Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T07:44:04.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Word order in Cherokee: Information structure, thematic structure, and variability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Brian Hsu  and
Benjamin Frey
Brian Hsu*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Benjamin Frey*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Asheville
*
[hsub@email.unc.edu] (Hsu), [bfrey@unca.edu] (Frey)
[hsub@email.unc.edu] (Hsu), [bfrey@unca.edu] (Frey)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although Cherokee is known to show highly flexible clausal word order, the principles that predict speakers' preferences among possible orders are not extensively described. This article presents a new description of the grammatical properties that predict clausal word order in spoken Cherokee, based on a corpus study of word-order variation. Our results show that the placement of nominal expressions relative to verbs, and the relative order of nominal expressions within a clause, are determined in a probabilistic way by the cumulative interaction of several factors: REFERENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY, CONTRAST, AND THEMATIC ROLE. The findings suggest that thematic properties may have a greater word-order role than generally assumed in languages with nonconfigurational and/or polysynthetic properties.

Keywords

Cherokeeword ordervariabilitycumulativityinformation structurethematic rolescorpus linguistics

Information

Type
Research Report
Information
Language , Volume 100 , Issue 3 , September 2024 , pp. e124 - e155
Copyright
Copyright © 2024 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

Footnotes

*

Brian Hsu is a specialist in formal linguistics working with the second author to enhance descriptions of Cherokee grammar, with an eye toward pedagogical applications. Ben Frey is a citizen of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians who has worked toward language reclamation in his community and in conjunction with Cherokee Nation and United Keetoowah Band citizens since 2003. He currently teaches the Cherokee language at the University of North Carolina at Asheville and is working to create more pedagogical materials for second language learners of Cherokee.

We are grateful to Jolie Hiers and Erin Humphreys for their assistance in annotation. For helpful discussion at various stages of the work, we thank Raúl Aranovich, David Mora-Marín, Elliott Moreton, Emily Morgan, Katya Pertsova, Caitlin Smith, Jennifer Smith, George Walkden, three anonymous referees, and two editors of Language. Portions of this work were supported by a UNC Institute for the Arts and Humanities Faculty Fellowship. We would like to acknowledge the tireless efforts of language advocates in the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the Cherokee Nation, and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. From fluent-speaking elders to adult and child immersion participants, to those diligently attending community language classes, this effort relies on the community. You are doing the work necessary to carry our language into the next generation. ᎢᏨᏰᎵᎡᎵᏤᎭ.

References

Aissen, Judith. 2023. Documenting topic and focus. Five key topics in language documentation and description (Language Documentation and Conservation special publication 26), ed. by Jenks, Peter and Michael, Lev, 11–57. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/10125/75032.Google Scholar
Akkuş, Faruk. 2018. Copular constructions and clausal syntax in Cherokee. University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of the Workshop on the Structure and Constituency of Languages of the Americas 21) 46. 1–16. Online: https://lingpapers.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2018/01/WSCLA21-01-Akkus.pdf.Google Scholar
Bader, Markus. 2020. Objects in the German prefield: A view from language production. Rethinking verb second, ed. by Woods, Rebecca and Wolfe, Sam, 15–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198844303.003.0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bader, Markus, and Häussler, Jana. 2010. Word order in German: A corpus study. Lingua 120. 717–62. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2006. On zero agreement and polysynthesis. Arguments and agreement, ed. by Ackema, Peter, Brandt, Patrick, Schoorlemmer, Maaike, and Weermann, Fred, 289–320. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin; and Bolker, Ben. 2013. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using ‘Eigen’ and S4. R package. DOI: 10.32614/CRAN.package.lme4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beghelli, Filippo. 1996. Cherokee clause structure. Cherokee papers from UCLA (UCLA occasional papers in linguistics 16), ed. by Beghelli, Filippo, Blankenship, Barbara, Dukes, Michael, Flemming, Edward S., Munro, Pamela, Potter, Brian, Williams, Robert S., and Wright, Richard, 105–14. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles. Online: https://linguistics.ucla.edu/publications/opl_16.pdf.Google Scholar
Behagel, Otto. 1909. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satz gliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25. 110–42. DOI: 10.1515/9783110242652.110.Google Scholar
Benor, Sarah Bunin, and Levy, Roger. 2006. The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language 82. 233–78. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2006.0077.Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn, and Warren, Richard K.. 1985. Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition 21. 47–67. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(85)90023-X.Google ScholarPubMed
Bourns, Jeffrey. 2019. Cherokee syllabary texts: Digital documentation and linguistic description. 2nd Conference on Language, Data and Knowledge (LDK 2019). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs) 70. 18.1–18:6. DOI: 10.4230/OASIcs.LDK.2019.18.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Dingare, Shipra; and Manning, Christopher D.. 2001. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. Proceedings of the LFG '01 Conference. Online: https://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/6/pdfs/lfg01bresnanetal.pdf.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Ford, Marilyn. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86. 168–213. DOI: 10.1353/lan.0.0189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Mchombo, Sam A.. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language 63. 741–82. DOI: 10.2307/415717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, Jill. 1984. Some problems with the concept of basic word order. Linguistics 22. 711–36. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1984.22.5.711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and points of view. Subject and topic, ed. by Li, Charles N., 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Christianson, Kiel, and Ferreira, Fernanda. 2005. Conceptual accessibility and sentence production in a free word order language (Odawa). Cognition 98. 105–35. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, William Hinton. 1979. A grammar of North Carolina Cherokee. New Haven, CT: Yale University dissertation.Google Scholar
Dipper, Stefanie, Götze, Michael; and Skopeteas, Stavros (eds.) 2007. Information structure in cross-linguistic corpora: Annotation guidelines for phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and information structure. (ISIS: Working papers of the SFB 632.) Potsdam: Universitätsverlag. Online: https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/index/index/docId/1294.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619. DOI: 10.2307/415037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1997. On the six-way word order typology. Studies in Language 21. 69–103. DOI: 10.1075/sl.21.1.04dry.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Order of subject, object and verb. The world atlas of language structures online, ed. by Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin. Anthropology, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary. Online: http://wals.info/chapter/81.Google Scholar
Duncan, Barbara R. 1998. Living stories of the Cherokee. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Ellsiepen, Emilia, and Bader, Markus. 2018. Constraints on argument linearization in German. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3:6. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.258.Google Scholar
Feeling, Durbin, Pulte, William; and Pulte, Gregory. 2017. Cherokee narratives: A linguistic study. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael, Mithun, Marianne; and Evans, Nicholas (eds.) 2017. The Oxford handbook of polysynthesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199683208.001.0001.Google Scholar
Fox, John, and Weisberg, Sanford. 2019. An R companion to applied regression. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Frey, Benjamin. 2013. Toward a general theory of language shift: A case study in Wisconsin German and North Carolina Cherokee. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison dissertation. Online: https://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/KP4US3YQW2DGU8V.Google Scholar
Frey, Benjamin. 2020. ‘Data is nice’: Theoretical and pedagogical implications of an Eastern Cherokee corpus. Collaborative approaches to the challenge of language documentation and conservation: Selected papers from the 2018 Symposium on American Indian Languages (SAIL), ed. by de, Wilson Silva, Lima and Riestenberg, Katherine, 38–53. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24931.Google Scholar
Goldwater, Sharon, and Johnson, Mark. 2003. Learning OT constraint rankings using a maximum entropy model. Proceedings of the Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory, ed. by Spenader, Jennifer, Eriksson, Anders, and Dahl, Östen, 111–20. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason, Szmrecsányi, Benedikt; and Röthlisberger, Melanie. 2018. General introduction: A comparative perspective on probabilistic variation in grammar. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3:94. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.690.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken. 1992. Basic word order in two ‘free word order’ languages. Pragmatics of word order flexibility, ed. by Payne, Doris L., 63–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haviland, Susan E., and Clark, Herbert H.. 1974. What's new? Aquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13. 512–21. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80003-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511554285.Google Scholar
Hsu, Brian. 2021. Harmonic grammar in phrasal movement: An account of probe competition and blocking. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 51. 237–50.Google Scholar
Julian, Charles. 2010. A history of the Iroquoian languages. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1993/4175.Google Scholar
King, Duane Harold. 1975. A grammar and dictionary of the Cherokee language. Athens: University of Georgia dissertation.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 269–320. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177715.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D. 2003. Probabilistic syntax. Probabilistic linguistics, ed. by Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer, and Jannedy, Stefanie, 289–341. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKie, Scott. 2019. Tri-Council declares state of emergency for Cherokee language. Cherokee One Feather, June 27, 2019. Online: https://theonefeather.com/2019/06/27/tri-council-declares-state-of-emergency-for-cherokee-language/.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1992. Is basic word order universal? Pragmatics of word order flexibility, ed. by Payne, Doris L., 15–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1995. Morphological and prosodic forces shaping word order. Word order in discourse, ed. by Downing, Pamela A. and Noonan, Michael, 387–423. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1996. Prosodic cues to accessibility. Reference and referent accessibility, ed. by Fretheim, Thorstein and Gundel, Jeanette K., 223–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2017. The Iroquoian language family. The Cambridge handbook of linguistic typology, ed. by Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., 747–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781316135716.024.Google Scholar
Valéria, Molnár. 2002. Contrast from a contrastive perspective. Information structure in a cross-linguistic perspective, ed. by Hallelgård, Hilde, Johansson, Stig, Behrens, Bergljot, and Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine, 147–61. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Montgomery-Anderson, Brad. 2008. A reference grammar of Oklahoma Cherokee. Lawrence: University of Kansas dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1808/4212.Google Scholar
Montgomery-Anderson, Brad. 2015. Cherokee reference grammar. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon, Englisch, Johannes; and Opitz, Andreas. 2022. Extraction from NP, frequency, and minimalist gradient harmonic grammar. Linguistics 60. 1619–62. DOI: 10.1515/ling-2020-0049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Andrew. 2017. Cumulativity in syntactic derivations. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig dissertation.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, Titov, Elena, van, Hans Koot, de; and Vermeulen, Reiko. 2007. A syntactic typology of topic, focus and contrast. Alternatives to cartography, ed. by van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen, 15–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110217124.15.Google Scholar
Nissim, Malvina, Dingare, Shipra, Carletta, Jean; and Steedman, Mark. 2004. An annotation scheme for information status in dialogue. Proceedings of the Fourth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC '04). Online: https://aclanthology.org/L04-1402/.Google Scholar
Payne, Doris L. 1987. Information structuring in Papago narrative discourse. Language 63. 783–804. DOI: 10.2307/415718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prat-Sala, Mercè, and Branigan, Holly P.. 2000. Discourse constraints on syntactic processing in language production: A cross-linguistic study in English and Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language 42. 168–82. DOI: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. Radical pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 223–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1992. The ZPG letter: Subjects, definiteness, and information status. Discourse description: Diverse analyses of a fund-raising text, ed. by Mann, William and Thompson, Sandra, 295–325. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulte, William, and Feeling, Durbin. 1975. Outline of Cherokee grammar with Cherokee-English dictionary. Tahlequah: Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: The R Project for Statistical Computing. Online: https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1982. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topic. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Repp, Sophie. 2010. Defining ‘contrast’ as an information-structural notion in grammar. Lingua 120. 1333–45. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.04.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Repp, Sophie. 2016. Contrast: Dissecting an elusive information-structural notion and its role in grammar. The Oxford handbook of information structure, ed. by Féry, Caroline and Ishihara, Shinichiro, 270–89. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642670.013.006.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2005. Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language 81. 613–44. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2005.0149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scancarelli, Janine. 1986. Pragmatic roles in Cherokee grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 12. 224–34. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v12i0.1865.Google Scholar
Scancarelli, Janine. 1987. Grammatical relations and verb agreement in Cherokee. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation. Online: https://linguistics.ucla.edu/images/stories/Scancarelli.1987.pdf.Google Scholar
Schoenmakers, Gert-Jan, Poortvliet, Marjolein; and Schaeffer, Jeannette. 2021. Topicality and anaphoricity in Dutch scrambling. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 40. 541–71. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-021-09516-z.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie, Grafmiller, Jason, Futrell, Richard; and Bresnan, Joan. 2015. Rhythm's role in genitive construction choice in spoken English. Rhythm in cognition and grammar: A Germanic perspective, ed. by Vogel, Ralf and van, Ruben Vijver, de, 207–34. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110378092.207.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie S., and Zuraw, Kie. 2017. Phonological conditions on variable adjective and noun word order in Tagalog. Language 93.e317–e352. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2017.0075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Brian W., and Pater, Joe. 2020. French schwa and gradient cumulativity. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5:24. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.583.Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76. 859–90. DOI: 10.2307/417202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speyer, Augustin. 2008. German vorfeld-filling as constraint interaction. Constraints in discourse, ed. by Benz, Anton and Kühnlein, Peter, 267–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Szmrecsányi, Benedikt, Grafmiller, Jason, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette, Tagliamonte, Sali; and Todd, Simon. 2017. Spoken syntax in a comparative perspective: The dative and genitive alternation in varieties of English. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2:86. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.310.Google Scholar
Szmrecsányi, Benedikt, and Hinrichs, Lars. 2008. Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English: A multivariate comparison across time, space, and genres. The dynamics of linguistic variation: Corpus evidence on English past and present, ed. by Nevalainen, Terttu, Taavitsainen, Irma, Pahta, Päivi, and Korhonen, Minna, 291–309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith, and Colijn, Erika. 2010. Word order in Paraguayan Guaraní. International Journal of American Linguistics 76. 255–88. DOI: 10.1086/652267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2023. The interpretation and grammatical representation of animacy. Language 99. 760–808. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2023.a914193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uchihara, Hiroto. 2013. Tone and accent in Oklahoma Cherokee. Buffalo: The University at Buffalo, State University of New York dissertation. Online: https://arts-sciences.buffalo.edu/content/dam/arts-sciences/linguistics/AlumniDissertations/Uchihara%20dissertation.pdf.Google Scholar
Uchihara, Hiroto. 2014. Cherokee noun incorporation revisited. International Journal of American Linguistics 80. 5–38. DOI: 10.1086/674159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, Eric, and Vilkuna, Maria. 1998. On rheme and kontrast. The limits of syntax (Syntax and semantics 29), ed. by Culicover, Peter W. and McNally, Louise, 79–108. New York: Academic Press. DOI: 10.1163/9789004373167_005.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2014. Thematic asymmetries do matter! A corpus study of German word order. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 27. 45–104. DOI: 10.1017/S147054271400021X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Robert S. 1996. Cherokee possession and the status of -jeeli. Cherokee papers from UCLA (UCLA occasional papers in linguistics 16), ed. by Beghelli, Filippo, Blankenship, Barbara, Dukes, Michael, Flemming, Edward S., Munro, Pamela, Potter, Brian, Williams, Robert S., and Wright, Richard, 97–104. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles. Online: https://linguistics.ucla.edu/publications/opl_16.pdf.Google Scholar
Wolfe, Sam. 2015. The nature of Old Spanish verb second reconsidered. Lingua 164. 132–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.06.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Shiyue, Frey, Benjamin; and Bansal, Mohit. 2020a. ChrEn: Cherokee-English machine translation for endangered language revitalization. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 577–95. DOI: 10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Shiyue, Frey, Benjamin; and Bansal, Mohit. 2020b. ChrEnTranslate: Cherokee-English machine translation demo with quality estimation and corrective feedback. Proceedings of the 59th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, 272–79. DOI: 10.18653/v1/2021.acl-demo.33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hsu and Frey supplementary material

Hsu and Frey supplementary material
Download Hsu and Frey supplementary material(File)
File 459.8 KB