Obligatory Future In A Dene Language

Bibliographic Data

ID4559873
AuthorsNicholas Welch (0000-0002-1405-1779, University of Toronto, corresponding author)
Year2015
Volume81
Issue1
Pages41-81
Publication date2015-01-01
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational Journal of American Linguistics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0020-7071 • E-ISSN: 1545-7001
PublisherUniversity of Chicago Press (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1086/679042
OpenAlexW456971630
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited21

In Tłı̨chǫ Yatıì (Dogrib), spoken in the Northwest Territories, Canada, the periphrastic particle ı̨lè, which has been considered a past marker, is optional in the clause. As in other Dene (Athapaskan) languages, viewpoint aspect is encoded morphologically on the verb. These two facts can give the impression that aspect is the only obligatory temporal category in this language and that other temporal distinctions are peripheral. I argue, on the contrary, that a future/non-future distinction is a necessary element of well-formed clauses, that Future, rather than Past/Non-Past Tense or Aspect, serves as an anchor in the sense of Enç (1987), and that anchoring does not necessarily correlate with the prominence of a temporal category in the sense of Bhat (1999). I adduce evidence in support of these proposals from the contrasting obligatoriness of past and future marking in predicates, as well as from word order facts

Dependent clause · Element (criminal law · Linguistics · Order (exchange · Political science · Sentence · Verb · Word order · Historical Linguistics and Language Studies · History · Linguistics and Discourse Analysis · Philosophy · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub