Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T16:21:01.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chinook Jargon: language contact and the problem of multi-level generative systems, II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Michael Silverstein
Michael Silverstein*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

[Part I of this article appeared in the preceding issue of Language.]

The form of English sentences presents a great contrast to the incorporating Chinook. But also the grammar which produces English sentences is very different. In particular, the kinds of transformational operations give contrasting treatments for semantic processes—reflexivization, etc.—dependent on underlying structural features which may be more or less comparable across the linguistic boundaries. However, the underlying base forms of English show that there is a difference in the grammars at the most fundamental stage—the repartition of the sentence into the predicate and its adjuncts, based upon syntactic evidence of a comparable sort. We will take up the implications of this below. Immediately below I want to sketch some of the features of English as they contrast with those of Chinook proper, to prepare for an analysis of their confrontation in Chinook Jargon.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , September 1972, pp. 596 - 625
Copyright
Copyright © 1972 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1926. A set of postulates for the science of language. Lg. 2.153–164.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1888. Chinook songs. Journal of American Folklore 1.220–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1911. Introduction to Handbook of American Indian languages. BAE-B 40, part 1, 1–83. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1933. Note on the Chinook Jargon. Lg. 9.208–213.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, Alexander F. 1912. Chinook Jargon. BAE-B 30, part 1, 274–275. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783112316009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970a. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. Studies presented to Shiro Hattori, ed. by Jakobson, Roman and Kawamoto, Shigeo, 52–91. Tokyo: TEC Co. (Reprinted in Semantics, ed. by Steinberg, Danny and Jakobovits, Leon, 183–216. Cambridge, University Press, 1971.).Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970b. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, Roderick A. and Rosenbaum, Peter S., 184–221. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar, with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of language, ed. by Greenberg, J. H., 58–90. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language universals. Current trends in linguistics, ed. by Sebeok, T. A., 3.61–112. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1962. Types of linguistic communities. Anthropological Linguistics 4:1.28–40.Google Scholar
Hale, Horatio. 1848. The ‘Jargon’ or trade language of Oregon. Transactions of the American Ethnological Society 2.62–70.Google Scholar
Hale, Horatio. 1890. An international idiom: a manual of the Oregon trade language or ‘Chinook Jargon.‘ London: Whittaker.Google Scholar
Hall, Robert A. Jr. 1966. Pidgin and creole languages. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Melville. 1932. Notes on the structure of Chinook Jargon. Lg. 8.27–50.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Melville. 1936. Texts in Chinook Jargon. (University of Washington publications in anthropology, 7:1, 1–27.) Seattle.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1936. Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre. TCLP 6.240–288.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1941. Kindersprache, Aphasie, und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala. (Reprinted in his Selected writings, 1.328–401. The Hague: Mouton, 1962.).Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1958. Morfologičeskije nabljudjenije nad slavjanskim sklonjenijem. American contributions to the 4th International Congress of Slavicists, 127–156. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1963. Implications of language universals for linguistics. Universals of language, ed. by Greenberg, J. H., 208–219. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J., and Fodor, Jerry A. 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Lg. 39.170–210.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J., and Postal, Paul. 1964. An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1966. Stative adjectives and verbs in English. Report no. NSF-17, Mathematical linguistics and automatic translation. Harvard University, Computer Laboratory.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1968. Instrumental adverbs and the concept of deep structure. Foundations of Language 4.4–29.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1921. Le problème de la parenté des langues. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale, 1.76–101. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Newman, Stanley S. 1940. Linguistic aspects of Yokuts style. Yokuts and Western Mono myths, by Gayton, A. H. and Newman, Stanley S., 4–8. (Anthropological records, 5:1.) Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Newman, Stanley S. 1944. Yokuts language of California. (Viking Fund publications in anthropology, 2.) New York.Google Scholar
Newman, Stanley S. 1967. Relativism in language and culture. New Mexico Quarterly 37.196–210.Google Scholar
Pilling, James Constantine. 1893. Bibliography of the Chinookan languages, including the Chinook Jargon. (BAE-B 15.) Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard V. 1968. Ontological relativity. Journal of Philosophy 55.185–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, Alexander. 1849. Adventures of the first settlers on the Oregon or Columbia River. London: Smith, Elder & Co. (Reprinted in Early western travels 1748–1846, ed. by Thwaites, Reuben Gold, vol. 7. Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark Co., 1904.).Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1909. Takelma texts. (University Museum, Anthropological papers, 2:1.) Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1922. The Takelma language of southwestern Oregon. BAE-B 40, part 2, 1–296. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward., and Swadesh, Morris. 1939. Nootka texts. Philadelphia: LSA.Google Scholar
Shaw, George C. 1909. The Chinook Jargon and how to use it, a complete and exhaustive lexicon of the oldest trade language of the American continent. Seattle: Rainier Printing Co.Google Scholar
Thomas, Edwaed Harper. 1935. Chinook: a history and dictionary of the northwest coast trade jargon. Portland: Metropolitan Press.Google Scholar
Waletzky, Joshua. 1969. Topicalization in Yiddish. Senior honors thesis, Harvard College.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1966. Explorations in semantic theory. Current trends in linguistics, ed. by Sebeok, T. A., 3.395–477. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1884. The varieties of predication. Transactions of the American Philological Association 1883:36–41.Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1889. Sanskrit grammar. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar