Switch-reference

In linguistics, switch-reference (SR) describes any clause-level morpheme that signals whether certain prominent arguments in 'adjacent' clauses are coreferential. In most cases, it marks whether the subject of the verb in one clause is coreferent with that of the previous clause, or of a subordinate clause to the matrix (main) clause that is dominating it.

The basic distinction made by a switch-reference system is whether the following clause has the same subject (SS) or a different subject (DS). That 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. It 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, the verb takes no switch-reference marker. However, if the subject of one verb differs from the subject of the following verb, the verb takes the "different subject" marker, -š: as displayed below ^[1]

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.^[2]

There are four fundamental properties that any switch reference system, canonical and non-canonical, should satisfy.^[3][4] Any system that does not have all these properties are categorically not switch reference:

• Switch reference systems have switch reference markers that track a specific, generalized role, are morphologically marked, and apply at the clause level.
• Switch reference systems have at least one marker indicating coreference and at least one marker indicating disjoint-reference.
• Switch reference markers encode mutually exclusive values whose semantics include identity versus non-identity, and prototypically indicate coreference or disjoint reference across clauses.
• The semantics of the predicate in the controlling clause do not constrain the use of switch reference.

A commonly used definition of canonical switch reference is that "switch-reference is an inflectional category of the verb, which indicates whether or not its subject is identical with the subject of some other verb."^[5]

Many languages exhibit non-canonical switch-reference, the co-referents of arguments other than the subject being marked by switch-reference. Here is an example from Kiowa:

In this case, the use of the same-subject marker gɔ rather than the switch-reference marker nɔ indicates that the two subjects wrote letters at the same time, to the same person, and with the same subject.^[6]

In addition, the nominative subject is not always marked by switch-reference. For instance, many clauses, including those with impersonal or weather verbs, have no subject at all but can both bear and trigger switch-reference.^[7]

Switch-reference markers often carry additional meanings or are at least fused with connectives that carry them. For instance, a switch-reference marker might mark a different subject and sequential events.

Switch-reference markers often appear attached to verbs, but they 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' or '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 switch-reference languages are subject–object–verb languages, with verbs as well as complementizers and conjunctions coming at the end of clauses. Therefore, switch-reference often appears attached to verbs, a fact that has led to the common but erroneous claim that switch-reference is a verbal category.

One certain typological fact about switch-reference is that switch-reference 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.

Switch-reference 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.^[8][9] For instance, in the configuration [A[B][C]], for which B and C are subordinate clauses to A, any switch-reference-marking on C refers to A, not B.

[insert intro]

[insert text]

[insert text]

[insert text]

[insert text]

Switch reference is found in hundreds of languages in North America, South America, Australia, New Guinea (particularly in the Trans-New Guinea phylum, but not in many Papuan language families of northern New Guinea ^[10]), and the South Pacific. Typologies exist for North America,^[11] Australia,^[12] and New Guinea.^[13] The distribution of these systems has been determined via surveys and typological studies.^[14]

Switch-reference tends to occur in geographical clusters spread over distinct language families. This system is suspected to spread through language contact, or areal diffusion, which accounts for the fact that the morphological marking varies from one language to the next. For example, Kiowa is the only language in the Kiowa-Tanoan family that uses switch reference, which can be explained by the migration history of the Kiowa tribe and their close contact with the Crow and Comanche tribes, both of which use switch-reference in their language.^[15] Particularly in North America, the Uto-Aztecan language family is thought to have been a source of major influence.^[16]

Many indigenous languages in Western South America use switch-reference systems such as Quechuan, Uru, and Chipaya in the Andes, and Tacanan, Panoan, Barbacoan, Tucanoan, and Jivarona in the Amazon area.^[17] Panoan languages are unique in the way they allow different coreference pivots such as transitive and intransitive subjects, as well as objects.^[18]

In North America, there are 11 language families and 4 isolate languages that use this system. These native languages that feature switch-reference can be found in regions stretching from the south and south-west of the U.S. to the north-west of Mexico. These include the Yuman–Cochimí, Muskogean, Maiduan, Pomoan, Yokutsan, Plateau Penutian, Yukian, Kiowa-Tanoan, Siouan, and the Numic and Takic (subgroups of Uto-Aztecan) language families, and the Seri, Tonkawa, Washo, and Zuni isolates.^[19] These North American languages are unique in their productive use of this system, using switch-reference in coordinate, relative, and complement clauses, as well as semantically underspecified clause chains.^[20]

Australian languages that use switch-reference include that aboriginal language families Pama-Nyungan, Arabana-Wangganguru, Arandic, Wagaya, Garawa-Waanyi, and Djingili.^[21] Further, 70% of Papuan languages, referring to languages native to the island of New Guinea, make use of switch reference systems.^[22] While languages in Papua New Guinea are rich with personal pronouns, verbs still require switch-reference and agreement markers for participant tracking.^[23]

Switch-reference systems are also present in languages of Vanuatu, parts of Africa, and potentially eastern Siberia. Vanuatu languages are distinctive in that they mark the anticipatory subject. Although Africa is not typically known to be a region with switch-reference, it is quite prevalent in Omotic languages, particularly within the North Omotic subgroup.^[24] This influence may have also contributed to the development of switch-reference systems in East Cushitic languages. Finally, the eastern Siberian Yukaghir language family and Even, a Tungusic language, may be considered switch-reference languages but there is currently inconclusive evidence.^[25]

• Arregi, K. & Hanink, E. A. (2021). Switch reference as index agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 40, 651-702.
• Austin, Peter. (1981). "Switch-Reference in Australia". Language 57.
• Déchaine, R.-M. & Wiltschko, M. (2002). Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 33(3), 409-442.
• de Sousa, H. (2016). Some non-canonical switch reference systems and the fundamental functions of switch reference. In R. van Gijn & J. Hammond (Eds.), Switch Reference 2.0 (pp. 55-92). John Benjamins.
• de Vries, L. (2017). Greater Awyu Languages of West Papua in Typological Perspective. In A. Y. Aikhenvald & R. M. W. Dixon (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology (pp. 942-996). Cambridge University Press.
• Farrell, Patrick; Stephen A. Marlett; & David M. Perlmutter. (1991). Notions of subjecthood and switch-reference: Evidence from Seri. Linguistic Inquiry 22:431-456.
• Finer, D. (1985). The syntax of switch-reference. Linguistic Inquiry, 16(1), 35-55.
• Haiman, J. & Munro, P. (1983). Introduction. In J. Haiman & P. Munro (Eds.), Switch Reference and Universal Grammar (pp. ix-xv). John Benjamins.
• Jacobsen, William. (1983). "Typological and Genetic Notes on Switch-Reference in North American Languages". In Haiman and Munro.
• Keine, S. (2013). Deconstructing switch-reference. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 31, 767-826.
• Mithun, Marianne (1999). The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• McKenzie, A. (2015). A Survey of Switch-Reference in North America. International Journal of American Linguistics, 81(3), 409-448.
• 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, L. (1985). Switch-Reference and Logophoricity in Discourse Representation Theory. Edinburgh University Press.
• van Gijn, R. (2016). Switch reference: an overview. In R. van Gijn & J. Hammond (Eds.), Switch Reference 2.0 (pp. 1-53). John Benjamins.
• Watkins, L. J. (1993). The Discourse Functions of Kiowa Switch-Reference. International Journal of American Linguistics, 59(2), 137-164.