Lakhota Conference - UCLA Department of Linguistics

To appear in Working Papers in Lakhota, Pamela Munro (ed.); UCLA
Working Papers in Linguistics.
CHA CHA CHA 1
JOHN FOREMAN
jforeman@ucla.edu
This paper explores the function in Lakhota of various morphemes of the
shape cha, which includes the coordinating conjunction cha, the focus particle
cha and perhaps a complementizer cha. In particular, I argue that contrary to
Van Valin (1977)'s proposal that the focus marker cha is not an article and I
provide evidence that the complementizer cha cannot be conflated with the
coordinating conjunction cha.
1. INTRODUCTION
In this paper I investigate the identity of cha in Lakhota. I will attempt
to identify the exact number of function morphemes with the form cha
and discuss various aspects of their phonological, morphological,
syntactic and semantic properties.
This paper will explore how the various proposals concerning cha
can be used to account for the data that field methods class has
collected, and what modifications our data suggest be made to these
proposals. In particular, based on data collected I will argue against
Van Valin (1977)'s description of focus cha as an article. In addition, I
will explore the possibility that the definite focus marker écha is related
to the verb é 'be,' although no firm conclusions can be drawn on this
matter. I will also provide evidence that suggests a third cha acts as a
complementizer and contrary to Van Valin's proposal it may be
impossible to analyze it as the coordinating conjunction cha. Finally, I
will also discuss the appearance of multiple focus chas within a single
clause, a fact that has not been discussed in any literature previous to
our class.
2. BACKGROUND
In their grammar of Lakhota, Boas and Deloria (1941:146) only
identify one morpheme cha, which they define as meaning 'it being so.'
Generally, they observe that it functions as a conjunction connecting
1 Thanks to Adam Albright for the great title. Thanks to everyone in the Field Methods
class for all of their helpful data and discussion. Thanks are especially due to our
consultant, Mary Iron Teeth, for sharing her language with us. All data presented, unless
otherwise noted, were collected during the 1999 Field Methods class at UCLA with the
help and expertise of Mary Iron Teeth, who is from the Pine Ridge Reservation.

two phrases and that cha establishes a causal or conditional relation
between the two clauses.
In his dictionary, Buechel (1970:113) notes two conjunction
meanings for cha, 'therefore' and 'because' in the main entry. He also
states that cha can serve as a definite article used to indicate a
descriptive relative clause. Although not listed in the main dictionary
entry for cha, Buechel (1970:30) also observes that cha is used as a
complementizer to introduce the subordinate clauses of certain verbs
such as 'to know, to realize, to see' in positive declarative sentences:
(1) Wicas¤a kiη he wah*tánis'a ca slol-wá-ye. (B p.30)
man the DEM sinner CHA know-1S-#
'I know that man is a sinner.'
With other verbs, or in non-positive declarative contexts, kiη he is used
as the complementizer. 2
Van Valin (1977:39) distinguishes two cha morphemes in his
dissertation and attempts to group all of the appearances of cha under
these two morphemes. He also identifies a conjunctive cha which he
defines as 'and so.' He reduces Buechel's 'therefore' and 'because'
morphemes to this single cha. He also identifies another cha, which he
labels an indefinite focus article. He argues that it is a article that takes
indefinite NPs and has the effect of focusing that constituent.
According to Williamson (1987), this cha also marks relative clauses
as indefinite, which is similar to one of Buechel's definitions, although
Buechel calls it a definite article.
The data collected in the Field Methods class supports the idea that
there must be at least the two cha morphemes discussed in Van Valin
(1977), although our data disagree with some of the details of Van
Valin's proposal. It remains unclear, however, if all instances of cha
are synchronically derived from these two morphemes, although it is
very likely the various uses of cha are diachronically related to one of
these two morphemes. Further, although the two chas appear at first
syntactically and semantically quite distinct – a causal conjunct versus
a focus particle – the two are not always easy to distinguish, especially
2 Buechel (1970:113) also identifies a full lexical item with the form cha meaning 'a step,'
which I will not be concerned with in this paper. Interestingly though, he does also list
another functional morpheme cha which he describes as a particle that appears at the end
of a statement and infers a wish along the lines of adding 'Won't you?' to an English
statement. No obvious candidates for this cha appeared in the data the class collected and
no other source, such as Van Valin (1977) discuss this usage. For the purposes of this
paper I will leave this use of cha aside.
2

since the focus particle can serve to introduce an entire relative clause
which puts it into a postverbal position similar to conjunction cha.
3. CONJUNCTION CHA, WHAT'S ITS FUNCTION?
3.1. Basic Properties
The conjunction cha is used to coordinate clauses, as shown in (2):
(2) Wa-lówan cha hé wachí.
1S-sing CHA DEM dance
'I sang and he danced.'
The appearance of cha blocks the vowel ablaut that occur in certain
verbs. Lakhota has a group of verbs ending in –a that ablaut to –e
when the vowel occurs at the end of a phonological word. Suffixes and
certain post verbal particles/clitics block this process and the nonablauted
vowel appears as the surface vowel. This occurs with the
plural suffix –p. For example, the verb 'to hit' ablauts to aphé. In the
plural form it is apháp and the non-ablauted vowel surfaces.
Cha, like –p, blocks ablauting and allows the non-ablauted a of
ablaut verbs to surface. Consider the following:
(3) John a-má-pha cha iyó-ma-kshice.
J. #-1S-hit CHA #-1S-be.sad
'John hit me and I'm sad.'
(4) s‡u)'ka ki t?a' cha slol-wa'-ye. (VV:93:160b)
dog the die CHA know-1S-#
'The dog died and I know it.'
In (4), the verb 'to die' is also an ablaut verb and is realized as t'é when
it is followed by a phonological word boundary. So, again, we can see
that the presence of cha blocks ablaut in (4).
Since ablaut occurs when the vowel ends a phonological word, the
behavior of cha suggests that it is either a suffix or perhaps a
phonological clitic. Further, cha does not have its own stress
supporting this hypothesis. Evidence will be provided later on that
shows that cha is a clitic and not a suffix, and it is for this reason that it
is written as a word separate from the verb. In the our orthography, the
lack of an accent mark on cha indicates that it is a phonological clitic.
Cha cannot be used to coordinate other constituents, such as NPs, as
shown below in (5):
3

(5) *Harold cha Adam shúnka he aphá-p.
H. CHA A. dog DEM hit-PL
*'Harold and Adam hit the dog.'
To conjoin two NPs another conjunction, such as (é)na, must be used:
(6) Harold éna Adam shúnka he aphá-p.
H. and A. dog DEM hit-PL
'Harold and Adam hit the dog.'
Éna is probably related to –(i)na 'and' which, as observed by Munro
(pc), is like cha in being restricted to conjoining clauses. Cha and –
(i)na pattern together and figuring out the motivating factor for their
alternations is crucial to understanding the semantic force of cha.
3.2. An Early Hypothesis
Very early in the class, it was suggested that perhaps -(i)na and cha
form a switch-reference system. It was proposed that -(i)na indicates
that the subject of the second clause is the same as the subject of the
first clause while cha indicates that the subject of the second clause is
different from the subject of the first clause.
This hypothesis was suggested to account for the distributional facts
observed in (7) and (8) below:
(7) Igmú he hoghán he oyúsp-ina yút-elo.
cat DEM fish DEM catch-and eat-M
'The cat caught the fish and ate it.'
(8) Igmú he hoghán he oyúspa cha shúnka he yút-elo.
cat DEM fish DEM catch CHA dog DEM eat-M
'The cat caught the fish and the dog ate it.'
In (7), the subject of both clauses is igmú he 'the cat' and –(i)na was
used to conjoin the two clauses. In (8), the subject of the first clause is
again igmú he but the subject of the second clause is shúnka he, 'the
dog.' Here, our consultant volunteered a translation with cha.
Again, in (9) below –(i)na was used to conjoin two clauses with the
same subject, while in (10) the use of cha to conjoin the same two
clauses was explicitly rejected.
(9) Wa-lówan-na wa-wá-chi.
1S-sing-and #-1S-dance
4

'I sang and danced.'
(10) *Wa-lówan cha wa-wá-chi.
1S-sing CHA #-1S-dance
*'I sang and danced.'
Conversely, below in (11) cha connects two clauses with different
subjects and –(i)na is rejected, as shown in (12).
(11) John a-má-pha cha iyó-ma-kshice.
J. #-1S-hit CHA #-1S-be.sad
'John hit me and I'm sad.'
(12) *John a-má-ph-ina iyó-ma-kshice. 3
J. #-1S-hit-and #-1S-be.sad
*'John hit me and I'm sad.'
Additionally, Van Valin (1977:95) observes that when cha joins two
clauses, generally either the entire first clause serves as the object of the
second clause as in (4) above and in (13) below (where 'it' refers to 'you
singing'):
(13) ya-lo'wa) cha na-wa'-x?u). (VV93:160c)
2S-sing CHA #-1S-hear
'You sang and I heard it.'
or the subject of the first clause serves as the object of the second
clause as in (14) and (15) below:
(14) matho' ki thi' ekta' ?i' cha John kte'. (VV95:164a)
bear the house to go CHA J. kill
'The bear went to the house, and John killed it.'
*'The bear went to the house, and killed John.'
(15) John Bill thi' ekta' ?i' cha Bill aphe'. (VV95:164b)
J. B. house to go CHA B. hit
'John went to Bill's house, and Bill hit him.'
*'John went to Bill's house, and hit Bill.'
As noted by the starred second translation, it is impossible to
interpret the subjects of the first clauses in these sentences as the
subjects of the second clauses. When asked about these sentences, our
3 Note that this sentence was judged grammatical in a later session (374:10), and the
judgment here could be because amáphana was used instead of amáph-ina.
5

consultant found the same contrast: the subject of the first clause could
not serve as the subject of the second clause.
Rodel (1999a) notes, however, that these differences between –(i)na
and cha do not always hold. Instead, in rechecking our data she finds
that in certain sentences with different subjects it is possible to get
either –(i)na or cha as in (16) below:
(16) John hoghán he oyúsp-ina igmú he yúte.
J. fish DEM catch and cat DEM eat
'John caught the fish and the cat ate it.'
(17) John hoghán he oyúspa cha igmú he yúte.
J. fish DEM catch CHA cat DEM eat
'John caught the fish and the cat ate it.'
Although the sentences of (16-17) contain clauses with two different
subjects, the clauses can be conjoined with either –(i)na as well as cha.
This leads Rodel (1999a) to conclude that they do not form a switch
reference system.
It is clear from these examples at least, that the presence of –(i)na
does not always indicate that the second clause will have the same
subject as the first. This is further by the following:
(18) Wa-lówan-na hé wachí.
1S-sing-and DEM dance
'I sang and he danced.'
(19) Wa-lówan cha hé wachí.
1S-sing CHA DEM dance
'I sang and he danced.'
Sentence (18) also shows that –(i)na can be used when the subjects in
both clauses are different as well as cha as shown in (19). These data
might suggest then that –(i)na is a rather general conjunct 'and' that can
be used whether the conjoined clauses have the same or different
subjects, but perhaps cha can only be used when the subjects are
different. (Of course, there are still instances in which -(i)na cannot be
used as shown in (12) and these instances must still be accounted for.)
3.3. Cha as 'so, therefore'
Further investigation revealed that cha does not simply mean 'and' but
rather that it implies a causal connection between the two conjuncts.
For example, the following data were elicited by Munro:
6

(20) Phehín ma-ptéptechala-na hú ma-hánskaska.
hair 1S-short-and leg 1S-long
'I have short hair and long legs.'
(21) *Phehín ma-ptéptechala cha hú ma-hánskaska.
hair 1S-short-and CHA leg 1S-long
*'I have short hair and long legs.'
When asked about the grammaticality of (21) Munro notes that the
consultant said that "that's like saying you have short hair, that's how
come you have long legs" (notes p. 375).
This indicates that cha imposes a causal relation between the two
conjuncts such that the first clause is the cause of the second. The
meaning of cha then seems to be something like 'so' or 'therefore.'
When there is little real-world possibility of a clausal relationship
between the two conjuncts as in (21), the speaker either considers the
use of cha to be ungrammatical or to produce semantically and
pragmatically bizarre sentences: 4
(22) !!Phehín ma-sápsapa cha m-ishtíme-s'a.
hair 1S-black so 1S-sleep-a.lot
!!'I have black hair so I sleep a lot.'
(23) !!M-ishtíme-s'a cha wa-wá-chi-s'a.
1S-sleep-a.lot so #-1S-dance-a.lot
!!'I sleep a lot so I dance a lot.'
This explains the distribution of cha that was shown earlier. For
example, -(i)na was judged ungrammatical (at least initially) in (12)
because there is a strong pragmatic suggestion that there is a causal
relation between John hitting me and my being sad. Thus, cha is
preferred.
This also suggests that cha is not necessarily ungrammatical in (10)
because the subject is the same in both clauses but because there is not
a very strong causal relation between the fact that I sang and that I
danced. Rather, they are two events that occurred together, and thus –
(i)na is used as the conjunction.
It could still be the case that cha has a requirement that the subjects
of the two clauses be different. However, the data shows that this is not
4 Note that both (22) and (23) were judged ungrammatical in one session (p. 375) while in
another they were deemed grammatically acceptable, but pragmatically bizarre (p. 449),
hence my use of exclamation points.
7

case. Rather, the only condition is that there be a causal relation
between the two clauses. Consider (24-26) below:
(24) Ma-hánska cha i-wá-chu o-wá-ki.
1S-tall so #-1s-reach #-1s-be.able
'I'm tall, so I can reach it.'
(25) Harold ptécala cha ichú okí-shni.
H. short so reach be.able-NEG
'Harold is short so he can't reach it.'
(26) Adam lochín cha thaspán wan yúte.
A. be.hungry so apple a eat
'Adam was hungry so he ate an apple.'
In each of (24-26) the two clauses share the same subject but cha is
present to indicate a causal relation.
3.4. Sentence Intial Cha
It is not always necessary for both conjuncts of cha to be expressed.
Cha can appear sentence initially and appears to behave very much like
English 'so', and indeed, our consultant frequently translates sentence
initial cha with 'so.'
(27) Cha Harold Adam aphá he?
so H. A. hit Q
'So, did Harold hit Adam?'
(28) Cha hiná hoghán núp wakshíshkokpa el ún.
so DEM fish two glass.bowl in be
'So, there are two fish in the (glass) bowl.'
This ability of cha to appear sentence initially argues then that cha is
not a suffix which attaches to the verb of the first conjunct, but rather,
since it does not have its own stress, it is a clitic.
Rodel (1999a, 1999b) suggests that the sentence initial cha might be
the focus cha to be discussed belwo in section 4. As I will show below
in section 4, I was never able to get focus cha to occur sentence
initially. Instead, I argue that all of instances of sentence initial cha are
of the 'so' variety.
This is entirely compatible with the context in which many of the
questions with initial cha were elicited. For example, (29) was elicited
as an echo question, 'The cat ate what?'
8

(29) Cha ták cha igmú he yúta he? 5
so what CHA cat DEM eat Q
'So, what did the cat eat?'
The consultant was given the context that she had perhaps failed to
hear the entire sentence in (29) and wanted the relevant part repeated.
Very naturally, then, she asks 'So, what did the cat eat?' 6 Note that the
non-initial cha in (29) is a focus cha that will be discussed below in
Section 4.
3.5. Cha as 'because'
As noted earlier, Buechel also defines cha as meaning 'because.' This
one he notes occurs sentence finally following two clauses. Cha
indicates that the first clause is a result of the second clause.
Van Valin (1977:97) in contrast, suggests that these are the same cha
and that the 'because' use of cha is derived by fronting the second
conjunct of cha to a position preceding the original first conjunct. He
gives the following illustrative examples:
(30) hoks‡i'la ki cha)' icu' ki wa)-l-a'ke-s‡ni (VV97:170a)
boy the wood take DET #-2S-see-NEG
cha li'la a-chi'-cha)zeke.
so very #-1S/2S-be.mad.at
'You didn't see the boy take the wood, and so I'm mad at you.'
(31) li'la a-chi'-cha)zeke, hoks‡i'la ki cha)' icu' (VV98:170b)
very #-1S/2S-be.mad.at boy the wood take
ki wa)-l-a'ke-s‡ni cha.
DET #-2S-see-NEG so
'I'm mad at you because you didn't see the boy take the wood.'
5
I am presenting a translation that Mary agreed was acceptable during one of the class
checking sessions.
6
Rodel (1999b) does observe the following pair:
a) Cha tuwá Alex John aphá kheyá he?
CHA who A. J. hit say Q
b) Tuwé cha Alex John aphá kheyá he?
who FOC A. J. hit say Q
which she notes both can mean 'Who did Alex say John hit?' This is apparently the only
meaning for (a) while (b) could also mean 'Did Alex say that John hit somebody?' If in
(a) cha means 'so,' I would have predicted the opposite concerning the ambiguity. I am
not certain exactly, however, how either cha could account for this. These sentences
would benefit from further investigations.
9

What was the second conjunct of (30) appears sentence initially in
(31).
Our consultant also produced such sentences:
(32) O-chí-yusinke na-má-yaxtaka cha.
#-1S/2S-be.mad.at 2S-1S-kick so
'I'm mad at you because you kicked me.'
(33) Ho'éya anághoptanki ehánkenhan wóyake wan oblákinkta cha:
'Everybody listen, [because] I'm going to tell you a story of
long ago:'
In (33), the cha at the end of the clause may be the 'because' use of
cha telling the listeners why they should listen anághoptanki.
4. FOCUS CHA
A different morpheme with the same phonetic string, cha, acts as a
focus marker. Van Valin (1977) labels it an article. It is used to mark
indefinite DPs as focused constituents. It is often translated and
elicited with clefts:
(34) Shúnka cha ma-yáxtake.
dog FOC 1S-bite
'It was a dog that bit me.'
(35) Gnugnúshka cha wichásha he yúte.
grasshopper FOC man DEM eat
'It was a grasshopper that the man ate.'
Although often accompanied by scrambling of the focus constituent
to the front of the clause as in (35), the fronting is completely optional:
(36) Harold gnugnúshka cha yúte.
H. grasshopper FOC eat
'It was a grasshopper that Harold ate.'
So, in (36) although the object is marked as focussed with cha, the
constiuent is not fronted to the beginning of the clause.
4.1. Cha and Wh-Words
As wh-words are generally considered to be inherently focussed it is
unsurprising that cha often (although apparently optionally) appears
10

with them. Generally, it does not seem that the presence or abscence of
cha greatly affects the meaning.
Rodel (1999b), however, does observe some instances where cha
does seem to have a larger semantic impact. Rodel (1999b:6) notes the
following: táku 'what' cannot be interpreted as the subject of a question
(whether it is fronted or not), while the related form ták cha can be (as
well as being interpreted as a the object of the question.) It is possible
that this is related to the fact that cha is cognate with nominative or
emphatic nominative markers in other Siouan languages, such as
Biloxi, as noted by Munro (1988/1999).
As noted in Section 3.4, Rodel (1999a, 1999b) suggests that sentence
initial cha as in (29) is in fact the focus cha. I argued against this,
supporting the view that all sentence initial chas are in fact 'so' chas.
One reason for this is that I have been unable to elicit (or construct
grammatical) declaratives with an initial focus cha. For example, our
consultant rejected both of the following:
(37) *Cha thaspán yúte.
FOC apple eat
*'It was an apple he ate.'
(38) *Cha thaspán ki (Harold) yúte.
FOC apple DEF (H.) eat
*'It was the apple that he (Harold) ate.'
It is possible that these were rejected for other, unrelated reasons, but
our speaker was unable to think of any focussed sentences that started
with cha. Instead, she produced sentences like (27) which although it
does begin with cha, it is clearly the cha meaning 'so.'
Perhaps questions license the use of focus cha sentence initially, but
declaratives do not, but much more evidence is needed to support this
claim and to argue against the 'so' cha being the only sentence initial
cha.
For more on cha in questions, the reader is referred to Rodel (1999a,
1999b).
4.2. Definite NPs and Focus Cha
As demonstrated below in (39), definite NPs cannot be marked as being
focussed by cha.
(39) *Adam cha Harold aphé.
11

A. FOC H. hit
*'It was Adam who hit Harold.'
Instead, a related form, écha, must be used to focus definites,
including proper names (40), pronouns (41) and NPs followed by ki,
'the' (42).
(40) Harold écha shúnka he aphé.
H. FOC dog DEM hit
'It was Harold who hit the dog.'
(41) Hé écha lowán hán he?
DEM FOC sing PROG Q
'Is that him singing?'
(42) Wówapi ki écha yúha John ihángye.
book DEF FOC all J. destroy
'All the books is what John destroyed.'
Van Valin (1977:40) suggests that the é which he writes as a separate
word is derived from the independent third person pronoun iyé 'he, she,
it.'
Another possibility is that the é of écha is related to the verb é, 'to
be.' Semantically, this is plausible since crosslinguistically forms of 'to
be' are often used in focus constructions (cf. English cleft
constructions).
Although this may be the diachronic origin of the é in écha, it is
unclear if the é is still synchronically recognized as the verb 'to be.' An
indication of this is that é in écha does not show agreement with the
noun, which would be expected if it is a verb.
Neither é nor cha show agreement suggesting that they are not
recognized as verbs. So in (43), instead of using a potential agreeing
form ép cha showing the plural marking, écha is used. The plural –p
was explicitly rejected from the end of écha.
(43) Hoghán hiná écha/*échap waxté-wa-la-shni.
fish DEM FOC like-1S-#-NEG
'It's those fish that I don't like.'
Of course, here, the main verb does not show agreement with hoghán
hiná either, which is most likely an animacy effect (cf. Foreman 1999).
In (44) below, however, again the plural –p marker should appear on é
if it is a verb. It does appear on the main verb.
12

(44) Unkíye cha shúnka he unk-ápha-p.
1P FOC dog DEM 1P-hit-PL
'It was us who hit the dog.'
It is unclear for the non-third person forms if they are underlyingly
pronoun + cha or pronoun + écha with vowel reduction.
Similarly, -p should appear on é in the following, but our consultant
explicitly rejected that as a possibility:
(45) Harold éna Adam écha/*é-p-cha shúnka a-má-ki-pha-p.
H. and A. FOC *be-PL-FOC dog #-1S-PSSD-hit-PL
'It was Harold and Adam who hit my dog.'
There are similar sentences, however, when clearly é plus cha is used
and the verb does inflect. So, consider (46) below:
(46) Hiná unkíy-e-p cha un-lówan-p.
DEM 1P-be-PL FOC 1PL-sing-PL
'That's us singing.'
The exact analysis of (46) is uncertain. Unlike examples of écha,
(46) clearly contains two verbs. This would suggest then that there are
two clauses. It is plausible that hiná unkíyep cha forms a relative
clause. Van Valin (1977) and Williamson (1987) both indicate that
focus cha can be used to mark relative clauses. If this is the case, then
a more literal translation might be 'Those who are us are singing.'
The problem here is that Williamson (1987) observes that the
(internal) head of a Lakhota relative clause must be indefinite. It is
unclear that hiná is indefinite. By comparison, clearly hé used
pronominally in (41) is definite since it is focussed with écha. The
same might be expected of hiná.
Williamson (1984:50) also gives a sentence which might be an
example of é 'to be' plus focus cha:
(47) wichas‡a ki e pi cha wa7-wicha-blake.
man DEF be PL FOC #-3PL-1S/see
'It is the men that I see.'
Van Valin (1977) suggests that (47) would not be an instance of
focus cha but of 'so' cha and that a more literal translation might be 'It
is the men and so I saw them.' For more on this see the discussion
13

elow in section 5. If this is true then this is not evidence of é 'to be'
plus focus cha.
It is very possible that é 'to be' and écha are related, but it is unclear
how to resolve the facts concerning agreement and the difference
between (46) and (43-45).
4.3. Focus and Negation
Negation and focus do interact but no negative morphemes show up
next to cha. Instead, negation is marked in its usual place, following
the main verb. Consider the following:
(48) Harold gnugnúshka cha yúte shni.
H. grasshopper FOC eat NEG
'It wasn't a grasshopper that Harold ate.'
(49) Harold écha shúnka he aphé shni.
H. FOC dog DEM hit NEG
'It wasn't Harold who hit the dog.'
The scope of negation and focus is not fixed, however. In (48) and
(49) negation scopes over focus, but (49) is actually ambiguous. It is
also possible for the focus to be outside of the scope of negation.
Consider the following parallel sentence:
(50) Harold écha shúnka he aphé shni.
H. FOC dog DEM hit NEG
'It was Harold who didn't hit the dog.'
4.4. Cha and Relative Clauses
Williamson (1987) observes that focus cha can be used as a
complementizer for relative clauses, in alternation with ki. She
observes that Lakhota has internally headed relative clauses and that
within the relative clause itself, the head must be indefinite. Cha and ki
are then used to mark the entire relative clause as indefinite or definite
respectively. This is exemplified in (51) and (52) below:
(51) Mary owi7z‡a wa7 kag‡a cha he ophe-wa-thu7 (W87 171:4b)
M. quilt a make FOC DEM buy-1S-#
'I bought a quilt that Mary made.'
(52) Mary owi7z‡a wa7 kag‡a ki he ophe-wa-thu7 (W87 171:4a)
M. quilt a make the DEM buy-1S-#
'I bought the quilt that Mary made.'
14

Williamson (1987) suggests that this cha is the focus cha because it,
like the focus cha, is associated with indefinites.
Our consultant confirmed these judgments:
(53) Adam wichásha wan gnugnúshka yúte-s'a cha slolyé.
A. man a grasshopper eat-HAB FOC know
'Adam knows a man who eats grasshoppers.'
(54) Adam wichásha wan gnugnúshka yúte-s'a ki slolyé.
A. man a grasshopper eat-HAB the know
'Adam knows the man who eats grasshoppers.'
It is possible for a focus cha to appear with the head noun, whether
the entire relative clause is marked with cha or ki.
(55) *Wichásha cha ógle thó ún ki he/cha shúnka
man FOC coat blue wear the DEM/FOC dog
a-má-ki-phe.
#-1S-PSSD-hit
'It was the/a man who was wearing a blue coat that hit my
dog.'
It is not possible, in contrast, to focus NP in the relative clause that is
not the head noun.
(56) Wichásha wan ógle thó cha ún ki he shúnka
man a coat blue FOC wear the DEM dog
a-má-ki-phe.
#-1S-PSSD-hit
This result is expected. It suggests that the head noun is focussed to
the exclusion of other material inside the relative clause or perhaps that
the LF movement of the head NP blocks other NPs from being
focussed.
4.5. Interactions with other Elements in the DP
Cha is incompatible with other indefinite elements, such as wan
marking the NP:
(57) *Shúnka wan cha ma-yáxtake.
dog a FOC 1S-bite
*'It was a dog that bit me.'
15

This suggests that not only does cha mark focus but it also marks
indefiniteness as well.
Interestingly, as shown in (41) and (58), écha can co-occur with ki,
'the.'
(58) wa'ta ki e' cha aphi'-wa-ye. (VV40:69a)
boat the it FOC fix-1S-#
'It's the boat I'm fixing.'
It is unclear if cha can co-occur with demonstratives. Our consultant
did not volunteer anything of the form NP cha dem. She did accept
(59), although some alternative analysis, such as an adverbial use of he,
might be possible. In contrast though, she rejected (60).
(59) Shúnka cha he ma-yáxtake.
dog FOC DEM 1S-bite
'It was that dog that bit me.'
(60) *Chán cha he un Adam a-wá-phe.
stick FOC DEM with A. #-1S-hit
*'It was with that stick that I hit Adam.'
Note though that in (51), from Williamson (1987) cha can be
followed by the demonstrative he when cha is serving as the
complementizer of a relative clause. Our consultant though, while she
used ki he in this position, only used cha and never cha he with relative
clauses.
Cha cannot intervene between a noun and an adjective, even when
the appropriate contrastive context is set up:
(61) Igmú sápa cha Adam yaxtáka he?
cat black FOC A. bite Q
'Was it a black cat that bit Adam?'
(62) Hiyá, shúnka sápa cha Adam yaxtáke.
no dog black FOC A. bite
'No, it was a black dog that bit him.'
(63) *Hiyá, shúnka cha sápa Adam yaxtáke.
no dog FOC black A. bite
So, although (62) and (63) are in response to (61) and only shúnka
'dog' is being contrasted, not shúnka sápa 'black dog,' cha cannot
16

appear between shúnka and sápa, but instead combines with the whole
phrase.
This suggests that sápa is not necessarily acting like a verb in these
contexts. If it were, then shúnka sápa would form a relative clause 'a
dog who is black.' If this were the case, however, then cha would be
expected to be able to intervene between shúnka and sápa since this is
possible in relative clauses as shown in (55). Since it cannot, it
suggests that shúnka sápa are combined in some other fashion, perhaps
as a noun and adjective.
Cha also cannot intervene between a noun and a following
possessive verb tháwa.
(64) Igmú ni-tháwa he écha Harold yaxtáka he?
cat 2-POSS DEM FOC H. bite Q
'Did your cat bite Harold?'
(65) Hiyá, shúnka mi-tháwa he écha yaxtáke.
no dog 1S-POSS DEM FOC bite
'No, it was my dog that bit him.'
(66) *Hiyá, shúnka cha mi-tháwa he yaxtáke.
no dog FOC 1S-POSS DEM bite
Similar to adjectives, although only 'dog' and not 'my dog' is being
contrasted, cha cannot intervene between shúnka and mitháwa.
Cha can either precede or follow quantifiers, although perhaps
following the quantifier is more common.
(67) Igmú núpa cha Adam yaxtáka-p he?
cat two FOC A. bite-PL Q
'Did two cats bite Adam?'
(68) Igmú cha núp Adam yaxtáka-p he?
cat FOC two A. bite-PL Q
'Did two cats bite Adam?'
In addition, compare (42) to (69) below:
(69) Adam wapí ki iyúha cha yawá he?
A. book DEF all FOC read Q
'Is all the books what Adam read?'
17

In (42), the word order is wówapi ki écha yúha compared to wapí ki
iyúha cha above. It is also interesting to note that since the quantifier
intervenes between ki and the focus particle in (69) that cha can be used
instead of écha.
I am uncertain how, if at all, these different word orders affect the
semantics. I also do not know through what process(es) these variable
word orders derive. It could be that it is a difference of whether the
noun combines first with the quantifier or with cha. It may also be that
movement takes place after the initial combination.
Since cha can be preceded by a wide range of grammatical categories
such as nouns, adjectives, quantifiers, and verbs, this argues that focus
cha is not a suffix. Since it does not have its own stress, it also argues
that focus cha like conjunction cha is a phonological clitic.
4.6. Is Cha an Article?
According to Van Valin (1977:41), cha occupies the same position as
the article wan in the Lakhota NP. Further, as was noted in (57), the
two cannot co-occur. From this Van Valin concludes that cha can also
be categorized as an article.
Although he does consider cha's position in relative clauses and finds
it to be the same as wan, our consultant provided data which argues
against the article theory. She volunteered sentences in which cha
preceded postpositions wan does (as in (70)) and ones in which cha
followed the postposition (as in (72)). She also freely accepted
alternations of this order as in (71) and (73).
(70) Chán cha un Adam a-wá-phe.
stick FOC with A. #-1S-hit
'It was a stick that I hit Adam with.'
(71) Chán un cha Adam a-wá-phe.
stick with FOC A. #-1S-hit
'It was a stick that I hit Adam with.'
(72) Mní Lúzehan iktá cha Adam 'í. 7
Rapid City to FOC A. go
'It was to Rapid City that Adam went.'
7 Although Mní Lúzehan is a place name, the consultant used cha here, perhaps because
of the intervening postposition. This does not, of course, explain (73).
18

(73) Mní Lúzehan cha iktá Adam 'í.
Rapid City FOC to A. go
'It was to Rapid City that Adam went.'
If cha can take a PP complement then this would suggest it is not an
article. Indeed, this is not a general property of articles in Lakhota.
Wan cannot do this. Compare (74) and (75):
(74) Chan wan un Adam a-wá-phe.
stick a with A. #-1S-hit
'I hit Adam with a stick.'
(75) *Chan un wan Adam a-wá-phe.
stick with a A. #-1S-hit
*'I hit Adam with a stick.'
Although the article wan can appear with the NP in the postpositional
phrase as shown in (74) it cannot appear after the postposition in (75)
as cha can.
Still, it could be argued that cha originates in the article position and
then it or another part of the PP undergoes movement to give the NP
postposition cha word order. The data in (76), however, argues against
that.
(76) Chan wan un cha Adam a-wá-phe.
stick a with FOC A. #-1S-hit
'It was with a stick that I hit Adam.'
Cha cannot originate as an article in (76) since wan occupies that
position. This argues that instead of just combining with NPs that cha
is also able to combine with PPs and perhaps other constituents as well.
To get the order of (70) then, cha first combines with the NP chan
'stick' which then combines with un to form the PP. To get the order in
(72), the NP Mní Lúzehan 'Rapid City' first combines with iktá to form
a PP and then the PP combines with cha.
4.7. Multiple Chas
Rodel (1999a) observed that in multiple wh-questions more than one
cha could appear in the sentence. She found that as many chas as whelements
could appear.
19

It seems that multiple focus chas can also appear in declarative
sentences. Our consultant did not volunteer any, but she readily
accepted those that were asked of her. For example, she accepted (77).
(77) Wichásha cha gnugnúshka cha yúte.
man FOC grasshopper FOC eat
'It was a man that ate a GRASSHOPPER.'
One difficulty with this however, is that since she generally uses
clefts to translate focus cha into English, she couldn't give an
interpretation for (77). I have provided one that I think is accurate, but
it is possible that while these sentences sounded acceptable they are in
fact uninterpretable.
Assuming this is not the case, our consultant also allowed cha to
focus other non-wh-elements in wh-questions. She accepted (78)
below:
(78) Tuwé cha gnugnúshka cha yúta he?
who FOC grasshopper FOC eat Q
'Who ate a grasshopper?'
I then tested to see if scrambling of gnugnúshka cha was allowed. It
seemed to be although the consultant dropped the cha associated with
tuwé 'who.'
(79) Gnugnúshka cha tuwá yúta he?
grasshopper FOC who eat Q
'Who ate the grasshopper?'
Note that the consultant provided this translation.
The presence of a wh-element did not block scrambling of other
focused constituents although the cha associate with tuwá was dropped.
5. A NEW CHA?
There is one final group of cha sentences collected in the field methods
course that must be considered. They are of the following type:
(80) Harold ishtógmusiya cha wablake.
H. blink CHA 1S/see
'I saw Harold blink.'
20

(81) Adam Harold núghe yáksa cha wabláke.
A. H. ear bite.off CHA 1S/see
'I saw Adam bite off Harold's ear.'
These chas do not really resemble the other two kinds of chas we
have seen previously. The most direct definition of them here would
seem to be as a complementizer 'that.'
Clearly, this cannot be focus cha used to indicate the indefiniteness
of a relative clause. Williamson (1987) argues that the internal head of
the relative clause must be indefinite. In both (80) and (81), however,
the likely candidate for the head noun is definite. Indeed, all of the NPs
involved are definite. If Williamson (1987) is correct then this would
rule out relative clauses as a possible account of (80) and (81).
As noted in section 2, Buechel (1970:30) does note that certain verbs
such as 'to see' and 'to know' do take cha as a complementizer in
positive declaratives. If this is correct then this is a third type of cha
that needs to be distinguished.
Van Valin (1977) argues that the chas in (80-81) are in fact the
conjunction cha. He argues this based on their behavior in questions
and negation. As noted by Buechel (1970), this cha complementizer
can only appear in positive declarative sentences. In questions and
under negation cha cannot be used here. Instead, another
complementizer, such as ki, must be used.
Van Valin observes that this fact readily follows if cha is the
conjunction meaning 'and so.' The speaker ends up making a statement
and then saying that he or she is unaware of it. Consider the following
pairs:
(82) John is&ti'ma cha a-wa'-bleze. (VV93:160a)
J. sleep so #-1S-notice
'John is sleeping and so I noticed it.' or
'I noticed that John is sleeping.'
(83) *John is&ti'ma cha a-wa'-bleze-s&ni. (VV93:161a)
J. sleep so #-1S-notice-NEG
*'John is sleeping and so I didn't notice it.' nor
*'I didn't notice that John is sleeping.'
(84) s&u)'ka ki t?a' cha slol-wa'-ye. (VV 93:160b)
dog the die so know-1S-#
'The dog died and so I know it' or
'I know that the dog died.'
21

(85) *s&u)'ka ki t?a' cha slol-wa'-ya he? (VV 93:161b)
dog the die so know-1S-# Q
*'The dog died and so do I know it?' nor
*'Do I know that the dog died?'
(86) ya-lo'wa) cha na-wa'-x?u). (VV 93:160c)
2S-sing so #-1S-hear
'You sang and so I heard it.' or
'I heard you sing.'
(87) *ya-lo'wa) cha na-wa'-x?u)-s&ni. (VV 93:161c)
2S-sing so #-1S-hear-NEG
*'You sang and so I didn't hear it.' nor
*'I didn't hear you sing.'
This observation seems to work pretty well so long as the matrix
clause does not have an overt subject. When it does, this account
seems less convincing.
(88) *John wichi)'cala wa) nu)wa)' cha wa)ya)ke-s&ni. (VV 94:162a)
J. girl a swim so see-NEG
*'A girl was swimming and so John didn't see it.'
*'John didn't see the girl swimming.'
This suggests, although Van Valin does not state it explicitly, that
one conjunct of cha, wichi)'cala wa) nu)wa)', is in the middle of the other
conjunct, John wa)ya)ke-s&ni. This seems a little surprising. This is,
however, the natural position for a complement clause introduced by
cha given the SOV word order of Lakhota. In that analysis, John is the
subject of the main clause and wichi)'cala wa) nu)wa)' cha is clausal
object with a cha complementizer.
This question and the exact nature of this cha needs further
investigation but cleary (88) suggests that this cha cannot easily be
subsumed under the conjunctive cha. However, its incompability with
negation still needs to be explained.
6. CONCLUSION
In this paper, I have explored the identity of cha in Lakhota. I agree
with Van Valin (1977) that there are two chas, a conjunct meaning 'so'
and a focus element. I leave open the question of whether there are
more, particularly the existence of a complementizer cha.
22

I, however, argue against certain details of Van Valin's and others'
proposals. Our data suggest that focus cha is not an article but takes
non-NP complements as well. I explored the possibility that écha is
related to é 'be' although no firm conclusions could be reached.
I have made use of these ideas to account for various facts collected
in our field methods course. I have also explored data that has not been
previously discussed including the appearance of multiple focus chas
and the interaction of cha with various parts of the DP.
REFERENCES
BOAZ, FRANZ and ELLA DELORIA. 1941. Dakota Grammar. Memoirs
of the National Academy of Sciences XXIII.2. Washington: US
Government Printing Office.
BUECHEL, EUGENE. 1970. Lakota-English:English-Lakota Dictionary.
South Dakota: Red Cloud Indian School.
FOREMAN, JOHN. 1999. Animacy and Agreement in Lakhota. Ms.
Los Angeles: UCLA.
MUNRO, PAMELA. 1988/1999. Siouan Cognate Sets. Ms. Los
Angeles: UCLA.
RODEL, ANGELA. 1999a. Cha. Ms. Los Angeles: UCLA.
RODEL, ANGELA. 1999b. Questions in Lakhota. Ms. Los Angeles:
UCLA.
VAN VALIN, ROBERT D. 1977. Aspects of Lakhota Syntax. PhD thesis,
Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.
WILLIAMSON, JANIS S. 1984. Studies in Lakhota Grammar. PhD
thesis, San Diego: University of California, San Diego.
WILLIAMSON, JANIS S. 1987. An indefiniteness restriction for relative
clauses in Lakhota. In E. J. Reuland and A. G. B. ter Meulen
(eds.). The Representation of (In)definiteness. pp. 168-190.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
23