q u e n t l y f o r r a t h e r s p e c i a l i z e d f u n c t i o n s and i n a
limited set of c o n s t r u c t i o n s , which w e w i l l examine
below. I have found only about a dozen cases of
independent pronouns i n the data. In terms of discourse
functions, pronominal a f f i x e s are muchmore l i k e English
pronouns. F u r t h e r , it should be pointed out again t h a t
independent pronouns appear along with pronominal
affixes for s u b j e c t s and d i r e c t o b j e c t s . This f a c t
nicely c o r r e l a t e s w i t h the functions of independent
pronouns, which involve more than merely keeping t r a c k
of e s t a b l i s h e d p a r t i c i p a n t s i n discourse.
There are three d i f f e r e n t types of s i t u a t i o n s i n
which these independent pronouns occur. F i r s t of a l l ,
they are used when a p a r t i c i p a n t is c o n t r a s t e d with
other p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the discourse. Examine t h e
following example:
( 1 7 ) JH59.302L-308Rr txt 161, line 001 59.302L
- v\
napkti ti hiin-& -
6k1 hifahai
na =p-htibi=s-R+R+nah hi=a-&a6
him,
his1 =ku
when=2-çe DP4-R+R+go D-3-spirit DP=ARTçoerso
*When you see the s p i r i t of a person walking about,
 ?ikag?ig%XY h i b a l i a ?aKi&n h i p l ?,
?i-ka=s-?ishfiy hiq-?al-sa?-aqSa hi*
?Imiai=3-b.a.siqn.that D-2-MM -m-die DP=2
it either is a sign that you are going to die,
keh&*& h o ? h hulicagah&i kalsa?a K S h
kehalbi ho?=i =h hu=l =ka-s-ahaS ka=l =sa?-aq6an
or DIS=ARTsperson Rlt=ARTçKA=3-~piriKAzARTçFUT-di
or t h a t the person, whose s p i r i t it i s , i s going t o die.'

As can be seen, 'youF, the person who sees the spirit,

and the person of the s p i r i t are clearly contrasted.

Here is another example:
( 1 8 ) JH59.22L-24L, txt 170, l i n e 0 0 1 59.22R

kivM? ?i-a
-
klgkS? i n a k i y h t i wun he?lkopkop& :f)
=k-iy-kutiy-wun he?=l =R+kopk6p
IPL ?I çwhen=l-PL-se -3P0 PRX=AKTÈR+toa

'To us ail frogs look alike,

And to us all lizards look a l i k e . But t o each other t h e y
must look different. '

In t h i s example, we, humans, who see frogs and lizards

in one way, and these animals, who see each other in
another way, are contrasted.
Examine t h e following example:
( 1 9 ) JH59.293I.-298R, txt 160, line 001 59.2931.
'The Indians say that there i s everything in the ocean that
there i s on the land. <For instance, the baracuda is the
snake of the ocean, but the gopher snake i s t h e snake o f the
land. Just like the baracuda i s the gopher snake of the
ocean, "the gopher snake i s "the baracuda of "the land.> The
sardine i s the lizard o f the ocean. O u t the l i z a r d is the
sardine o f t h e land, and the crayfish is the matavenado
(Jerusalem cricket?) o f t h e ocean, and the matavenado i s the
crayfish of t h i s land.>
a) ? i k a B i 9 d :? hi?f*tilSap
?i=ka=ç-is-R-k -? hi=?iti=l -<up
IPX. ?I*KA=3-AP-R-person-= DP=here=ARTçlan
We are the people of the land.
b) When we get tick we wash ourselves out w i t h the water of the
ocean. For three days we drink no water except the water of
the ocean. We drink the ocean t o vomit a t both ends.

The <swordfish> are the people of the sea.'

A t t h e beginning, the Indians are s a i d t o claim t h a t

there i s everything i n the ocean that there i s on the
land. After several examples which i l l u s t r a t e this
claim, people on t h e land are contrasted with swordfish
i n t h e s e a as equivalent: line a) and l i n e c).
Independent pronouns are sometimes found in
situations in which c o n t r a s t is only weakly implied.
Examine the following example:

'The -three who were befriended. Hawk and Raven and Coyote,
happened t o be walking past the house of skunk, and Coyote
just happened t o say: *Come, let's go i n and see the old man,
the dancerIn Coyote said: "You two go infw Coyote wanted
Skunk t o kill them. And so they (all) went i n . "Sit down,
my friendsf- And Coyote s a i d to Skunks "Please dance a
Little, SO that these fellows are amused." And Skunk said:
-Alright, I will. I'm already getting a little old, but at
least 1' l1 try to dance. But it ' 8 very cold; I l1 first make
a flee. Then Irll try t o dance.- Then he straightened his
tail. Then he raised h i s tail, and he started to dance. He
kept whirling around and around and making his anus get
closer and closer t o the faces of his friends. Skunk cried
out, saying: "Get a little closer1*, because he wanted to
 squirt, his poison on them. And then Raven t h r e w a hot rock
SO that it quickly entered h i s anus. Skunk was running a l l
over from suffering so much. And he cried out: "This fellow
is a bad person; he already has killed many p e ~ p l e . ~And so
Skunk died. And Hawk told Coyote:
hoQi h i iti
h&% hi ill
coae.here DP this.one DP 2 too
'You come here toolu
Â¥Wh should I asked Coyote. And he was already
afraid. "Get a move on, hurry and corner But Coyote didn't
obey him. And so Hawk finally caught Coyote and threw him
into the f i r e . And there he burned up. Coyote was a bad
.
holllbre '

Unlike t h e earlier examples, t w o items are n o t o v e r t l y

contrasted i n t h i s example. The independent pronoun pi2

occurs i n a context i n which a n o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t has

been d i s c u s s e d . A f t e r Skunk, who almost k i l l e d Hawk and
Raven, d i e d , it is malicious Coyote's t u r n t o d i e : 'you
come here t o o p . In t h i s particular case t h e role of t h e
r e f e r e n t of t h e pronoun 'you' as t h e primary a c t o r of
the event described by t h e v e r b @comer can be seen as
weakly c o n t r a s t e d w i t h Skunk, who has just been k i l l e d .
The following example i l l u s t r a t e s t h e second type
of s i t u a t i o n i n which independent pronouns are used:
( 2 1 ) JE59.116R-117R, t x t 16, line 0 0 1 59.116R
'Once upon a time Luc. brought a magnet hone and picked up a
whole chain of needles. She tried to explain t o Luiaa, who
was horrified, she wd not pay attention and said,
efip
h=k-?ip
balyawliitfi
p-?a&yawluE
hlpt?
hi-
.
==l-think 2-beedevilish? DP=2
<I think you are devilish(?)>.'
In this example, there does not seem to be any element
which is contrasted with the referent of the independent
pronoun pi? 'you8. Instead pi2 here seems to be used to
call special attention to the referent, who is
characterized as having the property 'devilish'. This
use will be called 'emphaticr in the following
discussion.
It is of interest that in all of the above cases
the referents referred to by independent pronouns are
participants which are probably not totally new in the
discourse. They may have been already mentioned in the
prior discourse, they may be present at the scene in the
story, or they may refer to the Chumash. In 4 . 1 . , I
suggested that pronominal affixes are used to keep track
of fully established participants in the discourse.
Independent pronouns can be said to be more explicit
than pronominal affixes not only because they are more
independent, but also because they appear along with
pronominal affixes . As we have seen above, they perform
such functions as contrast and emphatic, which seem to
be more cognitively demanding than merely keeping track
of established referents. In 4.2., I suggested that
full noun phrases are used to introduce participants for
the first t h e in the discourse and to re-introduce them
after thematic breaks, perspective changes, and when
there axe other semantically sixnilax p m i c i p m t a in the
context.. Independent pronouns are less explicit than
full noun phrases because they are generally shorter and
less informative, and t h e tasks they perform do not seem
to be as cognitively demanding as introducing
participants for the first time in t h e discourse and re-
introducing them for various reasons. That is, this set
of referential forms lies in the middle in terms of

explicitness, performing tasks that also seem to be in

the middle in terms of cognitive demand.
The first two uses of Barbareno independent
pronouns (i.e., contrast and emphatic) are characterized
by discourse functions. The last one seems to be more
semantic/syntactic. There appear to be certain semantic
content expressed by particular syntactic constructions
which require the use of independent pronouns. Examine
the following example:
(22) JH59.47R-57R, txt 178, line 034 59.52L.52R
&aykg ?alw6t W&-y%ki-fenat& in&?
kayk6 pal-wot va9i k d e 6 ki=!n~?
because MM -leader too like DP=1
'<For he is also a leader like me. 3'
The use of the independent pronoun in this example seems
t o be required by t h e s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n which
e x p r e s s e s the semantic c o n t e n t ' l i k e me' ; t h e r e i s no
other way of expressing it. This i s c l e a r l y n o t a case
of emphatic, and there does n o t seem t o be any clear
s e n s e of c o n t r a s t which is observable in t h e context.
H e r e is another example:
( 2 3 ) JH59.124R-l26R, txt 194, line 0 0 1 59.124R
 ¥ Iis the big green flies that <give notice about
something;-. They have a sound of buzzing when they fly.
When they get near you, it i s a sign that people ace g. t o
come to visit you. When they buzz around at night,

it i s a sign t h a t one of ye i s g. to dieor

Again, the use of the independent pronoun h e r e appears
t o be r e q u i r e d by t h e s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n which
e x p r e s s e s the semantic c o n t e n t 'one of you*. This

u t t e r a n c e seems t o be a s s o c i a t e d with some sense of

emphasis ( ' i t ' s one of you who i s going t o d i e * ) , which
I think comes not from the use of t h e independent
pronoun itself but f r o m t h e expression 'one of you8.
Thus I have shown t h a t the u s e of one of t h e less
f r e q u e n t r e f e r e n t i a l forms is a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p a r t i c u l a r
discourse functions and with particular syntactic
constructions used to express certain semantic content.

4.4. Dmonstrative be2

The o t h e r less frequently used r e f e r e n t i a l form i n
Baxbarefio i s t h e proximate d m o n s t r a t i v e be2. 1 have
found only about a dozen cases of t h i s use of be? in the
data. Just like independent pronouns, this form is
associated with specific discourse functions and
specific syntactic constructions u s e d t o express certain
semantic content. Below, we w i l l examine examples which
illustrate t h e s e functions and constructions.
First of all, the d m o n s t r a t i v e he2 is used to
refer t o such types of information as facts, rumors,
events, and ideas which have already been introduced i n
t h e discourse using several clauses. I t seems r a t h e r
d i f f i c u l t to r e f e r back to them i n o t h e r ways because
the full reference t o t h e m would r e q u i r e mentioning
whole i d e a s a l l over and t h e r e are no lexical items
which express t h e s e types of information. Examine t h e
following example:
(24) JH59.115L-l16L, txt 190, line 001 59.115L

'There was one Losenzma who used to turn into a at.-lion

b) i B S . - i i ~ ~ a ? ~ ~ - i & n ilkt-it
hi^naii=~-@a?-xonon-? hi=l =kiJli
DPs=vhen=3-FUT-8teal-TIt DPsART'asometfing
when he wd. go out to steal.
\\ A
c) hos?unl-*i ?ialth isaaitikfl-yus ih6?.
ho =B-?uniiri ?i=s-itaq hies-am -tikuyus hi=be?
DIS=3-wife ?1=3-hear DP=3-IDF-talk-about DP=PRX
His wife heard of this. '

As can be seen in line c}, the dmonskrative refers

to t h e rumor that the wife's husband becomes a lion when
he goes out to steal.
Here is another example:
(25) JB59.116R-117R, t a c t 16, line 001 59.116R
a)
\v
saxip&-kg hisnukfi-~u. hi-gnet - 0
hi-lokl6 a y a ,
saxipaka hi=s-nukuni hi=l -iaagnet hi=lokleaiya
once D-3-bring.hoaie DP=ARTçaiagne DP=Lucrecia
*Once upon a time L a c . brought a magnet hone
b) - -
h i k a p ~ p afcl fnAn hihh~? his?aw-?awux?a-?
hika=s-uSpak -7 -in -win hi=l =?&h&? hims-R-?awuxa--?
X

and =3-pick.up-TR-IKS-3PO DPaART=roany DP=3-R-needle-EM

and picked up a whole chain of needles.

c) k6-f& kanaç?lps
kibi kaçn -a-?ip-UB
-
hilgwi ga
hi=luvisa
now =-hen-3-say-DAT DPçLuis
-
hihe? alas6 :1
hidea=?al-?açel
hihft?,
himbe?
DPÈEMsN -be.horrified DPÇPR

She "tried to explain to Luisa. who was horrified, '

to t h e full event of Lucrecia picking up a whole chain

of needles w i t h a magnet. This w a s a horrifying event
to Lucrecia's mother, Luisa, because she apparently had
n o t seen a magnet before.
Here is another example:
( 2 6 ) JH59.60R-6lR, txt 1, line 0 0 1 59.6IL
\v
a) na nono p y i n t i i ?i ? a l e t i %
na n d o p-yin6i ?i ?a%-e-Sho
when very 2-beehot ?I MM -H-good

'When you are heated you don't want to drink too much cold
water.
b1 ? iyaltb d n w a i ib6? iholkuhkd? ih6?.
iy-?a ~ - & a b h - w ah~i m h a ? hi=ho?=l = R - h-+ ? hi==he?
PL-NM -know -PST DP=PRX DPÇDISmABTÈR-person+ DPÇPR
The Indians knew t h a t . '

In t h i s example, the d m o n s t r a t i v e be2 sefexs t o t h e

idea that when your body temperature is high it is not
good to drink a lot of cold w a t e r .
Notice that, in a l l of t h e s e cases, the information
referred to by the proximate demonstrative has just
been intxaduced into t h e discouxse, and he? i s used to
refer t o it f o r the second time. Barbare60 has s e v e r a l
r e f e r e n t i a l forms w i t h which t h i s kind of r e f e r e n t i a l
t a s k could be performed. However, none of them s e e m s
a p p r o p r i a t e here. F i r s t , though the information has
just been introduced, referring to it just by a
pronominal a f f i x ( o r by zero i f it i s a t h i r d person
s i n g u l a r d i r e c t o b j e c t ) seems t o o radical; it would be
d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e h e a r e r to i d e n t i f y t h e r e f e r e n t s i n c e ,
unlike t y p i c a l cases of referring, the information
r e p r e s e n t s something which needs several c l a u s e s t o
describe it. Second, t h e r e i s probably no l e x i c a l item
which r e p r e s e n t s t h e kind of infoxmation which he2
refers to i n t h e above examples. That is, I am
suggesting t h a t s i n c e t h e r e are no words f o r t h e s e
ideas, t h e demonstrative be2 is used i n s t e a d to t a l k
about then. Finally, one could a l s o r e f e r t o t h e
information by r e p e a t i n g t h e whole t h i n g again, b u t t h a t
seems very uneconomical e s p e c i a l l y because t h a t is
e x a c t l y how t h e information i s p r e s e n t e d i n t h e i r f i r s t
introduction.
I n a d d i t i o n t o t h i s f i r s t f u n c t i o n of f u l l i d e a s ,
t h e proximate d m o n s t r a t i v e a l s o has a eecond,
r e l a t e d function. It i s used t o refer t o participants
and concepts f o r which t h e use of a f u l l NP does not
seem t o be appropriate, or f o r which t h e r e does n o t seem
to be an appropriate lexical item. Examine the
following example:
( 2 7 ) JH59.98L-l00L, txt 186, line 0 0 1 59.98L
*The h o r s e s would be in the morning with the hair of the
<inane> braided. Florentino said: The horses <go> i n the
bsuah in the night, ao their manes are t a n g l e d . But G u i s a >
said: The D e v i l rides the horses at night,
hilly&
t B u k a he? ?ikas?aly6nt',Ã -wl'u.
Euka be? ?i=ka=s-?alyenta h i = l =Lyawlu
thus PRX ?I=K&=3-reins DP=ARTsdevil
those are the <reins of "the Devil>.'

The dmonstrative be2 apparently refers to tangled

manes, which have been introduced i n t h e discourse only
p e r i p h r a s t i c a l l y using verbs 'the h a i r of t h e mane
braided' and 'their manes are t a n g l e d F . Referring to
t h i s referent by just a pronominal a f f i x seems t o be t o o
r a d i c a l , because it has not been introduced as a single
concept using a f u l l HP. However, t h i s concept i s not
t o t a l l y new either because as we just noted it has
actually been talked about using verbs, which makes t h e
use of a f u l l NP unnecessary. These reasons seen to
motivate t h e use o f the dmonstrative be2 in this
example.
Another point which should be made regarding ( 2 7 )
is t h a t what i s i n t e n d e d by the speaker could be
something along t h e lines of 'whatever it is which is
t h e t a n g l e d s t a t e of manesc. There is probably no
lexical i t e m which r e p r e s e n t s this meaning e x a c t l y , and
that c o u l d be a n o t h e r r e a s o n m o t i v a t i n g t h e use of he?.
In other words, I am s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e lack of an
a p p r o p r i a t e l e x i c a l item nay be r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e use
of he?. In fact, he2 is often used for referents whose
identities are not entirely straightforward. The
f o l h w i n q example i@one such u s e of he?:
( 2 8 ) JH59.172L-173R, txt 205, line 001 59.172L
'The razor-clan lies in "the sad of the Goleta Slough. T o
gather t h e m , you use a stick which has been nade with a knob
a t its end. You find the hole, and by t h e b o l e know where
the razor-clam is down in the mud. And you stick the stick
down i n the amd. T h e razor-clam i s e v i d e n t l y agape, and
closes on the knob.

4
P
& y ~?id& ip:
feiyafoi ?al-?ip
? a l s i t ~ *^cl
~ &hih6?
?al-S-iehaxi hi+he?
perhaps maybe KM -think MM -3-enemy DP+PRX
Perhaps he thinks it is an enemy.'

The d m o n s t r a t i v e he? in t h i s example may appear t o

r e f e r to the s t i c k . However, I would like to suggest
that the use of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r form i s motivated by t h e
fact t h a t to t h e clam it is something n e i t h e r whose
i d e n t i t y n o r whose purpose i s v e r y clear. That i s , t o
the clam, it i s not a stick b u t something i n front of
him which he t h i n k s is a n enemy. There probably i s no
specific lexical i t e m which presents exactly this
meaning. T h e d m o n s t r a t i v e he2 is a p p a r e n t l y u s e d f o r
t h i s kind o f r e f e r e n t i a l task.
Here is a n o t h e r example:
(29) OT59.227R-228L, txt 231, line 001 59.227R
' B u t to be lucky in love they used ?ayip, they sprinkled
?ay& in the coffee or on the -taw>
tau kanu mhfiiaw hihft?
Su kanu l =?uw h i = - e ?
f o r so-that from=ART-eat DPÇPR

so that <eating it>one would f a l l in love.

The d a o n s t r a t i v e he? s e a m t o r e f e r to whatever l i v i d
food ?ayip, a love potion, is added to; t h e v e r b Zuw i s
normally used to refer to t h e a c t i o n of eating food. It
seem that t h e r e f e r e n t referred t o by he2 i s thus
introduced i n a way i n which i t s exact identity does n o t
really m a t t e r . To refer to t h i s r e f e r e n t by r e p e a t i n g

t h e whole t h i n g as ' e a t i n g t h e coffee o r the s t e w t would

make t h e identity of t h e r e f e r e n t p r e c i s e , which is
probably not what t h e speaker i n t e n d s here. Further,
f o r the same r e a s o n , probably t h i s r e f e r e n t has n o t been
e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e d i s c o u r s e to t h e e x t e n t t h a t it could
be r e f e r r e d t o by a pronominal affix. These r e a s o n s
@ e m to mativate the use of t h e d-onstrative be2 i n
t h i s exanple.
Thus we have s e e n that t h e proximate demonstrative
he? i s used t o refer t o participants o r concepts when
e i t h e r t h e use o f a full NP i s not a p p r o p r i a t e o r t h e r e
i s no a p p r o p r i a t e lexical item to refer to them. This
type of be2 is vezy similar t o the first t y p e of he2,
which i s used t o r e f e r t o such i n f o r m a t i o n as f a c t s ,
rumors, events, and ideas which have just been
introduced i n t h e d i s c o u r s e u s i n g s e v e r a l c l a u s e s . In
b o t h of t h e s e types, t h e u s e of pronominal a f f i x e s does
n o t seem t o b e p o s s i b l e because t h e r e f e r e n t s have n o t
fully been e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e d i s c o u r s e , and f u l l NPs
are not used because t h e r e i s no a p p r o p r i a t e lexical
item. I n o t h e r words, t h e s e two t y p e s of he? seen t o
occur i n s i t u a t i o n s i n which t h e u s e of more common
forms i s n o t a v i a b l e option.
It is o f interest t h a t t h e d m o n s t r a t i v e he2 is i n
t h e middle i n terms of t h e e x p l i c i t n e s s of t h e form,
compared w i t h pronominal affixes and f u l l noun phrases.
That is, the demonstrative bez i s g e n e r a l l y more
independent than pronominal a f f i x e s b u t s h o r t e r and less
i n f o r m a t i v e t h a n f u l l NPs. And it i s found t o be used

f o r a t a s k which also seems t o be i n t h e middle i n

cognitive demand: what it does i s to t a l k about the -

referents which have just been introduced in the

discourse but which are for various reasons difficult to
talk about using more common forms. It seems that this
task is cognitively less demanding than introducing
participants for the first time in the discourse and re-
introducing them after thematic break, perspective
change, and when there are other semantically similar
participants, all of which are performed by full NPs.
On the other hand, it i s cognitively more demanding than
merely keeping track of fully established participants,
which is performed by pronominal affixes.
The first two uses of the proximate demonstrative
be2 are characterized in terms of discourse functions.
The last one seems to be more semantic/syntactic. There
appear to be certain types of semantic content expressed
by particular syntactic constructions which require the
use of he?. Examine the following examples:
(30) JH59.260L-262L, txt 239, l i n e 0 0 1 59.260L
'There are old-men who indulge this way. Constantly they
talk a lot of lies.
napesK6 n\is k& h i l M - n % t ~ hlh67:
na =p-esqen-us ku h i s 1 =k&n85 h i + u
wben=2-ask -DAT person DPçARTÈlil DP+PRX
When you a s k such a person:'

Ill
( 3 1 ) JH59.139&-151R, txt 198, line 010 59.140R
'When one ' 8 spirit leaves oneFs body and wanders about, it is
a sign that the person i s going to die.
napantl? hilnahn~-h'an h i i a b a . ~ ~ . ? i ki*&eti hiha?,
na --anti? M.4. =R-R+~& h i 4 ==?aha&i?Sk d e E hi+m
when=2-meet DPÈARTÇR-R+ DP=ART=ghoat like DP+PRX
If one meets such a. spirit walking about,'

There do not seem t o be o t h e r ways of e x p r e s s i n g such

i d e a s as 'a person l i k e t h i s s and 'a s p i r i t like thisr.
This i s similar t o the use of independent pronouns i n
t h a t the use of t h e proximate d a o n s t r a t i v e he2 i s
associated not o n l y with p a r t i c u l a r d i s c o u r s e functions
b u t also with p a r t i c u l a r syntactic c o n s t r u c t i o n s used to
express c e r t a i n semantic content. Notice, however, t h a t
in ( 3 0 ) and ( 3 1 ) even i f it w e r e grammatically p o s s i b l e
t o u s e o t h e r more frequent r e f e r e n t i a l forms, it would
still be d i f f i c u l t to do s o on o t h e r grounds. I n both
of t h e s e examples, t h e r e f e r e n t of the d a o n s t r a t i v e he2
is not given a name: 'old men who c o n s t a n t l y l i e ' i n
( 3 0 ) and 'a s p i r i t t h a t l e f t t h e body of a person and i s
wandering about i n (31) . That is, these r e f e r e n t s seem
t o be t o o complex t o be r e f e r r e d t o by pronominal
affixes, and t h e r e are probably no a p p r o p r i a t e lexical
items which r e p r e s e n t these meanings. Thus examples
such as t h e s e suggest that sometimes both the f u n c t i o n
and t h e semantics/syntax are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the use of
be?.
In this section, we have examined one of the t w o
less frequently used referential forms: t h e proximate
d-onstrative be?. S have shown that the dmonstxative
he2 is used far r e f e r e n t s whose ~efexentialmnipulation
seems to be difficult because they are referentially
complex or their exact identities are Left unspecified.
These referents have just been introduced in the
preceding discourse. However, because of their
referential characteristics, they still have not fully
been established in the discourse, so it is not p o s s i b l e
t o use pronominal affixes t o refer to them. Similarly,
it is not possible t o use full Nfs either because again
due to the referential characteristics of these
r e f e r e n t s there are probably no appropriate lexical
items for them. I have a l s o suggested that there are
certain types of semantic content expressed by
particular syntactic constructions which require the use
o f he2.

4.5. Summary

In this chapter, we first looked a t t h e two

referential forms which axe found commonly in Barbarefio
discourse: pronominal affixes and full noun phrases.
These two forms axe responsible for most referential
work in Barbareno discourse. Pronominal affixes are a
part of what is d m h a l l y required by the grammar, and
these are the most common referential choice. This
least marked form is used for what seems to be the least
cognitively demanding task of keeping track of
established participants in the discourse. The more
marked form, full noun phrases, is used for potentially
more cognitively demanding t a s k s such as introducing
participants for the first time in the discourse, re-
introducing ¥the after thematic break and perspective
change, and when there are other semantically similar
participants in the discourse. When the referents are
core arguments, full NPs are used along with pronominal
affixes. Full MPS are the second most common
referential choice in the data. There are two other
referential forms which are used much less commonly:
independent pronouns and the proximate demonstrative
he?. They are in the middle in terms of eqlicitness of
different referential forms, pronominal affixes the
least explicit and full Nfs the most explicit.
Independent pronouns and the proximate demonstrative he2
are found to be associated with particular discourse
functions and particular syntactic constructions used to
express certain semantic content. Some of the functions
with which these two forms are associated seem to be
more cognitively demamlhg than merely keeping track of
established par-ticipants in the discourse, but less
cognitively demanding than introducing and re-
introducing participants in the discourse.
5. Constituent order
T h e purpose of t h i s c h a p t e r is t o d e s c r i b e t h e
constituent order of Barbarego Chmnash while re-
examining some of the results obtained i n earlier
chapters. I will f i r s t show t h a t though Barbarefio
allows a number of different c o n s t i t u e n t o r d e r t y p e s , it
i s actually very rare that one finds u t t e r a n c e s with two
core arguments expressed as full NPs (Du B o i s 1987;
Mithun 1987; Payne 1987, 1990; Duranti and Ochs 1990).
I will suggest t h a t this makes it less f r u i t f u l to talk
about c o n s t i t u e n t o r d e r i n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l sense: t h e
order of the s u b j e c t and the d i r e c t o b j e c t w i t h relation
to t h e verb (cf. Mithun 1987; Payne 1987, 1 9 9 0 ) . In
t h i s dissertation, c o n s t i t u e n t o r d e r will be examined in
terms of what is e x h i b i t e d i n d i s c o u r s e d a t a . We w i n
see t h a t the most t y p i c a l o r d e r i n Barbareno i s a verb
followed maximally by only one c o r e argument full NP.
This f i n d i n g n i c e l y c o r r e l a t e s with one structural
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the language: c o r e arguments are
a l r e a d y marked on t h e verb by t h e grammatically required
pronominal affixes. He w i l l further see t h a t one full
HP following the verb i s most t y p i c a l l y either a
t r a n s i t i v e d i r e c t o b j e c t o r an i n t r a n s i t i v e subject,
supporting the cross-linguistic findings referred to as
Preferred Argument Structure' by Du Bois 1987.
Then, based on the findings in chapter 3, I will
discuss the order of obliques in utterances. I will
show that if both core arguments and obliques are
present as full NPs in utterances, obliques are
typically expressed after core arguments. When
arguments which would otherwise be obliques are encoded
as direct objects of a verb containing one of the core
argument-building devices, relevant noun phrases appear
immediately after the verb because they are now core
arguments.
Finally, I will discuss cases in which full noun
phrases are expressed before the verb. Specifically, I
will discuss two types of preverbal NPs, which co-occur
with two diffexent clitics zi= and ka= respectively. I
will suggest further that these preverbal NPs are not as
common as postverbal NPs in the data, and that they are
associated with rather specialized discourse functions.

5.1. Basic constituent order

We have seen above that Barbarefio allows a number
of different constituent order types. Examine the
following examples:
(1) JH59.332R0333R, txt 2, line 001 59.333L
nas?Qw ilkfi +#&P,
na -8-?uw hi.=& =h &=l =xian
whenç3-bit DPKAftTÇperso DPçARTçrattlesna
V DO S
'When a person g e t s bitten by a rattlesnake,'
(2) JE59.686Ro688R, t x t 76, line 004 59.687L
9
-
ma? li hugpinti kay hiho? s~unt&w h i ?L i p
mail hu=s-pintikay hi=ho?=sountaw bi=l =?an
when RM=3-strike DP=DIS=lightning DPÈART=hous
v ll S DO
hiho?kayi xeyll h i h e ~ g a n t a walwa-2
;
hi=ho?=kayi xeyli hi=he?=santa valwala
DP=DIS=street Haley DP=PRX=Santa Barbara
'When the l i g h t n i n g struck the house on Haley Street in Santa
Barbara,
(3) JH59.662RO663R, txt 67, line 005 59.662R
$1 v1
pe - lu ?iAetSi sl~.ltafct&~$& hilawalyfint%
pelu ? i d d i S-qili-R-tauy-wag bi=l =?awalvente
Pedro ?I=always 3-H&B -R-carry -PST DP=ART=brandy
v DO
'Pedro all the tine carried some brandy,'
(4) JH59.662R-663R, txt 67, line 001 59.662R
Â¥awaly6nt k a i m a ~ m . l d?S
-
?awalvente ka=l m? -am -&&l-was-D?
halm6 l&, -
hu=l a~rooloq
brandy KA=ARTasNM-IDF-&ink-PST-EM RM=ART=long.ago
v
'Brandy vas the favorite drink,'

In the first two examples, the subjects and the direct

objects are expressed after t h e verb, but as can been
seen, the order of the two arguments is reversed in the
t w o examples: V DO S in (1) and V S DO in ( 2 ) . In the
last two examples, some arguments are expressed before
t h e verb. Specifically in ( 3 ) what appears to be the
subject and in (4) what appears t o be the d i r e c t object
axe expressed before the verb (however see 5 . 3 . f o r the
syntactic status of preverbal W e ) .
Traditionally, discussions of basic constituent
order have presupposed the presence of two full noun
phrases i n clauses (e.g., Greenberg 1966; Hawkins 1 9 8 3 ) .
In particular, researchers have discussed the order of
the subject and the direct object in r e l a t i o n to the
verb as can be seen i n t h e i r use of abbreviated labels
to talk about constituent order: SOV, SVO, VSO, etc.
However, clauses containing two core argument full NPs,
such as in (1) and ( 2 ) , are relatively rare in my data.
In several hundred pages of text, I have found only 15-
20 transitive clauses with both subject and d i r e c t
object noun phrases. This figure concurs w i t h recent
cross-linguistic f i n d i n g s (e.g., Du Bois 1987; Hithun
1987; Payne 1987, 1990; D u r a n t i and Ochs 1990). At the
same tine it seems t o make it very difficult to
determine the b a s i c constituent order of Barbareno.
However, t h e present finding seems to make much
more sense if we consider it i n terms of the general
characteristics of human discourse. That is, there
seems t o be a certain cognitive constraint against
presenting too many pieces of information a t a time i n
discourse. S p e c i f i c a l l y , it has been suggested t h a t one
cannot present more than one piece of new information
per i n t o n a t i o n unit. An i n t o n a t i o n u n i t is a speech

u n i t characterized by its prosodically coherent contour

(Chafe 1987, 1994). One of t h e primary reasons f o r
using full NPs is to present new information in
discourse. Since using two full. NFs would o f t e n mean
presenting two pieces of new information, one tends n o t
t o f i n d two f u l l MPS with a verb.
In fact, as we saw in the l a s t chapter, in
Barbareno discourse, full NPs and o t h e r independent
form (i.e., independent pronouns and the proximate
demonstrative m) are used fox cognitively demanding
tasks which i n c l u d e presenting new information. On t h e
other hand, pronominal affixes are used for the
cognitively much less demanding task of keeping t r a c k of
fully established participants in discourse. We
further saw that pronominal affixes are the most typical
referential forms and much more commonly used t h a n
independent r e f e r e n t i a l forms i n Barbareno discourse.
I suggested that all these facts indicate that
pronominal affixes axe the d e f a u l t choice and t h a t a l l
other referential forms are reserved far marked
activities. Referen-fcial choice in Barbareno thus
appears to respond to the cognitive constraint
concerning the p r e s e n t a t i o n of new information, and that
seems t o be the primary reason f o r the rarity of verbs

with two core arguments expressed as full NPs.

Having suggested t h e reason f o r t h e r a r i t y of
t r a d i t i o n a l l y c e l e b r a t e d types of c o n s t i t u e n t order i n
my data, however, we s t i l l want to know about t h e
c o n s t i t u e n t order i n Barbarefio Chuniash. Considering t h e
d i f f i c u l t y of i d e n t i f y i n g t h e basic c o n s t i t u e n t order i n
Barbareno i n t r a d i t i o n a l terms, t h e approach which
should be taken toward understanding Barbareno
c o n s t i t u e n t order seems t o be t o present a d e s c r i p t i o n
of d i f f e r e n t c o n s t i t u e n t o r d e r types commonly found i n
Barbareno discourse. I n other words, I am suggesting
t h a t the first step toward understanding the constituent
order in a language may be to observe what speakers of
the language do instead of simply starting with
assumptions based on s t u d i e s of other languages.
Looking at t h e question i n t h i s way, what appears
t o be t h e most typical constituent order type i n
Barbarefio d i s c o u r s e i s a verb followed by at most one
core argument f u l l HP. The following is a typical
sequence from the data:
(5) JH59.205L-205R, txt 21, line 001 59.205L
nasiyexp&ti ihe?ltk&r ? i?çlsa?tuhSy
na =S-iy-expei ))i=he?=l =&U? ?i=?al-sa?-tuhuy
wben=3-P&-sing DPÇPRX=ART=bird.s ?I== -FUT-rain
'When "the huitacoches sing, it is going to rain.
7iyalaKiwa law iheituhfi*
iy-?al-aqfiwalaw bi=he?=l çt.ubu-f
PL-MM -like DP=PRX=ARTçrai
They do like rain.
kg b'a kasiYexp8tg
k±p ka=s-iy-expeS
now ~o=3-PL-sing
They sing and sing,
PS
^
?iyalti^-&An hi?alsa?aktin& - n'a -
hiiuwfl h&,
PS iy-?al-&bin hi=?al-sa?-alcti-nuna hi=l = ? u d u
likely PL-KM -know DP=liM -FUT-coffle-bring DPa=ART=food
they know it i s going to bring food,
siyexp&ti hino&? hina5tuhtuhSy
B-iy-expefi hi=nofeo+-? hi=na =a-R-tuhuy
3-EL-sing DP=inuch+EM DPçwhen=3-R-rai
They sing a lot when it is raining.'

This is the entire text. There are three core argument

f u l l NPs in t h i s sequence, which are underlined. As can

be seen, all. of them are expressed after the verb. In

all other cases, the core arguments are expressed by
pronominal a f f i x e s only.
Here i s another example:
(6) JH59.88R-89R, txt 9, line 001 59.89L
a) m&-iisi<ra(iaASlA he?iihi&: ?,
mali S-iy-R+aniin -? be?=l =R+?invu - * ?
when 3-PG-R+eat.a.meal-? PRX=ARTÈR+Indian-E
*<When Indians are eating a meal,>
 i-siye-tip&-wil.
?is#-iy-e-tipawil
? 1=3-PL-M-talk
they don't talk.
? iy6 -&m psal^-~haU^alalt-nut*,
?iy& p-R+saqhalalm-us -vim
though 2-R+holl~~ +AT-3P0
tho you holler at them
?isiyat?it&-Kin,
?i=s-iy-e-itaq-in
?1=3-PL-N-he~-20
they don't hear you.
nod? ~iyaiaiflw iit Ain
noho iy-?alal-?uw hi=! ==?&Q
-
very PL-ACT -eat DPsARTsmeat
<they were real mat-eatera.>

tfiunasamlw& -wan
fiu
iiwi,
çn =s-am -ivawan his1 =?a+i
soWthatçwhen=3-IDF-cu DP=ARTÇID
<So that when they cut someone,>

? i&'^at6-wits ish& - l a s iho?f i w a w t - his

?i=s-SutuwiE hiss-%alas hi=ho?=l =?iwawafu.B
?I=3-be-quick D P Ã § 3 - h e a DP=DIS=ART=cut
the cut heals quickly.
nan6ho sa&dw ih&.n,
na =noho #-am-?uw b n n
when==much3-IDF-eat DP=AR'T^Beat
When they eat so much ineat
i a k t 6 -wit8 h i a b t lag iiiwawi &is. -
?i=s-Sutowi& hiss-su-xai&8 hi=l =?iwawaAiS
?I=3-beequick D-3-CA-heal DPÇARTçc
<the cut is soon healed.>'

Again, this is the entire text. As can be seen, there

are several core argument NPs appearing after the verbs.

In a l l other cases, t h e core arguments are expressed by
pronominal affixes alone.
Examine the following example:
( 7 ) JH59.128I,-128R, txt 11, line OOla 59.1281.

*The frogs must have a certain control over the w a t e r .

tayltS s2 ipas ilwl-JA
kayk6 s-?ip-as himluwisa
because 3-say-RP DP=Luisa
For Luisa. said:
?itauswun i h e l w a ~ w a f c -k,
a
itaq-us hi=he?=l =R-wa&a&
-win -07
hear-DAT-3PO DP=PRX=ARTÈR-frog.sp-E
listen to the frogs,
S^? tuhfly.
a-S&?-tuhuy
3-FUT-rain
it is g. to rain.

And pretty soon r<inclouds would appear. '

Again, t h i s is t h e e n t i r e t e x t . There are f i v e core
arguments expressed as full M P S . Other core arguments
are expressed by pronominal affixes. As can be seen,

all of t h e s e NPs except one appear after the verb. The

one HP which appears before the verb, 'the frogs ', i s
found at the beginning of the text. I will discuss this
type of preverbal NP later i n this chapter. These
examples thus suggest that a verb followed by a t most
one core argument full UP is the most typical
c ~ ~ s t i t u eorder
~t in Barbarefie discourse. In factt 1
have found that the vexb-initial order accounte fur
approxdtely 90 percent of the clause8 in the datae2
ZA chapter 4, X suggested that full RIPS are used
when the referents must be explicitly mentioned for such
xeasons a% intxaducing p a ~ i c i p a t sfor the first t h e
in the discaurse, clearly distinmishing some
paeicipmts from other participants and re-introducing
pmicipants after thematic breaks ox when these are
changes in perspective. The f u l l NE% in ( 5 ) - ( 7 ) can be
accaunted for by these factorsm In ( 5 1 , all of the
thee fall =S express referents which are being
introduced for the first time in the discourse. In ( 6 1 ,
the same obse~ationcan be made segarding the first
four NPs; those paeicipants axe introduced for the
first t h e in the discourse* Regarding the last two
NPs, 'meate in line h ) and 'cut * in line i), these items
have just been talked aboutt so in a strict sense this
is not their fixst introduction* What seems to be
happening is that it is actually a part of a commonly
observed narrative convention in which basically the
same utterance is repeated. Notice the repetition of
similar utterances in lines e)-i)m Far this reasan, 1
would like to suggest that the two HPs %eat8 in line h)
and gcutg i ) are still being intzuduced i n t o the
discourse for t h e f i r s t t h e a In ( 7 1 , a l l NPa except
#frogs in line c) express referents which are
introduced for the f i r s t time in t h e &scaursea As f o r
?frogsg, notice that it appears in a quote. As we

discussed in the last chapter, going from the story line

to a quote creates a change in perspective which seems
to motivate the use of a f u l l M? here.
The above observations lead us to the following
hypothesis regarding the basic constituent order in
Barbareiioz a verb is generally f d l a w e d by at most one
core argument full KP which has to be present for
various reasons. That is, what we have here seems to be
a verb which expxesses either an event or a state and
possibly one core argument expressed as a full W tu
perfom such cognitively demanding tasks as introducing
and re-introducing pa~icipmts and clearly
distinwishing some p e i c i p a t s fromother pa~icipants
in the discoursee The suggested basic cunstituent order
is summarized in the following:

v (NI
This may look like a rather m d h e n t a r y structure f r o m
the perspective of syntax, but as we saw above, it is
possible paztly because most of the xeferential tracking
activities in Barbare60 are pe~fomeciby the pronominal
affixes on the verb. That is, we axe observing the
moqhological richness of the language c ~ ~ z e l a t i nwith
g
its syntactic sparseness. Or to put it another way, the
moqbological tightness of the language is correlating
with its syntactic looseness.
Studies have shown that cross-lin~istically
transitive direct ~bjectsand intransitive subjects are
the structuxal d o t s in which new information is often
expressed (Du Bois 1987). As we just saw above, in
Barbarefia, full W s typically fallow the verb and they
are present because very often they express new
information. Interestingly, when 1 looked at the
syntactic relation of postvexbal NPs, I faund that they
are mostly transitive direct objects and intransitive
snbjects. In fact, most af the a s in ( S ) - ( ? ) above
seem to have one af these syntactic relations. In (51,
*huitacoches (a type af bixd) in line a) is an
intransitive subject, and @xainP in line b) and *foodF
in line d) axe txansitive direct object8 xespectively.
In ( 6 1 , 'Tndians* in line a) and @cut8 in line g) axe
i n t r a n s i t i v e subjects, and ' m e a t in lines e) and h) ,
rsameuner in line f), and OcutF in line i) are
transitive dixect objects. Sn (71, rwaterr in line a)
and ?€ra ' h line c) axe txansitive direct objects,
and 'c1oud8 ' in line e) is an intrmsitive subject. The
NP rfrogsf in line a) may seem to be a case of a
transitive subject, hut as I will show in 5.3, it does
not hold a syntactic relationship with the following
part af line a): it is not a syntactic a ~ ~ e of
n tthe
verb * ~ l @ l e The NP 'LuisaP in line b ) seems to be
another candidate for a transitive subject, but even
this case is suspecte First of all, 2ip 'sayF in b) is
a verb which can take only one nominal (i.e., the
speaker); another element taken by the verb is the
speaker's utterance* The verb 2 i n is thus more like an
intransitive verb, and the 'Luisa' moxe like an
intransitive subject. Further, it should be noted that
in my data I have not seen t h e verb m marked with the
plural ciixect abject euffhc -wune3 This fact sugge~ts
that Z ~m
Day nut be a transitive verb after all (cf.
Munro 1982)e Regazdless of its actual syntactic status,
it thus seems reasonable to suggest t h a t a 'to say is
in essence like an intransitive verb, and accordingly
the NE! *LuisaO is an intransitive subject.
To sum up, mast of t h e f u l l NPs i n Barbaxefia which
appeax postverbally seem t o be either intransitive
subjects o r transitive d i r e c t objects* As we saw
earlier, t h e s e NPs are pxesent p r h a x i l y because they
express new informatione These facts suppart t h e crass-
l i n g u i s t i c finding of Du B o i s (1987), which suggests
t h a t t r a n s i t i v e direct objects and i n t r a s i t i v e s u b j e c t s
are t h e grammatical slots in which new i n f a m a t i o n i s
o f t e n presented. More hpartantly, they s h o w t h a t , i n
terms of g~ammatical reliitians# the mast typical
constituent order in Barbare60 is a verb perhaps
followed by either an intxansitive subject or a
t r a n s i t i v e direct object. Transitive eubjects are
normally expressed as pronominal prefixes ( c f . Dn B o i s
1987) The following s ~ i z e sthe suggested
c o n s t i t u e n t order h Barbaxe50 in te- of grammatical
relation:

In this s e c t i o n , w e have thus came up w i t h a

description a f the basic c o n s t i t u e n t oxdez o f Barbare60
based on the examination of discourse data* We have
discussed the functional and the structural
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of this b a s i c c o n s t i t u e n t order. Though
what i s presented here may seem r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t from
t r a d i t i o n a l l y celebrated types of c o n s t i t u e n t order
(Greenberg 1966; Hawkins 1983), this i s a p p a r e n t l y what
Barbareno speakers o p e r a t e with when they use the
language in d i s c o u r s e , and t h u s it can be said to
r e p r e s e n t what they know about t h e s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e
of t h e language.

5.2. Obliques
Based on t h e f i n d i n g s i n chapter 3 and i n the last
section, I would l i k e to discuss i n t h i s s e c t i o n t h e
order o f obliques with relation to c o r e arguments in
Barbareno u t t e r a n c e s . As we saw i n t h e l a s t s e c t i o n , i n
Barbarefio d i s c o u r s e core argument f u l l NPs are t y p i c a l l y
either transitive direct objects or intransitive
subjects, while transitive subjects are typically
expressed as pronominal p r e f i x e s .
I n order t o t a l k a b o u t the o r d e r of c o r e argument
NPs and o b l i q u e NPs w i t h i n u t t e r a n c e s , of c o u r s e w e need
a sufficient number of utterances in which both of these
types of arguments ace overtly expressed. However, as
I pointed out earlier, it is actually very difficult to
find combinations of two full NPs in Barbarefio
utterances. Specifically, it is not common to find both
transitive subjects and obliques overtly expressed in
utterances because in Barbareno discourse transitive
subjects are typically expressed as pronominal prefixes.
Further, obliques axe in some sense "extra argumentsw,
which are only occasionally used in utterances. For
this reason it is not realistic or even useful to
determine the order of obliques in relation to
transitive subjects, leaving us only with the question
of the order of obliques in relation to other types of
core arguments (i.e., intransitive subjects and
transitive direct objects).
We saw in the last section that the basic
constituent order in Barbaz-e5o is a verb followed
perhaps by either a transitive direct object or an
intransitive subject. As we saw in chapter 3, if both
core arguments and obliques are present in utterances,
obliques typically appear after core arguments. The
following examples illustrate the order of obliques in
relation to intransitive subjects:
(8) JH59.6L-7L, txt 3, line 002 59.6R
?iyena siypilikllkw ilpil46-li hjunl-&up,
?iyena S-iy-pililclaw hi-l -oimoli $ i d S u ~
if 3-pl,-f all DP-ART-beans DP=down
v S GOAL
'If beans f e l l on the floor,#
(9) JH59.658R-659&, t x t 63, line 002 59.658R
hilsa?e~w^l hiskitdn
hi=l =sa?-eqwel hi=s-kitwon
DP=ARTçFUT-m& D-3-co3~e.out
v
hilnohd? s?&i ihca-?is hiho?66k,
hi=l ==nofio+-? a-?ua8 hi=l = ? a x u h bi=ho?=n-?tk
DP=ART=veq+EM 3-stink DPÈART=bloo DPsDIS=2-nioutA
S SOURCE
'which will snake very stinking blood come out of your mouth. '
(10) JH59.281R-283I., txt 244, line 005 59.283%
sKi.11-wil ilsy6-lpe hiho?sis?6k ika?6?,
8-qili-wil hi=l =sveloe bi=ho?=~-is-?&k hi=ko?o?
3-?iAB -be DPçARTÈserpe DP=DIS=3-AP-mouth DP=Zaca.Lake
v S LOC
'There used to be a <serpent> in Zaca Lake*
(11) JB59.409R-412L, txt 147. line 010 59.412L
8 ~ i l i t ~ ~kiyantik
6 m6 loK,
S-qili-Sho k-iv-antik hu-rooloq
3-HAB -good l-PL-spirit RM-long-ago
v S TIME
?our s p i r i t was always glad in ancient times,'
(12) JH59.485L-494L. txt 87, line 053a 59.493L

swilwaS isiy?ak8yi~ he?ik8skes?i?-?

S-wil-wag hi=s-iv-?akaviS he?=l =R-kesu - * ?
3-be -PST D-3-PL-rack PRXmARTÈR-cheese-E
v S REC
'there was their <rack> for the cheeses'

The verbs are immediately followed by the intransitive

subjects in these examples. The obliques appear after
the intransitive subjects. As can be seen, the meanings
of obliques are not formally marked (Beeler and Whistler
 The following examples illustrate the order of
obliques in relation to transitive dixect objects:

(15) Ji359e676R-681Lt tact 75, L i n e 005 59.679R

A s can be seen, the v e r b s are d i x e c t l y fallawed by t h e
t r a n s i t i v e direct objects in these examples. The
obliques appear after the t r a n s i t i v e dizect objects.
All of t h e s e examples thu8 show t h a t , in term of t h e
c o r e - o b l i q e d i s t i n c t i o n , the b a s i c c o n s t i t u e n t ordex of
Barbare60 s e a m to be a verb maybe followed by a c o r e
argument and t h e n maybe f u r t h e r followed by an oblique.
As 1 suggested earlier, t h e one core argument is
typically either the intransitive subject or the
transitive d i r e c t abject* These findings regarding
Barbare50 constituent order are summarized in the
following:

It should be noted again t h a t t h i s type of order i n

which NPs appear a f t e r t h e verb amounts to about 90
percent a f c l a u s e s i n t h e data.
We saw in chapter 3 t h a t Barbaxefio has a process i n
which certain azguments which would othemise be
a b l i q y e s become direct o b j e c t s by appeaxing with one of
t h e core a r p e n t - b u i l d i n g s u f f i x e s . When this happens,
and both the tikect object and t h e p a t i e n t are expressed
as f u l l NPs, t h e d i r e c t o b j e c t i s typically expressed
immediately a f t e r the verb and is followed by t h e
patient, reflecting the status change. Specifically,
t h i s happens with d a t i v e s and instruments. For d a t i v e s ,
when this happens the verb takes the dative s u f f i x -us
and the plurality of the dative can be marked by t h e

In both of these examples, the verb takes t h e e u f f i x

-us, and the dative is now t h e direct object appeaxinq
r i g h t after the verb. The patient, l a b e l l e d #PATt,
appears after the d i m e t abject. Xn (191, the plurality
of the direct object FIndiansg is marked by t h e direct
o b j e c t plural auffh reflecting the s t a t u s change.
can be expressed as direct objects by appearing with an
-in-marked vexbe The new direct o b j e c t can be marked
with i f t h e referent is plural, and typically it
directly follows the verb and is fallowed by t h e patient
i f bath of these arguments are expressed as full NPs.
E x d n e t h e fallawing examples:

(22) JHS9.18lL-I82Lr t x t 17, line 001 59.18E

1x1 t h e s e exwles, instruments are direct objects

appeazing right a f t e x the verb? which is marked with the
~ n s t m e n t a lsuffix -ine The patient, l a b e l l e d fPATff
follows the direct object .
 To sum up, I have 8uggested in t h e l a s t two
section8 t h a t the b a s i c c o n s t i t u e n t o r d e r of Barbare50
is a vexb perhaps followed by e i t h e r the t r a n s i t i v e
direct o b j e c t er the i n t r a n s i t i v e s u b j e c t , and pexhaps
fuxther followed by oblique^. Certain types of
arguments which would otherwise be obliques (i.e.,
d a t i v e s and i n s t r u m e n t s ) are cast as direct o b j e c t s of
verb8 c o n t a i n i n g one of t h e core = v e n t - b u i l d i n g
suffixes. When that happens the direct objects
t m i c a l l y a p p e a d i r e c t l y after t h e verb and may be
folluweci by t h e p a t i e n t , reflecting the status change.

5.3. Preverbal elements

In t h e preceding s e c t i a n s , we have examined the
basic c a n s t i t u e n t o r d e r of Barbaxeiio Chtamash. In this
s e c t i o n , w e w i l l examine nonbasic types of c o n s t i t u e n t
order which u e marked i n terms of frequency and
functions. As has been suggested eaxlier, my data
include u t t e r a n c e s i n which full HPs are expressed
before t h e vexb, as i n ( 2 4 ) and ( 2 5 ) :
(251 JH59.662R-663R, t a c t 6 7 , line 001 59.662R

In ( 24 ) , 'Pedro8 , which appears to be the subject, is

e x p r e s s e d before t h e verb, and i n ( 2 5 ) , *brandy8, which
a p p e a r s to be the direct object, i s e x p r e s s e d b e f o r e t h e
verb. I ant d i s c u s s i n g cases such as t h e s e i n t h i s last
s e c t i o n because t h e y are not as f r e q u e n t as the b a s i c
c o n s t i t u e n t order which we d i s c u s s e d i n t h e last two
sections and f u r t h e r t h e y seem to be a s s o c i a t e d with
marked pragmatic f u n c t i o n s . The preverbal HP order
amounts t o about 1 0 p e r c e n t o f c l a u s e s i n t h e data.
Among u t t e r a n c e s i n which f u l l HPs occur b e f o r e t h e
verb, there appear t o be at l e a s t t w o d i f f e r e n t types.
The first type is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a p r a c l i t i c ?i= on
t h e c o n s t i t u e n t following t h e preverbal HP, which is
t y p i c a l l y t h e verb. Examine t h e following examples:
(26) JH59.59OR-591L, txt 42, l i n e 001 59.590R

'The Indians did not expect evaryfching they ate to be

tender. *
In both o f t h e s e examples, there is a full NP occurring
befare t h e verb, and the verb is marked with a p r o c l i t i c
2i=. This order is not rare i n d i s c o u x ~ e ,but it is not
as common as t h e basic constituent order Ln which f u l l
W s occur after the verb. Further, this order i s
chuacterized by t h e marked function which the pzeverbal

The pzagmatic function associated w i t h t h i s type af

preverbal NP seems t o be best c h a a c t e r i z e d a s the
introduction of a topic (Beexer and Whistler 1 9 8 0 ) .
These Ws very often express i d e n t i f i d l e characters
such as ?Indians and 'the old-time peopler,

stories. Theae kind8 of chaxacte~s

/elements are first
set up, then pzedications relevant t o thtm are made i n
t h e r e s t of t h e utterances. (See below f o r a discussion
of t h e syntactic relationship between this type of
preverbal HP8 and the verbs.]
 One piece of evidence supporting t h e proposed
function of preverbal NPs w i t h 2i= may be seen i n t h e
fact t h a t they are ch=acteristic of the utterances at
t h e beginnings of stories. In fact, all of the examples
of these preverbal NPs given in this section come fzom
t h e openinqs of stories ; mast of them are the very first
utterances. If prevezbal NPs w i t h 2 i = axe a s s o c i a t e d
with a t o p i c introducing functicm, this d i s t r 3 u t i o n a l
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c makes sense because main p m i c i p a n t s of
t h e s t o r i e s are naturally intzoduced a t t h e beginning of
the stories. The following examples are typical cases

of preverbal W s with t h e p r a c l i t i c 3i=:

( 2 8 ) JE59.32OL-322Rr tatit 165, line 003 59-32UL,32OR

'The early-Spaniards soan after t h e y e m e r established

vineyaxda .
In (281, the HP 'the euly-SpaniardsR is first
presented, and the rest of the utterance talks about
w h a t they did in the Chumash land. In ( 2 9 1 , the MP
Wwtir seeds that they used to grow here and theret [an
HP ?seeds @ and a relative clau~e modifying- i t 4 ) is
first presented, and t h e rest ~f the utterance is about
their characteristics.
The fallowing example further illustrates the topic
introducing function of pseverbal HPs :
(301 JH59.657R-658L, t x t 61, line 091a 59.657R

t\
b) ?iamsfi-tip Pihe?
a=s-am -su-tip hi-he?
?X=3-XDF-a-salt DP=PRX
they salt it,
The W 'the leaf of angelicat is first presented, and
the rest of the utterance talks about haw it is used as
a remedy fez poison oak. This example is particulaxly
interesting because it shows that more than one
predication caulci be made for the pxeverbal NP: @the
leaf of angelica8 is fisst presented as seen in line a),
and two predicatians regmding angelica leaf aze made,
both of which are marked with the proclitic ?is, as seen
in lines b) and c). Examples such as t h i s furthex
support the proposed function of the preverbal NPs by
showing that the infannation expressed by the preverbal
IWs plays a role at the level af discourse.
It should also be nated that there are often
preverbal elements which are locatgve and temporal
expresS ions :

t h e ranch w e always have a goud-ciippexer

 *When one &eve a buggy or wagon along one of the old-thie
raads @

Both of these examples are the first utterance of t h e

stories. It seems t h a t theee preverbal elements set up
a frame in which the rest of t h e story is t d d .
XLthough this particular function seems d i f f e r e n t from
the topic intraducing function which we have examined s o
farf it i s interesting t o see t h a t both of these
functions are served by preverbal elements occuxxing
with the same psoclitic and that they concern the level

F i n a l l y , as some of the preceding examples almady

suggest, t h e elements which accur before the verb in
t h i s t m e of constituent order m y not be the syntactic
azguments of t h e vezb (Wash 1995b), as in ( 3 3 ) :
(331 JH59.345L-347L, txt 59, line 001 59.345R
ihe?l-vul6-wu
PRX=3-MM -fat-RES DPçPRX=ABTçshe

r-ctallow*- i s the fat o f the mutton, it is a very hard

grease. "
A literal translation of this example would be 'sheep's
fat, its grease i s very hardF. The preverbal HP
'sheep's fat0 is not a semantic argument of what is
represented in the l a t t e r part of the utterance.
Here i s another example:
( 3 4 ) JH59.641R-642R, tact 7 8 , l i n e 005 59.6421.
*Salt. sometiaes cones out white on a person. On a hard
working roan, <it comes out> s a l t on h i s back.

Is .
\\
?in67n6 s u t l - S i S h i s son soxyop hiho?lkainl-
noim S - u t i ~ i i t lti=s-on ~ o x y o phi.=ho?=~ = amiaa
?I very 3-hard DP=3-IDF wash DP=DIS=ARTÈshir
t h a t s a l t coning o u t makes h i s s h i r t hard t o wash.'

A l i t e r a l translation of ( 3 4 ) would be 'the coming out

salt, washing the shirt is hard". As the translation

given i n the example suggests, what it means is 'because

of the salt coming out, it is hard t o wash t h e shirt'.
Again, t h e preverbal NP "the salt coming out' is not a
semantic argument of what i s presented i n the l a t t e r
part of the uttenince.
We have seen in earlier chaptexs that, in
&uba.refic#8 verbs themselves can constitute complete
predications. This fact, h conjunction with the above
examples, seems to suggest the following analysis
regaxding the structure of the preverbal constituent
order with the proclitic ?i=.In this particular order,
some topic element and same complete predicatian
relevant to it are juxtaposed on the basis of a rather
loose relationship between the two: the relationship is
not syntactic, but pragmatic.
The present analysis is further supported by the
morphology af the preverbal W s . Preverbal PIPS do not
take the dependent proclitic hi=B which is a
chuacteristic of NPs a c c u ~ ~ i n g
after the verb (cf.
Beeler 1970aB 1976; Beeler and Whistler 1980; Waeh
1995b). That is, even a glance at the data shows that
typically postvesbal NPs are marked with the proclitic
hi=, but this proclitic does not appear on preverbal
NE%. Fox example, none of the preverbal W s presented
in this section are marked by hi=. So here is a
phenomenon in which the morphology of Barbarefio t x e a t ~
preverbal =S differently from postvecbal W S #which are
c l e u e r cases of syntactic arguments of the verb. And
this seems t o i n d i c a t e further t h a t preverbal NPs are
n o t syntactic axguxnents of the verb in the u t t e r a n c e *
T h e above analysis concerning the s y n t a c t i c s t a t u s
of the poreverbal NPs occurring w i t h seems to accord
nicely with the function of t h e s e NPs which 1 suggested
earlier* That is, preverbal NPs have been suggested to
s e r v e a t a p i c introducing function, a discourse-level
f u n c t i o n , and they are conjoined with ~ o m ep r e d i c a t i a n s
due to praqnatic relevance.
Thus f a r w e have examined one type of preverbal
c o n s t i t u e n t order* This type is c h a r a c t e r i z e d with
preverbal NFs occurring with t h e p r o c l i t i c +?is on the
word f d l o w i n g them, and is n o t as conman a s t h e basic
c o n s t i t u e n t o r d e r in which full NPs follow t h e verb. In
terns of function, it can be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a t o p i c
c o n s t m c t i o n i n which a pzevexbal topic element i s
conjoined w i t h some camplete p r e d i c a t i o n based n o t on
syntax but on pragmatics*
The second type of constituent o r d e r in which NPs
occur beeore t h e verb is c h a a c t e r i z e d by the p r o c l i t i c ,
Jca=f on t h e verb. Examine t h e f o l l ~ w i n gexamples:
(36) -S9.554&562R, txt 106, line 008

#It wa8 grown up people that drank toluache.'

In (35) and (36)# rflowers@and 'ruoteF which appear to

be the direct objects, are expressed before the verb,
and in (37)? the subject 'grown up people' i s expressed
before the verb. In all of these examples, the verb is
marked with the pxoclitic ka=, and further the
information expressed in the prevexbal NP seems to be
focused, which is p a r t l y observed in the use of such
elements as #rather8 (example (36)) and ,onlyr (example
(37)). Further, ae the examples show, this type of
order is very d t e n tzanslated by Harringtan with t h e
cleft construction in Sng1isha M d i t i ~ n a l l yoften
~ the
infarmation expxessed in these prevexbal NPs may be
contrasted with other information in the utterance, as
seen in the following exaaplez
(38) JH59.58L-GOL, txt 179, line 003 59.59L

'They say t h a t when you see the s p i x i t of someone else,

either you axe g. ta d i e r or that pes8on is g. to d i e s r

In t h i s example, pthat person is contxasted w i t h 'you

@ r ,

and is expressed preverbalzy w i t h the proc1iti.e ka=.

St appears that the preverbal NPs occurring with
ka=, like those with 3 i s f are not syntactic azgtments of
the following element. There are several pieces of
evidence far this analysis.
Firstf some ka=-marked words axe actually nouns
rather than verbs:
 ?It must have been an ep. that chilcken only not
gxown-ups e '
In this example, there are two words marked by &a=, bath
of which seem to be nauns because t h e y take the
alienable possessive prefix i s - . S t m c t u r a l l y , what w e
have here in each case is t w a =S j u t a p a s e d next to
each other. For this reason, though the first IQ in
each c u n s t m c t i a n (Fchildren*and *gram-ups*} seems to
be the possessor of the following noun epidemic ,these
NPs probably axe not its s y n t a c t i c argument.
The following example further supports t h e present
analysis :
( 4 0 ) JE?59.359R-367&, t x t 141, line 0 0 4 59.360R
-> K e b h ho?a;aJiiin
kaaiykepkepnu?l-waS
-nu?-iwa5
^ysg-iy-R+kep
or DIS-ocean KA=3-PL-R+bathe-LOC-NPST
or the ocean was their bathing places. @

The word marked by Jca= is a noun: it i s marked with the

locative nominalizer pm2 and the s u f f i x -iwaS, which
indicates the defunct status of the referent of the
noun. An HP 'a deep place i n a creek, a basin, a slough

or t h e ocean* i s placed before that. Here, there does

n o t seem to be any syntactic relationship between the
t w o HPs: the f i r s t IIP does not even have a possessive
r e l a t i o n s h i p with the J c a = - ~ k e dm. Such examples seem
to s h o w that utterances containing ka= may be equational
c o n s t r u c t i o n s with no syntactic relationship between t h e
t w o parts.

Second, supporting the above analysis, there are

cases of ka=-marked utterances without an NP preceding
them, as in:
(41) 3H59.139L0151R, txt 198, line 0 6 0 59.149L

P% ~eiiia?l'l kaiiy-filihi.kwan,
P% Aesnaii kÇ= =? -iy-qili-hik-wun
perhaps EMejust KA=ART^NM-PL-HAB -do -3PO
*that was probably all that they used to do.'
(42) JH59.428R-432L, txt 150, GM line 001 59.431R
e
? ik%?mekaBi~iina&iii-wag
?ikhuÈ&e=Is&=a-iy-?iÈndiÈ-iw
but =EM=K&=3-PL-custom -NPST
*but that was their custom.*
Agreeing with the e a r l i e r suggestion t h a t ka= may be a
type o f p r e d i c a t e marker (Beeler 1970a, 1976 ; B e e l e r and
Whistler 19801, these examples show t h a t &-marked
u t t e r a n c e s are complete without an HP preceding them.
Notice t h a t kaà appears on a v e r b i n ( 4 1 ) and on a noun
i n ( 4 2 ) : t h e former takes t h e h a b i t u a l p r e f i x Uli- and
t h e t h i x d person plural d i z e c t o b j e c t s u f f i x -mq, and
t h e l a t t e r takes t h e defunct nominal s u f f i x -iwas. The
f a c t that ka=-marked u t t e r a n c e s are complete without an
HP preceding them suggests t h a t t h o s e NFs appearing
before Jca= may n o t b e real syntactic arguments of what
follows .
Finally, morphology also supports the present
analysis. Specifically, these preverbal MPS are
typically not marked by the dependent p r o c l i t i c hi=,
which i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of p o s t v e r b a l NPs, clearer cases
of syntactic arguments of t h e verb.
T h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d above a l l seen to p o i n t t o t h e
conclusion t h a t this second type of preverbal order i s
a focus c o n s t r u c t i o n i n which t h e preverbal HP is
syntactically independent from what follows and
f u n c t i o n a l l y t h e information which t h e HP p r e s e n t s i s
focused. F i n a l l y , in terms of d i s t r i b u t i o n , I should
note t h a t , compared t o o t h e r types of c o n s t i t u e n t o r d e r ,
this order seems to be rathex marked; it is used
relatively infxequently in Basbaxefio discoursee
W e have thus discussed two types of prevezbal
orders in Barbaxefio, each of which is characterized by
a particular proc1iti.c CO-occurring with theme
1 have come across a f e w cases i n the
Intereatingl~~
data which seem to exhibit preverbal NPs aesociated with
both of these two types of orderse Heze is one such

?The Indians l i k e d big game animals rather than amall.?

There are two NPs occurring befare the verbe The first
NP 'Indiansr is followed by the proclitic Z i = , and the
second M? ' b i g animals * is followed by the proclitic
ka= This utterance seems to be about one
chmacteristic of the IndiansF which ~uggeststhe topic
status of the first NP. -hext part of the
txanslatian @rather than smallrF which is not in the
Chumash, seems to suggest that the infuxmation expressed
in the secand MP is focused. Finally? though in my data
I have faund only a few cases in which two NPs occur
before t h e verb, all of them show the ozder shown in
( 43 ) : topic and focus. Thus, these examples not only
show that these t w o types of preverbal NPs can be used
together but f u r t h e r suggest that t h e r e are i n fact t w o
d i f f e r e n t s t r u c t u r a l @ l o t sbefore the verb.
Thus w e have s e e n Barbareso constituent orders in
which full Ws axe expressed before the verb.
S p e c i f i c a l l y , I have discussed two types of orders, each
of which i s chaacterized by particulax structural and
functianal characteristicsm It should be noted that the
functians o f t h e s e two preverbal order types are very
similar to what has been discussed in t h e l i t e r a t u r e
concerning preverbal orders c r o s s - l i n ~ i s t i c a l l y(Mithun
1987, 1993; Payne 1987; C&ng 1991)e That i s , it has
been found i n many languages t h a t preverbal elements are
associated with such p r a w a t i c a l l y marked functions as
topic and focus.

5-4- S--
In this chapter, w e have looked at c a n s t i t u e n t
order i n Barbarefie. 1 first suggested t h a t the most
typical constituent order i n Barbaxe50 is a verb
followed by a t most one core argument full NP . Based on
the functions of full Ws given earliex, I then
presented a functional description of Barbare60 basic
constituent order as a vexb which expresses either an
event or a state which may be followed by one core
argument full NP performing such coqnitively demanding
tasks as introducing and re-introducing p m i c i p a n t s and
clearly distinpishing some pmicipants from other
paeicipmts in the discourse. We then saw that these
f u l l NPs axe typically either intransitive subjects or
transitive direct objects, which suggests a structural
description of Barbareso basic constituent order as a
verb which may be followed by either an intransitive
subject or a transitive direct ob ject . Transitive
subjects are normally expressed as pronominal prefixes.
I further suggested that this rather rudimentary
structure is possible because most refexential tracking
activities in Baxbareiio are performed by the pronominal
affixes an the verb.
Then I talked about the order of obliques in
relation to core arguments. Specifically, 1 suggested
that if utterances have bath a core argument and an
oblique as full NPs, the oblique typically follaws the
c o r e argument* Barbarefio has a pxocess in which c e r t a i n
arguments which would otherwise be ublicpes ( d a t i v e s and
i n s t r u m e n t s ) are treated as a e c t objects by appearing
w i t h a verb c o n t a i n i n g one of t h e core u m e n t - b u i l d i n g
suffixes* 1 discussed t h e consequence i n c o n s t i t u e n t
o r d e r of t h i s process t h a t alters g ~ a m m t i c a x
l elations.
I s h m e d t h a t when t h i s happens and both t h e d i r e c t
o b j e c t and t h e p a t i e n t appear i n t h e u t t e r a n c e , the
direct o b j e c t d i r e c t l y fallows t h e v e r b and i s followed
by t h e p a t i e n t ? r e f l e c t i n g t h e s t a t u s change. To sum
up, B a r b a r e 5 0 basic c o n s t i t u e n t oxder can be summarized
as follows: a verb maybe followed by one core axgtment
f u l l NI? ( e i t h e r t h e t r a n s i t i v e direct o b j e c t or the
i n t r a n s i t i v e s u b j e c t ) ? and maybe f u r t h e r f o l h w e d by
obliques.
F i n a l l y , w e examined c o n s t i t u e n t o r d e r t y p e s o t h e r
than t h e b a s i c a m . Specifically, I discussed cases i n
which NPs a c c w b e f o r e verbs. These c a s e s seem to be
more marked i n terms of both frequency and f u n c t i o n s
t h a n the type that has basic c o n s t i t u e n t ~ x c i e r * I
suggested t h a t there are a t least t w o diffexent t y p e s of
preverbal orders* I f i r s t d i s c u ~ s e dcases i n which
p r e v e r b a l NPs co-occur with a p x o c l i t i c Ji= an t h e word
following them* I suggested t h a t these NPs may not have
a s y n t a c t i c r e l a t i a n s h i p with t h e vexb because t h e i r
r e f e r e n t s are o f t e n n u t semantic arguments uf what i s
represented in the latter part of the utterance*
Further, t h e s e NPs do not take t h e dependent p r o c l i t i c
hi=, which i s c h u a c t e r i s t i c of Ws f o l h w i n q t h e verb.
1 a l s o suggested t h a t t h e function of t h e s e NPs can be
chmacterized as the introduction of a topic,
r e p r e s e n t i n g such i d e n t i f i d l e c h a r a c t e r s as ' I n d i a n s r
and ' t h e old-time peopler, m h a t e l h m a n beings, and/ar
main p a r t i c i p a n t s o f t h e s t o r i e s , o r t h e frame i n which
t h e s t o r i e s are t o l d . I then discussed cases i n which
pzeverbal elements CO-occur with a p x o c l i t i c ka= on t h e
verb. This i s a x e l a t i v e l y mintx c o n s t r u c t i o n which
occurs rather infrequently. I suggested t h a t this
c a n s t r u c t i o n is used when t h e element accurr5ng before
t h e verb i s focused in t h e utterance. I ale0 suggested
that t h e s e preverbal NPs xnay not belong s y n t a c t i c a l l y t o
what follows.
 Notes for Chapter 5
1. Even among t h e s e cases, the basic constituent order
cannot be easily determined: approximately h a l f of them
had VOS order and the other h a l f VSO. These cases do
n o t include such examples as ( 3 1 because, as I w i l l
suggest i n 5.3., preverbal NPs do not hold a s y n t a c t i c
relationship with the verb.

2. This number includes cases in which oblique NPs

appear after the verb. W
e w i l l . examine such cases i n

3. Of course, this fact could simply be a consequence of

t h e fact that quotes are normally singular. As w e saw
in czhaptez 3 , t h e verb Zin @say8can become a verb t h a t
takes two nominal arguments 'say to/telle by addition of
t h e d a t i v e suffix -us, but that i s not what w e have i n

(7)

4. Suzanne Wash (p.c.) analyzes t h e material on the

second line in (29) as an appositive clause t o 'their
seeds8 instead of a relative clause modifying it.
6. Conclusion
In this dissertation, we have looked at the
interface between grammatical structure and functional
factors in Barbareno Chmnash, a California language, by
closely examining discourse data. In particular, this
was done based on the findings and the assumptions in
one area of research called 'information flow8 (Chafe
1987, 1994). In this final section, I would like to
review the discussion and summarize t h e major findings
of the disser'tation.
In chapter 2, as an introduction to Barbarefio
Chumash, I presented its basic structure. First, I
discussed the distinctive sounds in Barbareno. I showed
that it has s i x vowels and a relatively large number of
consonants. Then, I briefly discussed its basic
moqhological structure while presenting the two main
lexical categories (nouns and verbs ) . Next, I discussed
the argument structure of Barbareno; I illustrated the
nominative-accusative patterning of verbal affixes which
indicate the arguments of the verb. I further suggested
t h a t these affixes are pronouns because they are used
without full NPs. I then discussed the specifics of
this pronominal system. Next, I gave a brief discussion
of Barbareno constituent order; I showed that Barbareno
exhibits various constituent order types. Finally, I
described basic clause-combining patterns in Barbarefio.
After examining the basic grammatical structure, we
looked at three tightly related aspects of Barbareno
grammar and their functional correlates. In chapter 3,
we looked at the argument structure of the language. I
first pointed out that certain arguments in Barbareno
are expressed by grammatically required pronominal
affixes (the subjects and the direct objects). That is,
Barbareno treats only certain arguments as integral
parts of the verbs, which can b e taken as criteria1 for
core arguments. I then pointed out that facts about
constituent order support this observation. That is,
when these arguments are full NPs, they tend to be
expressed before other NPs ( i.e., obliques ) in a clause.
We then examined the structure and "the function
associated with two verbal suffixes ?us Odativegand -in
@instrumental0. I suggested that these are devices for
expressing certain arguments as direct objects which
would otherwise be cast as obliques (i.e., datives and
instruments). There are several pieces of evidence
which support this analysis. First, when the referent
of the direct object i s p l u r a l , just l i k e other direct
objects it can be marked by the p l u r a l d i r e c t o b j e c t
suffix -mn. Second, when both the dative or
instrumental direct object and the p a t i e n t are p r e s e n t
a s full NPs i n the clause, the direct object tends to be
expressed before t h e p a t i e n t . Finally, the direct
object seems to represent a p a r t i c i p a n t t h a t i s more
c e n t r a l t o t h e event described by the verb and/or more
prominent in the discourse than the p a t i e n t . Thus the
morphological marking, t h e s y n t a c t i c p a t t e r n i n g , as well
as t h e semantic or" discourse s t a t u s a l l seem t o i n d i c a t e
that t h e s e arguments a r e now d i r e c t o b j e c t s , and t h i s
further suggests that core argumenthood plays an
important role in the grammatical structure of
Barbareno.
F i n a l l y , w e briefly examined t h e grammatical s t a t u s
of t h e p a t i e n t occurring with a verb marked by one of
the core argument-building devices. I suggested t h a t
this type of p a t i e n t does n o t have a l l t h e f e a t u r e s
associated with d i r e c t o b j e c t s .
I n chapter 4, w e examined r e f e r e n t i a l choice i n
Barbareno. We first looked at pronominal affixes, which
are the most typical r e f e r e n t i a l forms i n discourse. As
we saw earlier, these affixes have been grannnaticized to
such an extent that subject prefixes are used even when
they do not refer (duanny subject). Thus both frequency
and grammar suggest that pronominal affixes may be the
unmarked or d e f a u l t referential choice for B a r b a d o
speakers.
Pronominal affixes indicate only person, number,
and case, so they seem to be used only when that much
information is enough to keep track of the referent:
more explicit reference is not necessary. That is,
these affixes are used to talk about participants who
have already been fully established in the discourse
(8given information8 in Chafe's term (1976, 1987,
1994)).
These pronominal affixes often co-occur with full
MPS. I showed that full NPs are used in such s i t u a t i o n s
a s when referents are introduced in the discourse for
the first time or re-introduced after a thematic break
or perspective change, and when there are other
semantically similar referents in the discourse. That
is, these are situations in which reference only by
pronominal affixes would not be explicit enough.
After establishing the uses of these two
r e f e r e n t i a l forms i n discourse, w e looked a t t w o o t h e r
f o r m 2 independent pronouns and t h e d m o n s t s a t i v e be2.
I s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e s e two forms are not used v e r y o f t e n
and t h a t they are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s p e c i a l i z e d f u n c t i o n s
as w e l l as particular s y n t a c t i c c o n s t r u c t i o n s used t o
express c e r t a i n semantic c o n t e n t .
I n c h a p t e r 5, w e looked a t the c o n s t i t u e n t o r d e r of
Barbarefirt. Barbareiii-i seem t o a l l o w s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t
types o f c o n s t i t u e n t o r d e r s ; however t r a n s i t i v e verbs
with t h e two c o r e arguments expressed both as f u l l HPs
are extremely rare i n d i s c o u r s e (cf. Du Bois 1 9 8 7 ) . I
thus suggested t h a t it may n o t be u s e f u l o r even
possible to talk about constituent order in the
t r a d i t i o n a l sense.
W e t h e n looked a t the most t y p i c a l c o n s t i t u e n t
order i n d i s c o u r s e : v e r b - i n i t i a l order. I suggested
t h a t i n t h a t o r d e r , t h e v e r b i s g e n e r a l l y followed by a t
most one core argument f u l l NP. As w e saw i n c h a p t e r 4 ,

full WPs are used when t h e r e f e r e n t needs t o be

e x p l i c i t l y mentioned fox v a r i o u s reasons. I thus
suggested t h a t f u n c t i o n a l l y t h e basic c o n s t i t u e n t o r d e r
i n Barbareno i s a v e r b r e p r e s e n t i n g e i t h e r an e v e n t o r
a state which may be followed by one c o r e argument f u l l
NP performing such cognitively demanding tasks as
introducing and re-introducing p a r t i c i p a n t s and clearly
d i s t i n g u i s h i n g some p a r t i c i p a n t s f r o m o t h e r p a r t i c i p a n t s
i n t h e discourse.
S t u d i e s have shown t h a t transitive d i r e c t o b j e c t s
and i n t r a n s i t i v e subjects are t h e grammatical slots i n
which new information i s o f t e n presented (e.g., Du Bois
1987). I a l s o found that i n Barbareiio p o s t v e r b a l NPs
are mostly transitive direct o b j e c t s and i n t r a n s i t i v e
subjects. I t h u s suggested t h a t s t r u c t u r a l l y the b a s i c
constituent order in Barbareno is a verb perhaps
followed by e i t h e r t h e d i r e c t o b j e c t o r t h e i n t r a n s i t i v e
subject.
Regarding obliques, we found them appearing after
t h e core arguments (i.e., t r a n s i t i v e d i r e c t o b j e c t s and
intransitive subjects). As discussed i n c h a p t e r 3,
Barbareno has a process in which certain arguments which
would otherwise be obliques (i.e., datives and
instruments) become direct o b j e c t s . When this happens
and both t h e direct object and the p a t i e n t are expressed
as f u l l MPS, t h e d i r e c t o b j e c t t y p i c a l l y a p p e a r s right
after the verb and is followed by the patient,
r e f l e c t i n g the s t a t u s change.
 Finally, we looked at constituent orders in which
full Nfs appear before the verb. Two different types
were discussed. The first type is characterized with
preverbal NPa appearing with a c l i t i c 2i= on the
following word. These preverbal NPs are not strictly
syntactic arguments of the verb. That is, in this type,
preverbal NPs serve a marked function which can be
characterized as the introduction of a topic. Preverbal
NPs and complete predications are conjoined because
there is some type of pragmatic relationship between
them. This particular type of preverbal order is not
uncommon, but it is not as frequently used as the basic
verb initial order. The second type of preverbal order
is characterized with another clitic, ba=, appearing an
the following word. This is a focus construction in
which the preverbal Nfs are the focused elements, and it
is used infrequently in discourse. I suggested that
these preverbal MP8 are not syntactic arguments of w h a t
follows them.
The significance o f this dissertation may be
summarized as the following. First, in spite of the
large amount of data left by earlier researchers,
Barbareno Chumash has been a little-studied and thus
little-known language. The present dissertation is the
first study on this scale to describe the grammar of
Barbareno Chumash. Particularly because of the rich
morphology of Barbarefio, it provides the field with a
solid database which should help to generate new ideas
and to evaluate already existing theories of language.
Further this dissertation has demonstrated that the
grammar of Barbaxeno Chumash is heavily dependent on the
functional factor's exhibited in discourse. It has thus
firmly established the functional basis of linguistic
structure and has amplified the growing literature in
functional linguistics. Specifically, this was done
with respect to the 'information flow' theory of Chafe
( 1987, 1994 1.
Finally, the investigation for this dissertation
was carried out solely based on the examination of
discourse data. For this reason, the study has also
shown the importance of natural discourse data in the
study of the structure and the functions of a language.
The limitations of this study can be summarized as
the following. First, the research for this
dissertation was executed without consultation with the
specialists of the language, native Barbareno speakers.
T h i s w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y needed t o check t h e formal aspects
of t h e language. Since Barbareno i s no l o n g e r spoken,
of course t h i s w a s not p o s s i b l e . I only hope t h a t w h a t
I have presented above comes as c l o s e a s p o s s i b l e t o
what w a s a c t u a l l y going on i n the language. Second,
related t o t h e f i r s t l i m i t a t i o n , s i n c e this d i s s e r t a t i o n
was written based solely on data c o l l e c t e d by e a r l i e r
researchers, there were o f t e n s i t u a t i o n s i n which it was
d i f f i c u l t to determine what t h e o r i g i n a l recorders
intended, be it an unreadable phonetic symbol o r several
d i f f e r e n t fonns and/or m u l t i p l e t r a n s l a t i o n s apparently
f o r t h e same i t e m . Harrington o f t e n made it clear what
each d i f f e r e n t form and translation w a s f o r , b u t there
are still u n c l e a r cases which are left for researchers
t o decide. F o r i n s t a n c e , I o f t e n had to p i c k one form
or one t r a n s l a t i o n out of several with similar meanings
given by Harrington, since it seemed i m p r a c t i c a l t o l i s t
a l l of them. Though I always d i d my b e s t t o r e p r e s e n t
what 1 took to be intended by the o r i g i n a l r e c o r d e r s ,
and i f I had t o choose, I chose what appeared t o m e to
be the best a l t e r n a t i v e , some indeterminacy will always
remain i n this kind of research. I only hope my
decisions have not been t o o far" from the i n t e n t i o n s of
t h e o r i g i n a l recorders o r of the speakers. Third, the
data that I used to examine Barbare60 grammar are mostly
d i f f e r e n t types of narratives. For t h i s reason, the
r e s u l t s which I have obtained may pertain only to t h i s
genre. Further investigations on other types of data
will be necessary to see how generalizable my r e s u l t s
are. Finally, this study lacks quantitative
verification. Same of t h e f i n d i n g s and t h e claims made
i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n would b e n e f i t from quantitative
verification. These limitations can be at least
p a r t i a l l y overcome i n f u t u r e s t u d i e s .
Overall, d e s p i t e t h e l i m i t a t i o n s s t a t e d above, some
interesting results have been obtained. The grammar of
Barbareiio Chumash has been shown t o be heavily dependent
on functional f a c t o r s exhibited i n discourse, and each
d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t of t h e grammar examined here appears t o
be responsive to s p e c i f i c functional f a c t o r s , a strong

confirmation of the value of a function-based approach

t o grammar.
 Bibliography
Applegate, Richard B. 1972. Ineseiio Chumash Grammar.
.
Ph-D. Dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley
Applegate, Richard B. 1976. Reduplication in Chumash. In
Margaret Langdon & Shirley Silver, Eds., Hokan
Studies: Papers f r o m the First Conference on Hokan
Languages, 271-283. The Hague: Mouton.
Austin, P e t e r . To appear. Causatives and Applicatives in
Australian Aboriginal Languages. In Peter Austin &
B a r r y Blake, E d s . , Theoretical Iiinquistics and
Australian Aboriginal Languages.
Beeler, Madison S. 1954-1961. Manuscript Materials and
Audio Recordings of Barbareiio Chumash.
Beeler, Madison S. 1970a. Topics in Barbareno Chumash
Grammar. Unpublished Manuscript.
Beeler, Madison S. l970b. Sibilant Harmony in Chumash.
International Journal of American Linguistics
36:14-17.
Beeler, Madison S. 1976. Barbare50 Churnash Grannnar: A
Farrago. In Margaret Langdon & Shirley Silver,
Eds., Hokan Studies: Papers from the First
Conference on Bokan Languages, 251-269. The Hague:
MOU~OII.
Beeler, Madison S. 1978. Barbareiia Chumash Text. and
Lexicon. In Mohaannad A. Jazayery, Edgar C. Polom6,
6 Werner Winter, Eds., Linguistic and Literary
Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill, 11:
.
Descriptive Linguistics, 171-193.
Mouton
The Hague:

Beeler, Madison S. and Whistler, Kenneth W. 1980.

Coyote, Hawk, Raven and Skunk (Barbareno Chumash).
In Martha B. Kendall, Ed., Coyote Stories 11, 88-
96. International Journal of American Linguistics
Native American Texts Series Monograph No. 6.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Blake, B u r y J. 1994. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge
University P r e s s .
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, Contrastiveness,
Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View.
Charles N. Li, Ed., Subject and Topic, 25-55. New
York: Academic Press.
Chafe, Wallace L. (Ed.). 1980. The Pear Stories:
Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of
Narrative Production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1987. Cognitive Constraints on
Information Flow. Russell S. Tomlin, Ed., Coherence
and Grounding in Discourse, 21-51. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Chafe, Wallace L. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and
Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious
Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago:
Chicago University Press.
Clancy, Patricia M. 1980. Referential Choice in English
and Japanese Narrative Discourse. In Wallace L.
Chafe, Ed., The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural,
and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production,
127-202. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Oniversals and
Linguistic Typology, Second Edition. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Croft , William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and
Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization
of Information. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Gumming, Susanna. 1991. Functional Change: The Case of
Malay Constituent Order. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dixon, R. M. W. 1977. Where Have All the Adjectives
Gone? Studies in Language 1:19-80.
Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. Primary Objects, Secondary
Objects, and Antidative. Language 62:808-845.
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The Discourse Basis of
E r g a t i v i t y . Language 63:805-855.
Du Bois , John W. , Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan. , Cununing,
Susanna., and Paolino, Danae. 1993. O u t l i n e of
Discourse T r a n s c r i p t i o n . I n Jane A. Edwards &
Martin D. Lamport, Eds., Talking Data:
T r a n s c r i p t i o n and Coding i n Discourse Research, 45-
89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Duranti, Alessandro and Ochs , E l i n o r . 1990. G e n i t i v e
Constructions and Agency i n Samoan Discourse.
Studies in Language 14:l-23.
Fox, Barbara A. 1987. Discourse S t r u c t u r e and Anaphora:
Written and Conversational English. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
POX* Barbara A. (Ed.). 1996. S t u d i e s i n Anaphora.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Given, T. (Ed.). 1983. Topic Continuity i n Discourse: A
Q u a n t i t a t i v e Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Given, T V 1984 and 1990. Syntax: A Functional-
Typological I n t r o d u c t i o n , Vol. 1-11. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Some Universals of Grammar
w i t h P a r t i c u l a r Reference t o t h e Order of
Meaningful Elements. I n Joseph H. Greenberg, Ed.,
Universals of Language, Second E d i t i o n , 73-113.
Cambridge, HA: MIT Press.
Harrington, John P. 1912-1961. Manuscript Materials of
Linguistic and Ethnographic Work among t h e Chumash,
Kraus Microfilm E d i t i o n , V o l . 3. Washington, D.C.:
National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian
Institution.
Harrington, John P. 1974. S i b i l a n t s i n Venturefio.
I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of American L i n g u i s t i c s 4 0 :1-
9.
Hawkins I John A. l983. Word Order Universals :
Quantitative Analyses of Linguistic Structure. New
York: A c a d d c Press.
Hopperf Paul J. and 7!hompsanf S m d r a A* 1980.
Txansitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language
56~251-299.

Hopper? Paul J. and Traugott Elizabeth C* 1993.

Grmaticalization. C&ridge:CdridgeUniversity
Press.
Ichihashi-Nakayama, Kumiko. 1996. The wApplicatAve* in
Bualapai: Its Functions and Meanings. Cagnitive
Linguistics 7~227-239.
Khenyi, Alexandre. 1980. A Relational Grammar of
Kinyaxwanda. University of California Publications
in Linguistics? Vol. 91. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
KlarI Kathryn A. 1973. Northern Chumash and the
Subgrouping of the Chumash Dialects. M.A. Thesis,
Uniweristy of Californiaf Berkeley.
Klar, Kathryn A. 1977. Topics in Eistorical Chumash
Grammar. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley.
Klarf Kathryn A. 1981. Proto-Chumash Person and Number
Markers. In Jmes Redden? Ed., Proceedings of the
1980 Hokan Languages Workshop. Southern Illinois
Universityf Department of Linguistics Occasional
Papers on Linquistcs 9:06-95.
.
Mithunf Marianne. 1987 1s Basic Word Order Universal?
In Russell S. T011tlhI Ed. I Caherence and Grounding
in Discourse, 281-328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mithunp U i a n n e . 1993. Prosodic D e t e d n a n t s of
S y n t a c t i c Form: C e n t r a l Pomo C o n s t i t u e n t Ordera I n
David A. P e t e r s o n f Ed.,, Proceedings of the
Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley
L i n g u i s t i c s S o c i e t y , F e b m q 12-lS, 1993: S p e c i a l
S e s s i o n on S y n t a c t i c I s s u e s i n Native American
Languages, 86-106. Berkeley: Berkeley L i n g u i s t i c s
Society.
Mithun, Mariamee 1994. The m p l i c a t i a n s of E r g a t i v i t y
f o x a P h i l i p p i n e Voice System In Baxbara Fox &
P a u l J. Hopper, Eds., Voice: Farm and Function,
247-277. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mithun, Marimne* To Appear. The Regression of S i b i l a n t
Harmony through t h e L i f e of Barbarefio Chumash. I n
Jane H i l l & Zyle Campbell, Eds* , a secret
festsehrift
Mithun, Mariannemf Ono, Tsuyashie, and Wash, Suzanne.
1994. The S h i f t i n g S t a t u s of Initial G l o t t a l S t o p
i n Barbare50 Chumash. I n Hargaret Gangdon, Ed.,
Proceedings o f t h e Meeting of t h e Society f a r t h e
Study af the Indigenous Languages of the Americas
J u l y 2-4 1993 and t h e Hokm-Penutian Workshop July
3 , 1993, 199-207. Survey of C a l i f o r n i a and O t h e r
Indian Languages Report 8. Bezkeley: Department of
L i n g u i s t i c s , U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley.
Hunro, Pamela. 1982. On t h e T r m s i t i v i t y of rSayF Verbs.
In Paul J. Eeppez & Sandra a. Thompson, E d s : ,
Syntax and Semantics, Vole 15: Studies zn
T r a n s i t i v i t y , 301-318. New York: Academic P r e s s .
Ono, Tsuyoshi., Wash, Suzanne., and f i t h u n , Marianne.
.
1994a F i n a l G l o t t a l i z a t i o n i n Barbare60 Chumash
and Its Heiqhbars. In Margaxet &angdon, Ed.,
Proceedings of t h e Meeting of t h e S o c i e t y f o r t h e
Study of t h e Indiqenoua Languages of t h e Americas
J u l y 2-4 1993 and t h e Hokan-Penutian Workshop J u l y
3, 1993, 208-217. Survey of C a l i f o r n i a and Other
I n d i a n Languages Report 8 . Bexkeley: Department of
L i n ~ i s t i c s ,U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a p Berkeley.
Ono F Tsuyoshi *, Wash, Suzame*, and Mithun, Marimne
1994be The M o q h o a p t a c t i c and Pragmatic C a r ~ e l a t e s
of t h e I n s t m e n t a l S u f f i x i n Barbauefio
Chumash* Paper presented at t h e Hoka-Penutian
Workshop, Univezsity of Oregon*
P a h e r , F. R. 1994- G r a m m a t i c a l Roles and Relations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University P r e s s e

Paynet Doris L. 1990- The Pragmatics of Word Order:

!Pypological Dimensions of Verb I n i t i a l Languages.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter*
Poserf W i l l i a m * 1982m Phonological R e p r e s e n t a t i o n and
Action-at-a-Distmce. I n Harq van der Hulst &
Nomal Smithf Eds.@ The S t r u c t u r e o f P h ~ n o l o g i c a l
Representations, P a r t IIf 121-158* Dordrecht:
Faris *
Schachter, P a u l a 1985. P e s - o f - S p e e c h S y s t e m s . 1x1
Timothy Shopen, Ed*, Language Typology and
Syntactic Deecription, V d m 1: Clause S t r u c t u r e , 3-
6 L Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shibatani, Masayashi. 1996 .Applicatives
Benefactives: A Cognitive Accounta In Masayoshi
and
S h i b a t a n i & Sandra A. Thompson, Zds
Constmctions: Their Form and Meaning, 157-194*
.
Grammatical
Oxford: Oxford University Press*
TamlinR Russell S. 1987 m L i n g u i s t i c R e f l e c t i o n s of
Cognitive Events R u s s e l l S T o d i n , Ed
and Grounding i n DiscourseR 4S5-47ge Amstercim:
.
Coherence
John Benjamins
Thompsonr Sandra A m 1990. Information F l o w and Dative
S h i f t i n English Diecouxse* I n Jerold A * E&ondsonF
Crawf o r d Feagin? & Peter MGhlhgualer, Eds ,
Develapsnent and Diversityz L i n g u i s t i c V a r i a t i o n
a c r o s s T h e and Space* A F e s t s c h r i f t f o r Charles-
Jmes N. Bailey, 239-253 * Dallas: Summer I n s t i t u t e
of L i n g u i s t i c s e
Thompson, Sandra A. Ta appear* Discourse Motivations far
the Core-Oblique Distinctian a8 a Language
UnivexsaL In Akio K d o , Ed., ~nctionalism in
Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gru*er.
Txaugott, Zlizabeth C. and seine, Bern& (Ed8.)* 1991e
Approaches to G&-ticalization, Vol. I-XI*
hstexdaxn: John Benjamins
T ~ g g y , 0 a ~ i . d1988
~ .
H&huatl Cau~ative/Applicativesin
Cognitive Grammar In Brygida Rudzka-Ostp, Ed * ,
Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, 587-618.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wash, Suzanne M. 199Sae Productive Reduplication in
Barbare60 Chumash. M . I L Thesis, University of
California, Santa Barbaxa.
Waeh, Suzmne M. 1995b- Dependency and Constituency in
Barbare50 Chumashz A Laok at the Connectives hi-
and Zi-* Paper presented at Native h e s i c a n Indian
Languages Meeting, Department of Linguistics,
University of California, Santa Barbara.
Whistler, Kenneth W e 1980e An Interim B a x b a r e f i o Churnash
Dictionary. Unpublished Manuscript*