Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, LINGUISTICS (linguistics.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2016. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited. Please see applicable Privacy Policy and Legal Notice (for details see Privacy Policy).

date: 23 October 2017

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Summary and Keywords

The non–Pama-Nyugan, Tangkic languages were spoken until recently in the southern Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. The most extensively documented are Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta. Their phonology is notable for its opaque, word-final deletion rules and extensive word-internal sandhi processes. The morphology contains complex relationships between sets of forms and sets of functions, due in part to major historical refunctionalizations, which have converted case markers into markers of tense and complementization and verbal suffixes into case markers. Syntactic constituency is often marked by inflectional concord, resulting frequently in affix stacking. Yukulta in particular possesses a rich set of inflection-marking possibilities for core arguments, including detransitivized configurations and an inverse system. These relate in interesting ways historically to argument marking in Lardil and Kayardild. Subordinate clauses are marked for tense across most constituents other than the subject, and such tense marking is also found in main clauses in Lardil and Kayardild, which have lost the agreement and tense-marking second-position clitic of Yukulta. Under specific conditions of co-reference between matrix and subordinate arguments, and under certain discourse conditions, clauses may be marked, on all or almost all words, by complementization markers, in addition to inflection for case and tense.

Keywords: Tangkic, Lardil, Kayardild, Yukulta, phonology, morphology, morphosyntax, syntax

The non–Pama-Nyugan, Tangkic languages of northern Australia traditionally were spoken in the southern Gulf of Carpentaria, on the small Wellesley Island group and the adjacent, low-lying mainland. The customary family tree (Evans, 2005) is shown in Figure 1. A more recent proposal (Memmott, Round, Rosendahl, & Ulm, 2016), featuring a major prehistoric contact event, is shown in Figure 2 (see also Section 7). Most extensively studied are Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta (aka Gangalidda). Less well studied is Yangkaal (aka Yangkaralda), for which some documentation exists, and Yangarella and Nguburindi, for which only lexical lists are available. Memmott et al. (2016) report the existence of an additional variety, recorded but not originally identified by Sandra Keen in 1969, which may continue Yangarella, though it was referred to by its speakers as Gangalidda. With the passing of the last fluent speaker of classical Kayardild in 2015, the Tangkic languages are no longer spoken in their classical forms.

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and YukultaClick to view larger

Figure 1. Tangkic Family Tree (after Evans, 2005)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and YukultaClick to view larger

Figure 2. Tangkic Family Tree (after Memmott et al., 2016)

Major published descriptions are Hale (1973), Klokeid (1976), Hale (1996), and Leman (1996) on Lardil; Evans (1992), Evans (1995a), and Round (2013) on Kayardild; and Keen (1972, 1983), Round (2014), and Nancarrow (2014) on Yukulta. Richards (2001) describes the post-classical variety of New Lardil. Major archival resources are Ken Hale’s (1960a–b, 1979) fieldnotes at the Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Islander Studies (AIATSIS) in Canberra, Australia; Sandra Keen’s (1968, 1969a–b, 1970a–e) recordings and notes at AIATSIS; Nick Evans’s (1982–1998) recordings at AIATSIS; Stephen Wurm’s (1960) Kayardild recordings at AIATSIS; and Erich Round’s (2005, 2007) recordings at the Endangered Languages Archive. This article draws from published and archival materials to describe the classical languages. The focus is on Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta, for which the most evidence is available, and, within those languages, on the phonology and morphosyntax.

Tangkic phonology is notable for its word-final deletion rules and extensive word-internal sandhi processes. The morphology contains complex relationships between sets of forms and sets of functions, due in large part to major historical refunctionalizations which have converted case markers into markers of tense and complementization and verbal suffixes into case markers. Syntactic constituency is often marked by inflectional concord, resulting frequently in affix stacking (or Suffixaufnahme). The languages are primarily if not exclusively suffixing, and the morphology is largely agglutinative. Argument alignment is nominative–accusative in Lardil, Kayardild, and Yangkaal, but more complex in Yukulta, where a basic alignment of ergative–absolutive is supplemented with a detransitivised frame and an inverse system. These additional systems in Yukulta show interesting historical relationships to the nominative–accusative systems of Lardil and Kayardild. Word order in Tangkic langauges is fixed in determiner phrases (DPs) but otherwise free within a given clause. A system of complementization marking tracks co-reference and pivot relationships between main and subordinate clauses. In Lardil in Kayardild, main clause tense is marked not only on verbs but across the majority of non-subject DPs; in all Tangkic languages, this is true in subordinate clauses.

1 Phonology

Phonemic inventories of the Tangkic languages, in Table 1, are unremarkable in the Australian context (Baker, 2014; Busby, 1980). All languages contrast six places of articulation, with stops and nasals at each, no phonemic fricatives, two semivowels, an alveolar trill, an alveolar lateral /l/ and a retroflex approximant /ɻ/. In Lardil, Kayardild, and Yangkaal, the retroflex lateral [ɭ] is an allophone of /ɻ/; in Yukulta it is a distinct phoneme, though the functional load of the contrast is low. All languages contrast long and short vowels. The Southern languages contrast three vowel qualities, /i,a,u/; Lardil adds a fourth, /æ/.

Table 1 Consonant Phonemes

Labial

Apical

Laminal

Dorsal

alveolar

retroflex

dental

prepalatal

Obstruents

p

t

ʈ

c

k

Nasals

m

n

ɳ

ɲ

ŋ

Trill

r

Laterals

l

ɭ

Approximant

ɻ

Semivowels

w

j

Note: (*) /ɭ/ is distinctive only in Yukulta.

The phonotactics of Tangkic languages are also unremarkable in the Australian context (Dixon, 1980; Hamilton, 1996). All syllables have simple onsets, and thus all words begin with a consonant. As typical in Australia, the apical contrast between alveolars and retroflexes is neutralized in word-initial position (Butcher, 1995). Consonant clusters have a strictly non-rising sonority profile with the exception in Lardil of the cluster /cm/, which has arisen recently through paradigm leveling of the origin suffix to /-mæːn/, where previously it was */-pæːn/ after /c/. The tendency identified by Hamilton (1996), for place of articulation in Australian languages to be ordered within clusters, as Apical > Laminal > Velar > Labial, is strictly obeyed in all Tangkic languages. Words in Lardil may end with Apical consonants or vowels; in all Southern Tangkic languages, words end in vowels (modulo the effects of vowel deletions which apply utterance-finally only). Despite these word-final generalizations, many lexical stems in Tangkic end in consonants, including non-apicals. Stems in Tangkic languages are either thematic or athematic. Thematic stems all end with a thematic element, one of the two laminal stops /t̪/ or /c/, while athematics may end with vowels, or non-labial consonants or clusters as in (1). In Lardil, the inherited stem-final */t̪, c/ contrast has neutralized to a /t̪ ~ c/ alternation conditioned by the following vowel, and stem-final */ɲ, n/ has neutralized entirely to /n/.

(1)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

All Tangkic languages augment at least some words with a /(C)a/ element referred to by Round (2013) as the ‘termination.’ The conditions under which it appears and comparisons between bare stems and corresponding augmented forms are indicated in Table 2.

Table 2. Stems Augmented by the Tangkic ‘Termination’

Length & final segment of stem

Example bare stem

Augmented

Lardil

Kayardild

Yukulta

monomoriac

r

‘thigh’

ʈær/ʈar

ʈær-a

ʈar-a

ʈar-a

{l, n}

‘tip/edge’

mil

mil-ta

mil-ta

mil-ta

{ɻ/ɭ, ɳ}

‘hand’

maɻ/maɭ

maɻ-ʈa

maɻ-ʈa

maɭ-ʈa

{t̪, c}

‘wood’

ɲuc/ŋic

ɲu-ta

ŋi-ta

ŋi-ta

ŋ

‘speech’

kaŋ

kaŋ-ka

kaŋ-ka

kaŋ-ka

k

‘oven’

walk

wal-ka

wal-ka

wal-ka

i

‘3sg’

ɳi

ɳi-ja

ɳi-ja

ɳi-ja

a

‘foot’

ca

ca-a

ca-(ɻ)a

ca-ɻa

u

‘fat’

ɻu/ɭu

ɻu-wa

ɻu-ɻa

ɭu-ɻa

polymoraic

r

‘stone’

kamar

n/a

kamar-a

kamar-a

{l,n}

‘tooth’

ʈaman

n/a

ʈaman-ta

ʈaman-ta

{ɻ/ɭ, ɳ}

‘spark’

miɳmiɳ

n/a

miɳmiɳ-ʈa

miɳmiɳ-ʈa

{t̪, c}

‘mosquito’

ŋirŋut̪

n/a

ŋirŋu-ta

ŋirŋu-ta

{ŋ, k}

‘together’

t̪at̪uŋ

n/a

t̪at̪uŋ-ka

t̪at̪uŋ-ka

bimoraic

i

‘twig’

ciɳʈi

n/a

ciɳʈi(-ja)

ciɳʈi(-ja)

a

‘man’

ʈaŋka

n/a

ʈaŋka-a

ʈaŋka(-ɻa)

u

‘woman’

maku

n/a

maku(-wa)

maku(-wa)

>bimoraic

i

‘husband’

ʈirkuli

n/a

ʈirkuli(-ja)

ʈirkuli

a

‘what’

ŋaːka

n/a

ŋaːka

ŋaːka

u

‘woomera’

muruku

n/a

muruku(-wa)

muruku

The termination in Lardil has been accounted for in terms of phonological epenthesis (McCarthy & Prince, 1993). Keen (1983) and Evans (1995a) analyze it in Yukulta and Kayardild as meaningful suffix, whereas Round (2013) argues that in Kayardild, it is best analyzed as a meaningless suffix with several phonologically and morphologically conditioned allomorphs. In all of the languages, the form of the termination is at least partly sensitive to the mora count of it base (Wilkinson, 1988). In Lardil, the termination occurs only after monomoraic bases. In Yukulta it is obligatory on all monomoraic and all consonant-final bases; on bimoraic vowel-final bases it is optional. In Kayardild, /a/-final bases take the termination only if mono- or bimoraic.

In Lardil, the use of the termination to create bimoraic words from monomoraic bases can be seen as one of several strategies which ensure a minimal word size of two morae. Others include the non-operation of vowel deletion rules if they would reduce a word below two morae (2), the appearance of a default tense suffix /-a/ only on monomoraic verb stems (3), and vowel lengthening in monomoraic verb stems when nominalized (4) or reduplicated (5), where the latter pattern suggests a recursive prosodic word structure [[stem]-stem] in which each prosodic word is minimally bimoraic.

(2)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(3)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(4)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(5)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Word minimality effects are apparent diachronically in Southern Tangkic but less so synchronically. For example, in historically monomoraic verb stems, the vowel has lengthened in Yukulta and Kayardild (6). Synchronically in Kayardild, however, utterance-final vowel deletion can create monomoraic words (7) (consonants in Tangkic languages are nonmoraic, as evidenced by conditions on the appearance of the termination).

(6)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(7)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Turning to productive phonological alternations, all Tangkic languages show extensive word-internal sandhi phenomena. At morph boundaries, two main types of cluster reduction occur (indicated by ‘+’ and ‘-‘, respectively, in examples below). The first involves the deletion of suffix-initial segments to avoid illict clusters as in (8), as well as a common Australian pattern (Round, 2010a, 2011a) of spontaneous lenitions of stops to semivowels or zero, when flanked by continuants (9) but not when adjacent to an occlusive (10). In Southern Tangkic languages, /k/ is palatalized to [c] following /ɲ/ (11).

(8)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(9)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(10)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(11)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

In the second type of cluster reduction, suffix-initial segments are preserved and base-finals are often lost (12). In addition, base-final /ŋ/ is always deleted, even if its retention would yield a licit cluster such as [ŋk] (13), and likewise in Southern Tangkic, even though clusters such as [ɲp, ɲm] are licit, base-final /ɲ/ is apicalized to /n/ (14) (compare the historical complete neutralization of final */ɲ/ to /n/ in Lardil, mentioned above). These base-final consonantal changes cannot be motivated in terms of permissible output clusters, but the same changes are also found word-finally (see below), suggesting that historically they continue old, word-final phonology. This is plausible given that compounds in Tangkic almost all undergo only the second type of cluster reduction.

(12)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(13)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(14)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

All Tangkic languages exhibit word-final deletions of non-apical consonants and at least historical evidence of the deletion of utterance-final /a/. In Lardil, word-final non-coronals are always deleted (Hale, 1973) as in (15). In Southern Tangkic this applies only to certain suffixes (Round, 2009) as in (16), since in most instances, non-coronal deletion is blocked by the presence of the termination (Table 2). Word-final laminals may delete (17); in Lardil they may also be apicalized (18), with the choice between these two processes being predominantly lexically determined (Round, 2011b). Like non-coronal deletion, laminal deletion is typically blocked in Southern Tangkic by the presence of the termination (Table 2). It is interesting to note that when it is affixed to a laminal-final stem, the termination itself causes apicalization of the stem final consonant. The precise historical connection between word-final apicalization and the termination is unclear, but see Round (2010b) for discussion.

(15)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(16)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(17)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(18)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

The final thematics /t̪, c/ of thematic stems are only ever deleted when they are word-final, and never apicalized (19). Lardil word-final apical stops /t, ʈ/ sonorize to [r, ɻ]; this applies after apicalization, as in (18).

(19)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

In utterance-final position, the low vowel /a/ is deleted obligatorially in Kayardild and optionally in Yangkaal and for some speakers of Yukulta, as in (20). In Lardil, final vowel deletion has become generalized to all vowel qualities and operates not only utterance-finally but word-finally (21). Deletion will not operate if its effect would be to reduce a word to one mora (22). Vowel deletion feeds, but is not fed by (23), rules of cluster simplification (24) and non-coronal consonant deletion (25) (Hale, 1973; Kavitskaya & Staroverov, 2010). Table 3 shows that the same feeding relationship operated historically in Kayardild, but at utterance edges only. In modern Kayardild, the direction of feeding has reversed (26).

(20)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(21)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(22)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(23)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(24)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(25)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(26)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Table 3. Pre-Kayardild Utterance-Final V Deletion Feeds C Deletion; Then Leveling

Stage I

Stage II (leveling)

Non-final

Final

Non-final

Final

‘big’

*cuŋarpa

*cuŋar

cuŋar(p)a

cuŋar(p)

past tense

*-arpa

*-ar

-ara

-ar

ablative

*-naba

*-na

-na

-na

Lardil’s word-final high vowels /i, u/ undergo lowering to [æ, a]. Because of vowel deletion, however, this is predominantly visible only in bimoraic words (27). Under the right conditions, though, its effects are also detectable in longer words. The Tangkic locative */+ki/, which idiosyncratically escapes vowel deletion in Lardil, has become */+kæ/ (and later /-ŋæ/ due to progressive nasalization), as in (28).

(27)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(28)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

In addition, several historical, but synchronically unanalyzable, locatives retain not /+kæ/ or /-ŋæ/ but /+ki/ (Round, 2011b) as in (29), including inherited Tangkic palatalization in (29b).

(29)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

This suggests the following. Lardil vowel deletion was originally restricted to underlying /a/ in utterance-final position. As in pre-Kayardild (Table 4), it fed the kinds of word-final consonant deletion rules found in all Tangkic languages (15)–(19). Next, in pre-Lardil, utterance-final /i, u/ lowered to [æ, a], whereupon new utterance-final [a] vowels derived from /u/ were deleted along with original underlying /a/ vowels. By this stage, /i/ was lowering to [æ] only utterance-finally, and was not deleting; some forms were leveled, restoring their utterance-final [i] vowels. Later, utterance-final [æ] also succumbed to deletion, yielding a general, utterance-final vowel deletion rule along with a rule of vowel lowering in bimoraic words, both with lexical exceptions due to historical levelings. The vowel of the locative suffix most likely did not delete utterance-finally, since if it had, locative inflections would be indistinguishable from uninflected forms (30). Finally, these utterance-final rules with their lexical exceptions were generalized to utterance-internal positions to produce the system of modern Lardil.

(30)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

There is evidence that in proto-Tangkic a subset of word-final /a/ vowels alternated with [u] (Round, 2011b). In Lardil, these continue to alternate and escape final deletion (31). In Southern Tangkic they descend as /a/ or /u/ (32).

(31)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(32)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

In Lardil, the final vowels of uninflected verb stems do not delete. Klokeid (1976) argues that their non-deletion is due to the underlying presence of a stem-final thematic /c/, which itself is subject to consonant deletion (33). The thematic also appears in reduplicated forms (5) if it creates a licit cluster with the next consonant. In Kayardild, the thematic consonant always appears and is followed by an additional /a/ in the unmarked tense (34); in Yukulta it is optionally deleted or followed by /a/ (35).

(33)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(34)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(35)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Klokeid (1976) demonstrates that Lardil’s word-final processes apply not only to bare stems but to inflections also, as in (36). The derivations in (36) also show the effects of ‘attrition,’ a late rule that optionally or obligatorily deletes final apicals /n, r, ɻ/ from suffixes and a few high-frequency lexical items.

(36)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Lardil possesses a distinctive pattern of phrasal-like compounding of /ʈaŋka/ ‘person’ with a preceding element, where augmentation, and sometimes other word-final processes, apply first to the individual elements, and then again to the combined form /X+ʈaŋka/, resulting in the loss of final /ŋka/. Some examples are shown in (37). Example (37c) shows nasalization of /n=t/ to [n], which occurs in accusative forms of these compounds; in (37d), /rʈ/ simplifies to [t] (since neither [rʈ] nor [rt] are permissible surface clusters in Tangkic languages), and (37e) contains an additional, idiosyncratic nasalization of /ŋk /to [ŋ].

(37)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Several synchronic alternations exist in Tangkic languages, where in place of an otherwise-expected vowel plus [(j)i], one finds a single long or short vowel, reflecting the pre-proto Tangkic monophthongizations in Table 4(a), as in (38). In their modern synchronic forms, the monophthongized alternant can also appear as (b–d). In many cases, the synchronic alternation is fed by productive (39) or historical (40) consonant deletions.

Table 4. Reflexes of Pre-Proto Tangkic Monophthongization

Pre-proto Tangkic

*ai

*ui

*ii

Original change

(a)

Later changes

(b)

a

i

i

(c)

(d)

a

u

i

(38)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(39)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(40)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

2 Morphosyntax

In Tangkic languages, as in many of Australia’s languages (Nordlinger, 2014), much of the syntactic structure of sentences is reflected not in word order, but in words’ inflectional morphology. Broadly speaking, the Tangkic languages can be classed as dependent-marking (Nichols, 1986). In particular, inflectional features often take scope over a syntactic constituent such as DP or VP, within which all words inflect overtly for that feature. For example, in (41) the final two words represent one DP embedded in another.

(41)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

The word marunnganku in the lower DP inflects for genitive case (glossed on the lowest line as gen), and all words in the matrix DP—including marunnganku in the lower DP—inflect for instrumental case (ins). Consequently, the Tangkic languages are well known for their Suffixaufnahme (Evans, 1995b; Richards, 2013), that is, the ability of a single word to accrue inflectional markings for multiple features, associated with multiple syntactic nodes that dominate the word. The closely knit topics of morphology and syntax are examined in the subsequent sections.

Here and below, sentences are cited in the language’s orthography on the first line; words are in their underlying phonological forms, divided into morphs on the second; they are glossed in terms of comparative morphological categories on the third line (see further, Section 3); and the final line glosses grammatical roles (see further, Section 5).

3 Stems and Inflectional Markers

Fully inflected words in Tangkic languages consist of a lexical stem followed by zero or more inflectional suffixes and potentially end with a termination (see Section 1). In Lardil, verbs stems may also be prefixed with a small set of aspectual markers such as perfective /ju:t-/. Because Tangkic words often contain multiple layers of inflection, it is useful when considering how words are pieced together to distinguish morphologically between lexical stems (prior to any inflection) and inflected stems, which themselves may serve as bases for more inflection. In all Tangkic languages, all stems, whether lexical or inflected, can be classed as either thematic, in which case they will end underlyingly in one of the thematic elements /c/ or /t̪/, or athematic, in which case the may end phonologically in a vowel or one of the consonants or clusters in (1).

Inflectional features may sometimes take scope over a syntactic constituent which contains both thematic and athematic stems, in which case the inflectional forms that appear on the two stem types may differ. In (42) a Yukulta subordinate clause (shown in square brackets) is inflected for past tense. The thematic stem /kurkat̪-/ inflects with /+ŋarpa/, while the athematic stem /mijaɭ/ inflects with /+kinapa/.

(42)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

While all stems, whether lexical or inflected, must be classed as thematic or athematic, only the lexical stems have a syntactic word class, such as noun, verb, adjective, which determines a word’s potential distribution in a sentence. This difference is worth bearing in mind, since historically speaking, all thematic stems descend from etymological verb stems and all athematic stems from etymological nominal stems. However, the historical match between word class and thematicity has been disrupted in all of the modern Tangkic languages. For example, certain case-inflected stems of nouns will be thematic—that is, etymologically but not synchronically verbal—as in (43), where the stem jumud- ‘coolamon’ bears the thematic case marker ‑marij-tr_all’ and thus inflects like the verb stem ngudij- ‘swear at,’ not like the direct object, kabilwa- ‘grass seeds.’

(43)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Mostly, it is in inflected stems where the nexus between historical word class and thematicity breaks down. In the Southern Tangkic languages, all lexical stems maintain a complete match so that all verbal lexical stems are thematic and all nominal and adjectival lexical stems are athematic. In Lardil, however, there are mismatches even at the lexical level. Two lexical verb stems, /kaŋ-/ ‘say, tell’ and /ɻik-/ ‘cry,’ descend from nouns and thus are athematic; and the verb ‘to go’ has two stems, /waːŋ-/ (athematic) and /waŋic-/ (thematic).

The inflectional systems of Tangkic languages are striking for their use and re-use of the same suffixal forms, and sets of form alternants, for multiple functions. Round (2011c, 2013, 2015a) argues, based on Kayardild, that this systematic tethering of sets of forms to entire sets of functions is ‘morphomic’ in the sense of Aronoff (1994) and that these units are ‘meromorphomes’ (Round, 2015a, 2016). For expository purposes here, it will be practical to refer to what Hartwig (2014) has called in Tangkic ‘comparative morphomic categories.’ These are sets of forms, each of which can be identified across the Tangkic family, and each of which has some set of functions in each language. Following Hartwig, we will assign to each such set a label beginning with x, for example, xdat for the set of forms in Table 5. The ‘dat’ of xdat refers to the likely, original function of the form set in proto Tangkic, namely as a marker of proto Tangkic dative case. These category labels, which aid the comparison of forms across the Tangkic languages, appear in the third line of sentence glosses.

Table 5. Sets of Forms and Functions of the Comparative Category xdat

Underlying allomorph, after

Inflectional functions

C

Front V

Back V

Lardil

acc case, comp

-in̪t̪a

-in̪t̪a

-in̪t̪a

Kayardild

obl case, several tenses, comp

-iɲca

-ɲca

-n̪t̪a

Yukulta

dat case, comp

-iɲca

-ɲca

-n̪t̪a

Other comparative morphomic categories and their underlying forms are listed in Table 6. Note that when the xloc and xdat appear together, they have a suppletive, cumulative form glossed xdat:loc and listed in the last line of Table 6.

Table 6. Forms and Ranges of Functions of Some Other Comparative Categories

Underlying allomorphs

Category

Inflectional functions

L.

K.

Y.

xloc

case, tense, comp

+ki, +kæ, -ŋæ

+ki

+ki

xprop

case, tense

+kuɻu

+kuɻu, +kuu

+kuɭu

xpriv

case, polarity

+wæri, -weri

+wari, -wari

+wari, -wari

xappr

mood

-mæra

-ɲara

-mara

xdat:loc

as for {xdat + xloc}

+kur, +kir

+kurka

+kurka

Tables 5 and 6 list allomorphs in their underlying phonological forms. Typically, surface allomorphy is also rather similar across the Tangkic languages, due to shared sandhi processes, as seen in Table 7. In some cases, however, the accumulation of historical changes in phonological systems and morphological leveling have produced substantial differences, as in Table 8.

Table 7. Surface Allomorphs of xprop, Which Are Similar Across the Languages

Inflected with xprop

Stem

L.

K.

Y.

‘stick’

t̪uŋal

t̪uŋalu(ɻ)

t̪uŋalu(ɻu)

t̪uŋaluɭu

‘mosquito’

ŋinŋic, ŋirŋut̪

ŋinŋit̪u(ɻ)

ŋirŋut̪u(ɻu)

ŋirŋut̪uɭu

‘rain’

wun

wunku(ɻ)

wunku(ɻu)

wunkuɭu

‘branch’

ciɳʈi

ciɳʈiwu(ɻ)

ciɳʈiwu(ɻu)

ciɳʈiwuɭu

‘sea’

mæla, mala

mæla(ɻ)

malawu(ɻu)

malawuɭu

‘woomera’

muruku

muruku(ɻ)

murukuwuɻu

murukuɭu

Table 8. Surface Allomorphs of xloc, Which Have Diverged in Lardil

Inflected with xloc (+termination)

Stem

L.

K.

Y.

‘stick’

t̪uŋal

t̪uŋalæ

t̪uŋali(ja)

t̪uŋali

‘mosqito’

ŋinŋic, ŋirŋut̪

ŋinŋicæ

ŋirŋut̪i(ja)

ŋirŋut̪i

‘rain’

wun

wunŋæ

wunki(ja)

wunki

‘branch’

ciɳʈi

ciɳʈiː

ciɳʈi(ja)

ciɳʈija

‘sea’

mæla, mala

mælaː

malaja

malaja

‘woomera’

muruku

murukuː

murukuja

murukuja

One rather complex set is xobl. This was likely the marker of the genitive on full nouns and genitive/dative on pronouns at some point in pre-proto Tangkic and appears to have begun splintering into distinct forms and functions by the time of proto Tangkic. The original xobl affix */+paɲ/ would have had typical, productive allomorphs including some with lenited initial /w/ and some with deleted final /ɲ/ (see Section 1). In the modern languages, its functions have diverged, each taking with it certain allomorphs, and in some cases adding additional markers to a base built with xobl. For example, the genitive of full nouns in all Tangkic languages now involves a reflex of an additional suffix, */-karaɲ/, which either follows a /+pa/ variant of xobl or attaches directly to the stem as in (44).

(44)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Meanwhile, a lengthened variant of the xobl */pa:ɲ/ has become a marker of the origin case in Kayardild and Lardil as in (45). In Kayardild, the lenited allomorph /wa:ɲ/ has been generalized to all positions. In Lardil, a post-nasal allomorph, in which */p/ was nasalized to /m/, has been generalized to all positions.

(45)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Tangkic languages all have three main sets of pronominal stems, distinguishing three persons, three numbers, and inclusive/exclusive. To aid comparisons across the languages, it will be useful to assign labels to the three pronominal stem types. The ‘basic’ stem (Table 9) consists of a person–number root which is followed in Yukulta and Kayardild by the termination, and in Lardil by either the termination or nothing or by the xloc marker /+ki/.

Table 9. ‘Basic’ Series of Pronominal Stems (Harmonic in Lardil)

Surface form

Underlying

sg

du

pl

sg

du

pl

1incl

L

ŋakuri

ŋakuli

ŋa-ku-r+ki

ŋa-ku-l+ki

Y, K

ŋakura

ŋakulta

ŋa-ku-r-ta

ŋa-ku-l-ta

1excl

L

ŋata

ɲari

ɲali

ŋata

ɲa-r+ki

ɲa-l+ki

Y, K

ŋata

ŋara

ŋalta

ŋat̪-ta

ŋa-r-ta

ŋa-l-ta

2

L

ɲiŋki

kiri

kili

ɲiŋ+ki

ki-r+ki

ki-l+ki

Y, K

ɲiŋka

kira

kilta

ɲiŋ-ka

ki-r+ta

ki-l+ta

3

L

ɳija

piri

pili

ɳi-a

pi-r+ki

pi-l+ki

Y, K

ɳija

pira

pilta

ɳi-a

pi-r+ta

pi-l+ta

The ‘genitive’ stem (Table 10) consists in most cases of the same person–number root as the basic stem, followed by a reflex of xobl */+paɲ/. This stem serves also as a base for most other oblique pronoun forms.

Table 10. ‘Genitive’ Series of Pronominal Stems (Harmonic in Lardil)

sg

du

pl

sg

du

pl

1incl

L

ŋakurwæn

ŋakulwæn

ŋa-ku-r+pæn

ŋa-ku-l+ pæn

Y

ŋakuruwaɲ

ŋakuluwaɲ

ŋa-ku-ru+paɲ

ŋa-ku-lu+paɲ

K

ŋakurwaɲ

ŋakul(u)waɲ

ŋa-ku-r+paɲ

ŋa-ku-l(u)+paɲ

1excl

L

ŋit̪un

ɲarwæn

ɲalwæn

ŋit̪un

ɲa-r+pæn

ɲa-l+pæn

Y

ŋiciɲ

ŋarawaɲ

ŋalawaɲ

ŋiciɲ

ŋa-ra+paɲ

ŋa-la+paɲ

K

ŋiciɲ

ŋar(a)waɲ

ŋal(a)waɲ

ŋiciɲ

ŋa-r(a)+paɲ

ŋa-l(a)+paɲ

2

L

ŋimpæn

kirwæn

kilwæn

ɳiŋ+pæn

ki-r+pæn

ki-l+pæn

Y

ŋumpaɲ

kirwaɲ

kilwaɲ

ŋuŋ+paɲ

ki-r+paɲ

ki-l+paɲ

K

ŋumpaɲ

kirwaɲ

kil(u)waɲ

ŋuŋ+paɲ

ki-r+paɲ

ki-l(u)+paɲ

3

L

ɳiwæn

pirwæn

pilwæn

ɳi+pæn

pi-r+pæn

pi-l+pæn

Y

ɳiwaɲ

pirwaɲ

pilwaɲ

ɳi+paɲ

pi-r+paɲ

pi-l+paɲ

K

ɳiwaɲ

pirwaɲ

pil(u)waɲ

ɳi+paɲ

pi-r+paɲ

pi-l(u)+paɲ

The ‘dative’ stem (Table 11) is similar to the genitive stem, but bears a reflex of the */+pa/ allomorph of xobl. In Lardil, the dative stem has been historically augmented with a copy of the xdat marker /-in̪t̪a/.

Table 11. ‘Dative’ Series of Pronominal Stems (Harmonic in Lardil)

sg

du

pl

sg

du

pl

1incl

L

ŋakurwæːn

ŋakurwæːn

ŋa-ku-r+pæ-in̪t̪a

ŋa-ku-l+pæ-in̪t̪a

Y

ŋakuruwa

ŋakuruwa

ŋa-ku-ru+pa

ŋa-ku-lu+pa

K

1excl

L

ŋit̪aːn

ɲarwæːn

ɲalwæːn

ŋit̪a-in̪t̪a

ɲa-r+pæ-in̪t̪a

ɲa-l+pæ-in̪t̪a

Y

ŋicu(wa)

ŋarawa

ŋalawa

ŋicu(-a)

ŋa-ra+pa

ŋa-la+pa

K

ŋicu(wa)

ŋar(a)wa

ŋalawa

ŋicu(-a)

ŋa-r(a)+pa

ŋa-la+pa

2

L

ŋimpæːn

kirwæːn

kilwæːn

ɳiŋ+pæ-in̪t̪a

ki-r+pæ-in̪t̪a

ki-l+pæ-in̪t̪a

Y

ŋumpa(ɻa)

kirwa

kilwa

ŋuŋ+pa(-ɻa)

ki-r+pa

ki-l+pa

K

ŋumpaː

kirwa

kiluwa

ŋuŋ+pa-a

ki-r+pa

ki-lu+pa

3

L

ɳiwæːn

pirwæːn

pilwæːn

ɳi+pæ-in̪t̪a

pi-r+pæ-in̪t̪a

pi-l+pæ-in̪t̪a

Y

ɳiwa(ɻa)

pirwa

pilwa

ɳi+pa(-ɻa)

pi-r+pa

pi-l+pa

K

ɳiwaː

pirwa

piluwa

ɳi+pa-a

pi-r+pa

pi-lu+pa

Lardil alone has a special set of non-singular ‘disharmonic’ pronouns (Table 12), used to refer to sets of kin who are separated from one another by an odd number of generations. These pronouns are rather distinct from the other Tangkic pronouns. The duals other than the inclusive appear to be built on person roots plus an augment /-in/; the ‘basic’ series is built on the dative. In the plural, the basic series is built on regular person–number stems plus a suffix /-muŋ/, and the other series are built on it.

Table 12. Lardil Disharmonic Pronominal Stems

Basic

Genitive

Dative

Basic

Genitive

Dative

1du.incl

ŋakuni

ŋakuniŋan

ŋakuniːn

ŋa-ku-niŋ

ŋa-ku-niŋ-kan

ŋa-ku-niŋ-in

1du.excl

ɲaːnki

ɲaːŋan

ɲaːn

ɲa-in+ki

ɲa-in-kan

ɲa-in

2du

ɲiːnki

ɲiːŋan

ɲiːn

ɲiŋ-in+ki

ɲiŋ-in-kan

ɲiŋ-in

3du

ɳiːnki

ɲinŋan

ɲiːn

ɳi-in+ki

ɳi-in-kan

ɳi-in

1pl.incl

ɲakulmu

ɲakulmuŋan

ɲakulmuːn

ŋa-ku-l-muŋ

ŋa-ku-l-muŋ-kan

ŋa-ku-l-muŋ-in

1pl.excl

ɲalmu

ɲalmuŋan

ɲalmuːn

ɲa-l-muŋ

ɲa-l-muŋ-kan

ɲa-l-muŋ-in

2pl

kilmu

kilmuŋan

kilmuːn

ki-l-muŋ

ki-l-muŋ-kan

ki-l-muŋ-in

3pl

pilmu

pilmuŋan

pilmuːn

pi-l-muŋ

pi-l-muŋ-kan

pi-l-muŋ-in

4 Word Order

The word order of Tangkic DPs is fixed, as determiner–adjective–noun, though none of these positions is obligatory and the juxtaposition of DPs is also common (see, further, Round, 2013). Otherwise, word order within the clause is generally free, to the extent that any order is possible under the right discourse conditions (Evans, 1995a; Keen, 1983; Richards, 2013; Round, 2013). Some few exceptions to this freedom can be mentioned. Yukulta question words are typically fronted (46), as are topicalized DPs in Lardil main clauses, as in (47); the topicalized construction is also marked by placing the subject in the genitive case. In Kayardild, use of the particle maarra ‘only’ with predicate scope requires the subject DP to appear in clause-initial position (Round; 2013, p. 209).

(46)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(47)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

5 Simple Sentences with Default Tense

We turn now to case marking on core arguments of main clauses. It will be useful to establish some key concepts at the outset.

I assume that semantic predicates have semantic arguments, such as the more actor-like and less actor-like arguments of the two-place predicate ‘hit.’ Each Tangkic language maps these semantic arguments to certain grammatical roles, key among which are the Transitive Subject role, abbreviated and glossed as TrS; the Transitive Object role (TrO); and the Nontransitive Subject role (NtrS). In addition, goal-like and recipient-like arguments of three-place predicates typically map to a grammatical Goal role (Goal). As we shall see, under certain conditions in Yukulta, arguments of two-place predicates map not to TrS and TrO but to NtrS and Goal, respectively. Lardil and Kayardild typically treat TrS and NtrS equivalently, as a unitary Subject role (Sbj). We will also have occasion to distinguish additional, object-like grammatical roles for Objects of Imperatives (ImpO) and Objects of Inverse Constructions (InvO). Each of these grammatical roles will be interpreted by the morphology and the syntax in certain ways. The treatment of grammatical roles can be affected by additional conditioning factors, such as mood and polarity at the level of the clause or pronominal versus full-nominal encoding at the level of individual arguments.

The perspective assumed below is comparative. My aim will be to highlight parallels between the languages where they exist and to draw out their contrasts. To assist with this, I use comparative labels, namely the grammatical roles introduced above, and comparative morphomic categories such as xdat, rather than the various language-specific labels which have been employed in the literature on individual languages. With these foundations in place, we begin with TrS, NtrS, and TrO in the simplest of clause types.

In Yukulta, the grammar treats TrS, NtrS, and TrO as distinct grammatical roles. The morphological marking assigned to these roles is sensitive to whether the DP filling the role is pronominal or not. In clauses where pronominal and non-pronominal DPs are juxtaposed, for example, ‘[we] [three],’ the pronouns and full nouns will inflect independently of, and potentially differently from, one another. Thus, in the simplest clauses, the TrS role is encoded by xloc marking on full nominals and by the unmarked, basic stem of pronouns. Sentence (48) shows an apposed, basic-stem pronoun gilda and full DP burldamurri in the TrS role.

(48)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

The TrO role is encoded by an inflectionally unmarked full nominal, or a basic stem pronoun, as in (48) and (49). The Nontransitive Subject (NtrS) is likewise encoded by unmarked full nominals and basic-stem pronouns, as in (50). In sum then, full nominals exhibit an ‘ergative–absolutive’ marking pattern and pronouns a ‘neutral’ pattern (Goddard, 1982; Silverstein, 1976).

(49)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(50)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

In both Lardild and Kayardild, the grammar distinguishes a unitary Subject role Sbj, and a Transitive Object role TrO. In clauses with default tense, the Subject in both languages is encoded by no morphological marking on full nouns the basic stem of pronouns, while the Object is encoded with xdat in Lardil (or the dative stem of pronouns) and xloc in Kayardild (including on pronouns). Examples are in (51)–(54).

(51)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(52)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(53)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(54)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

In Yukulta, a Goal role, such as in ditransitive clauses, is marked by xdat on full nominals and by the dative stem of pronouns, as in (55) and (56).

(55)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(56)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

In Lardil, a Goal is marked the same as TrO: by xdat on full nominals (57) and by the dative stem of pronouns. Ditransitives in Kayardild are more diverse (see further, Evans, 1995a, pp. 335ff).

(57)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

In Yukulta, a small class of monotransitive predicates is lexicalized as verbs whose arguments map not to TrS and TrO, but to NtrS and Goal. These are listed in (58), and an example is (59). Interestingly, for these few verbs in Yukulta, the pattern of morphological marking (with subjects unmarked and objects marked by xdat) matches the pattern found on all monotransitives in Lardil.

(58)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(59)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Yukulta also possesses an inverse construction, which applies to fully transitive predicates but not to the semitransitives in (58). It is triggered by specific combinations of subject and object person and number values, namely when second person acts upon first person non-singular, or when third person acts on first or second. Under those conditions, semantic arguments which otherwise would map to TrS and TrO instead map, respectively, to NtrS and a special Inverse Object role, InvO. InvO behaves like Goal with respect to agreement in the clitic complex (60), but receives different inflection on the DP, being marked not by xdat but xloc, including on pronouns, as in (61).

(60)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(61)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

In all Tangkic languages, the Object of Imperative role (ImpO) is treated differently from the usual TrO role. In Lardil and Kayardild, full nominals in the ImpO role are morphologically unmarked (unlike TrO but like Sbj; see above), as in (62) and (63). In Lardil, whose TrO and Goal are marked alike, the imperative Goal is also marked like Sbj (64).

(62)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(63)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(64)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

In Kayardild, pronominal ImpO are optionally marked by xloc (65) and otherwise are encoded by the basic stem. In Lardil, the ImpO role exhibits something of an inverse pattern, as in (66): when ImpO is first person, which is acted upon by a second person imperative subject, it is marked with xdat (it is not known whether this is true of full nominals too). Third person ImpO pronouns in Lardil are encoded by the basic stem (67).

(65)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(66)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(67)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Yukulta possesses a detransitivized construction (Denniss, 2007; Evans, 1995), which is triggered by the use of irrealis mood in the clitic; by negative polarity inflection on verbs (68); or as an option for formulating polite desideratives (69). In the detransitived construction, semantic arguments that otherwise would map to TrS and TrO instead map to NtrS and Goal. Negative imperatives only sometimes trigger the detransitivized construction (70); (71) and negative hortatives do not trigger it (72). When a sentence meets the conditions of both the Yukulta inverse and the Yukulta detransitived construction, the inverse obtains, as in (60) above.

(68)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(69)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(70)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(71)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(72)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

In Yukulta main clauses, a clitic complex appears after the first constituent or, in imperatives, after the verb. It has three main parts (Round, 2014). The first encodes person and number information agreeing with an argument occupying the Goal role; if the Goal is non-singular, then the first part of the clitic also encodes information about the number (but not person) of the TrS or NtrS role. This kind of clitic agreement occurs whether or not the agreement-controlling arguments appear overtly in the clause. The second part of the clitic encodes person and number information agreeing with TrO, TrS, and NtrS; markers corresponding to TrS and NtrS are distinct from one another. The marking itself is largely agglutinative but exhibits a moderate degree of cumulative (i.e., portmanteau) exponence. The third part of the clitic is a tense and mood marker, which Blake (1990) speculates may be all that remains of an ancient inflecting verb. If this is correct, then pre-proto Tangkic may have resembled many northern Australia languages in possessing a verbal predication system in which a small number of inflecting elements combine with a larger set of non-inflecting, semantically richer elements (Bowern, 2014). The Yukulta tense–mood clitic marks present, realis past, irrealis past, or future tense, or imperative mood or hortative (Round, 2014; see also Laughren, 2015).

All Tangkic languages possess a mediopassive verbal infix which derives passive and reflexive verbs from transitives and appears immediately before the thematic element as /-ji-/ or vowel lengthening (see Section 1), or in Yukulta without any form other than to convert a thematic /t̪/ into /c/. Its use in passives is rare in Yukulta, and no examples are known in which the semantic actor-like argument is overtly realized; the semantic patient-like argument maps to the NtrS role as in (73). Passives are more frequently attested in Lardil and Kayardild. In Lardil, full-nominal passive agents are marked, like active TrO, by xdat as in (74). Pronominal passive agents are marked with the genitive stem. In Kayardild several different markers are used for passive agents based on a range of factors including animacy (Evans, 1995a, pp. 350–352); one option, as in (75), is to mark it like an active TrO, in this case, with xloc.

(73)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(74)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(75)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

At least two curious commonalities exist between Transitive Objects and locative DPs. In Kayardild, a TrO is marked by xloc and hence is inflectionally just like a locative. It is also possible in Kayardild to promote locative DPs to the Sbj role in passives as in (76); see Round (2013, pp. 146–150) for further parallels. In Lardil, locatives in negative imperative sentences may optionally be marked not with xloc but xdat (77), not unlike objects in the detransitivised, negative clauses of Yukulta. Locatives in Lardil and Kayardild also inflect for marked tense, as does TrO (see Section 6).

(76)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(77)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Beyond TrS, NtrS, TrO, and Goal, each Tangkic language has a rich set of grammatical roles encoded by semantic cases, many of which are thematic, which is to say they are derived historically from verbs or verbalizing derivational suffixes, such as Yukulta’s /‑wakic/ as in (78); see Evans (1995a, pp. 163–183) and Round (2013, pp. 181–189) for discussion of their synchronic analysis in Kayardild.

(78)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

6 Complex Sentences and Marked Tense Clauses

Let us turn next to complex sentences and clauses with non-default, or ‘marked,’ tenses. We begin with tense marking in subordinate clauses.

In Lardil, Yukulta, and Kayardild, subordinate clauses may be marked with three tenses, which typically are interpreted relative to the tense of the matrix clause: future (79), simultaneous (80), and past (81). In all languages, this tense inflection is marked on most if not all words in the clause bar the subject (if one is overtly present). Subordinate future tense is marked by xprop; simultaneous by xloc; and past by xpast in Lardil, or in Southern Tangkic languages by xpast on thematic stems and xabl on athematics.

(79)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(80)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(81)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Other subordinate clauses include apprehensives, which express events to be feared or avoided (see Blake, 1987, p. 136; Dixon, 1980, p. 380); desideratives; and in the Southern Tangkic languages, purpose-of-movement clauses. Apprehensive clauses are marked by xappr on thematic stems and on athematics by xprop in Lardil (82), by xdat in Yukulta, and by either in Kayardild. Desideratives are marked by xdes on thematic stems and xdat on thematics (83). A common use of subordinate clause desideratives is in sequential imperatives, which is their only surviving use in Lardil (84). Movement purpose clauses are marked by xall on both stem types (85). The basic three tenses are also used with certain extended senses, such as past tense for conditional protases, and future tense for desires, potentials, and commands.

(82)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(83)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(84)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(85)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

In both Lardil and Kayardild, most of the Tangkic patterns of subordinate clause marking are also available for use in main clauses, with inflectional marking appearing on most non-subject constituents of the clause. In such main clauses, tense is interpreted absolutely, rather than relatively. Examples are the future marked by xprop as in (86); past marked by xpast (and in Kayardild on athematic stems by xabl), as in (87); and apprehensive marked by xappr on thematic stems, and on athematics by xprop (and in Kayardild also by xdat), as in (88). The simultaneous does not occur in Lardil main clauses. In Kayardild it is rare (89). Kayardild possesses several other, innovative types of main-clause tense in addition (Evans, 1995a; Round, 2013).

(86)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(87)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(88)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(89)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

The presence of these ‘marked tense’ main clauses sets Kayardild and Lardil apart from Yukulta, which lacks them and instead marks main clause tense in its clitic. Evans (1995a) proposes that the marked tense main clauses of Kayardild and Lardil arose historically via the ‘insubordination’ in discourse of originally subordinate clauses. Insubordination is attested even in Yukulta, as in (90) (McConvell, 1981; Round, 2014). Yukulta also makes use of the desiderative in main clauses, as in (69).

(90)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

In all Tangkic languages, subordinate clauses may receive an additional layer of inflectional marking, which can be termed ‘complementization,’ following Evans (1995a). Complementization markers appear on each word of the subordinate clause, outside of all other case and tense marking. The conditions on complementization, and its exact morphological markings, are interestingly different in the three languages, though in all cases it relates to the nature of syntactic pivots in matrix–subordinate clause pairs, or to discourse-level topics, or similar. Like the discussion above, the presentation to follow will be comparative, with similarities and contrasts highlighted through the use of a small set of comparative classifications of complementization strategies, named mnemonically after their syntactic, pivot-based behaviour in Yukulta (and likely also in proto Tangkic): xErgative, xAbsolutive, and xOblique.

In Yukulta, the choice of complementization strategy is determined by the grammatical role in the matrix clause of a syntactic pivot, which in the lower clause is Sbj. If the lower Sbj is co-referential with the matrix TrS, then the entire subordinate clause is marked by xloc, as in (91). The xloc marker of complementization is the same as the xloc used to mark matrix clause TrS DPs, and we may refer to this complementization strategy as the xErgative strategy. In the xErgative, the Sbj pivot in the subordinate clause is obligatory covert.

(91)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

If the subordinate Sbj pivot is co-referential with the matrix TrO or NtrS (including derived NtrS arguments), then the subordinate clause has no complementization marking, as in (80), just as matrix TrO and NtrS DPs have no marking. We can refer to this strategy as xAbsolutive. As in the xErgative, the subordinate Sbj pivot is covert.

If the subordinate Sbj pivot is co-referential with neither the matrix Subject nor the matrix Object, then complementization is marked by xdat, as in (92), which we may refer to as the xOblique strategy. This strategy is used when there is no co-reference between clauses, as in (93), and also as in (94), when the lower Sbj is co-referential with a matrix Inverse Object (even though matrix Inverse Objects are themselves marked with xloc). Subordinate subjects in the xOblique may be overt, as in (92) and (93). Note also that in (94), the marker /+kurka/ cumulatively realizes both xloc (marking simultaneous tense) and xdat (complementization).

(92)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(93)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(94)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

A summary of Yukulta’s complementization strategies is shown in Table 13. This will provide a useful point of reference as we move to the more complex systems of Lardil and Kayardild.

Table 13. Complementization Strategies in Yukulta

xErgative

xAbsolutive

xOblique

Roles

Subordinate

Sbj

Sbj

Sbj

Matrix

TrS

NtrS/TrO

Goal/other/none

Marking

Subord. pivot

covert

covert

xdat

Matrix pivot

xloc

none

various

Subord. comp

xloc

none

xdat

In order to discuss complementization in Lardil and Kayardild, it will be useful to recall first the difference between core argument marking in these languages vis-à-vis Yukulta. In Yukulta, full-nominal TrS and NtrS are marked differently, by xloc and by no marker, respectively. In both Lardil and Kayardild, a single Sbj category is unmarked. It would be unsurprising, therefore, to find the complementization strategies of Yukulta ‘shifted’ in Lardil and Kayardild, such that xErgative is unused (or perhaps repurposed), and such that xAbsolutive shifts its focus from the unmarked matrix NtrS/TrO arguments to the unmarked matrix Sbj. Also, Lardil marks its matrix TrO arguments like Yukulta’s matrix Goal arguments, with xdat, thus we might expect the xOblique complementization strategy to shift focus in Lardil onto the matrix TrO function. Indeed, this turns out to be true, though with additional complications.

In Lardil, when the pivot is Sbj in both clauses, there is no marker of complementization, as in (95) and (96); the subordinate Sbj may be overt, as in (96). This is Lardil’s instantiation of the comparative category of xAbsolutive complementization strategies. Lardil’s xAbsolutive also applies when the pivot is an Imperative Object in the matrix clause, as in (97); recall that in Lardil, ImpO is morphologically unmarked.

(95)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(96)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(97)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Lardil’s instantiation of the xOblique complementization strategy is used when the pivot is subordinate Sbj and matrix TrO, as in (98). In this strategy, the subordinate Sbj is obligatorily covert.

(98)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Lardil also possesses two additional strategies, which can be understood as ‘Object-topicalized’ variants of xAbsolutive and xOblique. These strategies promote the subordinate TrO into a ‘topic’ position, which is morphologically unmarked (much like a normal Sbj), while the Sbj receives genitive marking. Like an untopicalized subordinate Sbj, these topicalized subordinate Objects are then available as pivots and can trigger complementization marking. The topic-xAbsolutive is illustrated in (99), where the subordinate topicalized TrO is co-referential with the matrix Sbj. Like the regular xAbsolutive, it involves no complementization marking; unlike the regular xAbsolutive, the subordinate Sbj is marked by xgen. The topic-xOblique is illustrated in (100), where the subordinate topicalized TrO is co-referential with the matrix TrO.

(99)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(100)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

When the pivot is matrix TrO, it is also possible in Lardil to use the topic-xAbsolutive, as in (101). Like the regular xAbsolutive, in Lardil the topic-xAbsolutive strategy permits the subordinate pivot to be overt, as in (101).

(101)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

The Lardil topic-xAbsolutive strategy is also used for topicalization constructions in main clauses. These clauses can topicalize a variety of non-Sbj arguments, such as (102), where the topicalized argument is an instrument.

(102)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Lardil’s xOblique complementization is also used for temporal-relative clauses (Hale, 1976), where a subordinate clause in the simultaneous tense serves to modify the time point of the matrix event, as in (103).

(103)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Table 14 summarizes the main facts of complementization for Lardil matrix–subordinate clause pairs.

Table 14. Complementization Strategies in Lardil

xAbsolutive

Topic-xAbs

xOblique

Topic-xObl

Roles

Subordinate

Sbj

Topic-TrO

Sbj

Topic-TrO

Matrix

Sbj

Sbj/TrO

TrO

TrO

Marking

Subord. pivot

covert~none

covert~none

covert

covert

Subord. Sbj

covert

xgen

covert

xgen+xdat

Matrix pivot

none

none/xdat

xdat

xdat

Subord. comp

none

none

xdat

xdat

In Kayardild, just as in Lardil, pivots which are Sbj in both clauses trigger the use of the xAbsolutive strategy, with no overt complementization marking, as in (104).

(104)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

A pivot with grammatical roles other than Sbj in both clauses triggers xOblique complementization (Evans, 1995a, pp. 489–490). Examples are matrix Sbj and subordinate TrO (105); TrO and Sbj (106); TrO and TrO (107); and temporal-relative (108). Kayardild does not appear to require pivots to be covert in subordinate clauses, unlike Yukulta and Lardil.

(105)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(106)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(107)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(108)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Under certain conditions, the marker of complementization in Kayardild is not xdat but xloc, however there is no indication that this is related to Yukulta’s xErgative strategy. Instead, xloc is used when the Sbj of the complementized clause is first person inclusive (obligatorily) or second person (optionally). These person/number triggers of xloc marking are very similar to the persons and numbers that can appear as Inverse Objects in Yukulta, and it will be recalled that in Yukulta the InvO is marked with xloc. Now, given that the xOblique strategy in Lardil is primarily used when the pivot is a matrix Object, we may speculate that Kayardild’s complementization system was once more similar to Lardil’s than it is now; at that time, complementization marking was triggered by pivots that were matrix TrO, and moreover, there still existed a matrix inverse system, such that first person non-singular and second person were often marked with xloc, and those InvO pivots triggered xloc complementization marking on the subordinate clause. At the point when the matrix inverse system began to be lost, the primary visible trigger of xloc complementization marking that remained accessible to learners of the language would have been the person/number of the subordinate Sbj, which therefore became to sole trigger, as in modern Kayardild.

Xloc complementization is triggered under approximately the same pivot conditions as xdat complementization, as in (109), where the pivot is TrO in both clauses. One difference appears to be in sentences with a matrix clause in the imperative mood, where complementization may be used irrespective of the nature of the pivot. An example as in (110), where only the two Sbj arguments are co-referential. See also Evans (1995a, pp. 508–514) for other exceptional cases in Kayardild’s system of complementization.

(109)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(110)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Like Lardil, Kayardild uses overt complementization to mark topicalized main clauses (Evans, 1988). As in Lardil, topics receive no overt marking, however unlike Lardil, the Sbj of a topicalized clause in Kayardild receives no special marking. An example is shown in (111). As in Lardil, topicalized clauses can also be subordinate, as in (112).

(111)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

(112)

The Tangkic Languages of Australia: Phonology and Morphosyntax of Lardil, Kayardild, and Yukulta

Table 15 summarizes complementization in Kayardild.

Table 15. Complementization Strategies in Kayardild

xAbsolutive

xOblique

Topic-xOblique

Roles

Subordinate

Sbj

all other

TrO/certain others

Matrix

Sbj

combinations

various

Marking

Subord. pivot

none

various

none

Subord. Sbj

none

xdat/xloc

xdat/xloc

Matrix pivot

none

various

various

Subord. comp

none

xdat/xloc

xdat/xloc

A further parallel between Lardil and Kayardild is their shared lack of uncomplementized simultaneous subordinate clauses, of the type found in Yukulta in (80). In contexts where one might expect uncomplementized simultaneous subordinate clauses, both languages use another clause type, such as a main clause in the unmarked tense. Lardil’s complementized simultaneous subordinate clauses have also undergone significant historical change (Evans, 1995a, pp. 562–563; McConvell, 1981, pp. 167–168), so that marking is now by the original xloc:dat on thematic stems, but by xprop on athematics, as in (99) and (103) above.

7 Critical Analysis of Scholarship

The phonologies of the Tangkic languages exhibit many similarities. Phonological analysis to date has been language specific, and thus there is scope to gain further insights through comparative study. The most extensive analysis of a single system is Round’s (2009) analysis of Kayardild phonology. Round argues for an analysis in terms of distinct strata (Kiparsky, 1982) or cophonologies (Orgun, 1996), which do not conform to the level-ordering hypothesis (Siegel, 1974), and highlights challenges for constraint-based approaches from opacity and phonology–morphology ordering paradoxes (Round, 2009, pp. 260–275; Wolf, 2013). The issue of phonological opacity in Lardil has featured prominently in theoretical debates over several decades (Goldsmith, 1993; Kavitskaya & Staroverov, 2010; Kurisu, 2001; Lakoff, 1993; McCarthy, 2003, 2007; McCarthy & Prince, 1993; Prince & Smolensky, 2004, inter alia). Nonetheless, analyses of Lardil phonology have typically dealt only with word-final phenomena, while word-internal sandhi has not yet been investigated in depth and the process of attrition, which adds an additional layer of opacity, is often not addressed. Some analyses have characterized word-final alternations as pertaining to uninflected nominal stems alone, whereas Klokeid (1976) showed already that they extend also to inflected nominal words and verbs. As a consequence, though Lardil has challenged and thus advanced phonological theory over the years, much remains to be examined and accounted for, and therefore the specific problems presented by Lardil phonology may yet reveal themselves to differ from what is currently understood once the scope of analysis moves from particular fragments to the system as a whole.

The morphology and syntax of Tangkic languages have received detailed attention within a range of theoretical perspectives. Evans (1995a) approaches the polyfunctionality of inflectional markers in Kayardild by proposing an ‘umbrella’ notion of case, in which case has functions including not only relating DPs to one another and to their clause but also conveying tense semantics, and complementization (see also Dench & Evans, 1988). Nordlinger (1998) formalizes Evans’s account within a Constructive Case formalism within Lexical Function Grammar. Round (2013) applies Aronoff’s (1994) notion of a morphome to solve similar problems, in part by emphasizing the complexity of relationships between form and function in Kayardild in a manner not unlike Nordlinger’s (2002) re-examination of the issue of ‘nominalization’ in Australian langauges more broadly. Round’s formalization has wider implications for the theory of morphomes and realizational morphology in general (Round, 2015a, 2016; Stump, 2015); and Round and Corbett (2016) re-examine the Kayardild tense system to illustrate theoretical principles regarding the difference between systems of one morphosyntactic feature versus two.

The syntax of Lardil has been analyzed in relational grammar by Klokeid (1976). Richards (2013) analyzes a key fragment of Lardil syntax within the framework of minimalism with phases, arguing that Lardil’s marking of objects and subordinate relative clauses demands an analysis of morphological concord situated within the syntactic component, and not in a derivationally post-syntactic component. This corresponds to Round’s (2009, 2013) percolation-based analysis of the entire system of inflectional concord in Kayardild, where feature assignment is regulated within a syntactic representation which, if translated into a movement-based account, would exist only at an early stage of derivation. Laughren (2011) examines accusative case in Yukulta in a minimalist framework also.

To date, the complex morphosyntax of the Tangkic languages has largely been analyzed separately, in distinct theoretical frameworks for each language (though see Evans, 1995a, pp. 423–450, 542–549, 560–570; Hartwig, 2014). This has the benefit of bringing multiple points of view to bear on the facts and sets the stage for more synthesis in future. To mention one example, both Lardil and Kayardild inflect TrO with tense in their ‘marked tense’ main clauses, and they also inflect TrO in the unmarked tense. In the Lardil tradition, inflection on TrO in unmarked clauses has been assumed to be accusative case marking, whereas in the Kayardild tradition it has been treated as tense marking. Both analyses have prima facie support in both languages, but as yet no extended argument has been made for why one is preferable to the other, either in Lardil or Kayardild. There are also gains to be made, at the descriptive, theoretical, and meta-theoretical levels, in comparing different analyses of the same language (Arkadiev, 2015; Round, 2013, pp. 177–201).

Memmott et al. (2016) apply linguistics, archaeology, paleoecology, and anthropology to question of Tangkic origins. Phylogenetic analysis of basic vocabulary indicates that the Southern Tangkic languages diversified late, and rapidly. Problematically, while Yukulta is morphosyntactically conservative (Evans, 1995a), the other languages such as Kayardild are morphosyntactically innovative and much more Northern-like (see Sections 5 and 6). Moreover, those languages are located in low-lying coastal and island territories areas, which are vulnerable to rare yet potentially catastrophic flooding. Memmott et al. (2016) propose to account for these and several other facts. Perhaps half a millennium ago, coastal-dwelling Northern-speaking peoples were inundated, and survivors sought refuge in Southern-speaking territory while their land and sea territory recovered ecologically. In this brief period, a contact variety ‘proto-Eastern Tangkic’ either arose or became more widely used, characterized by a Southern lexicon yet a largely Northern morphosyntax, and was subsequently carried back as low-lying areas were repopulated, including by children who would have acquired the contact variety perhaps natively during refuge. The proposal is ambitious and in key aspects speculative but has the virtue of generating predictions for testing, such as a geological record of such flooding, and impacts on neighboring language groups along the coast, such as the now-coastal Garrwa people to the northwest, who in oral history (Furby & Furby, 1977) had expanded north from the inland onto coastal territory previously occupied by a group known as the ‘Nyangga,’ which mysteriously disappeared.

Further Reading

Key sources on the Tangkic languages are Hale (1973) and Klokeid (1976) on Lardil; Round (2011b) as a summary of word-final phonology; and Richards (2001) on New Lardil. On Kayardild, see Evans (1995a), Round (2013) and for an extended review of these, Arkadiev (2015); for phonology see Round (2009). Regarding morphological complexity see Round (2015a, 2016). On Yukulta, see Keen (1983) and Round (2014). For topics not covered above: on phonetics and prosody, see Fletcher, Evans, and Round (2002), Fletcher and Butcher (2003), Fletcher (2005), Round (2010c), Ross (2011), Round (2012) on Kayardild and Bonnin (2014) on Yukulta. On the marking of tense on nominals in broader perspective, see Nordlinger and Sadler (2004a, 2004b). On Tangkic historical linguistics see McConvell (1981); Evans (1995a, 1995b, 2005), Round (2010b, 2011a), and Memmott et al. (2016). On aspects of Tangkic semantics see Evans and Wilkins (2000), Wierzbicka (2013), Round (2015b). On the Lardil ritual language Damin see Hale (1982, 1992), Hale & Nash (1997); and on Kayardild song language, Round (2013, pp. 60–61).

References

Arkadiev, P. M. (2015). Teorija grammatiki v svete faktov jazyka kajardilt (The theory of grammar in the light of data from Kayardild). Voprosy jazykoznanija,6, 108–139.Find this resource:

Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Find this resource:

Baker, B. (2014). Word structure in Australian languages. In H. Koch & R. Nordlinger (Eds.), The languages and linguistics of Australia (pp. 139–214). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Find this resource:

Blake, B. J. (1987). Australian aboriginal grammar. London: Croom Helm.Find this resource:

Blake, B. J. (1990). Languages of the Queensland/Northern Territory border: Updating the classification. In Language and History: Essays in Honour of Luise A. Hercus (pp. 49–66). Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics.Find this resource:

Bonnin, C. (2014). Pitch accents and prosodic properties of the clitic in Yukulta (Tangkic). Proceedings of the15th Australasian International Speech Science and Technology Conference. Christchurch: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association.Find this resource:

Bowern, C. (2014). Complex predicates. In H. Koch & R. Nordlinger (Eds.), The languages and linguistics of Australia (pp. 263–294). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Find this resource:

Busby, P. A. (1980). The distribution of phonemes in Australian Aboriginal languages. Papers in Australian Linguistics, No. 14 (Pacific Linguistics Series A-60). Canberra: Australian National University.Find this resource:

Butcher, A. R. (1995). The phonetics of neutralisation: The case of Australian coronals. In J. W. Lewis (Ed.), Studies in General and English Phonetics. Essays in honour of Professor J. D. O’Connor (pp. 10–38). London: Routledge.Find this resource:

Dench, A., & Evans, N. (1988). Multiple case-marking in Australian languages. Journal of Australian Linguistics, 8, 1–47.Find this resource:

Denniss, J. (2007). Antipassives in Yukulta. In Proceedings, In Between Wor(l)ds: Transformation and Translation. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.Find this resource:

Dixon, R. M. W. (1980). The languages of Australia. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:

Evans, N. (1982–1998). Kayardild field recordings. Audio recordings held at the library of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (item EVANS_N03).Find this resource:

Evans, N. (1988). Odd topic marking in Kayardild. In P. Austin (Ed.), Complex sentence constructions in Australian languages (pp. 219–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Find this resource:

Evans, N. (1992). Kayardild dictionary and thesaurus. Melbourne: University of Melbourne Linguistics Department.Find this resource:

Evans, N. (1995a). A grammar of Kayardild: With historical-comparative notes on Tangkic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Evans, N. (1995b). Multiple case in Kayardild: Anti-iconic suffix order and the diachronic filter. In F. Plank (Ed.), Double case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme (pp. 396–428). New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Evans, N. (2003). Typologies of agreement: some problems from Kayardild. Transactions of the Philological Society,101, 203–234.Find this resource:

Evans, N. (2005). East across a narrow sea: Micro-colonization and synthetic prehistory in the Wellesley Islands, Northern Australia. In T. Osada (Ed.), Linguistics, archaeology and the human past: Occasional Paper No. 1 (pp. 9–39). Kyoto: Research Institute for Humanity and Nature.Find this resource:

Evans, N., & Wilkins, D. (2000). In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language,76(3), 546–592.Find this resource:

Fletcher, J. (2005). Exploring the phonetics of spoken narratives in Australian indigenous languages. In W. J. Hardcastle & J. M. Beck (Eds.), A figure of speech: A Festschrift for John Laver (pp. 201–226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Find this resource:

Fletcher, J., & Butcher, A. (2003). Local and global influences on vowel formants in three Australian languages. In M. J. Solé, D. Recasens, & J. Romero (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 905–908). Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Find this resource:

Fletcher, J., Evans, N., & Round, E. (2002). Left-edge tonal events in Kayardild (Australian): a typological perspective. In B. Bel & I. Marlien (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Speech Prosody (pp. 295–298). Aix-en-Provence, France: Laboratoire Parole at Langage.Find this resource:

Furby, E., & Furby, C. (1977). A preliminary analysis of Garawa phrases and clauses. Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics.Find this resource:

Goddard, C. (1982). Case systems and case marking in Australian languages: a new interpretation. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 2(2), 167–196.Find this resource:

Goldsmith, J. A. (1993). Harmonic phonology. In J. A. Goldsmith (Ed.), The last phonological rule (pp. 21–60). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Goldsmith, J. A. (Ed.). (1993). The last phonological rule. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Hale, K. (1960a). Lardil field notes. Fieldnotes held at the library of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra (item MS883).Find this resource:

Hale, K. (1960b). Yangkal, Yukulta, Kayatilt field notes. Fieldnotes held at the library of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra (item MS3172).Find this resource:

Hale, K. (1973). Deep-surface canonical disparities in relation to analysis and change: An Australian example. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Current trends in linguistics, Vol. 11: Diachronic, areal and typological linguistics (pp. 401–458). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Find this resource:

Hale, K. (1976). The adjoined relative clause in Australia. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 78–105). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Find this resource:

Hale, K. (1979). Miscellaneous Australian notes. Fieldnotes held at the library of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra (item MS4114).Find this resource:

Hale, K. (1982). The logic of Damin kinship terminology. In J. Heath, F. Merlan, A. Rumsey (Eds.), Languages of kinship in Aboriginal Australia. (pp. 31–37). Sydney: University of Sydney.Find this resource:

Hale, K. (1992). Language endangerment and the human value of linguistic diversity. Language,68(1), 35–42.Find this resource:

Hale, K. (1996). Remarks on Lardil phonology and morphology. In Ngakulmungan Kangka Leman (Compiler) (pp. 12–52). Lardil dictionary. Gununa, Australia: Mornington Shire Council.Find this resource:

Hale, K., & Nash, D. (1997). Damin and Lardil phonotactics. In D. Tryon & M. Walsh (Eds.), Boundary rider: Essays in honour of Geoffrey O’Grady (pp. 247–259). Canberra, Australia: Pacific Linguistics.Find this resource:

Hamilton, P. J. (1996). Phonetic constraints and markedness in the phonotactics of Australian languages (Unpublished PhD diss.). University of Toronto.Find this resource:

Hartwig, L. (2014). Case marking and clause function in Tangkic languages: A comparative morphological study (Unpublished honors thesis). University of Queensland, Australia.Find this resource:

Kavitskaya, D., & Staroverov, P. (2010). When an interaction is both opaque and transparent: The paradox of fed counterfeeding. Phonology,27(2), 255–288.Find this resource:

Keen, S. (1968). Language elicitation, texts and songs in languages from the Gulf area, Qld. Audio recordings held at the library of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra (item KEEN_S01).Find this resource:

Keen, S. (1969a). Lardil and Yukulta language elicitation and songs from Doomadgee and Mornington Island. Audio recordings held at the library of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra (item KEEN_S06).Find this resource:

Keen, S. (1969b). Transcript of tape A1786, field tape 43. Notes held at the library of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra (item PMS907).Find this resource:

Keen, S. (1970a). Language elicitation and songs from Mornington Island. Audio recordings held at the library of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra (item KEEN_S03).Find this resource:

Keen, S. (1970b). Yukulta and Waanyi language elicitation. Audio recordings held at the library of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra (item KEEN_S05).Find this resource:

Keen, S. (1970c). Language elicitation, songs and narratives from Mornington Island and neighbouring areas. Audio recordings held at the library of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra (item KEEN_S09).Find this resource:

Keen, S. (1970d). Transcript of tape A1793, field tape 42. Notes held at the library of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra (item PMS908).Find this resource:

Keen, S. (1970e). Transcript of tape A1840a, field tape 55. Notes held at the library of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra (item PMS908).Find this resource:

Keen, S. (1972). A description of the Yukulta language: An Australian aboriginal language of north-west Queensland (Unpublished master’s thesis). Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.Find this resource:

Keen, S. (1983). Yukulta. In R. M. W. Dixon & B. J. Blake (Eds.), Handbook of Australian languages (pp. 190–301). Canberra: Australian National University Press.Find this resource:

Kiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical phonology and morphology. In I.-S. Yang (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 3–91). Seoul: Hanshin.Find this resource:

Klokeid, T. J. (1976). Topics in Lardil grammar (Unpublished PhD thesis). MIT, Cambridge, MA.Find this resource:

Kurisu, K. (2001). The phonology of morpheme realization (Unpublished PhD diss.). University of California–Santa Cruz.Find this resource:

Lakoff, G. (1993). ‘Cognitive phonology.’ In J. A. Goldsmith (Ed.), The last phonological rule (pp. 117–145). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

Laughren, M. (2011). Warlpiri type languages and accusative case? Unpublished paper from the Australian Langauges Workshop, Stradbroke Island, Australia, March 11–13, 2011.Find this resource:

Laughren, M. (2015). A reanalysis of the Yukulta imperative—and hortative. Unpublished paper from the Queensland Indigenous Languages Workshop, University of Queensland, Brisbane, July 27, 2015.Find this resource:

McCarthy, J. J. (2003). Comparative markedness. Theoretical linguistics,29, 1–51.Find this resource:

McCarthy, J. J. (2007). Hidden generalizations: Phonological opacity in optimality theory. London: Equinox.Find this resource:

McCarthy, J. J., & Prince, A. (1993). Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.umass.edu/linguist_faculty_pubs/14/.Find this resource:

McConvell, P. (1981). How Lardil became accusative. Lingua,55(2), 141–179.Find this resource:

Memmott, P., Round, E. R., Rosendahl, D., & Ulm, S. (2016). Fission, linguistic and environmental changes amongst the Tangkic people of the Southern Gulf of Carpentaria. In J.-C. Verstraete & D. Hafner (Eds.), Land and language in Cape York Peninsula and the Gulf Country (pp. 105–136). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Find this resource:

Nancarrow, C. (2014). Gangalidda dictionary and thesaurus: A vocabulary of the Yugulda language of the Gangalidda people, North-West Queensland. Burketown: Carpentaria Land Council.Find this resource:

Ngakulmungan Kangka Leman (Compiler) (1996). Lardil dictionary. Gununa, Australia: Mornington Shire Council.Find this resource:

Nichols, J. (1986). Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language, 66, 56–119.Find this resource:

Nordlinger, R. (1998). Constructive case. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Find this resource:

Nordlinger, R. (2002). Non-finite subordinate verbs in Australian aboriginal languages: Are nominalised verbs really nominalised? In C. Allen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. Canberra: Australian National University. Retrieved from http://www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2001/nordlinger.pdfFind this resource:

Nordlinger, R. (2014). Constituency and grammatical relations. In H. Koch & R. Nordlinger (Eds.), The languages and linguistics of Australia (pp. 215–261). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Find this resource:

Nordlinger, R., & Sadler, L. (2004a). Nominal tense in crosslinguistic perspective. Language,80(4), 776–806.Find this resource:

Nordlinger, R., & Sadler, L. (2004b). Tense beyond the verb: encoding clausal tense/aspect/mood on nominal dependents. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22, 597–641.Find this resource:

Orgun, O. (1996). Sign-based morphology and phonology: With special attention to optimality theory (Unpublished PhD diss.). University of California, Berkeley.Find this resource:

Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.Find this resource:

Richards, N. (2001). Leerdil yuujmen bana yanangarr (Old and new Lardil). In J. Simpson, D. Nash, M. Laughren, & B. Alpher. Forty years on: Ken Hale and Australian languages, (pp. 431–435). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Find this resource:

Richards, N. (2013). Lardil ‘case stacking’ and the timing of case assignment. Syntax,16(1), 42–76.Find this resource:

Ross, B. B. (2011). Prosody and grammar in Dalabon and Kayardild (Unpublished PhD diss.). University of Melbourne.Find this resource:

Round, E. R. (2005). A first Kayardild audiovisual text corpus, with prosodic annotations: End of award report (FTG0025). New Haven, CT: Yale University.Find this resource:

Round, E. R. (2007). Linguistic and ethnographic documentation of Kayardild: End of award report (IGS0039). New Haven, CT: Yale University.Find this resource:

Round, E. R. (2009). Kayardild morphology, phonology and morphosyntax (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Yale University, New Haven, CT.Find this resource:

Round, E. R. (2010a). Widespread patterns of lenition in Australian indigenous languages. Unpublished paper from the 13th Australasian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology. Melbourne.Find this resource:

Round, E. R. (2010b). Syntactic reconstruction by phonology: Edge aligned reconstruction and its application to Tangkic truncation. In R. Hendery & J. Hendriks (Eds.), Grammatical change: Theory and description (pp. 65–81). Canberra, Australia: CLRC/Pacific Linguistics.Find this resource:

Round, E. R. (2010c). Tone height binarity and register in intonation: The case from Kayardild. In M Hasegawa-Johnson (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Speech Prosody. Chicago: SProSIG. Retrieved from http://speechprosody2010.illinois.edu/papers/100991.pdf.Find this resource:

Round, E. R. (2011a). Evolution(s) of some Tangkic morphophonology. Unpublished paper from the Austalia Linguistic Society Annual Meeting 2011, Canberra.Find this resource:

Round, E. R. (2011b). Word final phonology in Lardil: Implications of an expanded data set. Australian Journal of Linguistics,31, 327–350.Find this resource:

Round, E. R. (2011c). Morphomes as a level of representation capture unity of exponence across the inflection–derivation divide. Linguistica,51, 217–230.Find this resource:

Round, E. R. (2012). Durational correlates of prosodic structure in Kayardild vowels. Proceedings of the 14th Australasian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology (pp. 221–224). Sydney: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association.Find this resource:

Round, E. R. (2013). Kayardild morphology and syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Round, E. R. (2014). A description of Ganggalida grammar. In C. Nancarrow (Ed.), Gangalidda dictionary and thesaurus: A vocabulary of the Yugulda language of the Gangalidda people, North-West Queensland (pp. 5–37). Burketown: Carpentaria Land Council.Find this resource:

Round, E. R. (2015a). Rhizomorphomes, meromorphomes and metamorphomes. In G. Corbett, D. Brown, & M. Baerman (Eds.), Understanding and measuring morphological complexity (pp. 29–52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Round, E. R. (2015b). Yukulta and its relatives Kayardild and Lardil. In N. Grandi & L. Kortvelyessy (Eds.), Edinburgh handbook of evaluative morphology (pp. 448–452). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Find this resource:

Round, E. R. (2016). Kayardild inflectional morphotactics is morphomic. In A. Luis & R. Bermúdez-Otero (Eds.), The morphome debate: Diagnosing and analysing morphomic patterns (pp. 228–247) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:

Round, E. R., & Corbett, G. G. (2016). The theory of feature systems: One feature versus two for Kayardild tense-aspect-mood. Morphology.Find this resource:

Siegel, D. C. (1974). Topics in English morphology. New York: Garland Press.
Find this resource:

Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 112–172). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Find this resource:

Stump, G. (2015). Kayardild morphology and syntax by Erich R. Round (review). Language,91(2), 497–500.Find this resource:

Wierzbicka, A. (2013). Kinship and social cognition in Australian languages: Kayardild and Pitjantjatjara. Australian Journal of Linguistics,33(3), 302–321.Find this resource:

Wilkinson, K. (1988). Prosodic structure and Lardil phonology. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 325–334.Find this resource:

Wolf, M. (2013). Candidate chains, unfaithful spell-out, and outwards-looking phonologically-conditioned allomorphy. Morphology,23(2), 145–178.Find this resource:

Wurm, S. A. (1960). Recordings made in the Gayadilt language of Bentinck Island. Audio recordings held at the library of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (items Wurm:S01;2173-2174).Find this resource: