Pragmatic Skewing in 1 ↔2 Pronominal Combinations in Native American Languages

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 [email protected].. The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal of American Linguistics. 1. Introduction. Many Native American languages have rich verbal morphology including "agreement" for both subject and object of transitive clauses. In some languages the subject and object (or ergative and absolu-tive) pronominal markers occur in separate morphological slots and do not interact; an example is Nahuatl, where subject and object series appear to reflect recent agglutination of formerly clitic pronominals. However, in a remarkable percentage of languages, several subject/object combinations are fused, opaque (difficult to segment), or unusually complex. Some of the irregularity can be explained by classical morphological markedness theory. Most obviously, in many languages the pronominal subject markers of intransitive verbs express a full set of number distinctions (perhaps sg/du/pl), but some of these distinctions are neutralized in transitive combinations (e.g., semantic du-du, du-pl, pl-du, and pl-pl all expressed as morphological "pl-pi"). Other agreement systems revolve around a person hierarchy of the type {1, 2) versus 3, where speech-act participants {1, 2) outrank the third or "nonperson."1 Other features (animacy, number) may be used to rank-order pairs of 3d-person markers. In "direct-inverse" (= "hierarchical") systems, the order of subject and object markers is determined not by grammatical relation but by these hierarchies, so "direct" {1, 2)-+ 3 combinations like 'I saw her' differ in structure from "inverse" 3-{ 1, 2} combinations like 'she saw me'.2 Markedness considerations are again at work here, since 'I saw her' is less marked, as a combination, than 'she saw me'. If (as in most