Extended agreement in Oneida (Iroquoian)

Abstract

This chapter argues that prominent internal possessor patterns are present in Oneida but that the grammar of Oneida includes neither a prominent internal possessor nor an external possessor construction. The possessed nominal does not condition either what is marked on the pronominal prefix on the verb or the category of the pronominal prefix. Overall, which prefix the verb takes is determined by the verb’s lexical preferences when no inalienable body part is involved. The chapter argues that the relation between the externally expressed body part and the corresponding argument that the verb takes is one of extended agreement: the verb’s argument and the body part stand in a part–whole relation. This pattern is not unique to possession, but characteristic of the looser syntactic and semantic connection in Oneida between verbs and external nominals.