Referential and lexical factors in alignment variation of trivalent verbs

Eva van Lier; Alena Witzlack-Makarevich; Joana Jansen

doi:10.1515/ling-2016-0010

Article

Referential and lexical factors in alignment variation of trivalent verbs

Eva van Lier , Alena Witzlack-Makarevich and Joana Jansen

Published/Copyright: May 10, 2016

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Linguistics Volume 54 Issue 3

Abstract

Argument marking with trivalent verbs exhibits a much larger variation than argument marking with bivalent verbs. In many cases, this variation – stemming both from referential and lexical factors – presents a problem when attempting crosslinguistic comparison of alignment patterns of trivalent verbs. Often, this problem results in picking just one of a number of patterns as representative for comparative purposes and thus ignoring the rest of the variation. This paper addresses these general challenges by discussing a case study of trivalent verbs in Yakima Sahaptin, a language with a large amount of alignment variation in indexing and flagging. In doing so, the paper elaborates the recently developed method for alignment typology called exhaustive alignment, adjusting the method to meet the challenges of constructions with trivalent verbs and pointing out its limitations.

Keywords: ditransitives; alignment; non-canonical marking; hierarchical agreement; Sahaptian

Funding statement: Funding: The financial support of the ESF is gratefully acknowledged as is the support of the participating funding organizations including Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Arts and Humanities Research Council, and the National Science Foundation (Award 0936684, Spike Gildea P. I.). Eva van Lier and Alena Witzlack-Makarevich are responsible for the theoretical, typological, and methodological sections of the paper; Joana Jansen collected and analyzed the Yakima Sahaptin data; Alena Witzlack-Makarevich developed the exhaustive alignment methodology for mono- and bivalent verbs, and Eva van Lier applied it to three-argument constructions and wrote the main part of the paper. We gratefully acknowledge the Yakima Sahaptin speaking elders who contributed the data, including Dr. Virginia Beavert (cited as VB in examples). Thanks go to Katharina Sommer for fixing the references and more. We are indebted to two anonymous reviewers and to Katharina Haude for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. We, the authors, are responsible for any remaining errors.

Acknowledgments

This paper is dedicated to the memory of Anna Siewierska. Between 2009 and her death in 2011 she was the leader of a research project on referential hierarchies in ditransitive constructions, part of a larger ESF EuroBABEL project on Referential Hierarchies in Morphosyntax.

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra, R. M. W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi (eds.). 2001. Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.46Search in Google Scholar

Beck, David. 2006. Control of agreement in multi-object constructions in Upper Necaxa Totonac. In Atsushi Fujimoro & Maria Amalia Reis Silva (eds.), Proceedings of the 11th workshop on structure and constituency in the languages of the Americas, 1–11. Vancouver: UBC Working papers in Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar. 1995. In the vestibule of meaning: Transitivity inversion as a morphological phenomenon. Studies in Language 19. 73–127.10.1075/sl.19.1.04bicSearch in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11. 239–251.10.1515/LINGTY.2007.018Search in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar. 2010. Grammatical relations typology. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of language typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199281251.013.0020Search in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich & Taras Zakharko. 2010. Case alignment across the lexicon. Paper presented at Syntax of the World’s Languages IV, Lyon 23–26 September. http://www.comparativelinguistics.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:00000000-774a-e877-ffff-fffff509a176/SWLiv_Alignment_lexicon.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar, Taras Zakharko, Lennart Bierkandt & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2014. Semantic role clustering: An empirical assessment of semantic role types in non-default case assignment. Studies in Language 38(3). 485–511.10.1075/bct.88.03bicSearch in Google Scholar

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

Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 2013. Alignment of case marking of full noun phrases. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.) The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/98 (accessed 26 December 2015).Search in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard & Albert Borg. 1984. Object diffuseness in Maltese. In Frans Plank (ed.), Objects: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 109–126. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57. 626–657.10.2307/414343Search in Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55. 59–138.10.1017/CBO9780511611896Search in Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611896Search in Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62. 808–845.10.2307/415173Search in Google Scholar

François, Alexandre. 2002. Araki. A disappearing language of Vanuatu (Pacific Linguistics 522). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

François, Alexandre. 2012. Ditransitive alignment and referential hierarchies in Araki. Linguistic Discovery 10(3). 97–124.10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.418Search in Google Scholar

Jansen, Joana. 2010. A grammar of Yakima Sahaptin. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Jansen, Joana. 2012. Ditransitive alignment in Yakima Sahaptin. Linguistic Discovery 10(3). 37–54.10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.415Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2005a. Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery 3(1). 1–21.10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.280Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2005b. Ditransitive constructions: The verb ‘give’. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 426–429. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Ditransitive alignment splits and inverse alignment. Functions of Language 14(1). 197–102.10.1075/fol.14.1.06hasSearch in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. On S, A, P, T and R as comparative concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15(3). 535–567.10.1515/LITY.2011.035Search in Google Scholar

Kittilä, Seppo. 2006. The woman showed the baby to her sister: On humanness-driven ambiguity in ditransitives. In Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity, 291–308. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.77.19kitSearch in Google Scholar

Kittilä, Seppo. 2008. Animacy effects on differential Goal marking. Linguistic Typology 12(2). 245–268.10.1515/LITY.2008.038Search in Google Scholar

van Lier, Eva (ed.). 2012. Referential hierarchies in three-participant constructions [Special issue]. Linguistic Discovery 10(3).10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.416Search in Google Scholar

van Lier, Eva, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich & Anna Siewierska 2011. Alignment typology in three-participant constructions. Paper presented at the 9th Biennial Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology (ALT9). Hong Kong, 21–24 July 2011.Search in Google Scholar

Macaulay, Monica. 2009. On prominence hierarchies: Evidence from Algonquian. Linguistic Typology 13(3). 357–389.10.1515/LITY.2009.019Search in Google Scholar

Malchukov, Andrej. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118(2). 203–221.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.005Search in Google Scholar

Malchukov, Andrej. 2011. Exploring the domain of ditransitive constructions: Issues in lexical typology. Paper presented at the Workshop on Referential Hierarchies in Three-Participant Constructions, Lancaster University, 21 May 2011, Lancaster, UK.Search in Google Scholar

Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie. 2010a. Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook, 1–64. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110220377.1Search in Google Scholar

Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath & Bernard Comrie (eds.). 2010b. Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110220377Search in Google Scholar

Mallinson, Graham & Barry Blake. 1981. Language typology: Cross-linguistic studies in syntax. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Search in Google Scholar

Margetts, Anna & Peter Austin. 2007. Three-participant events in the languages of the world: Towards a crosslinguistic typology. Linguistics 45(3). 393–452.10.1515/LING.2007.014Search in Google Scholar

Moravcsik, Edith. 1978. On the distribution of ergative and accusative patterns. Lingua 45(3/4). 233–279.10.1016/0024-3841(78)90026-8Search in Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Rigsby, Bruce & Noel Rude. 1996. Sketch of Sahaptin, a Sahaptian language. In Ives Goddard & William C. Sturtevant (eds.), Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 17: languages, 666–692. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.Search in Google Scholar

Rude, Noel. 1997. Dative shifting and double objects in Sahaptin. In Talmy Givón, (ed.), Grammatical relations: A functionalist perspective, 323–349. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.35.09rudSearch in Google Scholar

Rude, Noel. 2009. Transitivity in Northwest Sahaptin. Journal of Northwest Linguistics 3(3). 1–37.Search in Google Scholar

Schackow, Diana. 2012. Referential hierarchy effects in Yakkha three-argument constructions: Ditransitive alignment and referential hierarchies in Araki. Linguistic Discovery 10(3). 148–193.10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.420Search in Google Scholar

Siewierska, Anna. 2003. Person agreement and the determination of alignment. Transactions of the Philological Society 101(2). 339–370.10.1111/1467-968X.00122Search in Google Scholar

Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511812729Search in Google Scholar

Siewierska, Anna & Willem Hollmann (eds.). 2007. Ditransitive constructions [Special issue]. Functions of Language 14(1).10.1075/fol.14.1Search in Google Scholar

Siewierska, Anna & Eva van Lier. 2013. Introduce: Encoding a non-prototypical three-participant event across Europe. In Elly van Gelderen, Michaela Cennamo & Johanna Barðdal (eds.), Argument structure in flux: The Naples/Capri papers, 169–200. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.131.07sieSearch in Google Scholar

Van Valin, Robert D. 1981. Grammatical relations in ergative languages. Studies in Language 5(3). 361–394.10.1075/sl.5.3.05vanSearch in Google Scholar

Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2011. Typological variation in grammatical relations. Leipzig: University of Leipzig dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Zúñiga, Fernando. 2006. Deixis and alignment: Inverse systems in indigenous languages of the Americas. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.70Search in Google Scholar

Zúñiga, Fernando. 2007. From the typology of inversion to the typology of alignment. In Matti Miestamo & Bernhard Wälchli (eds.) New challenges in typology, 199–220. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Appendix: Tables summarizing Yakima Sahaptin alignment patterns with trivalent verbs

Table 8:

Alignment of 1st person P/T/G indexing in Yakima Sahaptin, with trivalent verb class 1 (‘give’) and bivalent verb class I.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G₂]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₂]	indirective
=nash	=nash	no index	indirective
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
=nash	*	=nash	?
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum.non-top]	neutral
=nash	=nash	=nash	neutral
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum.top]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum.top]	indirective
=nash	=nash	no index	indirective
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3non-hum]	?
no index	*	no index	?
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum.non-top]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum.top]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum.top]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral

Table 9:

Alignment of 2nd person P/T/G indexing in Yakima Sahaptin, with trivalent verb class 1 (‘give’) and bivalent verb class I.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₂ [with A₃]	T₂ [with A₃ and G₁]	G₂ [with A₃ and T₁]	indirective
=nam	=nam	no index	indirective
P₂ [with A₃]	T₂ [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G₂ [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
=nam	*	=nam	?
P₂ [with A₃]	T₂ [with A₃ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₂ [with A₃ and T_3hum.non-top]	neutral
=nam	=nam	=nam	neutral
P₂ [with A₃]	T₂ [with A₃ and G_3hum.top]	G₂ [with A₃ and T_3hum.top]	indirective
=nam	=nam	no index	indirective
P₂ [with A₁]	T₂ [with A₁ ad G_3non-hum]	G₂ [with A₁ and T_3non-hum]	?
=mash (=1>2)	*	=mash (=1>2)	?
P₂ [with A₁]	T₂ [with A₁ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₂ [with A₁ and T_3hum.non-top]	neutral
=mash (=1>2)	=mash (=1>2)	=mash (=1>2)	neutral
P₂ [with A₁]	T₂ [with A₁ and G_3hum.top]	G₂ [with A₁ and T_3hum.top]	indirective
=mash (=1>2)	=mash (=1>2)	no index	indirective

Table 10:

Alignment of 3rd person P/T/G indexing in Yakima Sahaptin, with trivalent verb class 1 (‘give’) and bivalent verb class I.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P_3non-hum [with A₂]	T_3non-hum [with A₂ and G₁]	G_3hum.top [with A₂ and T₁]	?
á-	no index	*	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₂]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₂ and G₁]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₂ and T₁]	horizontal
á-	no index	no index	horizontal
P_3hum.top [with A₂]	T_3hum.top [with A₂ and G₁]	G_3hum.top [with A₂ and T₁]	indirective
á-	á-	no index	indirective
P_3non-hum [with A₃]	T_3non-hum [with A₃ and G₁]	G_3non-hum [with A₃ and T₁]	?
no index	no index	*	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₃]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and G₁]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and T₁]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral
P_3hum.top [with A₃]	T_3hum.top [with A₃ and G₁]	G_3hum.top [with A₃ and T₁]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral
P_3non-hum [with A₁]	T_3non-hum [with A₁ and G₂]	G_3non-hum [with A₁ and T₂]	?
á-	no index	*	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₁]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₁ and G₂]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₁ and T₂]	horizontal
á-	no index	no index	horizontal
P_3hum.top [with A₁]	T_3hum.top [with A₁ and G₂]	G_3hum.top [with A₁ and T₂]	indirective
á-	á-	no index	indirective
P_3non-hum [with A₃]	T_3non-hum [with A₃ and G₂]	G_3non-hum [with A₃ and T₂]	?
no index	no index	*	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₃]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and G₂]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and T₂]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral
P_3hum.top [with A₃]	T_3hum.top [with A₃ and G₂]	G_3hum.top [with A₃ and T₂]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral
P_3non-hum [with A₁]	T_3non-hum [with A₁ and G_3non-hum]	G_3non-hum [with A₁ and T_3non-hum]	?
á-	*	*	?
P_3non-hum [with A₁]	T_3non-hum [with A₁ and G_3hum]	G_3non-hum [with A₁ and T_3hum]	?
á-	no index	*	?
P_3hum [with A₁]	T_3hum [with A₁ and G_3non-hum]	G_3hum [with A₁ and T_3non-hum]	?
á-	*	á-	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₁]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₁ and G_3hum.top]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₁ and T_3hum.top]	horizontal
á-	no index	no index	horizontal
P_3hum.top [with A₁]	T_3hum.top [with A₁ and G_3hum.non-top]	G_3hum.top [with A₁ and T_3hum.non-top]	neutral
á-	á-	á-	neutral
P_3non-hum [with A₂]	T_3non-hum [with A₂ and G_3non-hum]	G_3non-hum [with A₂ and T_3non-hum]	?
á-	*	*	?
P_3non-hum [with A₂]	T_3non-hum [with A₂ and G_3hum]	G_3non-hum [with A₂ and T_3hum]	?
á-	no index	*	?
P_3hum [with A₂]	T_3hum [with A₂ and G_3non-hum]	G_3hum [with A₂ and T_3non-hum]	?
á-	*	á-	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₂]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₂ and G_3hum]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₂ and T_3hum]	horizontal
á-	no index	no index	horizontal
P_3hum.top [with A₂]	T_3hum.top [with A₂ and G_3hum]	G_3hum.top [with A₂ and T_3hum]	neutral
á-	á-	á-	neutral
P_3non-hum [with A₃]	T_3non-hum [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G_3non-hum [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
no index	*	*	?
P_3non-hum [with A₃]	T_3non-hum [with A₃ and G_3hum]	G_3non-hum [with A₃ and T_3hum]	?
no index	no index	*	?
P_3hum [with A₃]	T_3hum [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G_3hum [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
no index	*	no index	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₃]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and G_3hum.top]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and T_3hum.top]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral
P_3hum.top [with A₃]	T_3hum.top [with A₃ and G_3hum.non-top]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and T_3hum.non-top]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral

Table 11:

Alignment of 1st person P/T/G indexing in Yakima Sahaptin, with trivalent verb class 1 (‘give’) and bivalent verb class II.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G₂]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₂]	secundative
no index	=nash	no index	secundative
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
	*	=nash	?
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum.non-top]	horizontal
no index	=nash	=nash	horizontal
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum.top]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum.top]	secundative
no index	=nash	no index	secundative
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3non-hum]	?
no index	*	no index	?
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum.non-top]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum.top]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum.top]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral

Table 12:

Alignment of 2nd person P/T/G indexing in Yakima Sahaptin, with trivalent verb class 1 (‘give’) and bivalent verb class II.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₂ [with A₃]	T₂ [with A₃ and G₁]	G₂ [with A₃ and T₁]	secundative
no index	=nam	no index	secundative
P₂ [with A₃]	T₂ [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G₂ [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
no index	*	=nam	?
P₂ [with A₃]	T₂ [with A₃ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₂ [with A₃ and T_3hum.non-top]	horizontal
no index	=nam	=nam	horizontal
P₂ [with A₃]	T₂ [with A₃ and G_3hum.top]	G₂ [with A₃ and T_3hum.top]	secundative
no index	=nam	no index	secundative
P₂ [with A₁]	T₂ [with A₁ and G_3non-hum]	G₂ [with A₁ and T_3non-hum]	?
no index	*	=mash (=1>2)	?
P₂ [with A₁]	T₂ [with A₁ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₂ [with A₁ and T_3hum.non-top]	horizontal
no index	=mash (=1>2)	=mash (=1>2)	horizontal
P₂ [with A₁]	T₂ [with A₁ and G_3hum.top]	G₂ [with A₁ and T_3hum.top]	secundative
no index	=mash (=1>2)	no index	secundative

Table 13:

Alignment of 3rd person P/T/G indexing in Yakima Sahaptin, with trivalent verb class 1 (‘give’) and bivalent verb class II.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P_3non-hum [with A₂]	T_3non-hum [with A₂ and G₁]	G_3non-hum [with A₂ and T₁]	?
no index	no index	*	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₂]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₂ and G₁]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₂ and T₁]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral
P_3hum.top [with A₂]	T_3hum.top [with A₂ and G₁]	G_3hum.top [with A₂ and T₁]	secundative
no index	á-	no index	secundative
P_3non-hum [with A₃]	T_3non-hum [with A₃ and G₁]	G_3non-hum [with A₃ and T₁]	?
no index	no index	*	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₃]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and G₁]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and T₁]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral
P_3hum.top [with A₃]	T_3hum.top [with A₃ and G₁]	G_3hum.top [with A₃ and T₁]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral
P_3non-hum [with A₁]	T_3non-hum [with A₁ and G₂]	G_3non-hum [with A₁ and T₂]	?
no index	no index	*	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₁]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₁ and G₂]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₁ and T₂]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral
P_3hum.top [with A₁]	T_3hum.top [with A₁ and G₂]	G_3hum.top [with A₁ and T₂]	secundative
no index	á-	no index	secundative
P_3non-hum [with A₃]	T_3non-hum [with A₃ and G₂]	G_3non-hum [with A₃ and T₂]	?
no index	no index	*	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₃]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and G₂]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and T₂]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral
P_3hum.top[with A₃]	T_3hum.top [with A₃ and G₂]	G_3hum.top [with A₃ and T₂]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral
P_3non-hum [with A₁]	T_3non-hum [with A₁ and G_3non-hum]	G_3non-hum [with A₁ and T_3non-hum]	?
no index	*	*	?
P_3non-hum [with A₁]	T_3non-hum [with A₁ and G_3hum]	G_3non-hum [with A₁ and T_3hum]	?
no index	no index	*	?
P_3hum [with A₁]	T_3hum [with A₁ and G_3non-hum]	G_3hum [with A₁ and T_3non-hum]	?
no index	*	á-	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₁]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₁ and G_3hum.top]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₁ and T_3hum.top]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral
P_3hum.top [with A₁]	T_3hum.top [with A₁ and G_3hum.non-top]	G_3hum.top [with A₁ and T_3hum.non-top]	horizontal
no index	á-	á-	horizontal
P_3non-hum [with A₂]	T_3non-hum [with A₂ and G_3non-hum]	G_3non-hum [with A₂ and T_3non-hum]	?
no index	*	*	?
P_3non-hum [with A₂]	T_3non-hum [with A₂ and G_3hum]	G_3non-hum [with A₂ and T_3hum]	?
no index	no index	*	?
P_3hum [with A₂]	T_3hum [with A₂ and G_3non-hum]	G_3hum [with A₂ and T_3non-hum]	?
no index	*	á-	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₂]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₂ and G_3hum]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₂ and T_3hum]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral
P_3hum.top [with A₂]	T_3hum.top [with A₂ and G_3hum]	G_3hum.top [with A₂ and T_3hum]	horizontal
no index	á-	á-	horizontal
P_3non-hum [with A₃]	T_3non-hum [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G_3non-hum [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
no index	*	*	?
P_3non-hum [with A₃]	T_3non-hum [with A₃ and G_3hum]	G_3non-hum [with A₃ and T_3hum]	?
no index	no index	*	?
P_3hum [with A₃]	T_3hum [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G_3hum [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
no index	*	no index	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₃]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and G_3hum.top]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and T_3hum.top]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral
P_3hum.top [with A₃]	T_3hum.top [with A₃ and G_3hum.non-top]	G_3hum.top [with A₃ and T_3hum.non-top]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral

Table 14:

Alignment of 1st person P/T/G flagging in Yakima Sahaptin, with trivalent verb class 1 (‘give’) and bivalent verb class I.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G₂]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₂]	indirective
OBJ	OBJ	GEN-DAT	indirective
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
OBJ	*	OBJ	?
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum.non-top]	neutral
OBJ	OBJ	OBJ	neutral
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum.top]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum.top]	indirective
OBJ	OBJ	GEN-DAT	indirective
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3non-hum]	?
OBJ	*	OBJ	?
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum.non-top]	neutral
OBJ	OBJ	OBJ	neutral
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum.top]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum.top]	indirective
OBJ	OBJ	GEN-DAT	indirective

Table 15:

Alignment of 2nd person P/T/G flagging in Yakima Sahaptin, with trivalent verb class 1 (‘give’) and bivalent verb class I.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₂ [with A₃]	T₂ [with A₃ and G₁]	G₂ [with A₃ and T₁]	indirective
OBJ	OBJ	DAT	indirective
P₂ [with A₃]	T₂ [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G₂ [with [A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
OBJ	*	OBJ	?
P₂ [with A₃]	T₂ [with A₃ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₂ [with A₃ and T_3hum.non-top]	neutral
OBJ	OBJ	OBJ	neutral
P₂ [with A₃]	T₂ [with A₃ and G_3hum.top]	G₂ [with A₃ and T_3hum.top]	indirective
OBJ	OBJ	GEN-DAT	indirective
P₂ [with A₁]	T₂ [with A₁ G_3non-hum]	G₂ [with A₁ and T_3non-hum]	?
OBJ	*	OBJ	?
P₂ [with A₁]	T₂ [with A₁ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₂ [with A₁ and T_3hum.non-top]	neutral
OBJ	OBJ	OBJ	neutral
P₂ [with A₁]	T₂ [with A₁ and G_3hum.top]	G₂ [with A₁ and T_3hum.top]	indirective
OBJ	OBJ	GEN-DAT	indirective

Table 16:

Alignment of 3rd person P/T/G flagging in Yakima Sahaptin, with trivalent verb class 1 (‘give’) and bivalent verb class I.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P_3non-hum [with A₂]	T_3non-hum [with A₂ and G₁]	G_3non-hum [with A₂ and T₁]	?
no flag	no flag	*	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₂]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₂ and G₁]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₂ and T₁]	tripartite
OBJ	no flag	GEN-DAT	tripartite
P_3hum.top [with A₂]	T_3hum.top [with A₂ and G₁]	G_3hum.top [with A₂ and T₁]	indirective
OBJ	OBJ	GEN-DAT	indirective
P_3non-hum [with A₃]^a	T_3non-hum [with A₃ and G₁]	G_3non-hum [with A₃ and T₁]	?
no flag	no flag	*	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₃]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and G₁]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and T₁]	tripartite
OBJ	no flag	GEN-DAT	tripartite
P_3hum.top [with A₃]	T_3hum.top [with A₃ and G₁]	G_3hum.top [with A₃ and T₁]	indirective
OBJ	OBJ	GEN-DAT	indirective
P_3non-hum [with A₁]	T_3non-hum [with A₁ and G₂]	G_3non-hum [with A₁ and T₂]	?
no flag	no flag	*	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₁]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₁ and G₂]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₁ and T₂]	tripartite
OBJ	no flag	GEN-DAT	tripartite
P_3hum.top [with A₁]	T_3hum.top [with A₁ and G₂]	G_3hum.top [with A₁ and T₂]	indirective
OBJ	OBJ	GEN-DAT	indirective
P_3non-hum [with A₃]	T_3non-hum [with A₃ and G₂]	G_3non-hum [with A₃ and T₂]	?
no flag	no flag	*	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₃]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and G₂]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and T₂]	tripartite
OBJ	no flag	GEN-DAT	tripartite
P_3hum.top [with A₃]	T_3hum.top [with A₃ and G₂]	G_3hum.top [with A₃ and T₂]	indirective
OBJ	OBJ	GEN-DAT	indirective
P_3non-hum [with A₁]	T_3non-hum [with A₁ and G_3non-hum]	G_3non-hum [with A₁ and T_3non-hum]	?
no flag	*	*	?
P_3non-hum [with A₂]	T_3non-hum [with A₂ and G_3hum]	G_3non-hum [with A₂ and T_3hum]	?
no flag	no flag	*	?
P_3hum [with A₂]	T_3hum [with A₂ and G_3non-hum]	G_3hum [with A₂ and T_3non-hum]	?
OBJ	*	OBJ	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₂]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₂ and G_3hum-top]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₂ and T_3non-hum]	tripartite
OBJ	no flag	GEN-DAT	tripartite
P_3hum.top [with A₂]	T_3hum.top [with A₂ and G_3hum.non-top]	G_3hum.top [with A₂ and T_3hum.non-top]	neutral
OBJ	OBJ	OBJ	neutral
P_3non-hum [with A₃]	T_3non-hum [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G_3non-hum [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
no flag	*	*	?
P_3non-hum [with A₃]	T_3non-hum [with A₃ and G_3hum]	G_3non-hum [with A₃ and T_3hum]	?
no flag	no flag	?	?
P_3hum [with A₃]	T_3hum [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G_3hum [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
OBJ	*	GEN-DAT	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₃]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and G_3hum.top]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and T_3hum.top]	tripartite
OBJ	no flag	GEN-DAT	tripartite
P_3hum.non-top [with A₃]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and G_3hum.top]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and T_3hum.top]	tripartite
OBJ	no flag	GEN-DAT	tripartite
P_3hum.top [with A₃]	T_3hum.top [with A₃ and G_3hum.non-top]	G_3hum.top [with A₃ and T_3hum.non-top]	neutral
OBJ	OBJ	OBJ	neutral

^[1]

Table 17:

Alignment of 1st person P/T/G flagging in Yakima Sahaptin, with trivalent verb class 1 (‘give’) and bivalent verb class II.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G₂]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₂]	secundative
GEN-DAT	OBJ	GEN-DAT	secundative
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
GEN-DAT	*	OBJ	?
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum.non-top]	horizontal
GEN-DAT	OBJ	OBJ	horizontal
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum.top]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum.top]	secundative
GEN-DAT	OBJ	GEN-DAT	secundative
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3non-hum]	?
GEN-DAT	*	OBJ	?
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum.non-top]	horizontal
GEN-DAT	OBJ	OBJ	horizontal
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum.top]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum.top]	secundative
GEN-DAT	OBJ	GEN-DAT	secundative

Table 18:

Alignment of 2nd person P/T/G flagging in Yakima Sahaptin, with trivalent verb class 1 (‘give’) and bivalent verb class II.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₂ [with A₃]	T₂ [withA₃ and G₁]	G₂ [with A₃ and T₁]	secundative
GEN-DAT	OBJ	GEN-DAT	secundative
P₂ [with A₃]	T₂ [withA₃ and G_3non-hum]	G₂ [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
GEN-DAT	*	OBJ	?
P₂ [with A₃]	T₂ [withA₃ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₂ [with A₃ and T_3hum.non-top]	horizontal
GEN-DAT	OBJ	OBJ	horizontal
P₂ [with A₃]	T₂ [withA₃ and G_3hum.top]	G₂ [with A₃ and T_3hum.top]	secundative
GEN-DAT	OBJ	GEN-DAT	secundative
P₂ [with A₁]	T₂ [with A₁ and G_3non-hum]	G₂ [with A₁ and T_3non-hum]	?
GEN-DAT	*	OBJ	?
P₂ [with A₁]	T₂ [with A₁ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₂ [with A₁ and T_3hum.non-top]	horizontal
GEN-DAT	OBJ	OBJ	horizontal
P₂ [with A₁]	T₂ [with A₁ G_3hum.top]	G₂ [with A₁ and T_3hum.top]	secundative
GEN-DAT	OBJ	GEN-DAT	secundative

Table 19:

Alignment of 3rd person P/T/G flagging in Yakima Sahaptin, with trivalent verb class 1 (‘give’) and bivalent verb class II.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P_3non-hum [with A₂]	T_3non-hum [with A₂ and G₁]	G_3non-hum [with A₂ and T₁]	?
DAT	no flag	*	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₂]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₂ and G₁]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₂ and T₁]	secundative
GEN-DAT	no flag	GEN-DAT	secundative
P_3hum.top [with A₂]	T_3hum.top [with A₂ and G₁]	G_3hum.top [with A₂ and T₁]	secundative
GEN-DAT	OBJ	GEN-DAT	secundative
P_3non-hum [with A₃]	T_3non-hum [with A₃ and G₁]	G_3non-hum [with A₃ and T₁]	?
DAT	no flag	*	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₃]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and G₁]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and T₁]	secundative
GEN-DAT	no flag	GEN-DAT	secundative
P_3hum.top [with A₃]	T_3hum.top [with A₃ and G₁]	G_3hum.top [with A₃ and T₁]	secundative
GEN-DAT	OBJ	GEN-DAT	secundative
P_3non-hum [with A₁]	T_3non-hum [with A₁ and and G₂]	G_3non-hum [with A₁ and T₂]	?
DAT	no flag	*	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₁]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₁ and G₂]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₁ and T₂]	secundative
GEN-DAT	no flag	GEN-DAT	secundative
P_3hum.top [with A₁]	T_3hum.top [with A₁ and G₂]	G_3hum.top [with A₁ and T₂]	secundative
GEN-DAT	OBJ	GEN-DAT	secundative
P_3non-hum [with A₃]	T_3non-hum [with A₃ and G₂]	G_3non-hum [with A₃ and T₂]	?
DAT	no flag	*	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₃]	T_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and G₂]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₃ and T₂]	secundative
GEN-DAT	no flag	GEN-DAT	secundative
P_3hum.top [with A₃]	T_3hum.top [A₃ and G₂]	G_3hum.top [with A₃ and T₂]	secundative
GEN-DAT	OBJ	GEN-DAT	secundative
P_3non-hum [with A₁]	T_3non-hum [with A₁ and G_3non-hum]	G_3non-hum [with A₁ and T_3non-hum]	?
DAT	*	*	?
P_3non-hum [with A₂]	T_3non-hum [with A₂ and G_3hum]	G_3non-hum [with A₂ and T_3hum]	?
DAT	no flag	*	?
P_3hum [with A₂]	T_3hum [with A₂ and G_3non-hum]	G_3hum [with A₂ and T_3non-hum]	?
GEN-DAT	*	OBJ	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₂]	T_3hum.non-top[with A₂ and G_3hum.top]	G_3hum.non-top [with A₂ and T_3hum.top]	secundative
GEN-DAT	no flag	GEN-DAT	secundative
P_3hum.top [with A₂]	T_3hum.top[with A₂ and G_3hum.non-top]	G_3hum.top [with A₂ and T_3hum.non-top]	horizontal
GEN-DAT	OBJ	OBJ	horizontal
P_3non-hum [with A₃]	T_3non-hum [A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G_3non-hum [A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
DAT	*	*	?
P_3non-hum [with A₃]	T_3non-hum [A₃ and G_3hum]	G_3non-hum [A₃ and T_3hum]	?
DAT	no flag	?	?
P_3hum [with A₃]	T_3hum [A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G_3hum [A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
GEN-DAT	*	GEN-DAT	?
P_3hum.non-top [with A₃]	T_3hum.non-top [A₃ and G_3hum.top]	G_3hum.non-top [A₃ and T_3hum.top]	secundative
GEN-DAT	no flag	GEN-DAT	secundative
P_3hum.non-top [with A₃]	T_3hum.non-top [A₃ and G_3hum.top]	G_3hum.non-top [A₃ and T_3hum.top]	secundative
GEN-DAT	no flag	GEN-DAT	secundative
P_3hum.top [with A₃]	T_3hum.top [A₃ and G_3hum.non-top]	G_3hum.top [A₃ and T_3hum.non-top]	horizontal
GEN-DAT	OBJ	OBJ	horizontal

Table 20:

Alignment of 1st person P/T/G indexing in Yakima Sahaptin, trivalent verb class 2 (‘put’) and bivalent verb class I.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁[with A₃ and G₂]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₂]	indirective
=nash	=nash	no index	indirective
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G₃]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₃]	indirective
=nash	=nash	no index	indirective
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G₃]	G₁ [with A₂ and T₃]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral

Table 21:

Alignment of 1st person P/T/G indexing in Yakima Sahaptin, trivalent verb class 2 (‘put’) and bivalent verb class II.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G₂]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₂]	secundative
no index	=nash	no index	secundative
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G₃]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₃]	secundative
no index	=nash	no index	secundative
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G₃]	G₁ [with A₂ and T₃]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral

Table 22:

Alignment of flagging of 1st person P/T/G in Yakima Sahaptin, trivalent verb class 2 (‘put’) and bivalent verb class I.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G₂]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₂]	indirective
OBJ	OBJ	GEN-DAT	indirective
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G₃]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₃]	indirective
OBJ	OBJ	GEN-DAT	indirective
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G₃]	G₁ [with A₂ and T₃]	indirective
OBJ	OBJ	GEN-DAT	indirective

Table 23:

Alignment of flagging of 1st person P/T/G in Yakima Sahaptin, trivalent verb class 2 (‘put’) and bivalent verb class II.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G₂]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₂]	secundative
GEN-DAT	OBJ	GEN-DAT	secundative
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G₃]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₃]	secundative
GEN-DAT	OBJ	GEN-DAT	secundative
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G₃]	G₁ [with A₂ and T₃]	secundative
GEN-DAT	OBJ	GEN-DAT	secundative

Table 24:

Alignment of 1st person P/T/G indexing in Yakima Sahaptin, trivalent verb class 3 (‘say’) and bivalent verb class I.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G₂]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₂]	?
=nash	*	*	?
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
=nash	*	=nash	?
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum]	?
=nash	*	*	?
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3non-hum]	?
no index	*	no index	?
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum]	?
no index	*	*	?

Table 25:

Alignment of 1st person P/T/G indexing in Yakima Sahaptin; trivalent verb class 4 (derived applicative) and bivalent verb class I.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G₂]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₂]	secundative
=nash	no index	=nash	secundative
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
=nash	*	=nash	?
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum]	secundative
=nash	no index	=nash	secundative
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3non-hum]	?
no index	*	no index	?
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral

Table 26:

Alignment of 1st person P/T/G indexing in Yakima Sahaptin; trivalent verb class 4 (derived applicative) and bivalent verb class II.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G₂]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₂]	indirective
no index	no index	=nash	indirective
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
no index	*	=nash	?
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum]	indirective
no index	no index	=nash	indirective
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3non-hum]	?
no index	*	no index	?
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral

Table 27:

Alignment of 1st person P/T/G flagging in Yakima Sahaptin; trivalent verb class 4 (derived applicative) with bivalent verb class I.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G₂]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₂]	secundative
OBJ	no flag	OBJ	secundative
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
OBJ	*	OBJ	?
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum]	secundative
OBJ	no flag	OBJ	secundative
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3non-hum]	?
OBJ	*	OBJ	?
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum]	secundative
OBJ	no flag	OBJ	secundative

Table 28:

Alignment of 1st person P/T/G flagging in Yakima Sahaptin, trivalent verb class 4 (derived applicative) with bivalent verb class II.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G₂]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₂]	tripartite
GEN-DAT	no flag	OBJ	tripartite
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
GEN-DAT	*	OBJ	?
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum]	tripartite
GEN-DAT	no flag	OBJ	tripartite
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3non-hum]	?
GEN-DAT	*	OBJ	?
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum]	tripartite
GEN-DAT	no flag	OBJ	tripartite

Table 29:

Alignment of 1st person P/T/G indexing in Yakima Sahaptin, trivalent verb class 5 (derived causative) and bivalent verb class I.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G₂]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₂]	indirective
=nash	=nash	no index	indirective
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
=nash	*	=nash	?
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum.non-top]	neutral
=nash	=nash	=nash	neutral
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum.top]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum.top]	secundative(?) (inconclusive data)
=nash	no index	=nash	secundative(?) (inconclusive data)
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3non-hum]	?
no index	*	no index	?
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum.non-top]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum.top]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum.top]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral

Table 30:

Alignment of 1st person P/T/G indexing in Yakima Sahaptin, trivalent verb class 5 (derived causative) and bivalent verb class II

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G₂]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₂]	secundative
no index	=nash	no index	secundative
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
no index	*	=nash	?
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum.non-top]	horizontal
no index	=nash	=nash	horizontal
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum.top]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum.top]	indirective(?) (inconclusive data)
no index	no index	=nash	indirective(?) (inconclusive data)
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3non-hum]	?
no index	*	no index	?
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum.non-top]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum.top]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum.top]	neutral
no index	no index	no index	neutral

Table 31:

Alignment of 1st person P/T/G flagging in Yakima Sahaptin, trivalent verb class 5 (derived causative) and bivalent verb class I.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G₂]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₂]	indirective
OBJ	OBJ	GEN-DAT	indirective
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
OBJ	*	GEN-DAT	?
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum.non-top]	indirective
OBJ	OBJ	GEN-DAT	indirective
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum.top]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum.top]	indirective
OBJ	OBJ	GEN-DAT	indirective
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3non-hum]	?
OBJ	*	OBJ	?
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum.non-top]	indirective
OBJ	OBJ	GEN-DAT	indirective
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum.top]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum.top]	indirective
OBJ	OBJ	GEN-DAT	indirective

Table 32:

Alignment of person P/T/G flagging in Yakima Sahaptin, trivalent verb class 5 (derived causative) and bivalent verb class II.

Comparative triads			Alignment
P argument with its co-argument	T argument with its co-arguments	G argument with its co-arguments
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G₂]	G₁ [with A₃ and T₂]	secundative
GEN-DAT	OBJ	GEN-DAT	secundative
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3non-hum]	?
GEN-DAT	*	GEN-DAT	?
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum.non-top]	secundative
GEN-DAT	OBJ	GEN-DAT	secundative
P₁ [with A₃]	T₁ [with A₃ and G_3hum.top]	G₁ [with A₃ and T_3hum.top]	secundative
GEN-DAT	OBJ	GEN-DAT	secundative
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3non-hum]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3non-hum]	?
GEN-DAT	*	OBJ	?
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum.non-top]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum.non-top]	secundative
GEN-DAT	OBJ	GEN-DAT	secundative
P₁ [with A₂]	T₁ [with A₂ and G_3hum.top]	G₁ [with A₂ and T_3hum.top]	secundative
GEN-DAT	OBJ	GEN-DAT	secundative

Published Online: 2016-5-10

Published in Print: 2016-5-1

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0010

Keywords for this article

ditransitives; alignment; non-canonical marking; hierarchical agreement; Sahaptian