Abstract
The Navajo language is unfamiliar, and its grammar is notoriously complex. In developing this analysis I have been interested in the answers to three questions. The first two are based on the grammatical pattern of the language, and must impose themselves on everyone who investigates its aspectual system. What is the function of the Navajo pattern of verb lexicalization? What is the semantic role of the verb lexeme categories? The intricate Navajo lexicalization, and a set of formally marked verbal categories, are important features of the language. The third question arises in the two-component theory to which we are committed: What are the situation types of Navajo and how do they relate to the Aristotelian set of situation type categories? I attempt to answer these three questions, setting out the relevant facts about the language and showing how its system can be understood within the two-component framework. I give only the main outlines of the aspectual system; the examples and comments will suggest directions for future research.1,2
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Several people have helped with information and advice. I would like to express particular thanks to Sally Midgette, who gave with enormous generosity of her knowledge of the language, her ideas and advice, and her time, and who contributed a careful reading of the manuscript. I thank Robert Young for his reading of the manuscript and for providing comments and meticulous corrections. I also thank Ken Hale for stimulating discussions of this material. All errors of fact and interpretation are mine, of course.
Works on Navajo which I consulted include Young and Morgan 1987 (abbreviated YM 1987 in references), Young, Morgan Midgette in press, Kari 1979, 1990, Midgette 1987, Speas 1986; also Hardy 1979, Sapir Hoijer 1967. The examples presented in this Chapter are for the most part drawn from YM 1987, or Young, Morgan and Midgette in press.
Many scholars collapse the two types of paradigmatic prefixes in a single stage; I retain the distinction here to clarify the makeup of the verb composite. The distinction between pronominal and Mode paradigmatic prefixes will not be important in the discussion, however. Kari recognizes three main levels of the Athapaskan verb, the Lexical, Derivational, Inflectional and Post-inflectional, which he presents in a detailed model (1990: 39). The verb base is formed at the first two of these levels. YM distinguish Root, Stem, Theme, Base, and paradigmatic prefixes ( 1987: 140 ).
I introduce this convention because the verb base is an abstraction which associates prefixes of various types with a set of stems. I choose the imperfective stem because it conforms with the practice, made standard by YM, of using forms associated with the imperfective viewpoint as citation forms.
This is a very rough summary of an an intricate pattern. For details, and another point of view, see YM 1987. These authors argue that the overt morphemes associated with the perfective have consistent semantic force. Krauss 1969 agrees with the principle but suggests slightly different meanings for particular morphemes. Unfortunately the suggested revision is made in a one-sentence footnote, without evidence. Axelrod in Chapter 3 of her dissertation on Koyukon, another Athabaskan language, takes a position similar to mine. Although there are certain regularities between prefixes and Mode morphemes, the morphemes interact with too many other factors for semantic consistency to be maintained.
There are notorious difficulties in characterizing the meanings of intonational features. A number of interesting examples are given in Hirschberg Pierrehumbert 1986. The authors reach no conclusion about how to deal with intonational features indicating contrast (p 1923); their presentation is compatible with the abstract approach suggested here.
Since there is a verb base that refers to the event in its entirety, one might treat the others as cases of shifted focus (cf Chapter 3). However for Navajo the multiple analysis is preferable because it brings out the pervasiveness of the many-one relation of verb base and situation type in the language.
These comments are based on Young, Morgan, and Midgette, which presents verb bases of different VLCs organized according to the root on which they are based. The information in this work makes it possible to study bases in related VLCs and to investigate the notion of array. I give another example of the striking differences in number and generality between Type A and Type B VLCs. There are close to 50 Type A verb bases involving the notion “drive” from the root [lo’], among them the following [’a..9eeh] (drive unspecified object), [’a’a…ieeh] (drive vehicle away out of sight) ’e’e.leeh ’adaashleeh ’ada…ieeh (drive vehicle into, e.g. a wash) [’ada’a…leeh] (drive down from a height) [’ahénd…leeh] (make a circuit driving) [na…leeh] (drive or carry something around, detour around) [yisdâ…leeh] (drive to safety). There are 5 Type B bases concerning driving generally, from the same root, e.g. ’a.loh (drive along in a vehicle). Other bases from this root have meanings such as “throw loops,” “carry by a handle,” “put on brakes,” “trick, lure.” There are also many other bases referring to driving: for instance the root [bra,] has a large number of such bases, which tend to involve rolling and circular motion.
The topic of single durative verb bases requires systematic study. We don’t know how consistently speakers accept and reject such bases in various contexts.
The perfective is not always available for the multiple event VLCs. Some Type B bases have only the imperfective form, for instance nikídishniih (to bounce, dribble, as in basketball Impf B: Rep) dah ridíno’ (to rise, leap, e.g. flames Impf B: Rep), yita’ (to flutter, flicker, e.g. eyelid, wing, pulse Jmpf B:Rep)
The specificity of Navajo bases means that the familiar almost ambiguities do not occur, as in I almost closed the door. Such ambiguities depend on indeterminacy in the surface form: indeterminate forms allow different scopes for the adverb.
For simplicity I have used a relatively small set of VLCs. The precise number of morphological categories that can be justified for Navajo does not affect the material presented here. The set of VLCs is determined by subtle morphological analysis which is beyond the scope of this discussion. See Kari 1979, 1990 and Hardy 1979.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1991 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Smith, C.S. (1991). The Aspectual System of Navajo. In: The Parameter of Aspect. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 43. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7911-7_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7911-7_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-2496-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7911-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive