LCDD 35 Story Apache Narrative

Non-Speech-Act Participants in

Chiricahua Apache

Narrative With Special

Reference to the Fourth Person

Non-Speech-Act Participants in Chiricahua Apache

Narrative

With Special Reference to the Fourth Person

Gillian L. Story

SIL Language and Culture Documentation and Description 35

©_{2017 SIL International}®

ISSN 1939-0785 Fair Use Policy

Documents published in the Language and Culture Documentation and Description series are intended for scholarly research and educational use. You may make copies of these publications for research or instructional purposes (under fair use guidelines) free of charge and without further permission. Republication or commercial use of Language and Culture Documentation and Description or the documents contained therein is expressly prohibited without the written consent of the copyright holder(s).

Series Editor Lana Martens Content Editor

George Huttar Compositor Margaret González

iii

The aim has been to cover all usages of the fourth person in Mithlo’s and Kenoi’s Chiricahua Apache narratives in Hoijer 1938 and in so doing to discuss the fourth person in contextualised sentences in narrative discourse.

The fourth person is neutral with respect to the topicality scale defined by the third person pronominal yi-/bi- alternation. Fourth person is found in three functions in the corpus (apart from a ‘polite’ usage found in quotes): in fourth person participant tracking, in ‘impersonals’, and, in the absence of fourth person tracking, fourth person coding of non-agents may occur in post-quotatives and non-quotatives. This third usage generally occurs in the context of dialogue. The participant whose point of view it is may change, and then any object pronominals, third person yi- (or bi- as the case may be) and fourth person go-, switch in reference.

Use of fourth person tracking avoids the third person yi-/bi- choice and the coding of the main character (or any participant) by the obviative yi-. Context is especially relevant in the initiation of fourth person tracking. Normally fourth-person pronominals are not coindexed with a noun phrase: any fourth-person pronominal is interpreted by the context in which it occurs, with the restriction that its function is one of the three listed above.

iv

Abbreviations

sNP nominal phrase coindexed with the subject pronominal in the verb

oNP nominal phrase coindexed with an object pronominal, direct or postpositional, in the verb The following abbreviations are used in relation to the verbs:

1s first person singular 2s second person singular 2p second person plural Ø third person subject

3 bi- form of the third person object pronominal 3' yi- form of the third person object pronominal

4 fourth person

Figures (and INDEF) also occur representing possessors DISTR distributive

INDEF indefinite RECIP reciprocal

SIT situational (or areal)

sg, dl, pl singular, dual, plural (when the verb stem is singular, dual, or plural respectively, with respect to the subject if the verb is intransitive and to the object if transitive)

OPT optative

Other abbreviations are: DUBIT dubitative

EMPH emphatic

MKR a postpositional marker NARR narrative enclitic

NEG negative

PRO a free pronoun REL a relative enclitic SUB subordinating enclitic

v

Contents

Abbreviations

1 Introduction

2 The third and fourth person pronominals

2.1 The third person object pronominals yi- and bi-2.1.1 The third person yi-/bi- alternation

2.1.2 Third person tracking by the yi-/bi- alternation 2.1.3 Further properties of third person bi- and yi-2.1.4 Exceptional yi-/bi-Ø-V clauses

2.2 The fourth person pronominals 3 Fourth person tracking

3.1 Continuous fourth person tracking illustrated 3.2 Termination of fourth person tracking

3.3 Suspension of fourth person coding in fourth person tracking 3.3.1 For the removal of ambiguity

3.3.2 By reason of redefinition 3.3.3 Exceptional suspensions

3.4 Identifying fourth-person-coded referents

3.5 An anomalous example of fourth person tracking 3.6 Fourth person participant reference strategy 3.7 Multiple fourth-person-tracked participants

3.7.1 Initiation of fourth person tracking of a participant not previously fourth-person-tracked 3.7.2 Reintroduction of previously fourth-person-tracked participant

4 Alternating point of view and dialogue

4.1 Illustrations of non-continuous fourth person coding 4.2 Characteristics of fourth person reference-switching 4.3 Contiguous fourth person tracking and reference-switching 4.4 Pragmatics of the post-quotative pronominal choices 4.5 A second type of fourth person reference-switching? 4.6 Possessors in quotatives

5 Non-alternating point of view and dialogue 6 ‘Impersonal’ fourth person

6.1 Impersonal fourth person 6.2 Unspecified fourth person

6.3 Semi-active/lapsed-active fourth person 6.4 Deactivating fourth person

7 Conclusion

7.1 Review

7.1.1 Summary of fourth person usage 7.1.2 Strategies of participant reference 7.1.3 Foregrounding devices

7.2 Further observations concerning the fourth person 7.2.1 Fourth person as ‘other’

7.2.2 Avoidance of the obviation system

7.2.3 Commentary on “The First Mountain Spirit Ceremony” 7.2.4 yi-avoidance and pre-quotatives

7.2.5 Generalisation concerning the fourth person References

1

The Chiricahua Apache texts selected for the study of the fourth person in narrative discourse in this paper consist of the thirty-one narratives by Lawrence Mithlo and Sam Kenoi published in Hoijer 1938. It became evident early in the study—which was initially concentrated on the ten Mithlo narratives and Kenoi’s eight Coyote stories—that, although all were folkloric (Mithlo’s narratives are ‘in-the-beginning’ tales, the last one a Coyote story in part), the two narrators differed in their use of the pragmatic resources of the language. The ten Mithlo narratives have been studied separately from the eight Coyote stories by Kenoi, and in part these latter separately from others by Kenoi—three about visitations of mountain spirits, seven ‘Foolish People’ narratives, and three ‘at-night’ narratives (describing incidents that happen when the Apache are moving about covertly at night for whatever reason).

It has been observed that “[p]revious research done on the pronominal system in Navajo and other Athabaskan languages has largely focused its attention on the alternation that occurs in transitive clauses between the third-person pronominal prefixes yi- and bi-…. [W]hile the majority of analyses offer a cursory glance at the fourth person pronominal marker, not much attention has focused on [its] uses….” One roadblock has been that “the existing research on the pronominal markers has been mainly based on ‘isolated, noncontextualized sentences’ (Thompson 1989[a]:23), which, as of yet, has not provided a satisfactory description of the function of the pronominal prefixes, especially the fourth person” (Gales 2007:1f).

The Chiricahua Apache examples to be presented in this paper are all from Mithlo’s and Kenoi’s narratives and therefore have occurred in a discourse context.

2 The third and fourth person pronominals

Chiricahua Apache third and fourth person pronominals—the pronominals coding non-Speech-Act Participants (non-SAPs)—may be summarised as follows:

(1) person subject object

3 Ø yi-/

bi-4 ji-

go-In both the third and the fourth person, the direct and postpositional object pronominals are the same shape, and in the case of both persons the possessor pronominals are the same shape as the object pronominals.

A distributive prefix daa- in the verb indicates plurality, three or more, whether in the subject or the object or both, depending on context (Hoijer 1945:202).

2.1 The third person object pronominals yi- and

bi-The third person object pronominal yi- does not occur with first, second, and fourth person subjects and the third person yi-/bi- alternation occurs only when the subject is third person. bi-,1 _{the third person}

*I am immensely grateful to Willem de Reuse for persevering with an earlier draft of this paper and giving me his most valuable comments on it. He is not, of course, to be held responsible in any way for errors that may remain in this current version of the paper. I also want to convey my very real thanks to Stephen H. Levinsohn who has commented on the later versions and has encouraged me towards coming up with the previously lacking concluding observations.

1 _{The third person postpositional object bi- has a variant hi- “which is apparently of commoner occurrence in the} speech of older people” (Hoijer 1938:87). This variant will be found occasionally in the extracts from the narratives.

object pronominal occurring with non-third person subjects, is generally zero when in direct object function (Hoijer 1945:197).2

Previous research has shown that, in Athabaskan languages generally, bi- codes more topical participants than does yi- (Thompson 1979:16ff, Saxon 1984:43, 61, Saxon 1987, Thompson 1989b:155, 217, Willie & Jelinek 2000:265).3 _{Aissen (2000) has discussed bi- and yi- in Navajo in terms of obviation} in the Algonquian sense, bi- the proximate in view of the fact that bi- is associated with topicality (Aissen 2000:134), and yi- the obviative.4

2.1.1 The third person yi-/bi- alternation

The yi-/bi- alternation in Apachean has received considerable study in isolated clauses with direct, not postpositional, objects (initially in, for example, Hale 1973, Frishberg 1972, and Shayne 1982; see also Thompson 1996). yi- occurs in direct constructions sNP oNPyi-Ø-V and bi- in inverse constructions oNP sNP bi-Ø-V.5,6 _{The phenomenon has been termed Subject-Object Inversion (SOI). In most isolated clauses,} direct and inverse, the first NP is equal or greater in ‘rank’ to the second NP in an animacy hierarchy.7

In Apachean, an intransitive verb with a postpositional object is syntactically equivalent to a transitive verb, at least in respect of the yi-/bi- alternation (see, for example, Sandoval 1984:168; Sandoval & Jelinek 1989:350; see also Rice & Saxon 2005:708),8 _{and an intransitive verb with a}

2 _{Young & Morgan (1987:64) say: “With the exception of certain types of transitivized intransitives, the 3rd person} direct object is represented by Ø when the subject of the verb is other than third person [that is, is first, second, and fourth as Young and Morgan's paradigms show]. Thus: … bi_níłdaah, you're seating him [second underline added] = transitivized nídaah, you are in the act of sitting down.”

3 _{Probably excepting the Pacific Coast Athabaskan languages (Thompson 1979:24), which possibly do not use the} cognate prefix for topicality.

4 _{An Algonquian-type obviation system cannot be present in the northern Athabaskan languages. In Algonquian, all} third persons are either proximate or obviative. But it is only in Apachean among the Athabaskan languages that all third person objects (and possessors) are either bi- or yi-, proximate or obviative (with or without a coindexed NP)— a pronominal object of a transitive verb cannot be absent. In the northern Athabaskan languages there are at least some clauses (in some of the languages, it is all clauses) in which an object NP excludes an object pronominal and any element that would be diagnostic of the obviation status of the object is lacking. (See Willie 2000b:378 for the same thing expressed in other terms.)

5 _{In representing the essentials of a clause schematically, the following abbreviations will be used: sNP represents a} nominal phrase coindexed with the subject pronominal in the verb and oNP a nominal phrase coindexed with an object pronominal, direct or postpositional. In the diagram of the verb word, V represents the verb base, and the penultimate element, immediately before V, the subject pronominal. Any one or more preceding elements are object pronominals—so go-Ø-V represents a verb word in which the first pronominal is the fourth person object go- and the second pronominal is the third person subject Ø-.

6 _{Because, in the northern Athabaskan languages, NP and object pronominals, whether direct or postpositional, are} generally in complementary distribution, structures sNP oNP yi-Ø-V and oNP sNP bi-Ø-V are generally non-occurring. (Dena’ina, Babine-Witsuwit’en, and Slavey are named among northern languages in which complementarity does not always hold (Rice & Saxon 2005:722).)

7 _{Judgments of the grammaticality of sentences sNP oNP yi-Ø-V versus oNP sNP bi-Ø-V with the same meaning for a} given pair of nouns do not always agree with the ranking hypothesis. “Young and Morgan (1980:171ff) asked nine Navajo speakers for grammaticality judgments on a variety of [pairs of yi-/bi- decontextualised] sentences which could involve SOI and found less than universal agreement” (Thompson 1996:82). “Some [Navajo] speakers have strict judgments agreeing with the ranking hypothesis, while other speakers can usually think of a situation where one noun has control over the other, and therefore have fluid judgments more in keeping with [a] control hypothesis. That there is wide variation is certainly true for Apache as well” (de Reuse 2006:211).

8 _{Rice and Saxon, in their overview of Athabaskan syntactic structure (Rice & Saxon 2005), draw on the facts} concerning both oblique (postpositional) and direct objects in the language family to set up their basic clause structure. Oblique and direct object positions are conflated in the structure though it is not the case that oblique and direct objects are always syntactically equivalent. General statements may need to be qualified. In Kaska, for example, third person pronominal direct objects are invariably y- and third person postpositional objects are invariably b- as Rice and Saxon note (ibid. 739; O’Donnell 2004). In Gwich’in, vi-, the b- cognate, is never a direct object (Thompson 1996:85). In Dena’ina also, there is the restriction that the direct object (but not the

postpositional object will generally be treated as a transitive construction in the present paper. ‘Object’ will denote either a direct object or a postpositional object unless it is stated otherwise.

When the subject is third person, one-NP transitive clauses are generally oNP yi-Ø-V or sNPbi-Ø-V. In both two-NP and one-NP clauses, in direct clauses, the object NP, the second, or the only, NP, is coindexed with the object pronominal yi-, and in inverse clauses, the subject NP, the second, or the only, NP, is coindexed with the subject pronominal Ø-.

In addition to (sNP) oNPyi-Ø-V and (oNP) sNPbi-Ø-V clauses, cases of both (oNP) sNPyi-Ø-V and (sNP) oNPbi-Ø-V occur in Chiricahua Apache narrative and will be discussed below (sections 2.1.4.1 and 2.1.4.2, respectively).

2.1.2 Third person tracking by the yi-/bi- alternation

When the yi-/bi- alternation is used in participant tracking in Athabaskan, one of the participants when in object function is coded by bi- and the other by yi- (or their cognates). This “allows for a much more extensive use of anaphora in Athabaskan than would be possible without the alternation. Literal translations are often hard to follow because of this extensive use of anaphora” (Thompson 1979:21) (and paucity of NP). Thompson exemplifies an extract from a Dena’ina story collected by Tenenbaum in which a wolf is following a man and finally kills him. There are twenty-three clauses and eleven changes of subject but only four nouns: tiqin ‘wolf’ in four changes of subject when the wolf becomes the subject, and there is no NP-coding of the man at any point. Obviative ye- codes the wolf as object (when the man is subject) and proximate ve- codes the man (when the wolf is subject) (ye- and ve- are cognates of yi-and bi- respectively).9

The yi-/bi- alternation may be used in the same way in Apachean and its use is the default third person participant reference strategy. Sandoval says, “In my work with text analysis [in Jicarilla

Apache], I have seen that sentences without nominals are the most frequent; and in discourse, nominals are added only when it is necessary to make clear what the referents of the pronominal verbal arguments are [similarly, Uyechi 1990:4(5); Müller 2002:58(14)]. The following is from a recording I made of a narrative told by my mother, Margarita Sandoval” (Sandoval 1984:163):

(2) gaat’í ̨ -go nahá anlé ná ̨ąłni daayiiłni ná /

it.is.light -when for.us you.make possibly they.said.to.him NARR /

doo_____da _daabiiłni ná / dooda _daabiiłni -nda

no-o-o-o-o he.told.them NARR / no he.told.them -even.though

daayókąąh -go yanaada’iłt’éí -go dí ̨í ̨’įįshdi silí ̨ -go

they.were.begging.him -when they.repeatedly.supplicated.him -when four.times it.became -when

aoo biiłni ná /

yes he.said.to.them NARR /

Note the y(i)-/bi- alternation in the alternate lines, depending on to which participant the pronominal refers, and the absence of any NP that refer to the two participants, “he” and “they”.

The following is a Chiricahua Apache example from Kenoi’s “The Foolish People and the White Men”. (In this and similar displays to follow, only the essentials of a clause outside quotes are included and the contents of any quotes are only summarised. The numbers in the narrow columns represent my own numbering of the clauses in the narrative; they are sometimes discontinuous because for brevity’s sake not all the clauses are necessarily included. If a pronominal codes a ‘prop’, it is italicised and so is any NP coindexed with it; its English gloss is italicised also.)

postpositional object) with an unmarked third person subject Ø- can only be y- (Lovick 2005, section 3.1.2). Jung (1999:130) has other examples.

9 _{ye- also codes the wolf as subject. For *yə- as a subject prefix in some of the Alaskan Athabaskan languages, see} Thompson 1989b:217f, and 239, footnote 5.

(3) 001a _{sNP bi-Ø-V White men came to them (the Foolish People) in a group.} 002 bi-V (passive) They were shot at.

003 ʔił-Ø-V They (the Foolish People) speak to one another (ʔił- ‘RECIP’). 004 “Don’t annoy them,”

005 ʔił-Ø-V they say to one another (ʔił-). 006 sNP bi-Ø-V The white men came among them. 007 bi-Ø-V They sabre them.

008b _{oNP yi-Ø-V They get between the white men.} 009 “Why/What has someone done to you that 010 you sabre him!”

011 yi-Ø-V they say to them (to white men).

012c _{bi-V (passive) They (the Foolish People) began to be killed.}

a _{The verb of clause 001 is baajíńzhoozh‘they came to them in a group’, third person subject. ji- in this verb} form is not the fourth person subject prefix but is a derivational prefix ji- (> j-) collocating with this stem -zhóósh, -zhoozh ‘several move as a group’.

b _{The verb nádaayótą of 008, ‘they went between them’, can mean to get between fighters (Hoijer 1938:131).} c _{In 012, yi- is not an option in the unipersonal passive verb. Similarly in line 002.}

In clauses 001–011, proximate bi- refers to the Foolish People and any obviative yi- to the white men, and any NP refer to the white men, not to the main characters—the Foolish People. Stated in other terms, the point of view remains with the Foolish People as the more topical participants in this passage (for ‘point of view’, see Chafe 1994:132; also called ‘empathy’ [Kuno 1987:206]; Fillmore [1997] uses the term ‘deictic center’).

The context of passage (4) from Kenoi’s “Coyote and the Rolling Rock” is that Coyote has been warned by someone unnamed that a big rock lying by the road is one that moves about and he should not defecate on it. Nevertheless, he does so, and the rock rolls out in pursuit of him:

(4) 015 sNP bi-Ø-V The rock rolled out after him.

016 yi-Ø-V He ran from it.

017 bi-kétsíń-ee Ø-V It is rolling along right at his (bi-) heels. 018 oNP yi-Ø-V He ran with all his(bi-) strength.

019 sNP bi-kétsíń-ee Ø-V The rock is rolling along right at his (bi-) heels.

020 sNP Ø-V Coyote speaks:

021 “Did you ever see me running at my very best speed?” 022 oNP yi-Ø-V he says to the rock.

023 oNP yi-Ø-V He ran with his(bi-) very best speed. 024 bi-kétsíń-ee Ø-V It is rolling along right at his (bi-) heels. 025 yi-Ø-V He ran from it (into a hole).

The yi-/bi- alternation may extend to postpositional phrases when the postposition occurs with an (inalienably-possessed) body part (Willie 1991:195f) such as -kétsíń-ee ‘ankle-at’, so that the bi-structures in (4), bi-Ø-V and bi-kétsíń-ee Ø-V, are syntactically equivalent. bi- refers to Coyote, the main character, and yi- to the rock, and the point of view remains with Coyote, whether Coyote is subject or not.

Note that, apart from an sNP occurring in a pre-quotative in (4) in 020, in both (3) and (4) any NP code non-topical participants, the participants whose point of view is not taken in these two passages— the white men in (3) and the rock in (4).

(Quotative verb forms10 _{are defined here by both structure and function. In function, they introduce} or close quotes; in structure they have the form transitive (_ʔá)-O-_ł-S-_ⁿdí ‘say (so) to’ or intransitive (_ʔá

)-S-ⁿdí ‘say (so)’. _ʔá- occurs in pre-quotatives and not in post-quotatives; a pre-quotative clause alone is a grammatical sentence but a post-quotative clause without a quote is not. Not all quotes have a pre-quotative and post-pre-quotative, and a quote may occur without one or both.11 _{Note that by definition}

(O-ch’įį-)yá-S-_ł-ti ‘speak (to)’, for example, is not a quotative.)

When passages such as the above are studied in which there are two major participants onstage, third-person-coded, and the point of view remains with one of them, the more topical participant, the canonical forms are found to be as follows, in which the A. forms occur when the topical participant is subject and the B. forms when the topical participant is object:

(5) A. or

((sNP) (sNP)

oNP) yi-Ø-V Ø-V

verb transitive or intransitive; topical participant is subject, and if the verb is transitive the other participant is coded by obviative yi-;

sNP is generally absent with change of subject B. (sNP) bi-Ø-V topical participant is object, coded by proximate

object bi-;

sNP is generally present with change of subject In fact, any NP, subject or object, tends to code the less-topical participant.

‘Props’ are coded by yi- when the subject is third person, illustrated by the props ‘all his strength’ in 018 and ‘his very best speed’ in 023 of (4) above. Attention will be drawn to other examples as they arise.

Canonical forms are those ‘bare bones’ of clause structures which occur with a certain frequency; that is, excluding those that are judged to be rare or quite infrequent. By the ‘bare bones’ of a clause is meant the verb including in it only those pronominals which code the two interacting participants, together with any NP coindexed with the pronominals.

The point of view does not always remain with one participant and the forms which occur in that case are discussed in section 4.

Also, chart (5) above does not cover the case of clauses containing verb forms go-Ø-V (in which go-is the fourth person object pronominal) which, in the absence of participant tracking by means of the fourth person (section 3), occur in certain post-quotative and non-quotative clauses (to be discussed in sections 4 and 5 for when the point of view does not remain, and for when it does remain, with one participant).

2.1.3 Further properties of third person bi- and yi

-Before attention is directed towards the fourth person, some further properties of the third person pronominals bi- and yi- will be documented, particularly noting those features to which reference will be made in following sections.

10 _{Pre-quotative verb forms ʔá(daa)biłjiⁿdí ‘3:4.(DISTR.)say.so.to’ do not occur in their full form; instead, ʔáałjiⁿdí} ‘3:4.say.so.to’ and ʔádaałjiⁿdí ‘3:4.DISTR.say.so.to’ are found (though Hoijer 1938 never analyses these forms). ʔádaiłⁿdí ‘3':3.DISTR.say.so.to’ is found for ʔádaayiiłⁿdí and optionally ʔáyiiłⁿdí > ʔáiłⁿdí ‘3':3.say.so.to’. ʔá(daa)biiłⁿdí

‘3:3.say.so.to’ does not contract. Reductions are not found in the post-quotatives.

In Mithlo’s narratives, the quotative verb stem always carries high tone. In Kenoi’s narratives, it does so in his mountain spirit narratives and in his Coyote story “Coyote Marries His Own Daughter”; however, in his Foolish People narratives, in his ‘at-night’ narratives, and in his Coyote stories in general it carries low tone, with three exceptions.

11 _{Webster (2006:353) uses the term “Apachean quotative couplet” for co-occurring pre- and post-quotatives and} says they are not found in Navajo (ibid. 354).

Perkins (1978:136) observes that in Navajo, when the subject is inanimate,12 _{there is no yi-/}

bi-variation and only bi- is possible (and in that case the subject-object word order is immaterial

grammatically) (see also Saxon 2001, Rice & Saxon 2005:732). No exception to these findings has been found in Mithlo’s and Kenoi’s Chiricahua texts. Examples follow from Kenoi’s “Coyote and the Money Tree”:

(6) dí -í ditsį -í bééso baanáńt’í ̨ This -REL tree -REL money 3:3.grow.froma

oNP sNP bi-Ø-V

‘this tree, money grows on it’

a_{In the verb glosses, the figures represent the person of the pronominals and work inwards toward the}

stem, and therefore the last figure represents the person of the subject.

and from his “Coyote Holds Up the Sky”:

(7) dí -í yá béyańʔá -í [hóńshtą]

this -REL sky 3:3.brace.up -REL [3:1s.hold] sNP oNP bi-Ø-V

‘[I hold] this (tree) that braces up the sky’

In the subsections following, the focus will be on clauses in which the subject is animate.

In Apachean studies, a principle of ‘parallel processing’ says that in a complex sentence consisting of two transitive clauses with coreferential third person subjects and coreferential third person direct objects, both object pronominals are yi- or both are bi-. If the objects are not coreferential but the subject of one clause has reference to the object of the other, then the object pronominals are bi- in the one and

yi- in the other (Willie 1991:135f, Willie & Jelinek 2000:269f).

If an intransitive verb and indirect (postpositional) object is syntactically equivalent to a transitive verb, then parallel processing should hold with respect to indirect objects as well as direct.

However, there are examples in Mithlo’s and Kenoi’s narratives which do not accord with parallel processing. In Kenoi’s “The First Mountain Spirit Ceremony” and “The Visit of the Mountain Spirits”, whenever the mountain spirits worship the ceremonial fire, the clause structure oNPyi-Ø-V occurs, but whenever the mountain spirits circle toward the fire or move around it, the clause structure (oNP) bi-Ø-V

occurs, the object pronominals, whether yi- or bi-, having reference to the fire. The essential difference is that the object is direct with the verb base ł-zı̨́ ‘worship’, and the object is postpositional in the other two cases, with postpositions -ch’įį ‘toward’ or -ná ‘around’. In (8), a direct object i- (< yi-) occurs in the first verb and an indirect object hi- (< bi-) occurs in the second verb, both having reference to the fire:

(8) kǫǫ -í daisí ̨ -go, hinájazhosha _-náʔa

fire -REL 3':3.DISTR.worship -SUB 3:3.group.moves.around -NARR ‘worshipping the fire, they are moving around it as a group’

a_{The verb stem is -zhóósh, -zhoozh ‘several move as a group’, the stem with which the derivational prefix ji}

-collocates. See example (3), table note (a).

(Plurality of the participants is signalled by da- (< daa-) ‘distributive’ in the first verb and by the stem -zhosh ‘group moves’ in the second.)

In the following sentence in Mithlo’s “The Killing of the Prairie Dogs”, hi- in the first verb is

postpositional, with postposition -ch’įį, and i- (< yi-) a direct object in the second, both having reference to the fire:

12 _{Actually, in Navajo—and so most likely in Apache also—this is strictly true only when the subject is non-agentive} as well as inanimate (Rice & Saxon 2005:715). If the subject is inanimate agentive, variation is found.

(9) kǫǫ -í ʔáxááné -zhį hich’įįdaaneesʔá ̨ -go dainéłʔí ̨ -go, […] fire -REL close -to 3:3.DISTR.put.head.toward -SUB 3':3.DISTR.look.at -SUB […] ‘they having put their heads close to the fire, they looking at it, [he threw the salt into the fire toward them]’

In these two cases (8) and (9), assuming that hi-13 _{is a variant of bi-, a proximate bi- in one clause is} coreferential with an obviative yi- (> i-) in the other in violation of parallel processing.

In (10) from Kenoi’s “Coyote Misses Real Rabbit”, there is an additional example of coreferential obviative direct object yi- (> i-) and proximate postpositional object bi- (> hi-) in a complex sentence: (10) _ʔigoiʔáń -ji ch’ídégoda _ʔáilá -go _{hich’įįʔinádiłⁿdi} -_náʔa

hole -to in.vain 3':3.do.so -SUB 3:3.keep.on.extending.hand.in.toward -NARR

‘doing him (reaching) (in)to the hole in vain, he keeps on extending his hand in toward him’ It seems that the violations of parallel processing may arise because, unless there is Subject-Object Inversion, direct objects with the third person subject Ø- can only be yi-,14 _{as in the first, second, and} first verbs of (8), (9), and (10) respectively.

The one example that has been found in the corpus of a transitive clause with the third person subject Ø- in which a third person direct object appears to be bi-, not yi-, occurs in the following sentence from Kenoi’s “The Foolish People and the Horse”:

(11) ʔiłch’ą́go haʔdaajiistsas -go biłnádiiłgho -náʔa in.all.directions 3:3.whip -SUB 3:3.run.with -NARR

‘he (Mescalero) whipping him (horse) alternately on both sides, he (horse) ran with him (Mescalero)’

In the first verb, -daaji- < -da-a-ji- < -daa-bi-ji-, and a- (< bi-)15 _{is the direct object. It could have been} expected that the direct object would have been yi- (> i-), not only by virtue of being a direct object but also because the third person objects in the two clauses16 _{are non-coreferential, and therefore will be} coded by bi- in the one and by yi- in the other (see ‘parallel processing’ earlier in this section). A solution would be to take refuge in a suggestion that -daaji- is a mis-transcription for -daiji- (< -daa-yi-ji-).

Presumably in the right context Subject-Object Inversion occurs in Chiricahua Apache with respect to direct objects as it does in other Apache languages (Jicarilla, Sandoval 1984; San Carlos, de Reuse 2006). Subject-Object Inversion occurs in Chiricahua Apache with respect to postpositional objects, illustrated for example by the following from Mithlo’s “Coyote Obtains Fire”:

13 _{See footnote 1.}

14 _{In this, Chiricahua Apache would parallel Kaska, Gwich’in, Dena’ina, and others; see footnote 8.}

15 _{In the first verb, if the direct object were yi-, then -dai- < -daa-yi- would be expected instead of -daa- < -daa-bi-,} direct object bi-. These reductions are similar to those found in quotatives, see footnote 10.

16 _{Hoijer (1938:131) says that ji- in the verb is the 3a [fourth person] subject prefix. If so, the coreferential} pronominal in the second verb of this complex sentence should be fourth person also. However, clearly the

Mescalero rider is third-person-coded in the second clause by an indirect object bi-. Therefore it seems likely that ji- is not the fourth person subject prefix but is the adverbial ji- ‘out into space’, describing the motion of the whip through the air, and the subject is third person Ø-; i.e. the Mescalero is third-person-coded in both clauses. Another occurrence of adverbial ji- is found in (115) (see the table note in this example (115)).

(12) ʔákoo ʔá -ń maʔye -ń ńłch’iʔ -í bijoosⁿdeea _{-go […]} then that -REL coyote -REL wind -REL 3:3.help -SUB […]

oNP sNP bi-Ø-V

‘then that Coyote the wind helping him […]’

a_{bijoosⁿdee ‘he helped him’ is not a fourth person j(i)- subject form and nor is the bi- a direct object: the} form _{gojoonáánásⁿdee} ‘he helped him again’ occurs in Mithlo’s “The Quarrel Between Thunder and Wind”, in which joo- is clearly left of the subject prefix positions and direct object position in the verb. Hoijer calls joo- a thematic (derivational) prefix (1938:103) and bi- could be said to occur with a zero postposition (see Young & Morgan 1992:846).

(All object yi- are not direct, of course: postpositional object yi-, animate or inanimate, is found with such verbs as ‘return to’, ‘run from’, ‘pick up for’, ‘know about’, and ‘sit with’, and in the transitive quotative ‘say (so) to’.)

2.1.4 Exceptional yi-/bi-Ø-V clauses

In transitive clauses then, when both subject and object are third person, the coindexing rules between the pronominals in the verb and any NP adjuncts normally yield the direct and inverse clause structures (sNP) oNP yi-Ø-V and (oNP) sNPbi-Ø-V (or there is no NP adjunct). The apparently excluded transitive clauses are (oNP) sNPyi-Ø-V and (sNP) oNPbi-Ø-V.

2.1.4.1 Clauses (oNP) sNP yi-Ø-V

Rice and Saxon analyse oNP sNPyi-Ø-V clauses in Navajo in terms of “focus movement” (adopting the term from Willie (1991:207)) in which the sNP and oNP of a clause sNP oNPyi-Ø-V are inverted without any modification of the verb word (and there may be a resultant violation of the animacy hierarchy, a lower-ranking object preceding the subject). In the examples they discuss, the oNP may be a question word and focal (Rice & Saxon 2005:730).

However, in examples of (oNP) sNPyi-Ø-V in Mithlo and Kenoi’s narratives, it is the sNP which is focal and the oNP if present is a fronted topic. In “The Foolish People and the Missing Pack”, the pack -owner when he misses his pack first asks xaa-ń xééł shaanáyinʔą́ ‘who has taken (my) pack from me?’ in which the focal subject NP xaa-ń ‘who?’ precedes the object NP xééł ‘pack’, the normal order when the verb form is yi-Ø-V (normally question words occur where a corresponding non-interrogative word would (Willie 1991:203f)). When he repeats his question he says koyá xééł nníʔą́-í, xá-ń shaanáyinʔą́ ‘the pack I put here, who has taken it from me?’, oNP sNP yi-Ø-V, in which the object is fronted. The verb word is unchanged, and the fact that a fronted lower-ranking inanimate object now precedes a human subject does not block the fronting.

In Kenoi’s “The First Mountain Spirit Ceremony”, successive clauses are:

(13) _{gá ̨hé} hooghé -í doo _{xádá ̨ ʔiyáa yégósį} -da -_náʔa

mt.spirit 3.be.called -REL NEG then someone 3':3.know.about -NEG -NARR

oNP sNP yi-Ø-V

‘mountain spirits no one at that time knows about them’

ⁿdé dáhóołeʔé yégósį -náʔa -ń […]

man only.one 3':3.know.about -NARR -REL […]

sNP yi-Ø-V

‘only one man who knows about them [lives among the Indians…]’

In both clauses, the sNP denoting the one knowing (or not knowing) about the mountain spirits is the focus. In the first clause, the oNP denoting the mountain spirits is a fronted topic.

In Mithlo’s “The Child of the Water”, as White Painted Woman’s children are being born, it happens that:

(14) ghééʔye hooghé -ń kaayinłⁿdé -náʔa Giant 3.be.called -REL 4:3':3.eat.obj.from -NARR

sNP go-yi-Ø-V

‘he who is called Giant eats them (White Painted Woman’s children) from her’ The sNP is again focal, ‘Giant it is who eats them …’, reintroducing Giant.

Besides further examples of oNP sNP yi-Ø-V in which the sNP is focal, two additional instances of oNP sNPyi-Ø-V have been located in Mithlo’s and Kenoi’s narratives and the object NP is probably preposed by reason of its sheer length (though an object NP may be long without its being preposed). The following example is from Kenoi’s “The Foolish People Go to War”:

(15) tł’óół bizą́ą́yé -í ʔiłk’idą́ łı ̨́- beeʔiłédaastł’ǫ́ -náʔa -í łiʔ -ń rope small -REL long.ago horse- 3:3.tie.together.with -NARR -REL one -REL

oNP sNP

náinlá -náʔa 3':3.pick.up -NARR

yi-Ø-V

‘a small piece of rope which had apparently been used long ago to hobble a horse one of them picked up’

Jung (2000:97) has an example from Lipan Apache in which the clause structure is oNP sNPyi-Ø-V and mentions that there are others in which “heavy object noun phrases” are preposed yielding the same structure. Willie (1991:61) also says that in Navajo the normal interpretation of NP NPyi-Ø-V clauses may be overridden by NP which are “long complex nominals”, yielding oNP sNP yi-Ø-V.

2.1.4.2 Clauses (sNP) oNP bi-Ø-V

As mentioned above (section 2.1.3), sNP oNPbi-Ø-V may occur in Navajo when the subject is inanimate, as observed by Perkins.

However, there are a limited number of clause structures (sNP) oNPbi-Ø-V in Mithlo’s and Kenoi’s Chiricahua Apache narratives in which the subject is animate and such cases appear not to have been much discussed in the literature, probably for the reason that their analysis generally requires a larger discourse context than one sentence.

Perkins has data from Navajo in which bi- has a “focusing function” (1978:126): (16) ashkii at’ééd hastiin yíighah ch’íínílóóz

boy girl man yi-past led ‘the boy led the girl past the man’

ashkii at’ééd hastiin bíighah ch’íínílóóz boy girl man bi-past led ‘past the man, the boy led the girl’

In the latter case, the fact of the leading past is “more consequential” and bi- “directs emphasis” onto the man (to use Perkins’ words, ibid. 126). Although yi- and bi- contrast in these two sentences, there is no Subject-Object Inversion.17

The examples from Chiricahua Apache in this section also show bi- in a focusing or highlighting function, generally in a single clause (not within a span of clauses). When (sNP) oNPbi-Ø-V occurs (and the subject is animate), (sNP) Ø- refers to a higher-level topic. At the same time, oNPbi- refers to an entity that is topical within the clause to some degree: as noted, in a topicality hierarchy, bi- > yi- so that the choice of proximate bi- over obviative yi- in some way foregrounds the object in that clause and draws attention to it. It could be said that there are two topics in such clauses functioning at different levels.

The display (17) constitutes the whole brief narrative of Kenoi’s “Coyote and the Rock Rabbit”. Coyote is the higher-level topic and the coding in general is the default third person participant reference strategy set out in chart (5) (section 2.1.2). But in clause 004 the rabbit is coded by proximate bi- when Coyote, on seeing the rabbit, reacts at the turning point in the narrative (the ‘jumping towards’, the “more consequential” action):

(17) 001 sNP Ø-V Coyote is walking along.

002 (sNP Ø-V) yi-Ø-V He saw (a rabbit lying on the edge of the road). 003a _{oNP bi-V (passive) That rabbit was rock-filled.}

004 bi-Ø-V He jumped toward it.

005 Ø-V He took a bite in the middle.

006 “Ow! I thought it was a rabbit!”

007 Ø-V he says.

a _{The verb form in 003 is a passive, unipersonal, so yi- is not an option. An earlier example occurred in} passage (3) above.

In Kenoi’s “Coyote Misses Real Rabbit”, Coyote is again the higher-level topic and the coding in general is the default third person participant reference strategy set out in chart (5), bi- coding Coyote and yi- coding the rabbit. However, verb forms bi-Ø-V occur in clauses 009 and 015, and in neither case does proximate bi- code the higher-level topic, Coyote. The choices of proximate bi- over obviative yi- in clauses 009 and 015 again mark Coyote’s reactions on seeing the rabbit, this time going on past the rabbit when he supposes it to be a rock-filled rabbit in contrast to jumping towards it (004 in (17)) when he had supposed it to be a live rabbit, and then this time running after it on seeing it jump up:

(18) 008 yi-Ø-V He (Coyote) did not pay attention to it (rabbit).

009 bi-Ø-V He went on past it.

010 Ø-V (Further on) he looked back.

011 (sNP Ø-V) yi-Ø-V He saw (the rabbit (had) jumped up).

012 Ø-V He berates himself.

013 “Child of a Coyote! He goes about without a bit of sense!”

014 Ø-V he says.

015 oNP bi-Ø-V He runs after the rabbit.

016 bi-Ø-V He (rabbit) ran from him (into a dead tree).

Passage (19) below includes clauses from Kenoi’s “Coyote and the Rolling Rock” that precede and follow those displayed in passage (4) from the same narrative, repeating only the first and the last clauses 015 and 025 of that passage. Both in the clauses displayed below and in the omitted clauses 016– 024 (when Coyote is running from the rock and the rock is rolling along right at his heels), Coyote as object is coded by proximate bi- and the animated rock as object by obviative yi- generally. However, this default third person participant reference strategy is not followed in clause 013, and in clause 026, the hole (a prop) that the rock covers is coded by proximate bi- even though, coding a prop, it would be expected that this object pronominal would be yi-. Both these latter two clauses are (sNP) oNP bi-Ø-V in structure:

(19) 010 Ø-V He (Coyote) speaks: 011 “So? where is there a rock that moves about!”

012 Ø-V -go he saying-SUB

013 oNP bi-Ø-V he defecated on the rock.

014 Ø-V He went out (over there).

015 sNP bi-Ø-V The rock rolled out after him.

025 yi-Ø-V He ran from it (into a hole).

026 sNP oNP bi-Ø-V The rock rolled over the hole.

027 sNP bi-Ø-V The rock speaks to him (Coyote):

028 “Lick it off for me!”

029 bi-Ø-V it says to him.

Rocks do not defecate and clearly Coyote is subject in 013. The bi-coding of the rock foregrounds the rock in this clause in some way. The event is unexpected and surprising. It is certainly one of the key events in the narrative. In clause 026, the animated rock is obviously covering the hole, not the hole the rock; moreover, proximate bi- is not coding Coyote, the higher-level topic, but rather the hole. This is another key event, the culmination of the rock’s pursuit of Coyote in clauses 015–025. Did the hole cooperate with the rock acting against Coyote in some way? This idea stems from Shayne who found that the prefixing of bi- to the verb may indicate in some cases that “the goal somehow participates in the event” (1982:397).18

In Mithlo’s “The Gambling Game For Night and Day”, neglecting the go-coding of the fourth-person-tracked small ones in the matrix clause, the clause is another instance of oNPbi-Ø-V:

(20) ditsį łą́ -í sikaa -í bich’įįkaadaahíⁿdá -náʔa

tree 3.be.many -REL 3.clump.lies -REL 3:4:3.DISTR.sg.drag.from.toward -NARR

oNP bi-go-Ø-V

‘he (bear) goes dragging from them (small ones) toward a clump of many trees’

In any case, the bi-coding of the inanimate trees is unexpected. Is in fact the explanation of the bi-coding that the trees somehow participate in the event? By enabling the bear to get away from the attacking small ones? In the sentence immediately following, the trees may be bi-coded again but exceptionally the postposition -ghé ‘in’ occurs without an overt postpositional pronominal:

(21) _ditsį sikaa -í kaaghédaayá -_náʔa

tree 3.clump.lies -REL 4:3:3.DISTR.sg.go.in.from -NARR

oNP go-bi-Ø-V

‘he went into the clump of trees from them’

Kenoi’s “The Visit of the Mountain Spirits” has been about two supernatural mountain spirits who join the Indian dancers decorated as mountain spirits and whom the Indians unwisely try to follow when they return to the mountains. Consequently many Indians died. In the Coda to the narrative, the narrator contrasts the thinking of the Indians of the past to the thinking of present-day Indians about the

mountain spirits. In speaking of the Indians of the past, he says:

18 _{De Reuse too describes this phenomenon in San Carlos Apache. The following sNP oNP yi-Ø-V sentence implies} that Mary, the subject, has full control of the remembering: Marynnéé yínálnii ‘Mary remembered the man’; whereas the sNP oNP bi-Ø-V sentence seems to imply that the man, the object, caused Mary to remember: Marynnéé bínálnii

(22) 104a _{sNP oNP bi-Ø-V These mountain spirits are valuable to the Indians.} 105 sNP Ø-V The Indians worship (them).

106 “They live in the sacred mountains,” 107 sNP Ø-V the Indians say.

108 oNP bi-Ø-V They (the mountain spirits) talk to those Indians (who know about mountain spirits).

a _{Hoijer’s translation of díídíí gą́hé-í ⁿdé biłʔílí-náʔa in clause 104 is ‘the Indians respected the mountain} spirits’; ‘these mountain spirits were [valuable] with the Indians’ is a more word-for-word translation. The verb is a ‘psych’ verb of a type in which there is no yi-/bi- choice (Jelinek & Willie 1996:27).

The whole narrative is clearly about the mountain spirits but in the Coda the Indians are a secondary topic. In clause 108 the Indians of the past are coded by proximate bi- rather than obviative yi- in the structure oNP bi-Ø-V, drawing attention to the surprising fact that the mountain spirits talked to the oldtimers, because today as the narrator says, “they do not talk to us [and] therefore you will not believe” that they used to.

For a final example of (sNP) oNPbi-Ø-V, consider the following quote in Kenoi’s “Coyote and the Money Tree”. Coyote has fooled two white men and has driven off with their pack train. They go after him and ask in the coyote town:

(23) ʔįįshí ̨ łaʔ -ń xééł hiłʔinayoł -ń [doo xaaóóʔí ̨ -da ] here that.one -REL pack 3:INDEF:3.drive -REL [NEG 2s.see.someone -NEG ]

sNP oNP bi-Ø-V

“[You don’t see] anyone here driving a pack (train)?”

The feature distinguishing the person the two white men are looking for is that he is driving a pack train. hi- (< bi-) inxééł hiłʔinayoł ‘he is driving (animals; ʔ- ‘INDEF’) with packs’ is coindexed with xééł ‘pack’ and probably draws attention to this fact.

2.2 The fourth person pronominals

The fourth person pronominals, subject ji- and object go-, have reference to human or personified entities. Both generally exclude a coindexed NP (see, for example, Willie 2000b:378).

The fourth person may function as impersonal/unspecified, both in Navajo (Young & Morgan 1987:76f) and in Apache, and can be found in narrative in that function (see section 6). For non-narrative uses of the fourth person, see, for example, Willie 1991, chapter 4; the present paper will centre on the use of the fourth person in narrative.

The phenomenon of fourth person tracking in narrative is well-known in Navajo (Akmajian & Anderson 1970:5, Young & Morgan 1987:9, 76f) and occurs in Chiricahua Apache also as will be shown. In fourth person tracking, one participant is tracked by pronominals which are fourth person, whatever the grammatical function of the pronominal, whether subject, object, or possessor, across any changes in participant orientation. However, there is another major usage of fourth person in Hoijer’s Chiricahua Apache texts which is to be documented below also. These, and other features of the fourth person pronominals, will be discussed in the following sections (sections 3 to 6).

3 Fourth person tracking

Willie remarks: “Since Navajo has fourth person forms, which are used to mark obviation [= disjoint reference, not obviation in the Algonquian sense], there seems to be less reliance on yi-/bi- for this purpose” (Willie 1991:216). For section 2.1.2 above concerning the yi-/bi- alternation, it was, in fact, quite difficult to find adequate examples which contained no fourth person forms.

For the most part, it is only in the Apachean languages that a fourth person is found that in one of its usages denotes a specific non-Speech-Act Participant (non-SAP) (that is, one that, like the third person, is not a first or second person speech-act participant).19 _{Young and Morgan say of the fourth} person (called by them the third person alternate (3a)): “In narratives, the 3a pronoun serves to

distinguish between two 3rd persons, and is usually applied to the main character along with any other figure who gains prominence at some point in the story (more than one character may thus be

represented by the 3a pronoun at some point)” (1987:9).

Aissen says, “This [fourth person coding] permits continual reference [italics mine] to the main character…” (Aissen 2000:147). Whether by ‘continual’ is meant ‘frequently occurring’ or ‘without interruption’, there is a sense in which both are true. Fourth person tracking is continuous, or ‘without interruption’, when, in a narrative block, any coding of one participant is always fourth person and never third, and this is the sense in which the term ‘fourth person tracking’ will be understood in this paper. However, there is a sense in which fourth person tracking may be continual or ‘frequently occurring’. When a narrative contains more than one block in which there is continuous fourth person tracking, at least in Mithlo’s narratives it is generally the case that it is the same participant that is fourth-person-tracked in each block.

Continuously fourth-person-tracked participants are typically individuals, but may also be a

plurality such as ‘the Indians’ when the denotation is sufficiently precise in context. Other fourth-person-tracked pluralities include the two white men in Kenoi’s “Coyote and the Money Tree” and, in Kenoi’s “The Foolish People Acquire Coffee”, the Foolish People.

3.1 Continuous fourth person tracking illustrated

As remarked in section 2.2, in fourth person tracking, one participant is tracked by pronominals which are fourth person, whatever the grammatical function of the pronominal, whether subject, object, or possessor, across any changes in participant orientation.

To illustrate continuous tracking of participants by the fourth person, it will be clearer if a different type of display is used from that used above. In the display (24) presented below, each participant is tracked on one of the labelled vertical lines to the right (the label may be interior to the display), the figures indicating the person of the pronominal: “3” for third person (subject Ø- or object bi-), “3'” for the yi- form of the third person object, and “4” for fourth person (subject ji- or object go-).

To the right of the vertical lines, the grammatical function of each pronominal is indicated by “S” subject, “O1” direct object, “O2” postpositional object, and “Ps” possessor, with the pronominal allomorph shown in parentheses. “S2” will be found when the verb is a psych verb and the pronominal coding the psychological subject occurs in the postpositional object position. Horizontal lines connect these with the figure for the person of the participant and in these horizontal lines any significant feature of the verb relating to the participant (or prop) is indicated, including DISTR = distributive prefix, DUAL

= dual verb stem, PL = plural verb stem (as for clause 089 below).

If there is a coindexed NP in the clause, the participant to which it refers is shown in uppercase on the far right.

Quotes are boxed.

The passage (24) below is from Mithlo’s “The Killing of the Eagles”. Child of the Water is fourth-person-tracked in his initial encounter with the eagles until he has fooled the male eagle into carrying him (supposedly dead) to the eagle children. The eagle encourages the children to eat Child of the Water

19 _{In many of the non-Apachean Athabaskan languages, the cognates of the Apachean fourth person pronominals are} first person plural and there is no fourth person form. However, in Koyukon, “[t]he first person plural prefixes ts’i- [cognate with Apache ji-] and dinaa- can mean ‘we, us’ or ‘someone’. They are also commonly used in stories to mean ‘he’ or ‘she’. These prefixes are used this way when there are two or more characters in a story. In such cases, the first person plural will most likely be used to one character and the regular third person prefixes to another” (Thompson et al. 1983:255). The other two languages, besides Koyukon, in which the cognate prefix has been found functioning as does the fourth in Apachean are Dogrib and Chipewyan (Saxon 1993) (in the latter as an indefinite or generic but at least sometimes as a definite (ibid. 349)).

and flies off. Left alone with them, Child of the Water, now third-person-coded, is able to knock them down and kill them. He kills all of them except the youngest.

This is the point at which the passage begins. From clause 042 to the end of the narrative, Child of the Water (CoW) is fourth-person-tracked again, without a break, and there is no NP-coding of Child of the Water except in clause 042 at the point at which the fourth person tracking is initiated (and actually only twice earlier in the narrative). (Normally, as mentioned above in section 2.2, an NP does not occur coindexed with a fourth person pronominal but in clause 042 it is coindexed with the fourth person subject prefix ji-.20 _{The usual reasons for NP-coding, including change of subject and}

introduction/reintroduction of participants, do not apply. Possibly the NP-coding occurs because there is a major section break at this point.)

20 _{Apart from the fact that multiple fourth-person-coded participants are not present in passage (24), the NP-coding} in clause 042 has some parallel with the manner in which additional fourth-person-tracked participants are introduced; that is, additional to any participants already fourth-person-tracked (section 3.7.2).

(24) CoW YOUNGEST |

041 ʔá -ń dásí ʔikéyánaaghá -ń dá- ʔá -ná 3__________________________________________________ S(Ø) that -REL just youngest -REL even- that -EMPH |

ʔináisįį -_náʔa. | 3'____________________________ O1(i) THAT

3':3.leave.alone -NARR | | YOUNGEST

He (CoW) spared only the youngest. | |

| |

042 nágo tóbájiishchiné -ń ʔá -ń ʔikéyanaaghá -ń 4__________________________________________________ S(sh) CHILD.OF.

and Child.of.the.Water -REL that -REL youngest -REL | | THE.WATER

híshdiłki -_náʔa: | 3_____________________________ O1(Ø) THAT

3:4.ask -NARR | | YOUNGEST

Then Child of the Water asks that youngest one: | |

043

| |

044 biłjiⁿdí -náʔa. 4__________________________________________________ S(ji)

3:4.say.to -NARR | |

he (CoW) says to him. | 3_____________________________ O2(bi)

| |

045 ʔákoo ʔá -ń bizá ̨á ̨yé -ń ʔágoołⁿdí -náʔa: | 3_____________________________ S(Ø) THAT LITTLE

then that -REL little.one -REL 4:3.say.so.to -NARR | | ONE

Then that little one speaks to him: 4__________________________________________________ O2(go)

| |

046 047

| |

048 goołⁿdí -náʔa. | 3_____________________________ S(Ø)

4:3.say.to -NARR | |

he says to him (CoW). 4__________________________________________________ O2(go)

| |

049 ʔákoo: | |

then | |

Then: | |

When is your father returning?

When the male rain begins to come… he is returning

050

| |

051 biłjiⁿdí -náʔa. 4______________________________________________ S(ji)

3:4.say.to -NARR | |

he (CoW) says to him. | 3________________________ O2(bi)

| |

052

| |

053 _goołⁿdí -_náʔa. | 3________________________ S(Ø)

4:3.say.to -NARR |

he says to him (CoW). 4______________________________________________ O2(go)

|

054 _{ʔákoo ʔáńdee} -da, _{ʔáshí ̨} […] bánjiyeedzá -_náʔa. 4______________________________________________ S(ji)

then now -even there […] 3:4.lie.in.wait.for -NARR | EAGLE

Then now, he (CoW) lay in wait for him there [where he said he sat]. | 3___________________________________ O2(b)

| |

055 nágo, […] dóshoodó _godihⁿdí -_náʔa. | |

and […] very.great there.is.noise -NARR | |

Then, there is a great noise [where he is swooping back]. | |

| |

056 _ʔįį -_{shí ̨,} […] _{dahneesjí ̨} -_náʔa. | 3___________________________________ S(Ø)

here -from […] 3.perch -NARR | |

Here, [where he usually sat] he (male eagle) perched. | |

| |

057 _ʔit’ago _{biłkégozįį} -da -go, | 3___________________________________ S2(bi) (psych subj)

still 3:4.knowledge.of.occurs.with -even -SUB | |

Even before noticing him (eagle noticing CoW), 4______________________________________________ O2(k)

| | AXE

058 […] tséghe_{ʔsiʔá ̨} -í _beejiisⁿdii -_náʔa. 4______________________________________________ S(ji) […] stone.axe -REL 3:3:4.hit.with -NARR | 3___________________________________ O1(Ø) [On the side of his head] he (CoW) hit him with an axe. | | 3________________ O2(b) AXE

| |

Where does he usually sit?

059 _{ʔisdaʔ ʔibéidzóółⁿdi}a _{-náʔa. 4____________________________________________________ S(i)}

down 3:4.knock.off -NARR | |

He (CoW) knocked him off. | 3_________________________________________ O2(b)

| a_{ji-, fourth person subject, has an allomorph i- before prefixes dzi- or ji-.}

|

060 nágo _ʔá -_{ń bizá ̨á ̨yé} -_{ń nááhíshdiłki} -_náʔa. 4____________________________________________________ S(sh) and that -REL little.one -REL 3:4.ask.again -NARR | YOUNGEST

Then he (CoW) asks the little one again. | 3______________________________ O1(Ø) THAT LITTLE

| | ONE

061

| |

062 biłjiⁿdí -náʔa. 4____________________________________________________ S(ji)

3:4.say.to -NARR | |

he (CoW) says to him. | 3______________________________ O2(bi)

| |

063 064

| |

065 goołⁿdí -náʔa. | 3______________________________ S(Ø)

4:3.say.to -NARR | |

he says to him. 4____________________________________________________ O2(go)

| |

067

| |

068 _{náábiłjidihⁿdí} -_náʔa. 4____________________________________________________ S(ji)

3:4.say.to.again -NARR | |

he says to him again. | 3______________________________ O2(bi)

| |

Now when is your mother returning?

When the female rain begins to come…, she is returning

069

| |

070 goołⁿdí -náʔa. | 3_________________________ S(Ø)

4:3.say.to -NARR |

he says to him. 4_______________________________________________ O2(go)

|

071 ʔákoo ʔáshí ̨ bánáájiyeedzá -náʔa. 4______________________________________________ S(ji)

then there 3:4.lie.in.wait.for.again -NARR | FEMALE

Then there he lay in wait for her also. | 3___________________________________ O2(b)

| |

072 ko -shí ̨ hogo hiiłts’a -náʔa. | 3___________________________________ S(Ø)

place.near -from 3.swoop noise.is.heard -NARR | |

There is heard the noise of her flying, | |

| |

073 dahnłjí ̨ -zhį hogo -náʔa. | 3___________________________________ S(Ø)

3.usually.perch -to 3.swoop -NARR | |

She is swooping to her perch. | |

| |

074 ʔit’ago biłkégozįį -da -go, | 3___________________________________ S2(bi) (psych subj)

still 3:4.knowledge.of.occurs.with -even -SUB | |

Even before she notices him, 4______________________________________________ O2(k)

| |

075 bíńtł’ah -yáb _{náájiisⁿdii -náʔa. 4______________________________________________ S(ji)}

3.side.of.head -MKR 3:4.hit.again -NARR | |

he hit her on the side of her head. | 3___________________________________ O1(Ø)

| |

b _{Hoijer says of -yá that it indicates “the relation between the verb following” and the phrase it marks (Hoijer 1938:86). No more precise meaning of this} postposition is given. It is generally locative but may also be manner.

| |

076 ʔisdaʔ ʔibéidzóółⁿdi -náʔa. 4______________________________________________ S(i)

down 3:4.knock.off -NARR | |

He knocked her off. | 3___________________________________ O2(b)

| |

077 _{jiyeesxí ̨} -_náʔa. 4____________________________________________________ S(ji)

3:4.kill.sg -NARR | |

He killed her. | 3_________________________________________ O1(Ø)

|

078 _{ʔákoo ʔá} -_{ń bizá ̨á ̨yé} -_{ń, ʔinájiisįįn} -_ń, 4____________________________________________________ S(ji)

then that -REL little.one -REL 3:4.leave.alone -REL | YOUNGEST

ʔáałjiⁿdí -_náʔa: | 3______________________________ O2(a) THAT

3:4.say.so.to -NARR | | LITTLE

Then he (CoW) speaks to the little one he spared: | | ONE

| | SPARED

079

| |

080 biłjiⁿdí -náʔa. 4____________________________________________________ S(ji)

3:4.say.to -NARR | |

he (CoW) says to him. | 3______________________________ O2(bi)

| |

081 ʔákoo ʔáńdee -da hanyaa nágodeesgí ̨ -náʔa. | 3______________________________ S(Ø)

then now -even down.below 4:3.begin.to.carry.again -NARR | |

So then he began to carry him (CoW) down again. 4____________________________________________________ O1(go)

| |

082 ʔisdaʔ nágagí ̨ -náʔa. | 3______________________________ S(Ø)

down 4:3.carry.again -NARR | |

He carried him (CoW) down again. 4____________________________________________________ O1(g)

| |

083 ʔákaa ʔiłdǫ́ bitsii jiisⁿdii -náʔa. 4____________________________________________________ S(ji)

there also 3.head 3:4.hit -NARR | | HEAD

There he (CoW) hit his head also. | 3______________________________ Ps(bi)

| | 3___________________ O1(Ø) HEAD

| | (little

| | one’s)

084 jiyeesxí ̨ -náʔa. 4____________________________________________________ S(ji)

3:4.kill.sg -NARR | |

He killed him. | 3______________________________ O1(Ø)

|

085 ʔákoo bit’a -í baahajiyaⁿdish -náʔa. 4____________________________________________________ S(ji)

then 3.feathers -REL 3:3:4.pull.out.of -NARR | EAGLES FEATHERS

Then he (CoW) is pulling out of them their (bi-) feathers. | 3_________________________________________ Ps(bi)

| | 3___________________ O1(Ø) FEATHERS

| | | (eagles’)

| 3_________________________________________ O2(b)

| |

086

| |

087 jiⁿdí -go 4____________________________________________________ S(ji)

4.say -SUB | |

he saying | |

| |

088 ʔiłch’á ̨go ʔijiⁿdííł -náʔa. 4____________________________________________________ S(ji)

in.all.directions 3:4.scatter -NARR | |

he scatters them (feathers) in all directions. | 3___________________ O1(Ø)

| BIRDS

089 ʔá -í bik’eh -go ʔizháshee ʔiłʔango | 3_______DISTR___________________________ S(Ø) DIFF’NT BIRDS that -REL 3.by.reason.of -SUB birds different |

ʔádaat’é -í gooslí ̨ -náʔa. |

3.DISTR.be.so -REL 3.be.born -NARR |

By that were created all the different birds. |

|

090 ʔáshí ̨ gomá -ń baanáájidzá -náʔa. 4____________________________________________________ S(ji)

then 4.mother -REL 3:4.go.to.again -NARR | MOTHER

Then he (CoW) went to his (go-) mother again. 4____________________________________________________ Ps(go)

| 3_________________________________________ O2(b) MOTHER

| | (CoW’s)

091

Let them become (all kinds of) birds!

| |

092 _biłjiⁿdí -_náʔa. 4___________________________________________________ S(ji)

3:4.say.to -NARR | |

he says to her. | 3________________________________________ O2(bi)

| |

093 nágo gomá -_{ń kaaʔiłéńzį} -_náʔa. 4___________________________________________________ Ps(go)

and 4.mother -REL SIT:3.be.happy.about -NARR | 3________________________________________ S(Ø) MOTHER

And his (go-) mother is happy about it (k-, SIT = situational). | | (CoW’s)

094

| |

095 _goołⁿdí -_náʔa. | 3________________________________________ S(Ø)

4:3.say.to -NARR |

she says to him. 4___________________________________________________ O2(go)

Clause 095 is the end of the narrative.

This long passage has been chosen to illustrate the fact that continuous fourth person tracking may extend over a long span of narrative without any third person coding of the fourth-person-tracked participant—Child of the Water in this particular case. The pronominal which codes Child of the Water in the passage above is fourth person in every case, whatever the grammatical function of the pronominal—subject, direct (clauses 081 and 082) or postpositional object, or possessor (clauses 090 and 093).

There may be interludes in which no reference is made to the fourth-person-tracked participant, as in clauses 055–056 and 072–073 (when attention is directed towards the male eagle and the female eagle respectively)—and these interludes can run to several clauses. Since there is no mention of the fourth-person-tracked participant in them (and therefore they contain no third person coding of the fourth-person-tracked

participant), they do not constitute an interruption of the fourth person tracking.

The passage (24) illustrates the additional characteristic of fourth person tracking that coding of any of the participants is minimal. NP-coding in (24) chiefly occurs with the introduction and reintroduction of participants (of the little one in clauses 060 and 078 and Child of the Water’s mother in clause 090); the male and female eagles are introduced in quotes and are not NP-coded outside them.

When fourth person coding of a participant occurs outside blocks of continuous fourth person tracking (which may be of a participant elsewhere fourth-person-tracked or of some other participant), there must be some explanation of the coding other than fourth person tracking and the explanation of most of the cases of such fourth person coding is discussed in sections 4 and 5.

3.2 Termination of fourth person tracking

If a participant, fourth-person-coded in one clause (whether fourth person tracking is in operation or not, and whether the fourth person pronominal is subject, object, or possessor), is third-person-coded in the next clause which has reference to that participant, then it is almost invariably the case that there is an NP coindexed with the third person pronominal. A corollary is that, if a fourth-person-tracked participant does

99 Dialogue block, 083–090 (see passage (62))

The initial clause 083 is a pre-quotative sNP oNP yi-Ø-V.

Child of the Water enquires about Giant’s arrows and, on being told that the pine logs there are his arrows, Child of the Water handles them (in the manner that Giant has handled his). There are non-quotative clauses in the block but fourth person reference-switching occurs in each of the three same-non-agent units (in a post-quotative and in two non-quotatives)—again without fourth person tracking.

Confrontational dialogue occurs in Mithlo’s “The Child of the Water” as well as in “The Killing of the Giant”. Otherwise, in Mithlo’s narratives, when there is dialogue fourth person tracking is frequently in operation so that there is no yi-coding of the addressee.

Apart from dialogue, yi-coding of participants has only been found twice in Mithlo’s narratives, in non-quotatives, and in neither case is there yi-coding of the main character. Any other yi-coding in Mithlo’s narratives is of props.

In Kenoi’s Coyote stories, pre-quotatives sNP oNP yi-Ø-V occur only in the narrative “Coyote Marries His Own Daughter” and then only occur when the point of view is with the speaker, Coyote. In this narrative and in the other Coyote stories, when the point of view is with the

addressee, the pre-quotative is sNP bi-Ø-V (see, for example, passage (73)). In fact, yi-coding of Coyote, the main character, is avoided in both pre- and post-quotatives. In “Coyote and Beetle”, all quotatives are sNP bi-Ø-V in the body of the narrative and the point of view of the two participants is taken alternately (passage (69), section 4.5).

yi-coding of the main character Coyote in the Coyote stories occurs only twice, in non-quotatives. It seems it may be permitted in these two instances because in both cases there is a brief moment in which the character with whom Coyote has been interacting takes centre stage. In “Coyote Misses Real Rabbit”, clauses 021–025 in passage (96), after Coyote has chased the rabbit into a hole, the rabbit addresses a fictitious grandmother, asking for a knife. The rabbit is holding onto Coyote by his wrist, clause 025, and Coyote is yi-coded in this clause. The other example occurs in “Coyote Dances with the Prairie Dogs”:

(117) nágo dlǫ́í -í maʔye -í yédaaʔdiłʔa -náʔa

and prairie.dog -REL coyote -REL 3':3.DISTR.sing.about -NARR ‘then the Prairie Dogs sing about Coyote’

The words that the Prairie Dogs sing are contained in the next sentence, consisting of a quote and post-quotative.

In all of Kenoi’s thirteen other narratives, only one pre-quotative with a verb form yi-Ø-V occurs (line 009 of “The Foolish People Go to War” in (118) below) and one of the form sNP bi-Ø-V (see (113) above). Otherwise, any pre-quotative is intransitive, or there is no pre-quotative, or fourth-person-tracking is in operation (and a pre-quotative verb will contain a fourth person form). yi-coding of the main character does not generally occur, though yi-coding of the mountain spirits, the globally topical participants in “The First Mountain Spirit Ceremony” and “The Visit of the Mountain Spirits”, can occur when some other participant is locally topical (usually when, as in (107) above, the mountain spirits are ‘known about’, or twice when an individual mountain spirit is the local topic). In “The Foolish People Go to War”, the Foolish People are the global topics but in clauses 006–011 one of their number is the local topic and the main body of Foolish People is yi-coded (in line 009 of (118) below):

(118) FOOLISH.P ROPE |

005 bigoota -í _ʔáxááné -yá hoka -_náʔa. 3____________PL_______________________ S(Ø)

3.camp -REL close -MKR 3.pl.go -NARR |

They are going along close to their camp. ONE | OTHERS

| |

006 _{tł’óół bizá ̨á ̨yé} -í […] _łiʔ -_ń náinlá -_náʔa. 3______________________________________________ S(Ø) ONE rope small -REL […] one -REL 3':3.pick.up -NARR | |

One of them picked up a small piece of rope [which | | 3'______________ O1(i) PIECE.OF ROPE

had apparently been used long ago to hobble a horse]. | | | (preposed)

| | |

007 hiłdaahíbá -í baałeeʔésilí ̨ -náʔa. | 3_____DISTR___________________ S(Ø) THOSE WITH HIM 3:3.DISTR.go.to.war.with -REL 3:3.gather.to -NARR | | | (contains DISTR) Those on the warpath with him gathered about him. 3______________________________________________ O2(b)

| | |

008 bádainéłʔí ̨ -náʔa. | 3______DISTR__________________ S(Ø)

3:3':3.DISTR.look.at.for -NARR | | |

They look at it for him. | | 3'______________ O1(i)

| |

3______________________________________________ O2(b)

| |

009 nágo ʔádaiłⁿdí -náʔa: 3______________________________________________ S(Ø)

and 3':3.DISTR.say.so.to -NARR | |

Then he speaks to them: | 3'______DISTR_________________ O2(i)

| |

010

| |

011 _{daagoołⁿdi} -_náʔa. 3______________________________________________ S(Ø)

4:3.DISTR.say.to -NARR | |

he says to them. | 4_______DISTR_________________ O2(go)

| |

|

012 ʔákoo, dáʔá -shí ̨, t’á ̨ʔnádeeska -náʔa. 3_____________PL________________________ S(Ø) then there -from 3.pl.begin.to.go.back -NARR

Then, from right there, they began to go back.

101 7.2.5 Generalisation concerning the fourth person

The fourth person then is non-first or second or third and is used to avoid the use of a first or second or third person pronominal.

The generalisation concerning the function of the fourth person is that any fourth person pronominal is interpreted by the context in which it occurs, with the restriction that its function is one of those described in sections 3–6.47

Context is especially relevant in the initiation of fourth person tracking. As pointed out in section 3.4, fourth person tracking is normally initiated simply by the use of a fourth person pronominal without a coindexed NP. The reference of the pronominal must be deduced from the current cast of participants (or from other contextual clues).

102

Aissen, Judith. 2000. Yi and Bi: Proximate and obviative in Navajo. In Andrew Carnie, Eloise Jelinek, & MaryAnn Willie (eds.). Papers in honor of Ken Hale, 129–150. Working Papers in Endangered and Less Familiar Languages 1. Department of Linguistics, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Akmajian, Adrian, & Stephen Anderson. 1970. On the use of fourth person in Navajo, or Navajo made harder. International Journal of American Linguistics 36:1–8.

Chafe, Wallace L. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Russell C. Tomlin (ed.). Coherence and grounding in discourse, 21–51. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Chafe, Wallace L. 1994. _{Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious} experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.). Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language, 329–394. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Cook, Eung-Do. 1984. Sarcee grammar. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.

de Reuse, Willem J. 2006. A practical grammar of the San Carlos Apache language. With the assistance of Phillip Goode. Lincom Studies in Native American Linguistics 51. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Du Bois, John W. 1980. Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In Wallace L. Chafe (ed.).

The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production, 203–274. Advances in Discourse Processes 3. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Fillmore, Charles J. 1997. Lectures on deixis. Center for the Study of Language and Information Lecture Notes Series 65, Stanford University, CA. Lectures originally delivered in 1971 and distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Frishberg, Nancy. 1972. Navaho object markers and the great chain of being. In John P. Kimball (ed.). Syntax and semantics 1, 259–266. New York: Academic.

Gales, Tammy. 2007. Referent tracking through the fourth person in Navajo: A corpus-based approach. Paper given at the Linguistic Association of the Southwest (LASSO), 36th Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, 21–23 September 2007.

Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, volume II. Philadelphia: Benjamins. Hale, Kenneth. 1973. A note on subject-object inversion in Navajo. In Braj B. Kachru et al. (eds.). Issues

in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, 300–309. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Hoijer, Harry. 1938. Chiricahua and Mescalero Apache texts. Linguistic Series, University of Chicago Publications in Anthropology, Chicago. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/apache/ (accessed 28 April 2016).

Hoijer, Harry. 1945. The Apachean verb, part I: Verb structure and pronominal prefixes. International Journal of American Linguistics 11:193–203.

Jelinek, Eloise. 1995. Third and fourth person forms in Navajo. Handout from the Workshop on the Morphology-Syntax Interface in Athapaskan Languages, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 1–5 July 1995.

Jelinek, Eloise, & MaryAnn Willie. 1996. ‘Psych’ verbs in Navajo. In Eloise Jelinek, Sally Midgette, Keren Rice, and Leslie Saxon (eds.). Athabaskan language studies: Essays in honor of Robert W. Young, 15–34. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.

Jung, Dagmar. 1999. The dynamics of polysynthetic morphology: Person and number marking in Athabaskan. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Linguistics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

103 Jung, Dagmar. 2000. Word order in Apache narratives. In Theodore B. Fernald and Paul R. Platero

(eds.). _{The Athabaskan languages: P}erspectives on a native American language family, 92–100. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lovick, Olga C. 2005. Agentivity and participant marking in Dena’ina Athabascan: A text-based study. Doctoral dissertation, Universität zu Köln, Köln. http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/1727/1/lovick1.pdf (accessed 28 April 2016).

Müller, Olga C. 2002. Cohesion in Chiricahua Apache narratives. Proceedings of the 2002 Athabaskan Languages Conference, Fairbanks, Alaska, June 16–18, 2002, 52–62. Alaska Native Language Center Working Papers 2, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

O’Donnell, Meghan. 2004. Inflectional affixes & clitics in Kaska (Northern Athabaskan). Coyote Papers 13:41–74, University of Arizona, Tucson. http://coyotepapers.sbs.arizona.edu/CPXIII/odonnell.pdf (accessed 28 April 2016).

Opler, Morris Edward. 1994. Myths and tales of the Chiricahua Apache Indians. Memoirs of the American Folk-Lore Society 37, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Originally published 1942. New York: American Folk-Lore Society.

Perkins, Ellavina Tsosie. 1978. The role of word order and scope in the interpretation of Navajo sentences. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Rice, Keren. 1989. A grammar of Slave. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Rice, Keren, & Leslie Saxon. 2005. Comparative Athapaskan syntax: Arguments and projections. In Guglielmo Cinque & Richard Kayne (eds.). Handbook of comparative syntax, 698–774. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sandoval, Merton. 1984. The syntactic function of the Yi-/Bi- alternation in Jicarilla Apache. Coyote Papers 5:153–190, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Sandoval, Merton, & Eloise Jelinek. 1989. The bi-construction and pronominal arguments in Apachean. In Eung-Do Cook & Keren D. Rice (eds.). Athapaskan linguistics: Current perspectives on a language family, 335–377. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Saxon, Leslie. 1984. Dogrib pronouns. Final report for contract no. 1630-1-469, Canadian Ethnology Service, National Museum of Man, Ottawa. Unpublished manuscript.

Saxon, Leslie. 1987. Pronouns and discourse topic in Dogrib. Unpublished manuscript.

Saxon, Leslie. 1993. A personal use for Athapaskan ‘impersonal’ ts’e-. International Journal of American Linguistics 59:342–354.

Saxon, Leslie. 2001. On two OSV constructions in Navajo: Beyond Subject-Object Inversion. Proceedings of the 2001 Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL 13), Held at University of Washington, 26–28 October 2001, 340–359. Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno.

Shayne, Joanne. 1982. Some semantic aspects of yi- and bi- in San Carlos Apache. In Paul J. Hopper & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). Studies in transitivity, 379–407. Syntax and Semantics 15. New York: Academic.

Speas, Margaret. 1990. Phrase structure in natural language. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Thompson, Chad L. 1979. Topicalization and pronominalization in Athabaskan languages. Unpublished manuscript.

Thompson, Chad L. 1989a. Pronouns and voice in Koyukon Athapaskan: A text-based study. International Journal of American Linguistics 55:1–24.

Thompson, Chad L. 1989b. Voice and obviation in Athabaskan and other languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.

Thompson, Chad L. 1996. The history and function of the yi-/bi- alternation in Athabaskan. In Eloise Jelinek, Sally Midgette, Keren Rice, and Leslie Saxon (eds.). Athabaskan language studies: Essays in honor of Robert W. Young, 81–100. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Thompson, Chad, Melissa Axelrod, & Eliza Jones. 1983. Koyukon language curriculum: Scope and sequence. Yukon Koyukuk School District, Nenana, Alaska.

Uyechi, Linda. 1990. Navajo fourth person: The Ji-/Ha- alternation. Journal of Navajo Education 7:3–12. Webster, Anthony K. 2006. On speaking to him (Coyote): The discourse functions of the yi-/bi-

alternation in some Chiricahua Apache narratives. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 25:143–160. Willie, MaryAnn. 1991. Navajo pronouns and obviation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona,

Tucson.

Willie, MaryAnn. 2000a. Individual and stage level predication and the Navajo classificatory verbs. In Andrew Carnie, Eloise Jelinek, & MaryAnn Willie (eds.). Papers in honor of Ken Hale, 39–49. Working Papers in Endangered and Less Familiar Languages 1. Department of Linguistics, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Willie, MaryAnn. 2000b. The inverse voice and possessive yi-/bi- in Navajo. International Journal of American Linguistics 66:360–382.

Willie, MaryAnn, & Eloise Jelinek. 2000. Navajo as a discourse configurational language. In Theodore B. Fernald and Paul R. Platero (eds.). _{The Athabaskan languages: Perspectives on a native American} language family, 252–287. New York: Oxford University Press.

Yǫ T’ǫ́h Gondi: Slave stories. 1970. Summer Institute of Linguistics, Calgary, Alberta.

Young, Robert W., & William Morgan. 1980. _{The Navajo language: A grammar and colloquial dictionary.} Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Young, Robert W., & William Morgan. 1987. _{The Navajo language: A grammar and colloquial dictionary.} Revised edition. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Young, Robert W., & William Morgan. 1992. Analytical lexicon of Navajo. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.