Linguistic Society of America

Head-Marking and Dependent-Marking Grammar Author(s): Johanna Nichols Reviewed work(s): Source: Language, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 56-119 Published by: Linguistic Society of America Stable URL: . Accessed: 26/01/2012 14:50
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language.


University of California, Berkeley
of relationsmay appearon eitherthe head or the marking grammatical Morphological relationsdependentmemberof the constituent(oron both, or on neither).Grammatical and whole languages-may be classified accordingto their propensityfor using one of relationsamongvariousmarking these types of marking.Implicational patternscan be theirgramstated:languagesdisplaya tendencyto use one type consistentlythroughout mar.The differencein patternsprovidesa typologicalmetricanda functional explanation for certainword-order preferences.For historicallinguistics,it providesa diagnostically the conservativefeatureanda clue to geneticrelatedness.Although head-marked pattern is cross-linguistically favored, grammatical theory is stronglybiased towardthe dependent-marked patternsthat happento dominatein Indo-European.*

This 1. INTRODUCTION. paper points out a simple descriptive fact which has

considerableimplicationsfor typology, historicallinguistics, and grammatical that theory. In view of the breadthand depthof its implications,it is surprising this phenomenonhas gone unnoticedfor so long. One reason for such neglect may lie in the fact that it is easily observedand describedin dependencygramthat forms the backbone mar, but is less obvious to the constituency grammar of contemporarymainstreamWesterntheory. Anotherreason may be the fact that mainstreamtheory, despite considerable efforts to test ideas on exotic languages,happensto have looked almostexclusively at those languageswhich differ little from Indo-Europeanwith regardto the phenomenonat issue. The analysis proposed here is built on only two concepts, both of them a theory-independent and straightforward non-theoretical.One is HEADEDNESS, notion which in fact figures as a primitivein almost all theories-and which, althoughnot directly given in linguisticdata, is often directly reflected in such structuralfeatures as word order. The other is the presence and location of
of overt morphological MARKING syntactic relations-the fact that a given word

bears a given affix, while anotherdoes not. The presence and location of morphological markersis directly given in linguisticdata. The grammatical phenomenonat issue is the fact that syntacticrelationscan
* Much of the researchfor this project was done in Moscow (1975-76) and Tbilisi (1979-80, Researchand ExchangesBoardand Fulbright-Hays 1981, 1984)with the supportof International Faculty Research Abroadfellowships from the Office of Educationand the then Departmentof of Health, Education,and Welfare.I am gratefulto the RussianLanguageDepartment Moscow of State Universityand to the ForeignDivision and the CaucasianLanguagesDepartment Tbilisi State University.Deepest thanksgo to the friendsand colleagueswho sharedwith me theirnative intuitionson languagesof the Caucasus. For comments and examples, I am indebted to Joan Bresnan, Neusa Carson, Jim Collins, Jon Dayley, Scott DeLancey, MatthewDryer, ThomasV. Gamkrelidze,OrinGensler, Victor Golla, Dee Ann Holisky, GaryHolland,John Kingston,Tom DavidShaul,Alan O'Connor, Igor Larsen,MayaMachavariani, Mel'cuk,LarryMorgan,Catherine Timberlake,Robert Van Valin, KennethWhistler,AnthonyWoodbury,and Karl Zimmer.I am for and also gratefulto Ann Kalinowskifor statisticalconsultation KennethWhistler programming. endorseall my views. An My thanksshould not be taken to imply that these people unanimously earlierversion of this paperwas presentedat the 1982LSA AnnualMeeting(San Diego).



be morphologicallymarkedeither on the head of a constituent, or on the dependent. Exx. 1-2 are a minimalpair in this respect. Both are noun phrases with possessed noun heads and possessor dependentnouns. Here and below, heads are indicated by superscriptH, affixal markersby M:
(1) English (2) Hungarian the man-M's Hhouse az ember Hhdz-Ma

the man house-3sg. In 1, the possessive construction is marked by the genitive case on the dependent noun man. In 2, it is markedby a pronominalsuffix on the head noun
is RELATION one and the same-possessor haz 'house'. The SYNTACTIC noun

dependent on possessed noun-but the principles for markingthat relation morphologicallyare diametricallyopposed. Throughoutthis paper, I will use the term 'syntactic relation' as in the preI ceding paragraph. assume that the syntax of a sentence is an abstractnetwork of relations which are not configurationallydefined, but are best viewed as labeled. They are binary, directed relationsbetween a head and a dependent. Most important, syntactic relations are absolutely independentof the morphology (or other means) that signals them. (The natureof the morphological markingdoes have some impact on the characterof the connections between words in a sentence, as will be argued in ?5.22 below; but it does not affect syntactic relations as that term is defined here.) Linguists of divergenttheoreticalpersuasionsare in almost complete agreement as to what is the head and what is the non-headin a given construction; cf. Tesniere 1966, Garde 1977, Mel'cuk 1979, 1981, Bresnan 1982 (passim), Marantz1984.Briefly, the head is the word whichgoverns, or is subcategorized for-or otherwise determinesthe possibilityof occurrenceof-the other word. It determinesthe category of its phrase. The dependencyrelationsin the constructions discussed in this paper are shown in Table 1.1
LEVEL Phrase HEAD possessed noun noun adposition predicate auxiliaryverb main-clausepredicate

Clause Sentence

DEPENDENT possessor modifyingadjective object of adposition and arguments adjuncts lexical ('main')verb relativeor subordinate clause

The function of the morphologyof government,agreement,cross-reference etc. is to identify these syntactic relationsby appropriately markingeither the
1 The entry 'argumentsand adjuncts'is intendedto subsume subjects, objects, and the other nominalfunctionsknown variouslyas non-corerelations,adjuncts,circumstantials, obliquesetc. I will occasionallyuse 'actant' as generic for 'argument' and 'adjunct'. The head of a clause is normallya verb; the entry 'predicate'is used here becauseof the crucial example presentedby the Nootkan languages,discussed in Jacobsen 1979.

direct object etc. as when aspect is markedon Russian verbs. in that Russian aspect iden- . Such patterns amount to the markingof heads as heads and of dependents as dependents. 1982:111)or the Semitic 'status constructus': (3) a. as when IE case endings also signal gender and numberof the noun bearingthe case. VOLUME 62. It can index properties of dependents on the dependents themselves.the gender/number/person the dependent or head. In languageshavinggenderclasses. the morphologicalaffix can mark not only the presence. NUMBER 1 (1986) head (as in 2) or the dependent(as in 1).index particular inflectional or lexical categories of either the head or the dependent.58 LANGUAGE. in part. Persian (4) Hebrew HkUh-Mi Hkuh-Me baland 'high mountain' bolind sefer 'school'. dative. the suffix -il-e marks the noun as having a dependent-without further of specifyingthe type of dependency. the morphologicalmarkermay simply register the presence of syntactic dependency-as does the Persian and Tadzhik 'izafet' (Abaev et al. person/numberagreementin the IE verb indexes propertiesof the (dependent)subjecton the (head)verb.markingthem on the other constituent.All these agreement patterns.IE verb agreement identifiesa noun not merelyas dependent. In 4. or the like. For instance. Second. or accusative case marksa noun not relationto only as being dependenton a verb. while case agreementindexes its syntacticproperties.morphologicalmarking be purelyinternal:it can index properties of the head on the head itself. indirectobject. Thatof Abkhaz. Tadzhik b. indexes the same properties(plus. I will thus speak of syntactic relations as HEAD-MARKED or DEPENDENT-MARKED: this distinctionis the centralprinciple of this paper. 'book house' mountainhigh Hb-Me-t house-of book In 3. HenceforthI will speak of morphological forms as MARKING the presence and type of dependency. Noun cases are a good example: an ergative. morphologycan signal syntactic dependencyin four ways. in addition. in addition to indexing various properties of one constituent on another. Aside from this dichotomy. Similarly. First. bet is the construct form of the noun bayit 'house'. can Fourth.but also as specificallysubject. Similarly. but also the TYPE of dependency.gender/number agreementin the IE attributiveadjective indexes the lexical propertiesof the head noun on the dependentadjective. This kind of markingis quite common. shown in 24 below. Third. or when nouns in Bantu and some Australianlanguagescarry markers of their own gender class. also directly signal the presence and type of syntactic relations. these classes are typically indexed on the verb. but also as being in a particular it: agent or subject. lit. but as INDEXING variousgrammatical lexical and categories of the head or dependent on the other. or when subject agreement varies accordingto the tense or conjugationalclass of the verb. in which phonologicalchanges in the stem markit as having a dependent. the morphologicalaffix may. gender)of three differentactants on the verb.

THEPOSSESSIVE PHRASE these two patterns. lsg. 3 Abbreviationsused in the examples are standard:N(oun). My notion of purely internalmarkingincludes categoriesthat Sapirclassifies as relational(e. to judge from his discussionon p. 'empty words' tirely-although their 'grammatical etc. a history. 3 = third person. althoughit is not clear from Sapir'sdiscussion whether he would agree with me on the classificationof every category. although most of the discussion to follow does concern ordinaryaffixal morphology. 4 In schematicformulae.GRAMMAR AND DEPENDENT-MARKING HEAD-MARKING 59 tifies a verb as a verb. EXAMPLES. Dependent-marked: Noun1+MGEN HNoun2 b. Scanningthe examples will show that Chechen. In the schematic representations. = second person plural. Purely internal markingof these sorts will not be dealt with furtherin this study.2 Markingmay take forms other than straightaffixation. Head-marked: Noun1 HNoun2+ MPronominal affixNl indexingcategories of one memberon the other correspondsto the spirit of Sapir's distinction(1921:101)of pure relationalvs. A(djective). presumablyalso exhibit head-marking dependent-marking and tendencies. rather. = first person singular. consistently uses head-marking strategies.except for the use of 7 for the glottalstop in Mayanand (e. Languages of the isolating type will be left out of the discussion enwords'.??3-5 show the impact which recognition of the two patterns can have for typology. with illustrationsfrom real languages. ?2 illustratesthe two polar markingpatternsat the various levels of syntactic structure. and that both should be explicitly accommodatedby grammatical theories. a languageof the Northeast Caucasus.g.1.4 has (5) a. a word shown with a capitalletter such as N or A. k?) for labialization Abkhazand Shuswap. consistently uses dependent-marking strategies.. In what follows. 87. GEN(itive).a relationalcategory.g. and theory. mood).the real-language examples often follow this order.subscriptletters standfor affixes marking presenceof. It is not the purpose of this paper to provide a typology. The respective sets of examples give clear profiles of the two types. his reasonfor classifyingthem as relational was the fact that such categories are often bound up with subjectagreement. ERG(ative)etc. 2. a languageof the Northwest Caucasus.For example. Schematic examples of head-marked and dependent-marked patterns are shown below. specifically head-final order and suffixal morphology are indicated.Transcription in follows thatof the sourceunless otherwise stated. historical linguistics. 2 I believe the distinctionof marking presenceor type of dependencyvs. or indexing the featuresof. the ? scriptionsymbols are standard. while Abkhaz. In the Semitic status constructus.its goal is to demonstratethat the existence of the two marking patternshas significantimplicationsfor many branchesof linguistics. and case identifies a noun as a noun. I also include forms that mightnot usually be consideredmorphological. 2pl. respectively. then. or a theory of any linguistic phenomenonor set of languages. the head noun is marked by phonological changes. 'function words'.and also illustratesnon-polarpatterns. Tran- . tense. concrete relationalconcepts. relative clauses are frequently marked as such by deletion of the coreferentialnoun or by a relative pronoun. In speaking of morphologicalmarking. V(erb).3 2.

etc. THEATTRIBUTIVE PHRASE shows these patterns. Head-marked: Noun HAdposition + MAFFN A dependent-marked example (9a) can be given from Chechen: (10) be:ra-Mna Ht'e 'on the child' child-DAT on Particularly clear examples of such phrases come fromIE languages such as Russian. VOLUME62.) brother' (13)Hk brat-Mu (12) Hbez (14) a-j]yas Ma. but governs a specific case: (11) H5 with brother-INSTR brat-Ma brat-Mom 'with (my.3. An example of the dependent-marked type 5a is from Chechen: (6) de:-Mn Ha:xca 'father's money' father-GEN money The head-markedtype 5b can be illustratedfrom Abkhaz (Hewitt 1979:116): (7) sara Msd-Hy nf 'my house' I/me my-house (8)a-c'k0'an My-HynAf the-boy his-house 'the boy's house' 2.Muju green.FEM) .-because.q'fl 'at the river' (Hewitt. it is sometimes called a possessive affix.2. . 103) the-river its-at (15) Mruu-Hmajk jar aachi 3sg. etc. (9) a. NUMBER 1 (1986) The pronominalaffix of the head-marked patternagrees with the first noun. MAFFN HNoun (16) a.MASC SG SG house(NOM.) brother' 'without (my.of the man 'by the man.60 LANGUAGE.MASC) 'green book' Hknigu zelen. SG . Dependent-marked: Adjective + b. . . because of the man' (Dayley 1981:216) 2. etc. Dependent-marked: Noun+MCase HAdposition b.) brother' toward brother-DAT Head-marked examples (9b) come from Abkhaz (14) and Tzutujil Mayan (15): without brother-GEN 'toward (my. Head-marked: Adjective HNoun + MAFFA Examples of the dependent-marked type (16a) come from Russian (17) and Chechen (18): 'green house' (17) zelen-Myj Hdom green-NOM.ACCSGFEMbook(ACC. THEADPOSITIONAL PHRASE shows these patterns. . where the prepositionnot only triggersan oblique case on its object. one's.

' (Dayley.ERG man. 417) In both these examples. used on core arguments. as in this example.the verbs do not agree with anything.) Head-markedexamples (16b) include 3a-b. the clause relationsare marked only by verbal affixes which index person and number.4. The relative case is also regularlyused. on a noun modifiedby an attributive. the covert gender class of the head noun. ASP-3sg. Japanese Examplesof the dependent-marked (22). the nominal cases are the only bearers of syntactic information. Head-marked: + + Nounl Noun2 Noun3 HVerb+ MAFFN1 MAFFN2 MAFFN3 type 20a come fromChechen(21).her-he-gave-FINITE 'The man gave the woman the book. above.' (Hewitt.-3pl. all nouns are caseless. and whose ordering indexes the syntactic relations of the nouns. 36) (25) x-M0-Mkee-Htij tzyaq ch'ooyaa7. baygu yuguygu ART.' (Kuno 1973:129) baygul yasangu (23) balan djugumbil ART.GRAMMAR AND DEPENDENT-MARKING HEAD-MARKING 61 (18) Md-ovxa Hxi 'hot water' 'hot milk' hot water(d-) Mj-ovxa Hsura hot milk( j-) the initial consonant of the adjective shows its agreementwith (In Chechen.' (lit.) show these patterns.-ate clothes rats 'Rats ate the clothes. son-DAT knife-NOMstruck father-ERG 'The father stabbed the son.INSTR Stick. NOM balgan. used on oblique actants. tomodati Mni (22) Boku Mga SUBJ friend DATflowers OBJ gave I 'I gave flowers to my friend. Dependent-marked: Noun + MCase Noun + MCase Noun + MCase HVerb b. CLAUSE (20) a. and the following from Shuswap (Kuipers 1974:78): (19) wist Mt-HCitx0 'high house' high REL-house (Shuswap has a minimaltwo-case system which opposes the absolutive. the-man the-womanthe-book it-to.' (Dixon 1972:95) In all three examples. and Dyirbal(23): (21) da:-Ms wo?a-Mna urs-0 Htu:xira. 'fatherstruck son with knife') hana MO Hageta. Head-markedexamples (20b) come from Abkhaz (24) and Tzutujil(25): (24) a-xdc'a a-ph?3s a-?q0?' the relative. ERG woman.MINS Hhit 'The man is hittingthe woman with a stick. . RELATIONS 2.NOM ART.

NUMBER 1 (1986) 2.PERF.This section and the followingone speak of relativization subordination as thoughthey appliedbetween clauses.62 LANGUAGE. In both examples.with zero added. and is often indistinguishable from an ordinaryindependentclause.the relative-clausenoun is affected.bark 3. is relativizationby pronominalization representedby the Dependent-marked typical Europeanconstruction: (29) The Hboy [Mwho gave me money] went out. PRO} . in relativization. in Chechen.5.which have no theoreticalstatus in dependencygrammar.the head is the main-clausenoun. not of the main clause. In dependentmarkedrelativization. Head-markedrelativizationby deletion is shown in the following Navajo example (Platero 1974:10. .As is well known. In head-marked or pronominalization.] (26) a.5 [[M{0..given boy. Lehmann1984). are given in Nichols 1984 and a correlationof relativization and (cf.DATmoney. not between constituents. and the subordinateor embeddedclause is the dependent. the verb therefore appearsin participialform. the relative-clausecopy of the relativenoun is deleted. Noun .]RC . the main clause is affected. such as Chechen (28): (27) Kore wa [watakusi ga M0 kaita] Hhon desu. note Platero's argumentthat the zero is indeed in the main clause): Hnahal'in... HNoun . not of the headlesstype) is syntactically a relativeclause not involvinghead-marked clause is a dependent dependentnot on the mainclause.e.not a claimaboutdependencyrelations.3 wolf dog 'The dog that was bitten by the wolf is barking. wrote book is SUBJ this TOP I 'This is a book that I have written..] In inter-clause relations. Head-marked: [[. but on the head noun.' (Kuno.' is relativizationby pronominalization representedby the followHead-marked 5 This section discusses only head-marking dependent-marking patternsin relativization. relativizationby deletion are the construcExamples of dependent-marked tions found in Japanese (27) and a number of other verb-finallanguages of Eurasia. A fullertreatmentof relativization. 234) Hk'ant a:rave:lira. a word in the main clause is the head. ]RC M{0. della] (28) [M0 su:na a:xca I.out 'The boy who gave me money went out. Dependent-marked: b.3 . This follows from the generalprinciplethat syntactic dependencyholds between words. whose case is that requiredby its main-clausefunction. glosses over a numberof other propertiesof these examples. the relative clause is intact. typically by deletion or pronominalization of the noun. VOLUME62. typicallyby deletion relwhile the main clause is left intact... but this is only a convenientway to describethe location of markers. strategieswith over-alllanguagetype...Thus. ativization..' In both these examples.NOMhaving. i. (30) [tLeechjq'i maa'iitsoh bishxash-e] M0 . RELATIVIZATION displays the following patterns. and the dependentis the relativeclause. PRO} H.NOMwent. and vs.and a subordinate of the main verb.a relativeclause (or at least deletion.bitten-REL IMPF. the relative clause is immediatelyfollowed by the main-clausenoun...

' The Chechen construction is furtherdependent-marked reflexivizationor by deletion of a dependent-clauseactant under coreference to the main-clause subject: (33) [musas Msiena a:xca Mdelca] Hasla:n a:ra-ve:lira.H Mdelca] (32) [musas su:na a:xca A. that man yesterday wine 3>3.citing work by P. but only in where the subordination is marked. I assume that 38 differs from 39 not in which clause is main and which in Chechen. PTC 'Having given me money..M(a)go] Hashkii leechgq'i bishxash.-ERG me..H M. as here.PERF. Aslan went out.H (34) M[M su:na a:xca a Mdella] me. and is subject to constraints that do not apply to 36.COMPdog boy (37) [M0 Yah-fiyd.) Hasla:n a:ra-ve:lira.walk. zero added): M(a)go] 1eechqq'i M0 Hbishxash. a subordinate clause is the one that bears a subordinate semantic relation (reason. as in 36. (36) [Ashkii yah-i(yd3. the dog bit him'.GRAMMAR AND DEPENDENT-MARKING HEAD-MARKING 63 ing Arizona Tewa example (Gorbet 1977:272.DAT 'When Musa gave him money.' Deletion or reflexivization in the main clause is unacceptable: (35) *asla:n-a su:na a:xca a Mdella. as in 38. Asian went out.3. 1>3. M0 Ha:ra-ve:lira. does traditional analysis disagree with my analysis of which clause is subordinate. the special form of the verb 'walk' marks the dependent clause as such.DAT having. (Where the head consists of more than one word. Only for head-marked subordination with conjunctions.bite into-pERF. A. see the discussion there.' In both examples. DAT 'Aslan gave me money and went out. or in the dependent clause.' Hasla:n a:ra-ve:lira.' 2. he was bitten by the dog. time etc. superscriptH is placed at both the beginningand the end.6 Dependent-marking patterns set off the sub- ordinate clause as such.bought 'I bought the wine which that man drankyesterday. Given the general predominance of headmarking patterns in Navajo. as in 37. Chechen 6 I use the term 'subordination' in a broad sense. OTHER SUBORDINATION.gave 'When Musa gave me money. it is not surprising to find that 37 is less preferred. 228. . which is the main clause.' In Navajo. Kroskrity): (31) [he'i sen c'a:ndi n:bap'o mansu'-n] M'i Hdokumq. Deletion can take place either in the main clause. A typical device is the non-finalor non-finite verb used to markthe non-mainclause(s) of a chainingconstruction.3.ERGme.drink-DS 3sg. NOM when.given A. condition. In contrast. bit into-walk. Asian went out.NOM out-went M. Unless otherwise indicated. REFL.) to another. '.DATmoney.COMP boy dog 'When the boy walked in. head-marked and dependent-marked deletions may both occur (Platero.6.

but they markthe main indistinguishable clause as having a subordinate: (39) 1 overslept.) affixes on instrumental. Dependent-marking: case adnominalgenitive non-finiteverbs agreementin adjectives uninflectedadpositionswhich govern cases Head-marking: verbalagreementor cross-reference with nominalarguments incorporation directional(etc. Another example of head-markedsubordination.REsPoNsIvE tired I. . I leave the question open. M50so HI was late. since subordination the traditionalsense is strictly dependentmarked. lsg. such categories will not be discussed furtherhere. '[I'm tired because] I overworked. because-INDIc. VOLUME62.H Head-marked clause intact. is'.and so is not a subordinating in conjunction. 7 Jacobsenuses this exampleto makethe pointthat 'because'is the predicate the mainclause.e. of and would be better translated'the reason that . ratherthan about its individualactants-and thus to be purely internalverbal markers. Similarly. HI was late.It is importantto note that 38-39 are identicalin their semanticsand represent polar opposites in the markingof the semantic relation. althoughthey do not directly mark the occurrence in the clause of particular nominalsfilling the valence. only the dependent-marked ing constructionis possible.overworked 'I'm tired because I overworked. mightbe said that verbal or It categories such as voice or overtly markedtransitivityare head-marked patterns of an indirect type: they carry informationabout the verb's valence. Whatis at issue here is not its status in its own clause.7is from Makah(Jacobsen 1979:113): (40) M'udu:X-s-isi Hp'usak ba:babu:pibitxsi.from a generally headmarkinglanguage.H This is not really an example of subordination. verbs inflectedadpositions pronominal (possessive) affixes on nouns polysynthesis TABLE2. subordinatingconjunctions appear in subordinateclauses to mark them as such: (38) MSince I overslept. so that it is formally patternsleave the subordinate from an ordinaryindependentclause...' Table 2 classifies a number of familiarmorphologicalcategories and processes as eitherhead-marked dependent-marked.64 LANGUAGE.ratherthan markersof syntactic dependency. but which clause it is in.' i. NUMBER 1 (1986) is and chaingrammar stronglydependent-marking. They might be said to convey informationabout the clause as a whole. canonical subordination a consequence of the choice of dependent-marking is strategies. The IE subjunctiveis anotherverb form which marksa subordinateclause.

Examples are Keenan's distinctionof nouncoding vs. of course.however. representsneutralmarking. (Diachronically. two further major possibilities exist. from HkapiM-si 'the door of the house' house-GEN door-3 sg.) A well-describedexample is the AUX many Uto-Aztecan languages. ratherthan by syntactic relations. Many languages use clitics whose position is determinedby constituentboundariesand/orprosody. addition to head-marked and dependentIn marked patterns. verb-codinglanguages (1972b: 171-2).HEAD-MARKING AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR 65 2. NEUTRAL MARKING exemplified by certain NP's in Tagalog.This evolutionarytendency will be discussed in ?4. and is generallyin sentence-secondposition.The following example. as in Luiseno (Steele 1979:447): (43) noo-Mn-il xwaan-i H2ariquX. One is the complete absence of formal marking.>lsg. bus stop.or as using extensive verbal affixationratherthan case.8.a Penutian languageof Oregon (Barker 1962:6-7). and in 42 to the dependent. this will be called DOUBLE MARKING: (45) ev. 3. either the head or the dependent may come first and hence acquirethe linker (Schachter& Otanes 1972:116ff..kicking 'I was kicking John.7. they can often be regardedas former dependents which have floated away and are on their way to becominghead markers.-TENSE John-oaj was. 123): (41) nasa mesa-Mng Hlibro taleLI KE on table-LINKER book onH M nasa mesa (42) 'the book on the table' HlibroM-ng book-LINKER on table J Although in 41 the linker happens to be attachedto the head. Hence these examples represent variants of a single construction type which is neutrallymarked. but little verbalinflection. Since word order is free. IMPLICATIONS TYPOLOGY. containsa pronominal It agreementmarkerwhich. is not uncommon to see a language deFOR It scribed as havingmany cases. such clitics also representneutralmarking. these flea kill 'These fleas are killing me!' 2. as in Turkish. I-lsg.on either head or dependent-a patternwhich is. or Milewski's opposition of . OTHER MARKING PATTERNS. shows a second-positionclitic bundle consisting entirely of pronominalelements: (44) mo: M?ans many 3pl. its position is determinedonly by word order and is completely independent of syntactic relations. The second pattern is the formal markingof both head and dependent. where the is first element in the phrasetakes a linkernal-ng whichidentifiesthe construction type.' The element n-il is the AUX.An example at the phrase level is found in English compoundslike grocery store. frequent in languages having little or no morphology. It usually combines a clitic pronoun of with modaland/ortense elements.1. ge: k'ot'as Hsiwga. since it is affixed to neitherthe independentsubjectpronounnoo nor the verb.

and South America)to rule out typological surprises.10Non8 Milewskisurveys both clause and phraselevels in a numberof languages. Table 3 shows dependent-marked head-marked and patternsfor the following constituents: adpositional phrase (abbreviatedPP) with pronoun object (e.In Squamish. with enough coverage of other areas (the Pacific. and clause. In addition. The core sample comprises only languages having a considerable amount of will be discussed in ?3.) The core sample is restricted to a maximumof three languagesfrom any one family. VOLUME 62.a languagewith four head-marking patternsand no dependent-marking patterns.4. NP with attributive adjective (green house). etc. verbs and arguments are constituentsof the clause.some languageshave functionalequivalents which belong to a form class other than the canonical adposition. which markthose three core relations.66 LANGUAGE.shown in Table 3. I tabulatemarkingof three are core actants: subject.8This section shows how morphologicalmarkingpatterns can be used as typological parameters. NUMBER 1 (1986) 'excentric' to 'concentric' (1967). Relativization and subordination not surveyed. NP with dependentpossessive pronoun (my house). in the concentrictype (which includesall of my head-marking languages). incorporation. particles.g. and indirectobject. below. 3. as it turns out.and it determines(in its morphological marking) functionsof the other words in the sentence.1. NP with dependent possessive noun (Father's house).althoughthese languagesdo not strike one as havinga great deal of morphology.the verb is the the only clause constituent. of 10In additionto languagesthat lack adpositionsentirely. the literaturegenerally recognizes the complementaritybetween certain morphologicalcategories. but a matter which I treat as secondary in ?5. markingof dependents-and that a language is likely to make a consistent choice as to markingtype throughoutits morphosyntax. This would considerablysimplifythe distribution word-orderpatterns. It wouldobviouslybe possibleto adjustthe qualifying parameters so that Wichitawould qualify and Polynesianwould not. hence it spreads its four morphological points over fewer constituentsthan does Polynesian. with this limitof four. Australia.implicitlyassuming consistency between levels.the minimumfor inclusionin the core sampleis a total of four morphological markings of the types surveyed.would qualify.whichhas PP's. That is.Africa. and all constituentsbear markersof their syntacticfunctionin the clause.the head-marked value is the total numberof those three core relations that can be indexed on the verb. 9 The limit of four was chosen so that Wichita. adpositions etc. Wichitais a polysyntheticlanguagewhich strikes one as havinga great deal of morphology. direct object. The dependent-marked value for the clause is the total numberof distinct cases. In Milewski's excentric type (which largely coincides with my dependent-marking type). The essence of his opposition'excentric'to 'concentric'involves not heads and dependents.but formallythey are a subare .Partof the differencein morphologicalcomplexity lies in the fact that Wichitamorphologyuses many types not includedin Table 3: indexing of non-core actants on the verb.Yet.9The sample is designed to cover as completely as possible the languages of North America and northernEurasia. Wichita lacks the PP constituent. (A sample based exclusively on the northern hemisphere would. THERANGE TYPES. 'relator verbs' (Kuipers 1967:153) functionallyequivalentto prepositions. At the clause level. What has not been recognized is that such complementaritiesneatly reduce to two polar possibilities-marking of heads vs. have covered all possibilities. the Polynesianlanguageswith four dependent-marking patternsand no head-marking patterns-also qualify.2. PP with noun object (with a friend).The typological conclusions offered in this section OF are based on a core sample of 60 languages. with me).

HEAD-MARKING AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR 67 core clause actants. For these languages. H. But a numberof languages. distinguished government an obliqueobject. These 'postpositions'should probablybe regardedas a set of cases. .while indirect object is indexed derivationally. since neitheranalysis yields any markingsto be counted. if it can take agreement.e.I have counted only the simple tenses for Table 3. Most of the morphologicalmarkingssurveyed appearto be inflectional. give evidence of having only two core valence places. this fact complicatesassigningnumericalvalues so much that this language has not been includedin the sample. however.(It should be noted. they differfromcanonicaladpositions in being suffixed to their objects.g.For Basque. and the 'shorttotal'. that pilot studies based on totals including minor patterns producedtypological scales which were not substantiallydifferentfrom those based only on majorpatterns.e. 2 for the short of type of verb.) There are two totals: the 'full total'. based on values for all constituents surveyed.This classificationhas important implicationsfor the typothe logicalclassificationof Squamish: relatorsareclassifiedas prepositions. Again we have a comparability problem: agreementwith two core actants in such a languageis agreementwith 100%of the core actants. verbs which tl Most languagesof the North Caucasusform some of their tenses with auxiliary agree (in transitiveconstructions)with the agent-while the lexical verb. while in anotherlanguageit is agreementwith only 67%of them. fundamental of thoughit is to a meaningful quantification morphological is marking-types. here the entries in Table 3 are based on the inflectionof the auxiliary. those with entries D. based on clauses and possessive phrasesonly. Hence total figures includingminor patterns might not be comparable.a cross-linguisticsurvey of the notion of core argument. Wishramwould then fall into the largegroupof consistentlyhead-marking languageswhich exhibit oblique cases. the MayanandSalishangroups. Lushootseed. and a numberlack adjectives. (D). The shorttotal was computedbecause manylanguages lack adpositions. Wishram has a set of formswhichDyk (1933:142) calls 'postpositions'. and (H). and the valence patternsof derived causative verbs. however. in contrast. a topic for a separatepaper. for two reasons.12 Figures 1 and 2 (page 70) plot the D values against the H values for each languagein the core sample-Fig. since they appearto be the unmarked the type. 12 The maximum countof threeD andthreeH valuesat the clauselevel assumesthatalllanguages can have threecore valenceplaces. 1 for the full total. The decision in this instance has no impact on the languagetype. these facts complicate crosslinguistic comparisonbased on the full total. Counting analytictenses wouldincreasethe number of head-marking patternsby one point per language. to second. Table 3 and the quantification of types simply ignore this problem. were not surveyed.appearsto permita maximum one of core argumentper clause. A total including minorpatterns was computed for pilot studies-but is not used here for comdescribe majorpatterns. The suffixationprecludesthe possibilityof any furthermarking on either 'postposition' or stem.but the parisons. obliqueobjectcounts if as a dependent-marked pattern. First. but if they are classified as verbs.1l As explained in the legend. i. the 'Totals' column reflects only primaryand salient patterns. the decision as to whethera given minorpatternbelongs to synchronic morphology or to etymology can often be made only by a specialist. and the open class conjugateswith auxiliariesin all tenses. for verbs that index three core actants. only a handfulof verbs have synthetic inflection.InTable3 these havebeen classified by as adpositionson functionalgrounds. a Coast Salish language. agrees with the patient. Squamishis entirely headmarking(only direct and indirectobjects are counted as core relationsin this survey). it is common for subject and direct object to be indexed inflectionally. and Fig. all grammars extent to which minorpatternsare describedvaries fromgrammar grammar.

d 0/3 0/2 2/3 311 3/2 2/3 0/3 3/3 311 2/2 0/3 2/2 3/1 3/(1) 3/2 2/2 0/3 212 3/0 3/1 3/1 3/3 3/1 3/1 2/0 2/3 3/1 3/0 3/1 0/2 2/2 2/0 3/1 0/2 3/1 3/0 0/7 0/4 4/6 5/6 6/3 6/6 0/5 7/3 8/1 413 0/5 6/2 7/2 8/1 8/5 4/4 0/5 214 6/0 4/5 8/2 8/3 8/1 8/1 4/0 6/5 5/1 6/0 7/2 0/6 3/6 7/0 6/3 0/4 6/2 7/0 3/5 0/7 5/2 5/2 0/5 0/4 3/5 4/3 5/3 4/5 0/4 5/3 511 3/3 0/5 4/2 5/2 5/1 514 4/4 015 2/4 5/0 3/3 5/2 5/3 5/1 5/1 4/0 4/5 5/1 5/0 5/2 0/4 2/4 4/0 5/3 0/4 5/2 5/0 3/3 0/5 4/2 4/2 -7 -4 -2 -5 -4 -2 -1 3 O -5 4 7 1 -5 4 5 7 3 O -5 -2 1 2 -1 -4 2 4 0 -5 2 3 4 1 O -5 -2 D D D D D D D ? -I [-] _ H D/(H) D D D o H [o] O D//h H D D D H D D D D o -I [-] - D/h D/h DII(H)D D D D (D)/I (D)/I (D)/I D/H H D/H H H D H D H D/(H) D D D D D/H D D D//H H o ? o D 6 -1 6 5 7 7 4 1 4 5 0 3 d/H D D D D o D O O D H H D D D D D D/H D D D D D D D D o D O D o 2 4 4 4 -1 4 6 5 5 3 H H D H - H D D - H o -6 -3 7 3 -4 4 7 -2 -7 3 3 -4 -2 4 2 -4 3 5 0 -5 2 2 _ H (D) D D D o (D)/H D/H H H O D D D D/h H H D/h H H d D H H ? ? ? D H H o o o o 3/1* 0/3 3/2 2/2 D D D D TABLE 3. D .68 PP CONSTITUENT: DEPENDENT: PRONOUN LANGUAGE LANGUAGE. VOLUME62. NUMBER 1 (1986) PP NOUN NP PRONOUN NP NOUN NP ADJECTIVE CLAUSE TOTALS FULL SHORT TYPE FULL SHORT Abkhaz Acoma Adyghe Aleut Amharic Arabic Barbareno Chumash Basque Batsbi Beja Blackfoot Burushaski Buryat ChechenIngush Chukchi Cochabamba Quechua Cree Diegueno Dyirbal Evenki Finnish Georgian German Greek (Homeric) Hawaiian Hebrew Imbabura Quechua Japanese Kalmyk Karok Ket Klamath Komi Lakhota Mangarayi Mongol Nanai Navajo Nera Nez Perce H [o] H H H H o D(H) D/H o D o D D o - H H H H H DIH D/H H D//HD D/H D/H H D D H H d D o H d D o o D D o o I.

is case-inflected. 2/1 etc. For CLAUSE entry. Salientpartialpattern. indirect object) were counted. althoughused only for definitedirect objects. if present. entries plus figuresfrom CLAUSE column. Sum of D and (D). examplesgiven.not knownwhetherthis patternis primary secondary. Inferredfrom generalizations grammars. . of Incorporation dependentinto head.HEAD-MARKING AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR CONSTITUENT: PP DEPENDENT: PRONOUN LANGUAGE 69 TYPE PP NOUN NP PRONOUN NP NOUN NP ADJECTIVE CLAUSE TOTALS FULL SHORT FULL SHORT Ngandi - - H D/(H) D 3/2 5/4 4/4 1 0 Nootka Patwin (Hill) Rotuman Russian h D/h o D H D o D H D D D H D D D o D d D 0/1 2/0 2/0 3/1 0/4 7/0 4/0 8/1 0/3 4/0 3/0 5/1 -4 7 4 7 -3 4 3 4 H Sacapultec Samoan H Sahaptin(NW)? Shuswap [-] D Squamish Turkish D/(H) H Tzutujil Uradhi Warndarang - H D D o D D/(H) H - H D D//h H d/H D/H H D h H d D d D D H H d/H [o] D/H o H d D H D D 0/2 2/0 3/2 1/2 1/2 3/1* 0/2 3/0 0/2 0/6 5/0 7/2 1/5 3/4 7/5 0/6 6/0 1/3 0/4 4/0 5/2 1/4 1/4 5/3 0/4 5/0 0/3 -6 5 5 -4 -1 2 -6 6 -2 -4 4 3 -3 -3 2 -4 5 -3 Wichita Wishram Wiyot Yakut Yukulta -I [-] o H -I [ -] o D -I//H d H [H] H H H D o o o o D 0/3 0/3 0/4 0/5 0/4 0/5 -4 -5 -4 -5 0/3 2/1 3/2 0/5 4/5 6/2 0/5 2/3 5/2 -5 -1 4 -5 -1 3 (D)/(H)( D)/(H) H D Yurak H D o 3/2 5/4 4/3 1 1 TABLE3. (Continued) LEGEND: H D H/D H//D o ? 0/3. * () [] h. direct object.I Total Head-marking pattern Dependent-markiing pattern Double-marking pattern Two patterns:H or D No marking Construction type lackingin the language Information available not Number of head-marked of patterns/number dependent-marked patterns. a maximumof three places (subject. Accusative case counted. H and (H). in no Minor(marked)patterns. For PP:PRO and NP:PRO with H. the entry (D) means that the dependentis optionalbut.dependent-marked patternswere countedfor nouns only. Patternabsent because of incorporation the constituentin questioninto the of verb.etc. d I . or markedor unmarked.

* - 21- -. VOLUME62.k~ 2 * 5 ) .70 LANGUAGE. . ~~~~----- 4c) - 3- NUMBER 1 (1986) 876G) 54- k S~ >~~ ~ * 0~~ 4. 5- 2 lk2.~* 0t * 0 > 3- 2-. 1 * * -* 11 _ I I- : 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 H values FIGURE 1.9. . 4 H values FIGURE 2.

all these are dependent-marked patterns. agreeingadjectives. (b) A typical dependent-marking and 32-35). adnominalgenitives. and (a) A typical head-marking 24 above). in contrastto Abkhaz. Barbareno Lakhota. which has totals of D = 8 and H = 1. in contrast. Sacapultec. wap. it may be helpful to give profiles of the various language types. and uninflectedpostpositions which govern cases in their dependents. Before proceeding with a quantificationof types. Chechen uses cases. which representthe majority ble-marking of languagessurveyed. two non-polarlanguagetypes.. It has no cases. There are two polar language types.ShusChumash. 1-2 also show that languages near the upper left corner-the dependent-markinglanguages-show more dispersion than the head-markinglanguages in the lower right area. The only possible headmarkingpattern which Abkhaz fails to exploit is the markingof head nouns for the presence of an adjective. 28. The polar types. Wishram.and Wiyot. Other consistently dependent-marking .relativization and subordinationare also head-marked(for relativization.neitherthe attributiveadjective nor the noun it modifies bears a markerof the attributiverelation. or nearlyso. The lower left corner is not really empty. had they been surveyed. is really empty. It can be seen that the languagesin the core sample cluster in the upper left and lower right corners. 10. Another example of the extreme dependent-marking type is Japanese.while few of the stronglyhead-marking lanshow any analogous preference for a particulardependent-marked guages pattern.This is because many otherwise dependent-marking languageshave verbalagreement with one or even two arguments. Figs. are those which are most consistentin theiruse of headmorphologyacross constituents. Another languagewith totals of D = 0 and H = 7 is Navajo. languagesin the sample Platero). possessive inflection of nouns. douand split-marking. 6. and this takes place in only a minorityof the verbs in the lexicon. Between the two extremes are scattered languages of less polar types. Its sole head-marking feature is agreementof the verb with its intransitivesubject or transitiveobject.All four types markingor dependent-marking are idealizedto some extent. i. Here.Cree.Nootka.Wichita. which are more compactly distributed. languageis one like Abkhaz (exx.e. 7-8.see Nichols 1984. The examples to follow come fromlanguagesthat most closely approachthe ideals. languagescluster aroundthe extreme types. 21. 14. Otherconsistently head-marking interpreting are Blackfoot. 18. No languageuses all possible morphological markingson both heads and dependents of all the constituents surveyed. it uses verbal agreementwith up to three core actants. Tzutujil. languageis Chechen(exx.This must be a matter of economy: there is no need to mark everythingtwice. which has a total of zero dependent-marking patterns and seven head-markingpatterns. would appearthere. and few even approach this maximum. The upper right corner. and and head-marking dependent-marking.AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR HEAD-MARKING 71 total. and adpositionswhich take possessive inflection in agreementwith their objects. languageswith little or no morphology. which differs from Chechen in having no verbal agreementwith the subject and no agreementof adjectives with nouns (as well as in using what are called languages particles ratherthan cases).

Dayley): (50) kaq-Ma Hjaay red house Chechen and Ingush.' In 48. the Quichean branch of Mayan. . with double-marked strictly dependent-marked phrases. Dyirbal.PRES-1-bite 'The puppy is biting her. exhibit one head-marking pattern in the affixation of locative preverbs(discussedbelow). In 49.72 LANGUAGE. German.) show this in the possessive phrase (48) and in the clause (49): (48) irkuHboko f-Mku-d-mu-kaintu 15-arm DEF1-woman DEF15-ASSOC- 'the woman's arm' (Carter. Russian.examples are Georgianand Basque. Hawaiian. p. mentionedabove. Languages in the sample exhibitingsplits of various types include Adyghe. the dependent 'woman' carries the class 15 prefix of the head 'arm' (as well as its own class 1 prefix).c. Finnish.) shows such a pattern both in the possessive phrase (46) and the adpositionalphrase (47): 'John's house' (46) hwan-Mpa Hwasi-Mn John-GEN house-3 (47) hwan-Mpa Hhana-Mn-chaw 'above John' JOhn-GEN above-3-Loc are as Languagesin the samplethatmay be characterized double-marking Aleut and Arabic. on both the head and the dependent. and Komi-in addition to Georgian and Basque. Yurak. and still anotherin the fact that negationcan be marked only on the verb and never on the nominalin its scope (discussed below).nonetheless marks the dependentin certain NP's. as in Tzutujil (cf. class 1). While most languagesin the sample are predominantly either head-marking or dependent-marking. Rotuman.c.A clear example is the Bantufamily. Squamish. For instance. and Uradhi. the head 'bite' carries the prefixes of its subject ('dog' + diminutiveclass 12 = 'puppy')and object ('woman'. Samoan. Nanai.Klamath.Mongolian. A monosyllabic preposed adjective takes a special suffix. DEF-12-dog 12. anotherin genderagreementwith the S/O in some verbs. The following examples from Tonga (Carter1963.John Kingston. despite overwhelmingly head-marking grammar. (c) A double-marking languagemarks several of its constructionstwice. VOLUME62. (d) Split-marking languages have some head-markedand some dependentmarkedpatterns. p.25) (49) (-kd-bwa Mka-ld-Mmu-Hlumd. NUMBER 1 (1986) in the sample are Batsbi.Greek. Many languages exhibit only one or a few double-markedconclauses but stituents. while phrases are (the dependent-marked dependentnoun copying the gender class of the head). Northeast Caucasianlanguages representativeof the polar dependent-marking type. Hill Patwin. probablyno languageis exclusively of one or the other type.Huallaga(Huanuco)Quechua(examplesfrom David Weber. where clauses are headmarked (with caseless nouns and verbal cross-reference).

However. -4 = 1. which are far from having zeroes along either dimension. with full totals D = 6 and H = 0. +0. Huanuco Quechua is one of the most consistently double-marking in guages. above): (51) wasi Hhana-Mn-chaw 'above the house' house above-3-Loc Patterns such as these are among the minor types shown in Table 3.The over-all type of a language can be capOF tured with the figures in its 'Totals' column from Table 3. 1-2 to theirprojectionsonto a single line runningfromupperleft (extremedependentmarkingtype) to lower right (extreme head-marking type). for Yurak. Henceforth I will call these continua the 'full scale' and the 'short scale'. English at 3/1 falls into type 2 with Turkish(5/3). But it is frequentlyexpedient to express the array of types as a one-dimensionalcontinuumwith a small numberof possible positions. +6. belongs to the same type 0 as Arabic does at 6/6.If languageswith little or no morphology are admitted. with only moderatemorphological complexity and double-marking (4/0)-fall into the same type 4 as split-marking Basque (7/3) and Mangarayi(6/2). This can be done by assigningpositive values to D scores and negative values to H scores: for Dyirbal. +5. 1/7 = . but in PP's with non-humannouns as objects. The full total yields 17 different types (8 to -8). and the constructionis thus head-marked double-marked (cf. it will be used below to supportstatisticalgeneralizations.03).one reason is that all ratios with H = 0 requirethe mathematically impossibleoperationof division by zero. A less problematical way of producinga continuumis to reduce the two-dimensionalFigs. a differenceof . 7/1 = 7. This classification is representedin Figs. This technique produces a scale of types expressed as integers. -7 = -7. and despite the grossness of this metric. we find that a languagewith a low numberalong one dimension and a zero along the other collapses into the same categoryas double-markingand split-markinglanguages. -0 = 6.g. a difference of 1) is expressed as a tiny fractionat the head-marking of the scale (e. respectively. a pure isolating language. simply taking the ratio of D to H values does not yield a straightforward continuum. the object is NOT the 47 genitive case.2. Figures 3 and 4 (overleaf) show the numberof languagesof each type in the .g. Another is that the amount of typological distance that is expressed as an integer at the dependent-marking of the scale (e. Thus Dyirbal. 3. For instance. 6/1 = end end 6. Navajo is 0/7. at 0/0. QUANTIFICATIONTYPES.HEAD-MARKING AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR 73 An analogous observationcan be made about the non-polardouble-marking lantype. we find that the Oceanic languagesHawaiianand Rotumanbut strictly dependent-marking. and for Navajo. 1-2. a hypotheticallanguagewith a single D value and no H values (1/0) falls into the same type 1 as do Yurak (5/4) and Hebrew (6/5). This techniqueis revealingonly as long as the sampleis confinedto languages having comparableamountsof morphology. 11 types (5 to -5). Yurakis 5/4.14. the short total. 1/6 = .17. can be representedas 6/0. Despite this problem. Even by restrictingthe sample to languageshaving a total of at least four combined H and D values.

' 5'4'3 I Z 1 U -1-2-1-4-D TYPE FIGURE 4. 15C/) LU 0 10- LL 5Z 0. NUMBER 1 (1986) cn) LX 0 z 0 D 10- LL- 0 LU ?L 5z) Z D 0- 8 7 6 5 4 2J 2 1 0 -1 -2-3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 TYPE FIGURE 3. VOLUME62.74 LANGUAGE. .

based on the short scale. 13 The distinction between government and subcategorization. we can distinguishpreferredhead-marking patterns(?3. Two broadtypes of splittingprinciplescan be identified:those distinguishingdifferentkinds of constituents(?3. and the partialverb agreementof Chechen-Ingush). head-marking morphologyanywhere.13 relativeranking of clause and phrase is justified by splits such as that in Bantu languages and (discussed above). Batsbi.3. They show clusters of languagesin the dependent-marking headmarkingends of the scale. which lend themselves to statement as implicationalhierarchies.Georgian.32)from preferreddependentmarkingpatterns (?3. in languages like Basque. gories. Burushaski. with dependent-marking morphology everywhere else.31. AND Split systems and split subsystems follow regularprinciples. Within the latter type. (53) If a languagehas dependent-marking morphologyat the clause level.The clusteringis particularly in Fig. indicated here under 'Construction'. the former pertain to particulargrammaticalcaterelations. Table 4 ranks the constructions surFAVORED MARKING Head A LEVEL clause CONSTRUCTION governed argument subcategorized ungoverned inner adverbial outer adverbial possessive adpositional adjective + noun relative construction clause chaining TABLE4. and the latter to particulargrammatical 3. SUBTYPE phrase dependent dependent dependent dependent pronoun noun pronoun noun v sentence Dependent The veyed here in orderof theirpropensityto be head-marked. is discussed in ?5. we can express the rankingof phrases and clauses in the form of two implicational statements: (52) If a languagehas major.33).31). It is also justified by the use of double-marking morphologyat the clause level. SPLITTING HIERARCHIES.salient.and Mangarayi(as well as verbal agreement with one argumentin Indo-Europeanand other languages.HEAD-MARKING AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR 75 and sample. 4. Based on such languages. where clauses are head-marked phrasesare dependentmarked. and a smaller cluster of split and double-marking clear languagesnear the center of the continuum. it will have it at the clause level. it will have it at the phrase level. SPLITS BETWEEN CONSTITUENTS. and those dealingwith the particular categories and relations indexed.21. . 3.

exampleis Abkhaz(for relativization. however. but is otherwise almost entirely head-marking: sole phrasal dependent-marked patternis partialagreementof adjectives with head nouns.76 LANGUAGE. also have head-marked clauses.thoughnot frequent. Headmarkedtreatmentof these phrases seems to occur only in languagesthat are at generallyhead-marking the phraselevel (e. and it is clear that they are to be rankedlower thanrelativeconstructions-in that head-marked relativization. Evenki is much like Nanai. pendinga systematic survey of subordination.) All constituenttypes show a cross-linguisticpropensityto favor head-marking of pronounobjects. Pronoun object: b. but mostly dependent-marked in the core sample-somewhat triviallyby the consistentlydependent-marking and lanlanguages. Ket uses subject and its object cases. (It is interestingthat all three of these languagesare spoken in Siberia. is found in a numberof languagesand is systematicallycorrelatedwith over-all morphologicalmarkingtype.) Tadzhikand Persian. The relative rankingof phrases and sentences is supportedby the fact that relativization some languagesuse head-marked phrases. while head-markedattributivephrases are extremelyrareandnot well correlatedwith over-alllanguagetype. NUMBER 1 (1986) There are no exceptions to 52 in the sample.languagesnot in the core that agreementof adjectives with head nouns is cross-linguisticallynot well correlated with over-all language type. they are somewhattentative. but it is extremely rare even in such languages. [head-marked] a haz Hmellett 'beside the house' the house beside [neutralmarking] The following illustrateYurak possessive phrases: . Principle53 is well supported phrases. in which phrases are head-marked. VOLUME 62. except that its adjectives agree.and interestinglyby fourteendouble-marking split-marking guages. There is one departurefrom 53: Nanai. an Within phrases. Two potential departuresare Ket and Evenki.but clauses are mostly dependentmarked.but dependent-marked and subordination. NP's with modifying adjectives are least prone to be headmarked. Rankings for relative and chained clauses are indicatedon Table 4. The only instance of head-markedtreatmentof such phrases is the constructionof Tadzhikand Persian(ex. above) and of Shuswap(19). This differentialtreatmentis systematic in NP's and PP's in the Uralic and Semitic families.see Nichols 1984). at It is likely that attributivephrases will prove to disfavor head-marking even more than subordinateclauses. TadzhikandPersian-Shuswap is head-marking all levels). It is thus a statisticalgeneralizationof considerablestrength. but this is poor support.(Therankings were determined by an informal survey of several Northeast Caucasian languages. Noun object: Hmellett-Mem 'beside me' beside-1sg. The following illustrateHungarianadpositionalphrases: (54) a. 3.g. Ket and Evenki thus support53. relative to noun objects.

e. Three patterns favor head- marking. Althoughthe exact membershipof the inalienableclass varies from languageto language. inalienable possession is determinedby the possessed (i. marked class. are for categories of person.HEAD-MARKING AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR 77 (55) a.NOMhouse-lsg. For instance.. Pronoun possessor: b.' be:r c'a d-oay. In Arabic. and do not index features of the dependent. head) noun. Noun possessor: man' HxarduM-v 'my house' I.and/orgender agreementon heads is common. as well as all instances of possessive inflection on nouns and adpositions.but it contains no examples of these patterns indexing categories other than gender. PREFERRED HEAD-MARKING PATTERNS.they are better described in terms of the grammatical categories indexed than in terms of the syntactic relations marked.Alienable vs.or person.delimiters. child(d) 'The child comes home. An example is the partialagreement of verbs with the covert gender class of the S/O in Ingush (v. it typically includes body parts and kin terms. boy(v) home v-comes 'The boy comes home.' All instances of verbal agreement found among core-sample languages. j. a set of kin terms takes head-marked possession.32. tend to be head-marked. A numberof languagesexhibit a contrastbetween alienableand inalienable possession. the pronominalclitic cannot cross-referencean independentNP). even in otherwise dependent-marking languages. number. with the latter favoring head-marking. (b) Quantifiers. and d mark gender classes): (56) k'ant c'a v. in Burushaski.negationetc. The sample contains occasional examples of possessive inflection which mark only the possessive RELATION as such.oay. associated with the head of the constituentratherthan with the dependentin their scope. it is a minor. but possession is otherwise dependent-marked. [head-marked] (Terescenko 1973:221) 'the shore of the river' jaxaM-h Hvar river-GEN shore Ldependent-marked] (Decsy 1966:71) The same distinctionis manifestedat the clause level. and/or gender. It is well known that such elements tend to float away from their nominals. number.e. .They are as follows: (a) Person. girl(j) 'The girl comes home. thoughit is not reflected in Table 3. number. objects may be markedon the verb with pronominal clitics only if the pronominalclitic is the sole occurrenceof the object in the clause (i. 3.' jwof c'aj-oay.

this is true of Chechen and Ingush. not syntactic. Such languages provide evidence for an implicationalstatement: if cases exist. (b) Adjuncts and the like are usually dependent-marked. but it is strikingthat their patterningand diachronicbehavior (cf. verbs agree with subjects and/orobjects before they agree with goals. VOLUME62. [no floating] (58) MA// sizes and colors Hare Mnot available. [negation floated] (59) These sizes and colors Hare Mnot Mall available. [negation and quan- tification floated] In many languages.its functions may or may not includethe markingof core relations. the following general hierarchyseems to determinethe propensityof nominals to triggerverbal marking: (60) MOST LIKELY LEAST LIKELY Governed > Subcategorized > Inner > Outer adverbials adverbials That is. otherwise stronglydependent-marking languages. Cross-linguistically.33. an indexed nominal having an . NUMBER 1 (1986) what is importanthere is that they float towardthe verb. Unlike the preferred head- markingpatterns.adjunctscan be rankedon a purelysemantic 14 An interesting piece of evidence for the ordering of inner and outer adverbials in this hierarchy is discussed by Hyman & Duranti 1982: in some Bantu languages. discussed in ?3.and there is no independentword for 'not'. Bantu nouns in core relations are caseless. Sometimes negationis renderedonly with special verb paradigms.The oblique-onlycase systems of the Australian languagesmentioned in (a) serve exactly this function. 3. while adverbialsare overtly markedin some way.1) can be subsumedunder the generalizationsoffered here. regardlessof its scope. oblique which distinguishes subjects and objects. Dixon is 1980:223-4. and so on. these are better stated in terms of the relationmarkedthan in terms of grammaticalcategories indexed: (a) Predominantlyhead-markinglanguages may exhibit case inventories. at least one may be described as oblique. Sometimes there are only oblique cases. Shuswap has such a two-case opposition. means of cases by or adpositions. (c) The third preferredhead-marking pattern is the semanticallybased hierarchy of adverbials. an otherwise dependent-marking language of the Northeast Caucasus. as in several non-Pama-Nyungan languagesof Australia(cf. Sometimes (as in Adyghe) there is a minimaltwo-case oppositionof direct vs. This hierarchy is also found in the next pattern. object. ?4.) pattern:the verb carriesmarkersof the quantification of its dependent nominals. but must include the markingof non-core relations. negation can be only on the verb. with no formaldistinctionof subject vs. relations.33(a)below. Some English examples: (57) MNot Mall sizes and colors Hare available. but both subjects and objects take the direct case. PREFERRED DEPENDENT-MARKING PATTERNS.14 Withinthis hierarchy. The result is a clauselevel head-marked (etc.78 LANGUAGE.Warndarang an example from the core sample). such is the case in Avar. These phenomena differ from those discussed thus far in that they are markersof semantic.

i.they are to be rankedbelow innerlocatives. and at least one other was close to significant.Table 5 shows languages ranked by the short scale and dominantword orders for their NP and clause constituents(those tabulatedin the short scale). which may decrease the validity of the chi-squaretest. VOS) are more common in the negative range of the scale than in the positive. Caddoan).because of theirrelativelysimplemorphology. VO languages would predominate even more stronglyin the negative range.locative. in such a language. Yuman.2). in view of its high significancelevel. other P < . which (as mentionedabove) in other respects patternatypically. this procedureyielded higher numbers. in head-marked possessive constructions.05 Verb-finalvs.the possessor is uninflectedand hence not in a genitive case.4. 16 Since some of the expected values at the bottom of this table are less than 5. Dependent-marking to 3) (5 Double and split (2 to -2) . 3.has only a mnemonicconnectionwith 'genitive'-since. directional. Pomoan. Adverbial notions like reason. Algonkian. at least one such test was significantat P = . the first may not be. time etc. instrumental. this is the most common word order. amonglanguageswith tendencies. I performednine back-uptests.'6 The followingconclusions aboutword orderandmorphological marking type can be drawn (a multinomialchi-squaretest showed that the patterningsare very unlikely to result from chance): (a) SOV languages are frequent in all types: as pointed out by Greenberg 1963. Three of those in the positive range come from Oceanic languages. head-marking innermeaningchanges to the outer meaningwhen an applicativesuffix is addedto the verb. other The asteriskedcollapsingsstill left one expectedvalueless than5 (in bothinstances.4). and directionalaffixes on verbs are grammaticalized. seem not to be markedon verbs. collapsingthe three word-ordercategories into two.005 fVerb-initialvs.e. 15 The standard abbreviation (g) referring possessor (Greenberg G to 1963. and of instrumentor manner.are most often indexedon verbs.05. In their relative significancelevels and the distribution uncertaintiesas asterisked. purpose. condition. concession. other* to -5) (-3 Head-marking P c . where Arabicand Hebrew are the only samplelanguagesto exhibit other orders.025 P < . SOV languagesare especially predominantamong the double-marking and split-marking languages (types 2 to . This shows thatouteradverbialsrequirea specialvoice-likemarker the verbif they areto be indexed on on the verb-and hence that.if they were removed from the sample on those grounds.The collapsingsthat yielded significanceat .05 lVerb-finalvs. P < .these crossof tests furthersupportthe conclusionsdrawnfrom Table 6.HEAD-MARKING AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR 79 basis for their propensity to be markedon the verb: those of location or direction. WORDORDER. Siouan. For each of the three languagetypes.05 or betterwere: LANGUAGE TYPE CATEGORIES COMPARED SIGNIFICANCE Verb-medial other* vs.Hawkins1983). The second asteriskedone is undoubtedlysafe. a number of North American families (Uto-Aztecan. (b) VO languages of all types (SVO. IE preverbs are locative.15Tables 6a-b show the frequenciesof clause-levelword-order types among the morphologicaltypes. and manner markers.

svo GN GN GN GN [GN] [GN] GN [GN] [GN] GN GN GN GN GN [NG] NG GN GN GN GN NG [NG/GN] [NG] [NG.80 TYPE LANGUAGE LANGUAGE.svo x x x x x x x VSO sov SVO//SOV sov svo GN//NG [GN] GN. SOV SVO.sov SOV.sov SOV] sov SOV sov sov sov SVO... Morphological marking type and word-order type (based on short scale).sov SOV SOV SOV SOV [VSO] SVO SOV SOV SOV SOV VSO V .gn NG GN GN [GN] NG.ovs VSO [SOV] [SOV] SOV SVO.. NUMBER 1 (1986) NP ORDER CLAUSE ORDER VO VERB-INITIAL 5 4 Dyirbal Japanese Mongol Uradhi Batsbi Chechen-Ingush German Greek (Homeric) Hawaiian Imbabura Quechua Klamath Patwin(Hill) Russian Samoan Buryat Finnish Kalmyk Mangarayi Rotuman Sahaptin (NW) Yukulta Amharic Basque Burushaski Georgian Komi Nera Nez Perce Turkish Aleut Beja Chukchi Yurak Cochabamba Quechua Evenki Nanai Arabic Hebrew Yakut Adyghe Diegueno Ket Nootka Shuswap Squamish Wamdarang [SOV] GN GN GN GN GN NG. VSO SVO 3 x x x x 2 x x 1 x 0 -1 [x] x [x] -2 -3 x x x x x x TABLE5. others SVO VSO SVO. GN/NG GN//NG GN GN GN NG. VOLUME62.sov SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV.

sov x x SOV svo V .2 (and hence disfavored by types 5 to 3)...if differentfrom order with nominaldependents) Verb-initial order V. SOV x x [X] x [x] [VSO] [sov/Svo] TABLE 5. Anotherreason for the clusteringof verb-mediallanguageshere is the combinedaction of principles just discussed: if verb-finalorder is favored by types 2 to .HEAD-MARKING AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR TYPE LANGUAGE NP ORDER CLAUSE ORDER VO 81 VERB-INITIAL . and if verb-initialorder is favored only by headmarkinglanguages. then a default preferencefor verb-medialorder by dependent-marking languagesis to be expected. NG//GN etc. Although this is not a frequent type crosslinguistically.. Differentsources give differentorders N. n (c) Verb-initiallanguagesare found in the positive range.g Possessor Possessed (head)noun NG.. sov etc. [SVO/SOV] SOV x (x) x x x vos vos OVS. lan(d) Verb-mediallanguages are commonest among dependent-marking guages (types 5 to 3). The main conclusion to be drawnfrom these facts is that head-marking morphology favors verb-initialorder. This appearsto have a functionalmotivation:if the verb comes first in a head-marking relations(which are marked language. Orderbasedon inferencefromgrammatical or descriptions on my text surveys [x] entries are based on explicit statementsin grammars) (unbracketed One of two equally prevalentpatterns (x) Both ordersequallyfrequentor basic NG/GN etc. althoughthe inclusionof Oceaniclanguagesin the sample may have influencedthis distribution.svo discussed above. but most of them occur in the negative range. SOV etc. while dependent-marking morphology disfavors it. it makes up over half of the distinctly head-marking languages (types -3 to -5). Majororder Minor or restrictedorder (includingorder for constituentwith pronominal ng.4 Acoma Barbareno Chumash Karok Lakhota Sacapultec Tzutujil Wichita Abkhaz Blackfoot Cree Navajo Wishram Wiyot -5 GN GN/NG [GN] GN NG NG [GN] GN GN GN GN [GN] SOV..then the grammatical on the verb) are establishedat the outset. if the nouns come first in a language .. dependents. (Continued) (x) LEGEND: G.

Two languagegroups show examples in which a departurefrom fromthe dominant type is accompaniedby a departure the dominantword-order type...0 for NG. NUMBER 1 (1986) V . in that it streamlinesthe hearer'sprocessing. In the great majorityof languagesin the sample. other evidence indicates that the functionalprincipleis valid for NP's as well.. Verb-initial (VSO. SVO SOV (observed) 5 to 3 2 to -2 -3 to -5 4 5 4 4 4 3 11 11 9 19 20 16 55 31 11 13 TOTALS type had no influenceon wordorderandvice versa).5 19 2 to -2 -3to -5 TOTALS LEGEND: 2 8 2 3 16 5 20 16 55 10. Table 7 suggests that the functional principledoes not extend to NP's. possessives precede their heads... Esrelationsat the beginningmust be communicativelyeftablishinggrammatical ficacious.5 31. SVO SOV TOTAL (short scale) 5 to3 3 5. (if 6b. Expected distribution marking TABLE Legend as for Table 6a. P = about .. However.. fromthe results is type. order P = about . where morphological the sole dependent-marked patternof Tzutujilis a particlefound on preposed attributive adjectives (see ex. 50 above). having at least some dependent-markedmorphology..5 13 TABLE6a. SVO): not significant TOTAL TYPE V . DEPENDENT ORDER MARKING DOUBLE HEAD GN NG GN/NG 21 6 0 6 2 0 14 5 2 8 21 27 TOTAL and marking TABLE7. Not significant(P = 1. The clearestexamplecomes fromthe Mayanfamily.10 for SOV order Othertypes (5 to 3. then the grammatical relations (which are markedon the nouns) are established at the outset. V . and for V . VOS) Note: The three languageswith SOV/SVOor SOV//SVOorderwere each countedas one-halfan entry in both SVO and SOV categories. Other languages of the Quichean .5 10.05 for types 2 to -2 and -3 to -5. The distribution indistinguishable regardlessof marking of chance. . Ordering type in possessive phrases.9 for others). VOLUME62. Observed frequencies.82 TYPE LANGUAGE.

Note that. preposition + object). and they have SOV order. order:modernTadzhikand Persianare head-firstat the phrase level (they have prepositionsand mostly preposedmodifiers). it may be that the functionalprinciple acts to facilitate word-orderchange. if split. althoughthe postpositionalnoun-marker secondary (the IE noun cases having been lost). it misses the important synchronicfunctionalexplanation. inferable.but head-last(SOV) at the clause level. that NP's exhibitthe particlediscussed above. but would merely label one type of configuration displayed by the facts. Recall that the Mayan family is uniformly its head-marking. a departurefrom the typical NP order is correlatedwith a departure from the typical NP markingtype.17 In both Mayan and Iranian. To judge from these two examples. an atypicalword order is associated with a morphologicalmarkingtype which is atypicalof the languagefamily. up to two can be distinguishedby postpositionalparticles. word orderis head-firstat both clause andphraselevels (VSO or VOS. The markingpatternscan also be describedas split. but not so neatly:phrasesare predomin inantlyhead-marked. that the verb agrees with one actant. Their NP's are head-marked (the typical word order). FOR principleconcerning mechanismsof change. This hypothesis predictsthat evidence for the operation of the principleat the phrase level will be found in precisely the contexts just described for Mayan and Iranian. which belongs to another branch. clauses are sparsely double-marked a postposi(by tional particlewhich marksobjects. and only two clause dependents can be distinguished by the postposition. 17 . IMPLICATIONS HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS. noun + adjective. In both families. have the same particle.or on-going. I thereforesuggest the following hypothesis: The functionalprincipleof markingthe first element in a constituentwill be upheld most consistently in areas where word-orderchange is attested. This section presents (a) a 4. which includes Tzutujil.GRAMMAR AND DEPENDENT-MARKING HEAD-MARKING 83 branch. possessed noun + possessor. explanatory power. The clause continues the inheritedIE word order is and markingtype. Tadzhikand Persian(neitherof which is in the core sample)present a somewhen they are head-first what less clear example. the association of markedword order and markedmorphologicaltype amountsto an instance of iconicity. and (b) a principleof interest to an The changes in phrase-levelword order transformed inconsistentordertypical of IE languages into a consistent. althoughPP's are without in clauses are more nearlydependent-marked. the generalfunctionalprincipleof markingthe first element in a constituentis upheldby the simultaneousswitchingof both wordorderand marking type.then. The preposed attributiveconstructionis atypical.To invoke iconicity would not account for or explain observed facts. in both these language groups. and marking. Speakingin broaddiachronic guages ordinarilyhave no head-marked terms. NP's have changed both the inheritedword and order (free or perhapsdependent-first) the inheritedmarkingtype (IE lanphrases). both in its dependentfirst word order and in its dependent-marked morphology. and by one-place agreementon the verb).Day (1973:48)mentions a functionallyanalogousbut phonologicallydissimilarparticlein Jacaltec. But this iconicity has no historical.

4. NUMBER 1 (1986) reconstructionandto the establishmentof genetic connections. the pattern of 61b is apparentlypreferred.4. the patternof 61a is preferred.since it is based on demonstrablyconservativeareas of grammar. a-zahta s. it is a preverb.' / a-la} sd-yd-Hsd-yt.since Chechen and Ingushare amongthe world's most consistentlydependent-marking languages.) The same process is visible today in Chechen: (61) 'Put some sugar in your tea. An analogous example comes from Abkhaz.In the isolated Jordandialect and in more distantlyrelatedBatsbi. a-zah0a In 62a. Ch. HEADWARD MIGRATION.and the migration 61b has indeed been from dependentnoun to head verb. it will go from the dependentto the head of the constituent.IMPER Here the postposition cu governs the dative (as postpositions regularly do in Chechen). tea-DATsugar.a + la-y-sa yt. VOLUME62.Based on this distribution (andon the etymology and inflectionalclass of this word). This process is describedfor IE preverbsby Kurylowicz(1964. In 61b. not vice versa. as in I hope to really understand your paper this time. 114): (62) 'I hit him with a/the hammer. 4. the meaning 'with' is conveyed by a suffix or adpositionon the noun . caj-na MCu s<iekar Htasa. oughta etc. is thus innovative. bypassingpreposedmodifiers of the infinitive. I present some facts aboutgeographicaldistribution types thatmay have significancefor the study of of prehistoricmovements of languagesand is often lexicalized (and hence obligatory). may offer historical at linguistics a tool we so far lack: a criterionfor NoN-relatedness any recoverable time depth (and the principlemay extend the recoverabletime depth beyond that availablenow to standardcomparison).The latter.NOM in-sprinkle. IMPER b. This example is a particularly strong demonstrationof the universalityof headwardmigration. as are most second objects).In closely relatedIngush. gonna. producingwanna. 7) and Ivanov (1965:219 ff.11. Another is the frequent change of nominal adpositions to verbal affixes. tea-DATin sugar. where infinitival to separates fromthe infinitiveand migratesto the head word. the-hammer I-it + with-him-hit-FINITE a. Another is the development of the split infinitive in English. M{-la the-hammer with it-with I-him-hit-FINITE b. any adposition or piece of affixal morIf phology moves. a consistently head-marking language(Hewitt. An example is the attachmentof the English infinitivalmarker to onto the main verb. MIGRATION AFFIXES OF may be classified into the types described below. Both constructionsare possible in all possible word orders. caj-na siekar Mcu-Htasa. and its former object has now become a second object of the verb (in the dative.1.' a.84 LANGUAGE. NOM sprinkle.In ?4. we can reconstructonly the postpositional functionof 61a for the proto-language.

Sapir (1915:548-9) gives an explicit diachronic interpretationof the same development in Athabaskan. or reflect earlierword order. 368). Although adjacencyof the constituents may be among the conditionsfavoringmigration (as it appears to be for some Chechen speakers).e. not linear order. where the instrumental element jumps over a verbal prefix when it migrates. shows that syntactic relations condition cliticizationand/or migration. syntactic relations and morphologicalcategories. pronominalcategories. That it does not mechanicallydo so has been argued by Langdon 1977 and Comrie (1981:209ff. (66) I only work at home in the evening. the postpositioncould have migratedto the verb while its object was present. One principle has been given here: dependents (or parts of them) become affixes on heads. and statable in terms of.lexical classes etc.Hupa xa 'after' functions both as a verbal prefix and as a nominalpostposition:18 'look for it!' (63) 0-Mxa-n-Hthe: it-after-you-search (64) no-Mxa: '[following] after us' us-after is Sapir's interpretation that removalof the postposition-marked object causes the postposition to become a verbal prefix. Ex. 62b is the neutralvariant. Indo-European. Another good example is the Abkhaz pair above (62a-b). where the floated wordjumps over interveningwords: (65) I work at home only in the evening.HEAD-MARKING AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR 85 'hammer'. 18 .in 62b there is no mark on the noun. and 'with' is markedon the verb. It is importantto make clear that such instances of migrationare not simply linear resegmentations. My interpretation differs from his only in claimingthat we do not need to posit the removalof the object in order to justify the shift of the postpositionto a verbalprefix: as in Chechen-Ingush.and not simply changes in boundarytypes.) some of the Australianlanguageshave only subject clitics. If linear order were the primaryconditioningfactor for migration-i. Clear evidence that syntactic relations constrain migrationcomes from the development of bound pronominal forms in the languagesof Australia(Dixon 1980:362 That ff.preferredexcept in specific circumstances.. with help from Victor Golla. it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for migration(and all possible word-ordervariants of 61a-b can be elicited). semanticfunctions. if migrationwere just a shift in boundarytypes-then we would expect that affix order would regularlyfollow word order.and Abkhaz. which Vowels have been rephonemicized interlinears and addedin these examples. A complete account of the causationmustalso establishhierarchiesof syntactic relations.) What is now needed is a positive understanding the mechanics of and motivation of the processes which turn words into affixes. while others have both subject and object clitics (363. Evidence that adjacency is not requiredcomes from the floating of quantifiersand delimiters in English. Migrationis motivated by.

where to has broken away from answer and is clause-initial. Migration can account only for movement of affixal mor- elements. Another is the evolution of auxiliary verbs into affixes on the main verb.86 LANGUAGE. where both has broken away from they. 19 The clitic elements of these languages also include some non-pronominal elements. NUMBER 1 (1986) favor migration. attested in many J.but does not attachto the head.) Sometimes.An example is provided by the second-positionclitics of South and West Slavic. Thus the clitic string includes exactly the categories we expect to find marked on verbs: indexing of some actant properties and tense/aspect categories.)Such examples show that headwardmigration be brokendown to into two steps: migrationaway from the dependent. VOLUME62. Shakespeare'sboth they and Swift's both which. in Serbo-Croatian: (67) Jovan mu gaje dao juce. Sometimes they change from dependentsto markerson heads.him it TNS 'Jovan gave it to him yesterday. Such reduced elements have the same two repositioningpossibilities as migratingaffixes. it assumes a position determinedby clause boundariesand/or stress. (In modern They both seem very obstinate or We have all come.instead. as in They seem both very obstinate (Jespersen 1961:595). andje are no longerdependents. All migrating affixes undergo the first step.13. FROM THEDEPENDENT. AWAY Sometimes the marker of a 4. former auxiliary verbs which have become tense markers. 4.but neitherare they markers on heads. as when pronominalcliticization in the Romance languages changes subjects and objects into clitics on verbs. (This is not the same thing as in To reallyansweryour question would take a lot more time. some (apparently most) also undergo the second step.' The clitics mu. e. A common example is the change of postpositions into case suffixes-a process endemic amongthe languagesof northern Eurasia (Oinas 1961 discusses some Uralic examples). ga. wherebythey become markers on dependents. ratherthanbecomingmarkerson heads. It does not account for another phemes and other grammaticalized majorsource of affixes: the reductionof whole wordsto affixes via cliticization. An exampleis the Englishsplit subjectinfinitive. the quantifierhas migratedto the head. gave yesterday to.g. because the entire dependent-not just its marker-gravitates to the head.g. preserve the early orderwith can no floating.and migration the head.Such work will requireclose knowledgeof etymology for the languages concerned..Another example may be archaicEnglishpostverbalquantifiers.12. cited by Poutsma 1916:1063. REDUCTION. clitics become free atonic elements whose position is determinednot by syntactic relations (and hence not by headedness) but by prosody and clause boundaries. . Anothersource of affixes is the reductionof heads themselves. It is importantto emphasize that movement in the opposite direction-away from the head and toward the dependent-seems never to occur. MIGRATION syntacticrelationleaves the dependent.

however. Russian potomu cto 'because'. so that po tomu is now in the subordinate clause..20It also means that. the case governed by po) + the subordinating conjunctioncto 'that'. reduction of words to The affixes via cliticization is analogous to headwardmigrationof affixes. and states a constrainton possible changes.HEAD-MARKING AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR 87 families. it requires etymologicalknowledgefor the languagebeing investigated): pieces of verbalmorphologymay go back etymologicallyto nouns. This suggests thatreversalof the headward-migration principle can occur only because of be of use. because of the fact that S' (69) [NP VP [po tomu cto S]] '.or partsof either.g. among those surveyed here. One obvious hypothesisis thatboundary shifts will be commonest at the levels which. It entailsthatpieces of verbalmorphology may go back etymologically to elements of nominalmorphology. we can restatethe principlein a muchmoregeneralform(although.3. is restrictedto certainkindsof constituents.. we have a clause subordinated with cto and dependent on po tomu 'because of the fact' in the main clause. but not the former. the left boundaryof the subordinate clause has moved.) The reduction of heads to markers on their former dependents. that arguablyresults from morphemeboundaryshifts. second-position clitics) may well be a transitionalstage to the reduction of words to affixes. The reductionof clitics to free atonic elements (e.Hence it shows that grammatical restructuringbecause of cliticization of words is subject to fewer constraints than is migrationof elements alreadybelow the word level: the latter. The principleof headwardmigrationis of obvious relevance to the study of mechanisms of change: it reduces instances of morphologicalmigrationto a single principle. IMPLICATIONS LINGUISTIC FOR DIACHRONY. Reductionof heads is the only process. (Sometimesthe clitic stringitself develops into an auxiliary. because first turninginto adpositionsand then into case affixes). as shown in ?3. derived from po 'by.but not vice versa. 20 . but never vice versa-unless therehas been an intermediate change in part of speech. It is also of relevance to historical linguistics: it gives us some constraintson reconstruction and a potentialcriterionfor cognacy. and has become part of an etymologicallycomplex subordinating conjunction. inherentlyfavor dependent-marking. Another is the boundary shift visible in etymologically transparent subordinating conjunctions. if a piece of verbal morphologyin one languageis Let us assumethat the head-to-dependent found in the reductionof postpositions progression to case suffixes. Then it may well be that verbs never directlybecome elements of nominalmorphology(although they may do so indirectly. because S' In 68. which in turnsuggests that it would be fruitful to seek constraints on such changes in the form of restrictions to certainconstituentor boundarytypes. is restrictedto headwardmovement. 4. see Steele. In 69.14. which is the new clause head. This process is characteristicof Uto-Aztecan. in that it involves a progression from dependent to head: the cliticized dependent becomes a markeron a head. If this is correct.g. according to' + tomu 'that' (dative. e.. pronouns. The boundaryshift is: (68) [NP VP po tomu [cto S]] '. reverses the principleof headwardmigration. andof auxiliary verbsto verbalaffixes.

88 LANGUAGE. VOLUME62. where heads consistentlyprecede dependents or vice versa. polarword-ordertypes. at the NP level. Polysynthetic languagescan develop fromlanguagesof a more moderatehead-marking systype as additionalelements migrateto the verb. EVOLUTION. affixation of auxiliariesin a numberof North Caucasianlanguages-the auxiliaryimposes its valence. this means that dependent-marking terns can arise only throughclisis of previouslyindependentwords. and boundary shifting. and are not of interest here. clisis of independentwords. pre-existentdependent-marking morphologymay spreadbecause of analogical extension. Dependent-marking languages. but potentially has more than one dependent.1. fusion of clitics into an auxiliarythat heads the clause.throughmigrationand clisis (as OregonPenutianmay have developed from a CaliforniaPenutian model. a head receiving affixes throughmigrationor clisis can receive them from more than one source.g. 20. as when auxiliariesbecome affixes of the main verbs that formerly depended on them. Such boundaryshiftingis greatly favored by consistent. so that the adpositionbecomes an affix on its former dependent. Of course. there is little obstacle to boundaryreduction. requiresfairly specialized knowledge of etymology. but in at least some instances-e.or NOUN+ MODIFIER + . This is because if. The principle of headward migration entails that head- marked patterns will have more possible historical sources than dependent-markedones.2. in some branches of Otomanguean). on the whole clause. see Silverstein 1979). Head-marking patterns. in contrast. but there seem to be no other sources of entirely new dependentmarkingmorphology.g. such as subject and object pronominals. NUMBER 1 (1986) clearlycognate to a piece of nominalmorphologyin another.) There is another sense in which head-markingpatterns have more sources than do dependent-marking patterns: since any constituent has only one head. the adposition (head) and any modifiers(dependents)are on opposite sides of the noun. which seems to be true: they may arise as isolatinglanguagesbecome and pronounsare cliticized to verbs (as has apparentlyoccurred agglutinating. evolve only through extensive use of boundaryshifting-particularly within NP's. As shown in ?4. (Most examples of the latter type involve purely verb-internalinflection for tense/aspect categories. 4. New dependent-marking patterns can arise only through patboundary shifting. Split and double-marking tems can give rise to polar head-marking systems througherosion or migration of the dependent-marking affixes.or they may develop from dependentmarkinglanguages.we will reconstruct the nominal function for the proto-language-in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. These observations have implicationsfor the evolution of linguistic types. They suggest that head-markinglanguages have many possible typological sources.Note that this principle. But if the word orderis inconsistent-so that the sequence -+of elements in a PP is PREPOSITIONMODIFIER NOUN. and hence its the extension of the first one suggested in fn. headward migrationof morphemes. and to interpretation the adposition of as an affix or clitic.have manypossible contrast.

and by the remarkableconsistency in markingtype exhibited by families of great time depth and wide geographicalspread. stable feature in languages-as shown by the absence of radical changes within known genetic units. Some of these families have undergoneconsiderablechangein othertypologicalfeatures. The Mayan. Indo-Europeanhas retained its basic type-dependent-marked with subject inflection on verbs.For this SAMPLE. (For non-cognatemorphology.and partlyby addingto the inheritedcase inventorythrough accretion of postpositions (see Oinas for examples of the latter process). and Dravidian are consistently dependent-marking. chosen for different purposes than the core sampleof 60 languages.this indicates that patterns of morphological marking are more stable than word-order patterns. to include a minimumof three languagesper family (for the core sample.000 years. I use a second sample of languages. with memberlanguageschosen so as to cover the major genetic branches within families. and Algonkian families are consistently head-marking. such as wordorder.) OF 4.of course. It comprises 15 families. The evolutionary patterns provide one more methodologicalprinciple for historical linguistics: in the event that we have two clearly related languages and with clearly cognate morphology. with only a recent trend toward head-markedclauses in the pronominalclisis of the Romance languages (a process which occurs only after most of the morphology has been lost). short type 4 and full type 7 for languagespreservingthe inheritedmorphology-for some 6. STABILITY TYPES. the GENETIC in Table 8 (overleaf).we should reconstruct the dependent-marking type. Athabaskan.2' (Availabilityof grammatical descriptionssometimesrestricts these ideals.3. Northeast Caucasian. since it is damaging to the hypothesis that genetic groups show relatively little internal diversity. Indo-European. Siouan. This sample contains 86 languages.CaliforniaPenutian. Salishan.The genetic sampleis intended to be representativeof known and probablegenetic groupings.and to cover any known typological or geographicaldiversity within families. three languagesper family is the maximum). Wakashan. Accretion of postpositions is favored by the rigid modifier-headorder of Uralic. That these patternsreflect a generaltruthcan be shown statistically. Iroquoian.and at the same time to be representativeof the numericaltypes establishedon the basis of the core sample. An example of increased dependent-marking through boundary shifting is found in the Uralic family. whose western membersgraduallychangetheirtype from double-markingto dependent-marking-partly by restricting or losing possessive affilxes. this principledoes not apply. .) The genetic sampleincludes 28 languagesof the dependent-mark21 Typological diversity was deliberately sought out. The phrases is Bantu split pattern of head-markedclauses and dependent-marked consistent throughoutthe family.Morphological marking type is a conservative.GRAMMAR AND DEPENDENT-MARKING HEAD-MARKING 89 the + POSTPOSITION-then use of PP's with modifiersblocks analysis of word boundariesas of them stronglyhead-marking one strongly dependent-marking. shown demonstration.

3 0. VOLUME62.2 2 2 2 -1 1.5 2 2 2 -1 -l 1. Wakashan 2 based on analysis of Kwakwala in Levine 1977 .3 -6 -7 -6 5.4 3 .2 1.3 0 2 -1 -1 0 2 0 0 -4.85 1.5 1.1 5.6 0 0 1 -1 3 0 0 1.3 -4 -4 -5 -4 1.5 0 -4.0 4.1 1.2 .5 -5 -5 -5 -6 -5.8 3.7 0.1 1.7 3 3 5 1.8 -5 -5 -5 -4 1.3 6 1.3 1.5 -2 -6.3 5 3. ** Wakashan 1 based o n analysis of Kwakwala in Boas 1947.9 1. Typological diff'erentiation within language families and comparison groups (based on short and full type numbers) * Full totals not shown for languages lacking adpositions.2 5 5 7 2.7 3.3 3 -3 0 2.4 6 4 4 * 1 TABLE8.2 .90 LANGUAGE.6 5 3 . NUMBER 1 (1986) SHORT TYPE MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION FULL TYPE MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION Afro-Asiatic Semitic: Amharic Arabic Hebrew Ge'ez Nilo-Saharan: Nera Cushitic: Beja Omotic: Dizi Algic Algonkian: Blackfoot Cree Ritwan: Wiyot Yurok Altaic Mongolian: Buryat Kalmyk Mongol Turkic: Nogai Turkish Tuva Yakut Tungusic: Evenki Nanai Athabaskan Chasta Costa Hupa Navajo Mattole Australian Pama-Nyungan: Dyirbal Uradhi Yukulta Non-Pama-Nyungan: Mangarayi Warndarang Ngandi Gunwinggu .3 1.

7 -7 -2 -7 3.0 7 1.6 4.0 1 4 4 4 4 -4 -4 -4 4 4 3.6 -4 0 Tiwi Djingili Hokan Washo Shasta Karok Barbareno Diegueho Eastern Porno Indo-European English French (coll.1 2.3 2.5 4 1 4 5 1.3 3.5 5.0 -5 4 1.1 0 4 4 3 3 2 2.2 -6 -6 -5 * -2.9 -2 -5 3.0 1.0 1.AND DEPENDENT-MARKING HEAD-MARKING GRAMMAR SHORT TYPE 91 STANDARD DEVIATION MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION FULL TYPE MEAN Maung Malak-Malak -2 -1 -3 3 -1.6 4 5 -5.7 .) German Greek Latin Russian Mayan Jacaltec Sacapultec Tzutujil Yucatec NE Caucasian Nakh: Chechen-Ingush Batsbi Daghestanian: Kubachi Tabassaran Karati NW Caucasian Abkhaz Adyghe Ubykh Oceanic Polynesian: Hawaiian Samoan Futuna-Aniwa North Hebridean: Rotuman Nguna Penutian California: Maidu S.7 5 2 7 8 4.Sierra Miwok Patwin Yawelmani Oregon: Klamath 3.9 -4 -4 -2 4 3.6 -5.6 2 7 7 7 7 -4.9 3.1 7 ? ? 4.8 4.6 . (Continued) 4 4 2 3.2 1.3 3 4 4 -4.8 -6 -6 -6 .5 ? 6.4 7 7 .0 4 TABLE 8.0 5.6 6 5 6.6 4.8 .6 2.5 .0 0 -5 5.3 2.2 3.3 .

7 -2.6 9 2.0 2.0 1. and 23 (types -4 to -8).9 6 4 4 -5.92 LANGUAGE.7 TABLE 8.8 .3 -3 -2 -5 -4 -3 -4 2.2 1. because full types could not be determined .0 4.6 -4 -3. the figures are 26 (types 8 to 4). for comparison: Caucasus: -5 Abkhaz -2 Adyghe -5 Ubykh 2 Georgian 4 Chechen-Ingush 4 Batsbi 3 Kubachi 3 Tabassaran 4 Karati North Eurasian isolates: 5 Japanese 2 Basque 2 Burushaski 6.7 -3 -4 -4 . 29 of the double-marking split types (2 to -2).5 -1 Two non-genetic groupings.7 1.3 2.5 1 6 3 -3.8 3.8 -7 -2 -7 5 7 7 6 5 7 2.0 -3.0 1. 25 (types 3 to -3). VOLUME62. for the full scale.5 -3.6 1. NUMBER 1 (1986) SHORT TYPE MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION FULL TYPE MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION Nez Perce NW Sahaptin Wishram Salishan Bella Coola Coast: Squamish Halkomelem Tillamook Tsamosan: Upper Chehalis Interior: Shuswap Coeur d'Alene Uralic Finno-Ugric: Cheremis Finnish Komi Samoyed: Yurak Wakashan 1** 2** Nootkan: Nootka Makah Kwakiutlan: Kwakwala 1** Kwakwala 2** 2 3 -5 3 5 -5 -3. and 29 of the head-marking type (-3 to -5) on the short scale.3 2 3 2 1 1.4 2. (Thetotal for the full scale is only 74.6 -1 -2 -5 -4 -4 .5 -4 -5 -6 -2 3. (Continued) and ing type (types 5 to 3).

4.1 on the short scale.Altaic. the verb takes only one agreementmarker. note that Kwakwalacan be describedin two ways. The median for random samples in both instances coincides with the over-all standarddeviationwithin the core sample.and their types represent the extremes (short types 3 and -3) to be found withinnon-Pama-Nyungan. If these two languagesare excludedfromthe non-PamaNyungansample. and median of 20 randomizationsof the genetic samplefor the short scale.HEAD-MARKING AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR 93 for all languages.9 to 3. Both means and medians for the random samples are at or near the extreme upper range of the genetic groupings. the meanandmedianstandard ings are much lower than those for randomsamples.)24 Table 9 (overleaf) shows the rank order of the standarddeviations of the type values.3 and a mean of 1.23(Standarddeviations were not computed for subgroupscontainingfewer than three members. then the relation-marking particlesaccompanytheir nouns. and the mean and median higher. mean. and 10 randomizations the full scale.0001.) The genetic sample includes some families within larger groups (e.type numberswere convertedto positiveintegers(ranging from 0 to 10 for the short scale. while they determinethe function of the followingword' (Boas 1947:206). The range is from 0 to 4. If the analysis is done on uncliticizedstrings. and the means from 2. for deviationsamonggenetic groupFor both scales. Table 8 shows standarddeviations of the type Hokan.65. dependingon whether the analysisis done before or aftercliticizationapplies. the standarddeviationbecomes negligiblysmaller(2. 23 For computing standard deviations. two and medianvalues for geneticgroupingswould still be significantly lowerthanthose of randomized groupings.7.7 and a mean of 2. and the languagebelongs to short type -4. the rangeis unaffected. (The range is greaterfor the full scale.22 numbers within each group.surface strings are characterizedby 'the subordination the noun underthe verb by means of particles of which coalesce phoneticallywith the precedingword.the differencebetweenthe two entries thus serves as a sort of plausibilitycheck on the entire procedure. the clause is mostly head-marked.Even if all genetic groupings showed standarddeviationsof . which seem to lack the essentialAustralian cognatebase. This meansthatnounslose theirrelation-marking particles. Semitic within Afro-Asiatic).6 on the full scale.1.the mean 2. while the short scale comprises only 11.the clause is mostly dependent-marked.hence clause relationsare not dependent-marked. and from 0 to 4. . and some groups whose genetic affiliation is supportedby some specialists but not proven (Afro-Asiatic.9 higherthan their actual values (corresponding the difference to betweenWakashan1 and Wakashan producedby including valuesfor Kwakwala).0. Furtherevidence supportingthe hypothesis of stabilitywithingenetic groups 22 Dixon (1980:225) confidentof the genetic unity of all the non-Pama-Nyungan for that is (and matterall Australian)languagesexcept for Tiwi and Djingili(includedin Table 8).Australian). with a median of 1.) Table 9 also shows the range. Penutian. It is interestingthat these languagesare typologicallyquite dissimilar. with a medianof 1. 0 to 16 for the full scale). A chi-squaretest showed that the differencebetween the medianvalues of the genetic and random groupingsis highly significantat a level much better than 0. the languageis of short type . the verb (normallysentence-initial) carrythe and can particle markersof two noun relations.g. These two valuesfor Kwakwala-and hence for Wakashan-are includedin the sample because the differencebetween the two analyses was the greatest such varianceencounteredfor any languagein eitherthe core sampleor the genetic sample. 24 Under Wakashan. On this analysis. This analysis is used and by Levine.If the analysisfollows cliticization. because it spans 17 types.15 to 3.2).The mean and median values differ very little among the randomizations:the medians on the short scale rangefrom 3.

94 LANGUAGE. the asteriskmarksfamiliesincludedin Capitalsindicate higher-order largergroups also listed here. (Australian hence non-Pama-Nyun- .Altaic.).6 0.6 1. The non-genetic groupingsof North Eurasianisolates andlanguagesof the Caucasushave values in the vicinity of the highest values for genetic groups. on the full scale.8 Athabaskan *NE Caucasian *Daghestanian *Polynesian *Finno-Ugric Wakashan1 Uralic Oceanic Salishan *Mongolian *Pama-Nyungan AFRO-ASIATIC *Semitic *Turikic *Coast Salish Wakashan2 Indo-European NW Caucasian *California Penutian ALTAIC *Non-Pama-Nyungan North Eurasianisolates AUSTRALIAN HOKAN PENUTIAN Medianfor genetic sample Mean for genetic sample Mean for randomsamples Medianfor randomsamples.0 1. both non-geneticgroups have higher standarddeviationsthan any genetic group.2 1.4 2. Standard deviationin type.over-all for core sample Caucasus *Oregon Penutian Highest value amongrandomsamples TABLE 9.3 1. NUMBER 1 (1986) SHORT SCALE GENETIC GROUPINGS NON-GENETIC GROUPINGS o *Chumashan Mayan 0. non-Pama-Nyungan(Australian).5 1.andthe fourmost controversialgroups (OregonPenutian. Australian.Penutian. Of the six groups whose genetic status is still unsettled-Penutian.4 3. comes from the orderingof the non-random entrieson Table9.4 1.9 2.7 1. and Hokan-all have highervalues thanany othergroup.5 ALGIC 0.8 1.1 3.1 5. VOLUME62. and Australian)have values substantially and higherthan those of any other groups. Oregon Penutian.Hokan.2 3.9 3.7 4. in rank order families (phylaetc.

0 1. (Continued) gan are not included on the full scale because they lack adpositions.5 2. the Uralic family is remarkably consistent in its pattern of head-marked phrases with pronoun dependents.2 1. The figures in Tables 8-9 should not be taken to mean .9 5.9 3. and the languages of Australia share certain agreement patterns which have the effect of unifying their types.1 1.5 0.5 *Chumashan ALGIC Mayan Athabaskan NE Caucasian Wakashan 1 *Daghestanian Oceanic *Pama-Nyungan *Mongolian Wakashan *Turkic AFROASIATIC Salishan *Semitic Uralic *Finno-Ugric Indo-European *California Penutian NW Caucasian Quechuan ALTAIC PENUTIAN Lowest value among random samples Median for genetic groups Mean for genetic groups Median for random samples Mean for random samples Overall for core sample North Eurasian isolates HOKAN *Oregon Penutian Caucasus Highest value among random samples TABLE9.1 4. but particular configurations of the D and H values shown in Table 3. and their full totals could not be calculated.9 1.4 2.) Comparing standard deviations of types is an extremely gross index of relatedness.6 0.7 1.6 4.7 4.6 1.4 4.HEAD-MARKING AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR FULL SCALE NON-GENETIC GROUPINGS 95 GENETIC GROUPINGS 0 0.5 1. Thus the Bantu family is remarkably consistent in showing head-marked clauses and dependent-marked phrases.6 2. and dependentmarked phrases with noun dependents. as will be discussed below.3 6. What is shared by demonstrably related languages is not numbers.0 7.8 2.1 4.

represented in the sample by Yurak.The Turkicorder. but follow them in Tungusic. possessive affixes (used on nouns and postpositions). suggest that the possessive markerfunctions as a semantic componentof the noun.1. insteadof beingputon the nounby an agreement marking relation rule the originated to the dependentnominal.It has thus acquiredthe status of somethingother thana strictlyheadmarking affix. genetic unity is widely (but not universally)accepted.96 LANGUAGE. VOLUME 62.25 its Altaic has a rangecomparableto that of Uralic or Indo-European. Instances of documentedor inferablesubstantialchange within families are found only in families of considerable time depth. in that non-geneticgroups diverge more in type than do genetic groups. 25). This means that Turkic and Turkic-influenced Uralic languages are not actually as strongly head-marking as the numbers would indicate. Turkicand Tungusichave cases. in that Mongoliancannotdetachits case suffixes and insert clitics before them (see againfn.and but verbal agreement with the subject. (The history of the Uralic change is described in Nichols 1973.the opposite order was used: possessive suffixes were word-final. Anotherfamily with a wide rangeis Uralic: here types 1 and 2 of the more eastern and northernlanguages(the Samoyed branch.Afro-Asiaticis a particularly compelling example. Indo-Europeanhas a range of seven points on the full scale-a discrepancyachieved by losing most of the morphology (as in English). NUMBER 1 (1986) that shared type numbers prove genetic connection.nominalpossessive suffixesprecede case suffixes. and independently in Comrie 1980. represented by Komi) are conservative: Finnish and other western languageshave achieved a strongly dependent-marked type (6 for Finnish) by losing object agreement markersand possessive affixes (which were word-finaland hence susceptible to erosion). several have a range of only two or three points on the type continuum. or developedby differentmeans in the two families. with a range of only four (short scale) or five (full scale) points despite its great age (over 8. The Mongolianfamily makes little or no use of possessive affixes.000 years). and then by increasinghead-markedpatterns at the clause level throughcliticizationof pronominalsubjects and objects (as in colloquial French and in Spanish). 26 Possessive suffixes precede case suffixes in Turkic. ratherthanas an agreementmarker. The over-all effect is double-marking. Some families have no variationat all in type.In otherwords.26 In Turkicand in some of Uralic(underTurkicinfluence). hence these languages are strongly dependent-marking. Since the possessive affixes of Turkic and Tungusic are clearly cognate to independentpronouns. The changes involved are almost never radical. and some of the languagesalso lack verbal agreement. Turkishincreases the dependent-marking patternsby using possessive affixes more and the genitive case less. the rise of the double-marking type in these groups can be attributedto cliticization of pronouns. and are based on the diachronicprinciplesestablishedin ?4. Of the Altaic groups. In Proto-Uralic.) 25 Word-final positionwould seem the most appropriate an agreementmarker. for and the innovative order in Uralic. It also shows that Turkicmorphologycannot be derivedstraightforwardly from cliticizationonto a Mongolian-type base. they merely show that over-all types are conservative and stable. and the Permianbranch. . it is treatedas having with the noun. this suggests that cliticizationof pronounstook place at differenttimes.

Chinookan. The nonPama-Nyunganlanguages all use verbal cross-reference. onto the verb (Silverstein 1979). a completely head-marking language. in both of them.' Phrases in the Pama-Nyunganlanguages are dependent-marked. The Oregon Penutiangroups have become head-marking and double-markingthrough transparently secondary clisis. but the genetic unity of Hokan is debated(Langdon1979. If Australian. Radical changes from one polar type to another are representedby only two examples. . e. using differentterms. but Penutianis another group whose genetic status is far from certain. notably of pronominalelements. These figures result from the inclusion of Wishram.the Australianlanguagesjust discussed would be a third example. 1982finds supportfor genetic unity). then they evidently represent the time depth and areal disparityat which the conservative nature of morphologicalmarking-typeceases to be visible.) All the internaldiversities discussed so far involve shiftingbetween a polar and a non-polartype. hit-FUT.Takelma-Kalapuya. thus divergingradicallyfromthe stronglydependent-marking of California type Penutian. withinwhich the dependent-marking Pomoangroup is sharply divergent from its double-marking and head-marking kin.both attributivesand possessors. as a representativeof the coastal Oregon languages(Coos-Alsea-Siuslaw. and Penutianare indeed families.HEAD-MARKING AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR 97 Another group whose genetic status is in doubt is Australian.Some of them cliticize pronouns to the verb and thus exhibit double-markedclauses. or simplyaccentuationof one or the othermarking pattern within a general type. The second group is Penutian. of (Implementation phrase-leveldependent-marking in the form of gender agreementgives the non-Pama-Nyungan languages an over-all type similarto that of the Bantulanguages-as Capell 1965points out.including and Wishram)whose connection to Penutian is controversial(as is their internal connection). Hokan.some of them have possessive affixes for inalienablepossession.and partlybecause of the use of agreement (in gender class. and are strongly dependent-marked. This use of phrase-levelagreementthroughoutAustralia is thus a strong contributorto typologicaluniformity:except for phrasal agreement. However.whose range is nine points on the short scale. (Wereit not for the moderating influenceof NP-level agreement. number.and/orcase) of modifiers. All the Pama-Nyungan languagesuse cases. with head nouns. the genetic status is problematical. none achieves a consistently head-marking character-partly because of the use of cases in some languages. Western Desert (Dixon 1980:362): (70) Hpu-ngku-Mrna-Mnta. some of the double-marking non-Pama-Nyungan languages might be radicallyhead-marking. The Penutianand Oregon Penutiangroups show extremely high standarddeviations on Table 9.g. and some lack core cases.OBJ 'I will hit you.lsg.) The first exampleis the Hokanfamily. SUBJ-2sg. and work on their prehistories can give us informationon the rate and mechanismsof change in type.

unite the stronglyhead-marking casian and stronglydependent-marking NortheastandNorth CentralCaucasian types within marking groups. yet defy firm genetic classification based on standardcriteriasuggest that languageswhose markingtypes are polar opposites. The western Uralic languagesassimilate to the neighboring European type.the Hokan subgroupPomoan assimilates to the dependent-marking type of adjacent CaliforniaPenutianand of Yukian (a small isolate family). First. and both the candidates for radical changes. while eastern Uralic languages remain double-markinglike their Siberian neighbors. syntactic. or else not relatedat least up to a time depth significantly greaterthanthatafforded by standardcomparativeprocedures. The obvious interpretationof this implicationalrelation is that the arealinfluence requiredto produce sharedtypes must be both intense and longterm. cannotbe provenrelatedby currently available methods. Indo-European. lexical.Hokan and Penutian-which exhibit radical internaldifferences in morphologicalmarkingtype. as shown by the crucial example of the Caucasus. but the converse is not true. give some evidence of relatedness. and cultural sharings also occur. involve accommodation to areal patterns. the Oregon Penutian language Wishramconverges with the polysyntheticNorthwest Coast type representedby the SalishanandWakashan families. There are several linguistic areas where morphologicalmarkingtype is also shared: Meso-America and the Pacific Northwest are head-marking. but a radical opposition of types: this is the North Caucasus. Second. plus near-identityof Northwest Caumaterialculture and folklore. then phonological. Table 9 shows that the diversityof morphological the Caucasus is greaterthan that within any other non-random groupingon the full scale-second only to Oregon Penutianon the short scale. VOLUME62.98 LANGUAGE. NUMBER 1 (1986) Areal distributionfurthertestifies to the stability and conservatismof morphological markingtype. Since it is stable in languagefamilies as old as Uralic.and Afro-Asiatic-whose time depthis at or nearthe maximum accessible to the comparativemethod-we are probablyjustified in assuming that languages of radically different types are either absolutely unrelated.and sharedgrammaticalfeatures (such as ergativityand word-ordertype).It is likely thata sharpdiscontinuityin type bespeaksa relativelyrecentmigration. markingtype may be useful as a negative criterion for relatedness. At least one linguistic area is markedby intensive convergence. Such examples show that morphologicalmarkingtype figures as implicans in statements about propensity to yield to areal influence:if the markingtype converges. massive lexical borrowing. it may be that morphologicalmarkingtype can also provide us with a negative criterionfor deciding areal questions and questions of migration. . though they may actually stem froma single ancestor. Areal influence on markingtype is furtherdemonstratedby the fact that almost all the changes in type mentioned above. where phonologicalconvergence. The resistanceof morphological marking type to changehas four implications for historical linguistics. and above the mean and median for randomsamples on both scales.while India and Europe are dependent-marking.

g. Establishingthat OregonPenutiancan plausiblybe tracedback to a dependentmarkingbase does not in itself establish its genetic unity with CaliforniaPenutian. They are also incrementalor even gradual. Thus. the means by which the proto-language may have increased its head-markingtendencies are the universals of change discussed in ?4. loss of morphologicalmarkers. and expansion of the head-marked treatmentof inalienablepossession. and it removes a majorobstacle-typological discrepancy-to positinggenetic unity.We need not assume a uniform rate of change in order to use this criterion as a rule of thumb. the consistently head-marked characterof those Athabaskanlanguages spoken on the Pacific coast cannotbe taken as evidence for the duration or intensity of Athabaskanparticipation the head-marking in Pacific Northwest convergence area.justify seeking a on the Proto-Japanese/Penutian/Northeast-Caucasian/Pama-Nyungan strength of shareddependent-marking tendencies.HEAD-MARKING AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR 99 and that the divergenttypes have been adjacentfor less time thanwas required for the typological differentiationof Hokan or Penutian. For instance.but it tells the comparativistwhere to look for possible correspondences. or a Proto-Northwest-Caucasian/Athon abaskan/Mayan the strengthof sharedhead-marking tendencies. for instance.1. A similarexample involves the two Australian groups:the mostly dependentmarkingPama-Nyunganlanguages. It cannot. The differences between the groups center on cliticization of pronouns. Silverstein's refinement (1979) of Sapir's classification (1929) identifies ancient Penutianas a predominantly dependent-marking languagewith verbal suffixes of certain types. since the entire Athabaskanfamily is consistently headmarking(and most members are distant from the coast). where the indigenouslanguageswere mostly Hokan (and hence head-marking and double-marking).areal considerations. with the consequent rise of head-marking verbal morphology. These differences involve universal changes: migrationof clitics to heads. of course. it alone cannot tell us which group was indigenous and which intrusive. injudgingthe intensityand/ortime depth of arealinteractionit has no value unless we have independentevidence for typological change.loss of core cases. and the double-marking non-Pama-Nyungan languages. even where morphologicalmarkingtype may be of use as a positive criterion-e.and expansion of pre-existentpatterns to more lexical that they can be thought of as isoglosses in the form of head-markingtendencies emanating from the innovating northeast (the non-Pama-Nyunganarea) and spreadingthroughthe conservative southwest (the Pama-Nyunganarea). Fourth. morphologicalmarkingtype in itself can never be invoked as a positive criterionfor genetic relatedness.. underthe rightcombinationof circumstances-geographical plausibility. The . and (most importantly)specific types and positions of affixation-typological similarity can be used profitablyas a heuristic. Third. who argues that the (dependent-marking)California Penutian languages are intrusive into California. However. Supportingevidence comes from Whistler 1977.This criterion suggests that the typological rift in the North Caucasusresultsfrom intrusionof one of the two groupsinto the otheralthough.

the typological argumenthas the effect of removing an apparent typologicaldiscrepancy. in Papua New Guinea (William Foley. 29 The coverage of South America in this survey is particularly cursory. widespreadfamiliesare dependentdistributedlanguages marking. though some sandhi follows a head-markedpattern).spoken in Kamchatka. while the degroups are found in peripheraland refuge areas. America. These includethe Paleo-Siberian of isolates and small families: Ket (type -3 on the full scale). indeed. facts presented in this section pertain 4. and hence type numbersnear or in the have more head-marking languages. The DISTRIBUTION. By contrast. Other Eurasian isolates include Basque and Burushaski.a group negative partof the range.30 continentalAsia. smallfamilies.but the isolates. and especially in North America.) . spoken in the Ural Mountains-i.rather. which leaves open the possibility that head-marking languages may be equally frequent there.adjacentto North patterns. yet exhibitingmany dependent-marked It is interestingthat. andperipherally tendencies. The only exceptions to this generalizationare Ket. NUMBER 1 (1986) deep-seated typological affinitiesbetween the two groups supportthe findings of recent etymological scrutiny (Dixon 1980:382ff.) This support does not amountto the use of marking type as a positive criterionfor relatedness. widespreadfamilies. head-marked patternsbecome more frequent(and type numbersbecome lower) as we move either north or east. yet predominantly head-marking-and Chukchi.29Only in America. Chukchiand its clauses and a great deal of incorporelatives (languageswith double-marked ration into heads).c.27 markinglanguages are found in all areas.In America. pendent-marking In the history of Uralic. In are the head-marking types predominant. as we approachNorth America. i. rather evenly split between head-marked and dependent-markedpatterns). at least on the clause level. at the western borderof Asia and hence maximallyfar from North America. Only Europe. while West African groups are nearly isolating. the type entry for that family dominates the continent. America.100 LANGUAGE. GEOGRAPHICAL of to both historyand typology.both having verbal agreement with more than one actant. Again we see that the typological argumentis meaningfulonly when combined with etymologicalresearch of the type that requiresa specialist. VOLUME 62.the large. in North Americait is the headmarkinglanguagesthat make up the large.e. Yukagir(which has very little morphology. The loss of head-marking 27 I put the boundary between Europe and Asia at the Ural Mountains (and a line extending southward from them). p.4. Most areas have a range of types covering about half the scale. in Eurasia. 28 Since the Bantu languages cover most of Africa. 30 The head-marking type is also frequent. we can see evidence for the spreadof the dominant patternsand extension of dependentEurasiantype. The Khoisan languages appear to be dependent-marking. The part of the Near East included with Africa is that portion lying south of northernmost Africa. Table 10(overleaf)shows the distribution types Dependent(based on the short scale) by continentor similarlarge-scalearea. head-marking languagesare commonest.28In Eurasia (and especially in Europe). as with Penutian.and hence a majorobstacle to positing genetic unity. and (to a lesser extent) Australiainclude both extremes.e. dependent-markedpatterns predominate. and Gilyak (largely isolating.

32 head-marking section presents some concrete evidence for this status. and its consequent potentialcontributionsto historicallinguistics. and explain developments in daughter languages. although it may one day have something to contribute to the study of mechanisms of change. but from the spread of broad areal tendencies-in the form of isoglosses which spread from a southern and western center.or for formercontacts.This section has shown how it can be used in argumentsaboutgenetic relatednessand areal contacts.3 above. CONCLUSIONS. IMPLICATIONS LINGUISTIC This patterns appear to be favored and universallypreferred. 10.5. It is risky to use typology as an argument for genetic affiliation.far. and that the same absolute preference is also shown at other levels of grammar. particularly if historical linguistics has some say in the choice of typological parameters. but did not extend all the way to the periphery. and 'markedness'. and some implicationsof these which facts for theory. So 4.23. . The type change within Uralic suggests that the peripherallocation of head-markedand double-marked patternsin Eurasiaresults not from displacement of languagesor peoples by dependent-marking languagesor their speakers. and fewer dependent-marked patterns. Only in ?5. however. typology has had ratherless to contributeto historical linguistics than might be wished. This is because none of them has been designed with the goal of pinpointingdiagnosticallyconservative features of In languages. Thereare severalrespects in which FOR 5.Proto-Uralicwould then have had affinitieswith the Paleo-Siberianand Eskimo-Aleutlanguagesto the northand east. 'marked'.relativeto otherlevels (as shown in ?3) inherentlyfavors head-marked of grammar. the terms 'favored' and 'preferred' are used in place of 'unmarked' to avoid the stylistic infelicity of 'the head-marked type is unmarked' etc. not only relative to other levels. typology has almost nothing to contribute to reconstruction and the study of genetic connections.A similarspreadof isoglosses in Australiawas suggested in ?4.GRAMMAR AND DEPENDENT-MARKING HEAD-MARKING 101 markedones in western Uralic languagesresults from the influence of the IE languagesto the west. ?5. 32 Throughout ?5. The present paper argues. to expect typological consistency of proto-languages. the distinction of morphologicalmarkingpatterns is a typological parameterchosen specifically because of its apparentstability. None of the presently availabletypological criteriacan safely be invoked in an argumentfor genetic relatednessor non-relatedness. that typology has great potential for historical linguistics.31 contrast. THEORY. or to infer proto-word-order from morpheme order. 31 The status of today's typology vis-a-vis historical linguistics is reviewed in Comrie 1981.11. and the final paragraph was it necessary to use 'unmarked'. Ch. The only positive contribution is the hope that the study of typology and universals may aid reconstruction.I argue that head-markedpatterns are favored there. some abstract properties which present further evidence for it. In other words. Some of the evidence comes fromclause-levelgrammar. or to use it in assessing the likelihood that a reconstruction is correct. It indicates that Uralic came into this typologicalsphere tendenof influence as a languagewith much more pronouncedhead-marking cies. patterns. it is unwise to assume immutability of types. by providing a universal account of mechanisms of change. but also absolutely.

NEAR EAST PACIFIC AUSTRALIA 5 4 ChechenIngush German Greek Russian *Karati Batsbi Finnish *Kubachi *Tabassaran Georgian Basque Turkish *Komi Nogai Japanese Mongol Hawaiian Rotuman Samoan Dyirbal Uradhi 3 Buryat Chukchi Kalmyk Burushaski Yurak *Tuva Amharic Nera *FutunaAniwa Mangarayi Yukulta *Djingili 2 *Nguna 1 0 Aleut Yurak Evenki Nanai Yakut Adyghe Ket *Gunwinggu Beja Ge'ez **Bantut Arabic Hebrew Ngandi -1 -2 *MalakMalak *Maung .EUROPE TYPE ASIA AFRICA.

7 .4 4 2. .8 .-3 *Warndarang Tiwi -4 -5 Abkhaz *Ubykh Continental mean (core sample): 1.7 10. by continent(based on short scal of * Languagesnot includedin core sample. TABLE Continuum types. ** Languagesnot includedin either core or genetic sample.9 1.4 1. t The entry for Bantu is the type shown by most languagesof this family.3 Continental mean (genetic and core samples): 1 1.3 3.



5.1. CONCRETE EXAMPLES showing that head-marked patterns are favored

include the following.
5.11. WORD The facts about word order presented in ?3.4 show that ORDER.

the head-marked clause patternfavors verb-initialword order.Clauses of other i.e. types-dependent-marked, split, and double-marked, all the types having a strong dependent-markedcomponent in their grammar-favor verb-final order.33This distributionmay be functionally motivated. But as a structural pattern, apart from functional motivation, it gives evidence for the favored characterof head-markedgrammar.One piece of evidence is the fact that the head-marking languageshave the greatest freedomof choice as to word order: they can be either verb-initialor verb-finalwith equal ease. Non-head-marking languagesare much less flexible as a class, and tend to be confinedto the verbfinal type. Another piece of evidence is the fact that the verb-initialorder favored by the head-markedclause is a much less frequent order, cross-linclause. guistically, than the verb-finaltype favored by the non-head-marked These two pieces of evidence can be restatedin termsof criteriafor markedness andunmarkedness.The head-marking languagetype behaves like the unmarked category, in that it displays the greaterfrequency of formal variety (of wordorder types); and it systematicallyincludes a subtype (verb-initial word order) that is rareover-all, and particularly rarein non-head-marking languages.Nonhead-marking languagesbehave like the markedcategoryin that most of them exhibit neutralizationof word-ordertypes to a single possibility, SOV. (The word-ordertypes themselves also fit criteria for markedness:the verb-final type is unmarkedin that it has the widest range, and appears where we find the analog to neutralization;the verb-initialtype is markedin that it appears only in restrictedfacilitatingenvironments,namely in the unmarkedmorphological type of language.)
5.12. HEADWARD As MIGRATION. shown in ?4.1, affixal morphology can move in only one direction, from dependent to head; and cliticized words most

often change from dependents to non-dependents,frequentlybecoming markers on heads. But a change from head to markerof dependent occurs only under restricted circumstances. 5.13. SOURCES. shown in ?4.2, head-marked As patternshave a greaternumber of possible sources than dependent-marked patterns.
5.14. SUBJECT-VERB As AGREEMENT. shown in ?3.1, many consistently

dependent-marking languages exhibit verbal agreement with one or two arguments; but few consistently head-marking languageshave an analogous dependent-marked pattern.This was shown graphicallyin the clusteringon Figs. 1-2. (The reason that it is specificallyverbalagreementwhich appearsin otherwise dependent-marking languages is that verbal agreement is a clause-level pattern, and the clause level was shown in ?3.31 to favor head-marking.) 5.15. POLYSYNTHESIS. amount of head-marked morphology that can be The
33 This discussion ignores SVO order because I assume, from its distribution on Tables 5 and 6, that it can be seen as a contextual variant of verb-initial order, favored by dependent-marked morphology.



concentrated in a single word seems virtually unlimited, to judge from the elaborate polysynthesis of languages like those of the American Northwest. Yet the relation-marking morphologyof nouns is almost universallylimited to a single case affix. The maximumseems to be two-as in certain Australian languages, where a case-markednoun can take a second case suffix, marking agreementwith another noun in the sentence. Although some languages(e.g. the Eskimo, Algonkian, Siouan, and Iroquoianfamilies) have morphologically complex nouns, most of this complexity can probably be relegated to word formation (especially nominalizationof morphologicallycomplex verbs); but the complexity of verbs in the same languagesis arguablyinflectional.Put more simply, if we confine ourselves strictly to inflection, many languages have polysynthetic verbs, but there are no polysynthetic nouns.
5.16. SIMPLIFICATION. There is evidence that simplification involves a rela-

tive increase of head-markedover dependent-marked patterns(althoughoften an absolute decrease of all morphology),in comparisonto the source language. Thus in Chinese pidgin Russian-and throughoutthe spectrumof broken and and simplifiedRussian-relativization, subordination, coordinationare usually marked on the main rather than the dependent clause, in contrast to literary Russian usage (Nichols 1980). Similarly,English examples like 71 are simpler and more colloquial than 72 (= 38-39, above):

(71) MSince

I overslept, HIwas late.H (72) 1 overslept, M50 HI was late.H

Further evidence is the appearancein a numberof pidgins and creoles of subject and object markers which either can be viewed as, or go back etymologicallyto, pronominalclitics which functionas head-marked agreementor cross-referencing particles. For example, verbs in English-basedTok Pisin (Sankoff & Brown 1976, Smeall 1975)have a variablesubjectmarkeri- and an object marker-(i)m, which evidently go back to he and him.34 Although,in the contemporarycreole, i- and -(i)m are not subject and object markers(for i, cf. Smeall), their etymologies demonstratethat simplificationof English into ancestral Tok Pisin involved innovationof head-marking patternsby pronominal cliticization. In the ancestralpidgin, these forms markedthe subjectand object relations, and indicated the presence of subject and object; but they did not index their gender and numbercategories, as shown by the fact that neither of them is now restrictedto masculine singulararguments. A similarinnovationof head-marked clause patternsis found in Krio, which is also English-based.Krio and Tok Pisin are especially strong evidence for a correlation of head-markingwith simplification:the English source probably did not make systematic use of head-marked patterns,and pidginizationhence involved innovatingthem. Less strongevidence comes from the French-based Caribbeancreoles; these do not innovate, but simply preserve the subject and
34 Smeall argues that i- is not from Eng. he, but rather goes back to Melanesian subject agreement markers. The question is not crucial here: either etymological source yields a head-marked pattern, and hence supports my argument. I assume that Tok Pisin i- actually has a double etymology, reflecting both Eng. he and the Melanesian subject markers.



object cliticization found in colloquial French. Generalizingover these creole examples, we can say that head-markedclause patterns will be retained, and may even be innovated, in pidginization.They may be lost-or their functions altered, as in Tok Pisin-with creolization, as the process of simplificationis reversed, and complexity is added to a former pidgin.
5.17. CONCLUSIONS. preceding paragraphs deal with the favored and The

disfavored status of morphologicalmarkingpatterns, not of whole languagetypes. When we look at the status of languagetypes, the opposite conclusion holds: dependent-marking languagesare the most frequent(see Figs. 3-4) and have the widest geographicaldistribution(Table 10). Head-marking languages are the next most frequent, but have the narrowestgeographicaldistribution; and split-marking double-marking languages are the least frequent, but have wide geographicaldistribution.
5.2. ABSTRACT PROPERTIES. preceding section gave eviGRAMMATICAL The

dence that head-marked patterns, althoughexotic from the IE perspective, are favored. This section will examinesome of the abstractgrammatical universally and relationsand will show that, propertiesof head-marked dependent-marked in various ways, head-markedpatterns increase the simplicity and efficiency of grammar.

follows, I use 'governed' to refer to dependents whose presence is required, and whose morphologicalform is determined, by their heads; and 'subcategorized' for those whose presence is required,but whose formis not determined by the head. The examples in ?4.1 show migrationof adpositions to verbs, where they figure as preverbs or similaraffixes. Exx. 61-62 show a typical syntactic consequence of such migration.Before migration,the verb subcategorizesthe PP but does govern it. I.e., the verb's semantics requiresthat phrase-which is typically the location of a stance or state verb, the goal of a motion verb (61a), the instrumentof a verb that semanticallyrequiresan instrument(62a), or the like; the morphological markingof the PP is not assignedby the verb, but rather reflects the semantic role of the phrase. After migration,however, the nowadpositionless NP is an object; the verb governs that object, and the former adposition serves as a formal markerof the verb's valence on the verb. Migration,then, has turneda non-governedactantinto a governedone, thus the increasingthe verb's valence. Furthermore, particular non-governedactant that has been removed is of a type-subcategorized but ungovernedlocation, goal, or instrument-which has caused numerous problems in grammatical analysis, because of its status midway between the governed argumentsand the adjuncts. Of course, the anomalyin traditional of grammar relationswhich are subcategorizedbut ungoverned results most obviously from the inability of traditionalgrammarto distinguishsubcategorization from government.But the cross-linguisticfrequency with which migrationconverts exactly these relations into governedones suggeststhat these relationsare inherentlyunstable, and even disfavored.

' For Boas. (b) polarization of nominal relations into governed and adverbialis favored. knife.In head-marked grammatical that in head-markedclauses the verb is the only clause constituent. merely as appositions to a number of pronouns. full NP's are included only for emphasis.35 5. today we would represent the verb as he-her-it-with-cut. more precisely. His term for the relation of the pronominals to the verb is 'modification' (63 et passim)-the same term he uses to describe the syntactic relations among words in a dependent-marking language (see the previous quote from p. and in the inflecting languages. SYNTACTIC BONDS. his house instead of the man's house. the man. the appositional relation is a consequence of polysynthetic structure. a large number of distinct ideas are amalgamated by grammatical processes and form a single word. 12. Note that 'case relationship' is treated as a syntactic relation in this passage. 36 For instance (Boas 1911:30): 'When.36This position is systematized and placed in a structural frameworkby Milewski-who. This would predict that languages tend to add governed relations to their valence patterns-a contention which is rendered dubious by the existence of languages with a maximum of two valence places (and perhaps even one. Since the appearanceof Boas 1911.' The 'pronouns' are the pronominal elements on the verb. (c) decreasing the numberof ungovernedrelations in a clause is favored. and stems are modified solely according to the logical forms in which they appear in the sentence. in Chinook. we may safely say that the nouns themselves appear without any trace of case relationship. to judge from Lushootseed).HEAD-MARKING AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR 107 We thus have three hypotheses that warrant further testing: (a) subcategorized but ungoverned relations are unstable. is not for constituents. 62). relyingon works like those in Boas 1911. we find expressions like he her it with cut. which he defines as follows (62): 'in polysynthetic languages. the genitive relation is eliminated by substituting for it possessive expressions.developed in traditionalgrammaron the basis of exclusively dependent-marked relations (as is arguedin ?5. the depen- dent is usually an optionalelement of the constituent. a sharp distinction is made between formal elements and the material contents of the sentence. like. focus. clause-level head-markedmorphologyhas usually been de35 The changes surveyed here decrease the number of ungoverned relations and increase the number of governed ones. for instance.' Although he denies that Chinook is polysynthetic. without any morphological distinction between the formal elements in the sentence and the contents of the sentence. See again fn. meaning The man cut the woman with the knife. man. to the coreferentialmarker on the head). in head-markedconstructions the relation of the head to any overt dependentsdiffersin characterfromthatof a head to a dependent-marked dependent. hypothesis (c) could also read: (c') Increasing the number of governed relations in a clause is favored. Such languages are particularlyprone to use zero anaphora. the verb itself normallyconstitutes a complete sentence. . perhaps languages with consistently head-markedclauses. disambiguation etc.22.3). Boas regards possessive affixes (head-marked) on nouns as being in the same appositional relation to the possessor: 'In the same language [Chinook]. for instance. on the other hand. he still classifies it among the 'languages in which the pronouns are not incorporated but loosely joined to the verb' (63). woman.For instance. ratherthan (as in Indo-European) being syntacticallygovernedby a verb which agrees with them. the term 'government'. appropriate head-marked descriptionsof AmericanIndianlanguageshave insistedthat subjectand object in these languages are in apposition to the pronominalmarkerson the verb. Since Bloomfield 1933. In principle. The dependent in a head-markedconstituent stands in a roughly appositive relationto the head (or. In addition.

above) b. and 'indirect object' applies best to which noun.NOMj-gave In both sentences. and it makes sense to ask which of a set of terms like 'subject'. Compare the following head-markedAbkhaz clause (73a) and its dependentmarkedChechen translation(73b): (73) 'The man gave the woman a book. the-manthe-womanthe-book it-to. the nouns are its dependents. a-xac'a a-pth?3s (= 24. say. the two sentences are identical. and in these relations. a and head-marked a dependent-marked verb/objectrelation-they are identical. 'book' the direct object. specification. bond) is bilateral.e. it is the canonical relationof government. It exmar.The Boas-Bloomfield position has recently been formalizedby Van Valin 1985. it is a looser link of apposition.) term 'unilateral'and 'bilateral'dependency. the syntactic relations are identical. Therefore it is necessary to distinguish 'syntactic relations' (as defined in ?1).on the verb). DEM. as in Indo-European. say.But in the sense in which this paper uses the term 'syntactic relation'-claiming fundamentalsyntactic identity between. In Chechen. The head-marked (i. the nouns are dependent on the verb. inherited from traditionalgrammar. from what I will provisionallyterm 'syntactic bonds'. But even grantedthe identity of such syntactic relations. but the syntactic bonds differ.but the headsince it can occur alone with the same reference-does not require the dependent.the latterterm is used for the head-marked indexingof one or two clause actantsin a generallydependentmarking language.e. One concerns relations between was worked out on the basis of IE that the dependentrequiresthe head. and the verb is the predicate. The notion of subordination inter-clauserelations quite well. The dependent-markeddependency (i. 'book' and the verb. or the like between 'book' and the first prefix slot on the verb (and that prefix represents cross-reference.and the dependentrequiresthe head. In both of them the predicate is that the head requiresthe dependency dependent. the two examples differ in the nature of the bond between.108 LANGUAGE. tends easily to the dependent-marked . such as subject or direct object. NUMBER 1 (1986) scribed as 'cross-reference'ratherthan 'agreement'. These are syntactic relations. bond) is unilateral.OBLperson-ERG woman-DAT book. Head-markedand dependent-marked relations. 'direct object'. VOLUME62. are seen as fundamentally differentin character. 'man' is the subject. There are two other respects in which syntactic bonds appear to differ according to morphological marking type.her-he-gave-FINITE zudcun-Mna kni:ga-M Mj-Helira. The difference in syntactic bonds correspondsto what Brown & Miller (1980:254ff. not agreement). then. In Abkhaz. as that term was defined in ?1. 'woman' the indirect object. In 73a-b.and markedby case determinationand gender agreement(in the form of the noun class prefixj. which is the head of the clause. cu stag-Ma a-s?q?'3 M0_Ml_My_Hte-yt'.' a. and it handles dependent-marked non-finiteclauses of most OV languages.

23.37It is much less successful where the semanbut tically subordinateclause bears no marksof subordination. adpositions are often called somethingother than prepositionsor postpositions. and Northeast Caucasian represent subordination. Juldasev (1977:134-8. in head-markedconstructions like these (= 39-40. which are neither true subordinates nor true coordinates. 6. Jakovlev 1940:175 ff. Thus the prepositioncannot be substitutedfor the PP.g. Ch. it is therefore a subordinate clause (e. But consistently head-markinglanguages have no exocentric constructions. Magometov 1963:263.' (Jacobsen. and hence the non-sentencehoodof *He wrote to or *I talked about. above) Hp'usak ba:babu:pibitxsi. According to Bloomfield's definitionfor English (1933:194ff. Of the grammarians who recognize subordination. NP is endocentric:the head noun and the whole NP both have the syntactic distribution a noun. Mso M'udu:4-s-isi HI was late.g. The problem lies in the analysis of dependent clauses.e. the only difficulty lies in the formal non-congruity between chained clauses and the subordinate clauses of Russian. inflecting. . Altaic. an exocentric one has a head whose distributionis not that of the whole constituent. (For a solution to this dilemma. 5. because-lsg. 153.g. Prepositionalphrases of and clauses are exocentric in English: the prepositionor verb does not have the distributionof a PP or an S.) No one denies that the non-main clause can be semantically equivalent to a Russian subordinate clause. the Mayan grammaticaltraditionuses the term 'relationalnoun' rather than 'preposition'for words like that in ex.H (= 39.HEAD-MARKING AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR 109 and to the dependent-markedfinite clauses with subordinatingconjunctions found in many VO languages. Grammarians who deny that chained clauses represent subordination do so on formal grounds: chained clauses lack the finite verbs and subordinating conjunctions that are definitive of subordination in Russian.i. and Van Valin 1985. i. Gadziev 1954. or that it is syntactically non-main. an endocentricconstructionis one whose head has the same distribution the entire as construction.). For instance. Ozdoev 1981. e. but same-subject chained clauses are still parts of simple sentences. 155) regards even same-subject chained clauses as subordinate clauses. CENTRICITY.-RESP tired I.. 1965:341). 38 This section owes much to discussions with Robert Van Valin and Joan Bresnan. 1963). Linguists in the USSR continue to debate about whether the dependent-marked clause-chaining constructions of Uralic. Head-marked. Some of this debate is summarized by Ozdoev (21-4). Head-marked adpositionalphrasesand sentences DOhave the same distribution 37 This is actually an oversimplification. they are therefore 'reduced clauses' (oboroty). above): (74) English (75) Makah I overslept. some have apparently done so on functional grounds: chaining conveys the meaning of subordination (e.overworked 'I'm tired because I overworked.e. arguing (153) that the relation of what we would call control proves that they are not parts of simple sentences.38 Head-marked constituents can be endocentric where their dependent-markedand double-markedcorrespondentsare always exocentric. it cannot be a reduced construction (by the definition of oborot current in the Russian grammatical tradition). 113) Another example showing that head-marked relations differ in character from dependent-markedones comes from PP's. see Foley & Van Valin 1984.) In most recent works. 15. and hence parts of simple sentences (e. phrases. the semantically principal clause does. subordination is recognized on formal grounds: where the chained clause has a subject different from that of the main clause.g.

field linguists (beginningwith Boas. by him/her/it' its-at ruu-Hmajk 3sg. The opposition of endocentric to exocentric arises only where constituents are headed by governing or valence-bearingwords-verbs or adpositions. Although all head-markedconstituents are endocentric. then: a constituentheaded by a governing or valence-bearingword will be endocentric if it is head-marked.of In other words.g. to cite the clearest examples. the head-markedverb constitutes an independentutterance.and this means that S is endocentric on a definitionbased on lexical projection. Dependentmarked NP's like those of 6 and 17-18 are endocentric. 'because it is the projectionof no lexical category. it has the distribution of a sentence. 14-15. and it is exocentric otherwise(Bresnan 1982:296).39 There are two ways of formalizingthe notion of centricity: one relying on definition.-because. VOLUME62.but exocentric if dependent-marked.where S is indeed not a projectionof V. Such an analysis would depend on a very literal reading of Bloomfield's is often pointed out. NUMBER 1 (1986) as theirheads. in such a language. This is precisely what occurs in saw verb without overt inhead-markedclauses and PP's. This amountsto an informalclaim that S is a projection of V in such languages. and on that interpretation would stand alone. For instance.e. To refine the above statement. a head in isolation could be interpreted as having zero dependents. On a formaldefinitionof centricitybased on externaldistribution. Similarly. substitutingthe verb for the entire clause is fully normalin all contexts. But for a number languages. of head-marking 36) have insisted that the verb is equivalent to a clause or sentence. Such a definitionis validfor English and similarlanguages.a category is endocentric if the head may be freely substitutedfor the entire constituent (as e. . in the head-marked adpositionalphrasesof Abkhaz and Tzutujilshown in exx. these head-markedadpositionshave the same distributionsas do the entire phrases which they head.i. The constituent which it heads is thereforeendocentric. On this definition.and one on externaldistribution. it is not conversely the case that all dependent-markedconstituents are exocentric. and on the willingness of grammarians to let discourse features like anaphora affect the definitions of constituents below the sentence. projection.110 LANGUAGE. in the endocentric English NP). the dependentnouns can be omitted. it has no more effect on syntactic structurethan does pronom39 A dependent-marked governed constituent might qualify as endocentric in a language tolerating a good deal of zero anaphora-since.. Since the head-marked dependent arguments is equivalent in meaning to an English verb with pronominal actants. leaving heads which can stand alone: (76) Abkhaz (77) Tzutujil a-Hq'ns 'at it' 'because of him/her/it.Onthe projection-based a phrase is endocentric if its head and its dominatingcategory are projections of the same lexical category. and that any independent nominals in a clause are in apposition to morphemesof the verb ratherthan governed by the verb. see again fn. S is an exocentric category in all languages'(297). houses is substitutable for several large white houses in the context I .

participles. a head-markedvalence-bearingword bears inflectionalindicatorsof its arguments. In summary:for both Lakhotaand Abkhaz. The double-markedclause of Walbiri(Hale 1983) is endocentric on the criterionof projection. In head-marking Abkhaz.hence there is no categorialdistinction between PP and an adverb phrase. then the Abkhazclause is exocentric. Abkhaz.g. the head-markedverb and clause are categocreates a varietyof nonriallydistinct.the double- . In general. Predicates of many subordinateclauses must be non-finite.and verbal nouns. it is equivalentto an Englishadpositionplus pronomirnal object. If we assume that endocentricityof S entails formalidentityof finite mainverbs with subordinateclauses or their heads (just as it entails formal identity of finite mainverbs with mainclauses). modifiers. however. and substitutionis again possible in all contexts. hence a finite verb cannot replace such subordinate clauses. wail-3pl. followed by the same article that follows nouns: (78) cheya-pi kj nawax'ti. ART I. those argumentsare thereforeoptionalclause constituents. In Abkhaz-as in other languages. Head-markedPP's are endocentric. S is endocentric on the criterion of external distributionas well (and on this criterion PP's are endocentricin both languages). By this criterion. 'I heard [Npthe [Nthey wail]]'. and the inflected head word is not distinct from the type of constituent it heads. Much the same is true at the phrase level. Since the head-marked adpositioncontains a markerof its understoodobject. but not for Abkhaz.HEAD-MARKING AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR llf inalizationin English. In Lakhota-as in many other North American languages-adpositions are categorially(and often etymologically)identicalto adverbs. This is not true of all head-markinglanguages. S and PP are endocentricon the criterion of projection. while the presence of head-markedmorphologygives the clause the option of being either exocentric or endocentric. The following example shows that nominalizationis done with a finite verb.heard 'I heard the wails. andhence have the syntactic functions of adverbials. Adpositionalphrases in both Abkhaz and Lakhota (and in all head-marking languages for which I have information)are endocentric by this criterion.e. as just argued. and nominalargumentsrespectively.e. subordination finite verb forms such as verbal adverbs.for Lakhota. they head embeddedclauses. I know of no dependent-marked clause which is endocentricon either definition. the Mayan group-they are categorially (and often etymologically) identical to possessively inflected nouns. hence there is no categorialdistinctionbetween PP and NP. the wailing' (Boas & Deloria 1941:146). a consistently head-marking language. Examplesof PP's are 76-77 above. nonetheless has exocentric clauses. as well as by the projectioncriterion.Both of these constituentsare exclusively headmarked in both languages. however: thus Lakhota embeds finite verbs (or finite clauses) under NP just as easily as it inserts N under NP. In another respect.It can evidently be concluded that the absence of head-markedmorphology restricts the clause to exocentricity. Such forms are not verbs.i.

NUMBER 1 (1986) markedpostpositional phrases of the Uralic languagesappearto be both proendocentricwhen they have pronominal jectionally and distributionally objects. while the presence of headmarkedmorphologygives it the option of exocentricityor endocentricity.with very little help from the theoreticalliterature.Furthermore. and neutralization diagnosticof markedness. INDEXING AMBIGUITIES HIERARCHIES.112 LANGUAGE.1 in that it must be phrased in terms of the presence vs. Againthe absence of head-marked morphology restricts the PP to exocentricity. since the verb agrees with the same person/numbercombinationfor all three.1 were phrasedin termsof head-marked vs. This strategy may obscure semantic functions since it will. Imagine a head-markinglanguage with person/numberagreement for three clause actants. But it does answer the question of what agrees with what. but the PRESENCEsuch morphologydoes not act of as a positive factor. shows that morphology limits syntax in this respect. which for the direct-objectslot. ABSENCEheadis the of marked morphologyacts as a positive factor limitingthe privileges of occurrence of centricity types. and which for the indirect-objectslot.definiteness. and dependent-marked PP's are exocentric. actants in all slots. AND Head-marking systems are faced with the problem of indicatingjust which clause actant stands in which of the relationsmarkedon the verb-a problemunknownto dependent-marking languages.while its presence allows both exocentricity and endocentricity. in which each noun bears a markof its own function in the clause. dependent-marked morphology. Centricity is another area in which the head-marking type emerges as unmarked (in the Praguean sense). absence of headmarkingmorphology.while those in ?5. (Further clarity can be added by using inverse person-marking obligatorypassivior zation when a non-agent outranks an agent in animacy and hence becomes . which are neutralized in the dependent-markedS.regardlessof who is biting whom. This statement about markednessdiffers from those given in ?5. Ambiguityis possible.The fact that the absence of head-marking resultsin exocentricity. There has been very little discussion of centricity in the literature. for example. There are various possible solutions to this impasse: (a) Set up a rigidhierarchyof animacy.and to my knowledge none of it is explicitly based on considerationof head-marked constituents. The head-markedS has available to it two types of centricity. 5. to determine which actant is eligible for the subject slot. and imagineconstructingin that languagea sentence with 3sg.or the like. The cross-linguisticgeneralizationsofferedin this section are thus based on fairly cursory examinationof a few samplelanguages. VOLUME 62. and hence does not limit the privileges of occurrence of centricity types. The fact that head-marking permits either type of distributional centricity shows that distributionalcentricity and morphological entailsprojectional markingare two differentthings.The fact thathead-marking endocentricitysuggests that projectionalcentricityand morphological marking may not be distinct things. mechanically select 'man' over 'dog' as subject on the basis of their hierarchicalranking.They should be taken only as hypotheses.24.

is not a head-marking language. depenChechen and Ingushhave non-natural dent-marking genderclasses whose taxonomic value is revealed by their role in riddles and in contexts of poetic equation (Nichols 1985). Cree. (See Heath 1975for the disambiguating functionof genderclasses. not that it arises in head-marking languages. (d) Mark the dependents themselves. fixed word order.althoughit imposes restrictionsof its own.To cite a concrete example. gender. For example. or possessed by. This will not clarify the hypotheticalexample described above.reduces the number of head-marking points and gives Lushootseed a non-head-marking cast. and for the doublemarkedclause type.) It is particularly helpful if these are non-naturalgender classes.(Thatnaturalgenderclasses such as those of Dyirbal[Dixon 1972] taxonomize the universe is. and will provide maximally informative verbal inflection. and let verbalinflectionindexgender. control hierarchies. of course. These features evidently have contributionsto make to languagesof all types. another. (f) Restrict the numberof overt NP's per clause. If the verb is obligatorilymade reflexive when. This principle accounts for the desultory case inflection sometimes found in otherwise head-marking languages (e. In the absence of gender classes.) (b) Set up a rigid control or accessibility hierarchybased on syntactic relations. then they will intersect randomlywith properties like animacy or potential agency. the two-case oppositions of Adyghe and Shuswap). Blackfoot.) (c) Develop genderclasses. but it will be useful in disambiguating certaincoreferencerelations. This is done in a numberof head-marking languages. This strategy. agent possesses patient. all these phenomena are also found in dependent-marking languages. a Salishan language.HEAD-MARKING AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR 113 subject. well grammaticalized. then the presence or absence of reflexivizationwill help disambiguatethe construction. and Nootka.g. say.this example proves only that such a constraintcan arise. (Greek. of course.but not when agent possesses goal. in contrast to its neighborsand kin. appearsto allow only one overt NP per clause. gender classes of non-natural types contributeto the taxonomization of reality in languages where they make little or no contributionto text disambiguation. obviation.Genderclasses found in some of the dependent-marking Pama-Nyunganlanguages of Australiahave taxonomic value that echoes folk taxonomy and mythic functions (Dixon 1980:273-4). or shape classificationprovide additionalmeans for indexing nouns.) For instance. triviallyobvious. Thus Lushootseed. or between one actant and the possessor of another. (e) Develop a fixed word order for nominals. It eliminates the ambiguity. other categories such as deixis. But that is plainly not the case. grammaticalized hierarchies of animacy.they also play a role .g.Suppose that one of our three actants is coreferentialto. Barber1975shows that a strict hierarchygoverns the interpretation the Greek middle-a form of which signals coreference between one actant and another. e. and reduced valence are epiphenomenaof the head-marking type. The above listing might suggest that rigid.

head-marked clause relations]. can the generalizationsmade there be extended to phrases and sentences? Even in the absence of a complete account. In summary. centricity.2 pertained mostly to clause relations.. ?7. definiteness etc. This is a question that can be answered only by specialists in the histories of individualfamilies. within Bantu as well as without. it is still possible that at least some of the occurrencesof these phenomenain dependent-marking languages are relics of former head-markedpatterns.That semantic hierarchies such as animacy are hierarchiesof potential discourse prominenceis arguedby Silverstein 1976. flatness etc. VOLUME 62. semantic hierarchiesacquire an upper hand in determining object properties. A well-documentedexample is object choice with three-placeverbs in the Bantulanguages (Hyman & Duranti).and by subject choice in languageswith animacy-based passivizationand inverse person marking.25. when a language has clitics[on the verb. FOR We have now seen a number of dif- ferent respects in which head-markedand dependent-marked syntactic relations differ. NUMBER 1 (1986) in discourse coreference(Foley & Van Valin. All such patterns involve head-marking. SOME IMPLICATIONS THEORY. Similar phenomena are illustratedby object choice in Huichol (Comrie 1982)and in Mayan (Larsen & Norman 1979). exhibited by the same relation in a consistently head-marking language?The discussion in ?5.The concluding statement of Hyman & Duranti shows how the grammaticalization non-syntactic propof erties is crucially linked to head-marking tendencies.then. 5.e. because pragmatic and discourse relations(ratherthan strictly syntactic relations)are being Thus Heath 1985arguesfor the dispensabilityof clause strucgrammaticalized. using text data from a language with strong head-markingtendencies. freeing a language to concentrate on the grammaticalization discourse prominenceand cohesion. often considerably. the head-marked clause patterns-in grammaticalizing animacy. such as animacy and definiteness. than by strictly syntactic relations.A numberof empiricalquestions remainto be investigated:How do double-marked relationsbehave in these respects? Does the occasional head-markedpattern in a mostly dependent-marking language have the unilateralsyntactic bonds. at the expense of the clarity and discreteness of clause-level syntactic relations. i.114 LANGUAGE. However. which are manifestedin Bantu by cliticization of pronouns: 'The conclusion is that. FLATSYNTAX.Head-marked patterns contribute to a flat syntax which minimizes intra-clauseand inter-clause structure.3. In of fact it turns out that it is precisely for head-marking languagesthat a number of traditionalgrammatical questionsprove to be somewhatmoot. rather than clause-level syntactic relations-are grammaticalizing (potential)discourse relations. the evidence that morphological markingtypes have implicationsfor abstractgrammatical structureis sufficient to force some rethinkingof the foundations of syntactic theory. It turns out that many fundamentalanalytic notions of formal and theoretical syntax are . Anotherexample comes from languageswhere access to particular verbalaffix slots is more obviously conditionedby pragmaticand discourse factors.while grammatical considerationsstep to the side' (237).5). ture. 5.

and exclusive characterof dependent-marked grammar. and assigns the nominativeCase to it. Every dependent must bear the markerof its syntactic relation. (It also represents the exocentricity of the English clause as a structuralfact.some of them even seem to be based designed for dependent-marked on an implicit assumptionthat grammaticalrelations are normallydependentmarked. d. Malayalam. there is a glaringgap in the typological coverage: the exotic languagesthat have so far received significantattentionhave been almost exclusively dependent-marking (Japanese. INFL does that.) This discussion has not questioned the adequacyfor English of Chomsky's analysis.23).Chomsky's analysis of case and governmentcan be read as makingthe following implicit assumptions: (80) a. c. Australian languages). But dependent-marked patternsare NOT universal. An NP having phonetic content must have Case. see Van Valin. RelationalGrammarhas investigated a number of head-marking languages (primarilyfrom the Algonkian. and the nontraditionalelement INFL makes it possible to treatthatpatternas thoughit were dependent-marked. necessary.and Wakashangroups). and by treatingthe subject as not dependenton the lexical verb. c. it has simply pointed out that his analysis rests on an assumptionof the universal.they are possibly not even the preferredtype.but these languageshave not been used . and assign formal markingto them. b.22)and with centricity(?5. In all other grammatical relations. but is stated informally): (79) a. only Navajo has received significant theoretical attention. Salishan.HEAD-MARKING AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR 115 relations. Australianlanguages)or double-marking (Turkish. Hebrew.) The effect of Chomsky's system is to build into the fundamentalsof core grammarthe denatureof English(andgenerallyIE) morphosyntax. Heads govern dependents. the verb does not govern its subject or assign case to it.The basic pendent-marking principlesare these (this enumeration preservesChomsky'sterms.4. A verb governs and assigns Case to its complements(in the VP). The use of INFL accommodates the sole head-markedpattern of English to these assumptions. That is. Case is assigned by governingcategories. Despite the efforts of formal grammarians to take a range of languages into consideration. Korean. In addition.) 5. CONCLUSIONS. INFL(the verbal inflection comprisingtense and agreement)governs the subject of a tensed S.Arabic. b. the traditionallyrecognizedhead governs and assigns case to the traditionallyrecognized dependent. Dependency and governmentare the same thing. The effects of this assumption were discussed above in connection with the distinctionbetween syntacticrelationsand syntacticbonds (?5. (For a detailedcritiqueof Chomsky'ssystem as applied to a head-marking language. Of the head-marking languages. The same assumptionappearsto underliethe conception of case and government presented by Chomsky (1982:48 ff. Finnish. Subject-verb agreement is the only salient head-markedpattern of English. it captures the fact that S is not a lexical projectionof V in English.

and both he and MarkDurieinformed language. DC: Georgetown University Press. London: Hutchison. M. MA: MIT Press.) The mental representation of grammatical relations. 1962.] . It is no accidentthat the and eightdiagnosticpointsof Table3 were easy to establishfor dependent-marking double-marking languages(the only problemswere decidingwhichof two patternswas basic.1911 (ed. LEONARD. bridge.and ELLADELORIA. E.I have arguedthat the theoreticalapparatusof classical. BARBER. infrequent were some commonones). MILLER. 3 is an example of a but head-marked not endocentricconstruction(see ?5. K.42 REFERENCES Novoiranskiejazyki. and J. JOAN. J.Foley & Van Valinoutlines and dependent-marking-derived a theory that takes extensive account of head-marking patterns. centricity. . Moscow: Nauka. therebyfalsifying the generalizationin ?5. BLOOMFIELD. with a glossary of the suffixes. ABAEV. Kwakiutl grammar.Van Valin 1985compareshead-marking-derived analyses of a head-marking language.15. BROWN. traditional. 1982 (ed. andfindingexamples languageswas of both nounand pronounobjectsof adpositions).but probablya greaterpart is beof uniformdescriptivetechniquesfor head-marking cause of the assumptionof uniformconstituenttypes and partsof speech which is necessitatedby my approach. Washington. E. (Bureau of American Ethnology. . government etc.41 If the hypothesis of the universallypreferrednature of head-marked patterns holds true.16-24. 23:2. is structural. et al. 42 After this paper had been accepted. 1933.40 The view of grammarpresented here raises serious questions for universal grammar.V. A. removalof of NP and adjectives. New Haven: Yale University Press. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 37:3. BLS 1. Igor Mel'cuk informed me that ex. (UCPL 30. A. lack of canonical appearance independent arguments. DC: GPO. (Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences.. 1982(eds. 1962. Syntax: A linguistic introduction to sentence structure.) Osnovy iranskogo jazykoznanija: I. 1975.FRANZ. BOAS.23). NUMBER 1 (1986) to raise questions of constituency.whereasclassifyinghead-marking fraughtwith problems(lack of canonical adpositions. Bulletin 40.andformalgrammar heavily based on dependent-marked syntax. Voice-beyond the passive. Language. Partof the difficultyresultsfrom the lack argumentsby incorporation languages. Klamath texts.) Washington. CamBRESNAN. W.Kayartilt(see Evans MS). 40 At least three proposals incorporatehead-markingconfigurationsinto phrase structure: McCawley1971. [Introduction reprinted. then we will have to recognize that describingthe world's languages in standardtheoretical terms is not merely Eurocentricdistortion. syntactic bonds.201-337.1980. 1941. 41 The same can be said for the grammatical of framework this paper. but in fact forces the unmarkedgrammaticalstructureinto a frameworkdevised for the marked type. lack of canonical PP's. E. .116 LANGUAGE. The Menomini language. 1947. Dakota grammar.) Washington. whichuses cases to markmodalityas well me of an Australian as syntacticrelationsand thus stacks up to four case suffixes on a single noun. reducedvalence. New York: Holt.Keenan 1972a.and Jelinek1984. VOLUME62.) Handbook of American Indian languages. R.) Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1964. DC: GPO.1. BARKER. I. The fact that linguistic theory is ultimatelyrooted in linguistic typology shows how importantit is to capture the uniqueness of individual languages in cross-linguisticallyand cross-theoreticallymeaningfulterms..

Efrat (Heritage records. (Studies in generativegrammar. 1954. 1982. GADZIEV.NICHOLAS.95-116.I: Prostoepredlozenie.451-62. N. Indiana University. JOSEPH 1963. Yurak chrestomathy. LYLE. GYULA. The Jacaltec language. G. Grammatical relationsin Huichol. Noun and verb in Nootkan. ed. 1933. 1965.5-47. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique. DIXON.1-26. H. Moscow: Nauka. Maxackala: Dagucpedgiz. (eds. GREENBERG. DECSY. 1981. Lingua 15. HYMAN. Abkhaz. 1963. HOPPER.Cambridge: M..270-78. A Tzutujil grammar. New York: Academic Press. ed.Maxackala: Dagucpedgiz. (Uralic and Altaic series..) DAY. On the object relation in Bantu. Lg. Sintaksis lezginskogo jazyka.) Studies in Transitivity. 1980.1977. Functional syntax and universal D. on Northwestern Languages. CHRISTOPHER. WILLIAM A.Paris. M. 1982 and semantics.Cambridge: University Press. A.) The languages of Native America: CAMPBELL.81-6. 1979. CARTER. EVANS. -.9. DAYLEY. London: Her Majesty's StationeryOffice. The order of case and possessive suffixes in the Uralic lanCOMRIE. Yale dissertation. 89-110.NOAM. 1979. HAWKINS. H..and MARIANNE MITHUN. Moscow & Leningrad: Akademija Nauk. Some functional relationships in grammar. HEWITT. with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. PAULJ.JEFFREY. --. 1972. 83155. WILLIAM JR. ROBERT W. Obsceindoevropejskaja. Ordrelineaire et dependance syntaxique:Contribution une tyGARDE. Word order universals. Modal case marking in Kayartilt.) Amsterdam: NorthHolland. Headless relatives in the Southwest: Are they related? BLS GORBET. LinguaPosnaniensis 23. IVANOV. Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. DYK. CAPELL. 1980. . and SANDRA THOMPSON.HEAD-MARKING AND DEPENDENT-MARKING GRAMMAR 117 1979 (eds. PAUL.B. F. HALE. 15. 2. JAKOVLEV. 3. Universals of language.Languageuniversalsandlinguistictypology. 1984. Austin: University of Texas Press. KENNETH 1983. Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. grammar. 51. --. 1963. 1975. The languagesof Australia.) Dordrecht:Foris. In Hopper & Thompson. 217-39. In Hopper & Thompson. VJACESLAV 1965.) New York: Academic Press. BC: Provincial Museum. A grammar of Wishram. M. 72:1. 1985. The Dyirbal languageof North Queensland. Cambridge. Sintaksis cecenskogo literaturnogo jazyka. L. a pologie. Historical and comparativeassessment.. HEATH. CHOMSKY. In Nichols & Woodbury. 1940. II: Sloznoe predlozenie. The Victoria Conference JACOBSEN. 1983. 73-113. 1981. FOLEY.HAZEL.12.LARRY DURANTI. 1966. Bloomington:IndianaUniversity.Sintaksislezginskogojazyka.Cambridge: University Press.) Bloomington: BERNARD. JON P. Discourse in the field: Clause structure in Ngandi (Australia). and ALESSANDRO 1982. and ROBERT VANVALINJR. praslavjanskaja i anatolijskajajaV. Notes on the tonal system of Northern Rhodesian Plateau Tonga. LARRY. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. 1973. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. Some universalsof grammar H. guages: An approachto the comparative-historical problem. 2nd edn.89-104.1977. A typology of concept domination. Berkeley: University of California dissertation. 1982. University Press. 50. (Syntax A. --. Greenberg. MS. WALTER. . (Lingua descriptive series.(LanguageScience Monographs. zykovye sistemy. 4). by J. JOHNA. Victoria. MA: MIT Press. M. by Barbara S.

MA: MIT Press. JOHANNA. BLS 10. 70-101. ALECP. and ANTHONY WOODBURY. Voprosy vajnaxskogo sintaksisa 1981. 14). Natural Lan- guage and Linguistic Theory 2. . 1967. dictionary. Cambridge. JESPERSEN. 2. Relative clause formation in Malagasy. A. . 1980. The Chicago Which Hunt: Papers from the Relative Clause Festival. JERZY. Another typology of relatives. Santa Cruz. Poetic equation in Chechen-Ingush. ROBERT. Tubingen: Narr. 1977. FELIX.1-59.) Helsinki: SUS. Suffix ordering in Proto-Uralic. A. by D. La structure de la phrase dans les langues indigenes de l'Amerique du nord. WILLNORMAN. KUNO. Winter. . MILEWSKI. . 1981. 1973. Heidelberg: KURYLOWICZ. Syntactic change and SOV structure: The Yuman case.21-34. 1972b. On the nature of grammatical relations. Li. Tbilisi: AN GSSR. NICHOLS. Paris. Traugott (Current issues in linguistic theory. by Paul Peranteau et al. Austin: University of Texas Press. JAMES 1971. Empty categories. . Studia. The Squamish language: Grammar. A. London: Alien & Unwin. Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique. OINAS. Types de dependance syntagmatique entre les mot-formes d'une phrase. Pidginization and foreigner talk: Chinese pidgin Russian. LEHMANN. .) Ann Arbor: Karoma. dictionary. and configurationality. ed. (LI monograph 10. Tbilisi: Mecniereba. A. 1974. Pomoan. with particular reference to Pomoan and Yuman. 1984. 255-90. 1972a. ed. On semantically based grammar. 1981. 592-649. (Linguistica extranea. A. ed. 123. 1984. 73. 225.39-76. Modern English grammar. Chicago: CLS. VOLUME62. A. TADEUSZ. 1984. case. Sootnosenie deepricastnyx i licnyx form glagola v tjurkskix jazykax. CHRISTIAN.) MARANTZ. 1985 . MELYUK. by Charles N. (Janua linguarum. K voprosu o sloznopodcinennom predlozenii v ingusskom literaturnom jazyke. The structure of the Japanese language. 217-31.413-62. The inflectional categories of Indo-European. I. LANGDON. Danny Steinberg & Leon Jacobovits. 7). IGOR 1979. by Elizabeth C. Where do noun phrases come from? Semantics. 1977. Moscow: Nauka. Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. In his Etudes typologiques sur les langues indigenes de l'Amerique (Prace Komisji Orientalistycznej. and Yuman. KUIPERS. Seri. Tabasaranskij jazyk. 1985. EDWARDL. C. Series practica. The development of some postpositional cases in Balto-Finnic. SUSUMU. ed. texts. In Campbell & Mithun. Krakow: PAN. LEVINE.OTTO. Lingua 32. Mechanisms of syntactic change. THOMAS. and 1979. Kompendium seiner Grammatik.) The Hague: Mouton. 347-70. 169-89. Cambridge: University Press. KEENAN. (eds. Studia Caucasica 6. Some thoughts on Hokan. VII.12-24.) The Hague: Mouton. 1963. The Shuswap language: Grammar. Paper read at Conference on Far Western Languages and Prehistory. by Frans Plank. AERT H. The Skidegate dialect of Haida. 1961. Ergativity: Toward a theory of grammatical relations. --. Cambridge: University Press. Kubacinskij jazyk. Studies in dependency syntax. . London: Academic Press.118 LANGUAGE. MCCAWLEY. NUMBER 1 (1986) JELINEK. Amsterdam: Benjamins.. texts. 1977. Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen. Columbia University dissertation. ed. 1973. 1965. 1984. JULDASEV.524-41. Series practica. . 1982. MA: MIT Press. OZDOEV. MARGARET.) Grammar inside and outside the clause: Some views of theory from the field. Correlates of ergativity in Mayan grammar. (Janua linguarum.227-38. 397-407. Theorie seiner Funktionen. (Suomalais-ugrilaisen toimituksia. 76. . LI 34. MAGOMETOV. 1979. ELOISE. Cambridge. LARSEN. 1967. 1961.1964.

Uto-Aztecan: An assessment for historical and comparative linSTEELE. by Robert M. 1979. In Campbell & Mithun. 1. 1915. In Nichols & Woodbury. --. TESNIERE. Leningrad: Nauka. reconstruction of plant and animal names. A grammar of Late Modern English.] PAUL. W. SAPIR. 1979. MICHAEL. 444-544. ed. 1972. POUTSMA. PENELOPE SANKOFF. In Campbell & Mithun. Paris: Klincksieck. Grammatical cateSILVERSTEIN. 169-78.ROBERT JR. N. AA 17.157-74. W. The origins of syntax in discourse. A quantitative analysis of variation: i in Tok Pisin. Canberra: AIAS. accepted 6 June 1985. Dixon. BLS SMEALL. --.631-66. VANVALIN. Berkeley: University of California Press. Elements de syntaxe structurale. TERESCENKO.534-58. 650-91. New York: Harcourt Brace. 1976. Penutian: An assessment. 363-413.EDWARD.403-7. [Reprinted in his Selected writings.GRAMMAR AND DEPENDENT-MARKING HEAD-MARKING 119 PAUL. Encyclopedia Britannica 5. revision received 26 January 1985. H. 1973. CHRISTOPHER. Case marking and the structure of the Lakhota clause.. 1949. Mandelbaum. 1974. 1985. KENNETH 1977.1966.] . Sintaksis samodijskix jazykov. The Navajo relative clause. Groningen: Nordhoff. IJAL 40. BROWN. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. ed. [Received 24 August 1983. BLS 3. Berkeley & SCHACHTER. and 1976. LUCIEN. PLATERO. M.202-46. 1975. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Central and North American languages. D. 1929. GILLIAN. guistics. --. SUSAN. 1916. OTANES. 1921. Tagalog reference grammar. by David G. Language. gories in Australian languages. Lg. Wintun prehistory: An interpretation based on linguistic WHISTLER. 112-71. and FE T. The Na-Dene languages: A preliminary report. 52.138-41.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful