In linguistics, switch-reference (SR) describes any clause-level morpheme that signals whether certain prominent arguments in 'adjacent' clauses co-refer. In most cases, it marks whether the subject of the verb in one clause is co-referent with that of the previous clause, or of a subordinate clause to the matrix (main) clause dominating it.
Meanings of switch-reference
The basic distinction made by a switch-reference system is whether the following clause has the same subject (SS) or a different subject (DS). This is known as canonical switch-reference. For purposes of switch-reference, subject is defined as it is for languages with a nominative–accusative alignment: a subject is the sole argument of an intransitive clause, or the agent of a transitive one. This holds even in languages with a high degree of ergativity.
The Washo language of California and Nevada exhibits a switch-reference system. When the subject of one verb is the same as the subject of the following verb, then the verb takes no switch-reference marker. However, if the subject of one verb differs from the subject of the following verb, then the verb takes the "different subject" marker, -š (examples from Mithun 1999:269):
|"Again he is reaching toward him, again he will poke him" (same subject)|
|"If you eat, I will drink" (different subjects)|
The Seri language of northwestern Mexico also has a switch-reference system which is similar in most ways to those of other languages except for one very salient fact: the relevant argument in a passive clause is not the superficial subject of the passive verb but rather the always unexpressed underlying subject. In clauses with subject raising, it is the raised subject that is relevant.
The nominative subject is not always marked by SR. For instance, many clauses, including those with impersonal or weather verbs, have no subject at all, yet can bear as well as trigger SR.
In addition, many languages exhibit non-canonical switch-reference, where the co-referents of arguments besides the subject are marked by SR. Here is an example from Kiowa (Watkins 1993):
|Kathryn wrote a letter and Esther wrote one, too.|
The form of switch-reference markers
SR markers often carry additional meanings, or at least are fused with connectives that do. For instance, an SR marker might mark DS and sequential events.
SR-markers often appear attached to verbs, but are not a verbal category. They often appear attached to sentence-initial particles, sentence-initial recapitulative verbs, adverbial conjunctions ('when', 'because', etc.), or coordinators ('and','but', though it seems never 'or'), relativizers ('which,'that'), or sentence complementizers ('that'). They can also appear as free morphemes, or as differing agreement paradigms. However, most SR languages are SOV languages, with verbs as well as complementizers and conjunctions coming at the end of clauses. Therefore, SR often appears attached to verbs, a fact that has led to the common though erroneous claim that SR is a verbal category.
One certain typological fact about SR is that SR-markers appear at the 'edges' of clauses. It is found at the edge of either a subordinate clause (referring to the matrix clause), or at the edge of a coordinate clause (referring to the previous clause). It is also very common in clause-chaining languages of New Guinea, where it is found at the edge of medial clauses.
SR is also sensitive to syntactic structure. It can skip a clause that is string-adjacent (spoken one right after another), and refer to a matrix clause. For instance, given the configuration [ A [ B ] [ C ] ], where B and C are subordinate clauses to A, any SR-marking on C refers to A, not B.
Distribution of switch-reference
SR is found in hundreds of languages in North and South America, Australia, New Guinea, and the South Pacific. Typologies exist for North America (Jacobsen 1983), Australia (Austin 1981), and New Guinea (Roberts 1997).
SR spreads generally by areal diffusion, accounting for the fact that the morphological marking varies from one language to the next.
- Marlett (1984), Farrell, Marlett & Perlmutter (1991). The facts are almost opposite of what is predicted by the proposals made in Finer (1984, 1985).
- Austin, Peter. (1981). "Switch-Reference in Australia". Language, 57.
- Farrell, Patrick; Stephen A. Marlett; & David M. Perlmutter. (1991). Notions of subjecthood and switch-reference: Evidence from Seri. Linguistic Inquiry 22:431-456.
- Finer, Daniel. (1985). "The syntax of switch-reference". Linguistic Inquiry, 16: 35-55.
- Haiman, John, and Pamela Munro, eds. (1983). Switch Reference and Universal Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
- Jacobsen, William. (1983). "Typological and Genetic Notes on Switch-Reference in North American Languages". In Haiman and Munro.
- Mithun, Marianne (1999). The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Marlett, Stephen A. (1984). '"Switch-reference and subject raising in Seri." Syntax and semantics 16: the syntax of Native American Languages, pp. 247–68, eds. E.-D. Cook & D. Gerdts. New York: Academic Press.
- Roberts, John (1997). Switch-Reference in Papua New Guinea, 101–241. Number 3 in Papers in Papuan Linguistics. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian National University.
- Stirling, Lesley (1993). "Switch-Reference and Discourse Representation". Cambridge, England: Cambridge U. Press.
- Watkins, Laurel (1993). "The Discourse Function of Kiowa Switch-Reference". International Journal of American Linguistics 59.