DOCSLIB.ORG

Non-Finite Complements and Modality in De-Na 'Allow' in Hindi-Urdu

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Non-Finite Complements and Modality in De-Na 'Allow' in Hindi-Urdu Non-finite complements and modality in de-na ‘allow’ in Hindi-Urdu Alice Davison Abstract The meaning ‘to allow’ is expressed in Hindi-Urdu by the verb de-na ‘give’ with an oblique infinitive complement, which I argue is syntactically as well as semantically ambiguous. It has a biclausal control analysis, meaning ‘allow X to do A’, as well as an Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) complement with the meaning ‘allow A to happen’. The complements are smaller than finite CP and larger than the non-clausal causative complement, and the ECM complement is smaller than the control complement. I offer syntactic arguments for the syntactic ambiguity associated with the two meanings; where the control reading is unavailable, the ECM structure and meaning are available, sometimes by coercion by the context. The modal meaning associated with the control structure suggests that modals do not occur only in ECM/Raising constructions. The arguments are couched in minimalist syntactic terms, opening up a cross- theoretical dialogue with Butt’s (1995) analysis in Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) terms of the permissive as a complex predicate in argument structure. Keywords Hindi-Urdu - Permission - Modality - Argument structure - Control - ECM/Raising - Coercion - Complex Predicates - Lexical Case - Structural Case - Causatives 1 Introduction This paper discusses the ‘permissive’ construction, the term used by Butt (1995) for the combination of the verb de-na ‘give’ with an infinitive form but without a postposition. The combination has the meaning ‘allow’. Two examples are given below, one with a dative indirect object (1), one without (2): (1) mã =ne bɑccõ=ko kıtab-ẽ pɑṛh- ne dĩ mother=ERG child.m.pl=DAT book-F.PL.NOM read-INF. give.PF.F.PL 1 ‘Mother allowed/let (the) children to read (the) books.’ 1 Abbreviations: ABL - Ablative, ACC - accusative, CP - Conjunctive participle, DAT - dative, ERG - ergative, GEN - genitive, F - feminine, IMPER - imperative, IMPF - imperfective, INF - infinitive, M - masculine, NOM - 1 (2) pıta=ne peṛ kɑṭ-ne di-e father=ERG tree.M.PL[NOM] be.cut-INF.OBL give-PF.MPL ‘Father allowed the trees to be cut.’ (Bhatt 2005) I propose that the permissive is biclausal and actually has two distinct and coexisting sentence structures with non-finite complement clauses of different sizes, namely an object control TP/CP and an Exceptional Case Marking AspP/TP. The arguments for control are based on valence, lexical case marking, constraints on lexical case, and conditions on anaphor binding. The arguments for ECM are based on valence, structural case marking, the absence of a condition on lexical case and, most strikingly, on a semantic contrast with the control structure. The control version refers to a locus of permission, an individual, while the ECM version refers to an event; this version is preferred under conditions inconsistent with a locus of permission. These differences are correlated with some differences of modality with a circumstantial modal base. The syntactic and meaning properties of the permissive expressed here represent a different view from the monoclausal complex predicate analysis in Butt (1995), which is based on a different set of data from the data offered here. Nevertheless, the monoclausal analysis is consistent with some of the otherwise unexplained properties of the permissive. So one of the issues discussed here is whether a non-finite complement can be a separate clausal domain or not. 2 Is the de-na ‘allow’ construction syntactically ambiguous? A major question that I will discuss in this paper is whether the permissive is syntactically ambiguous–for example, are (1) and (2) syntactically different? Various possibilities for structure have been discussed, which are summarized in (3) and (4). The crucial differences are in the position of DP2, and the boundaries of the constituent containing the oblique infinitive. (3) Biclausal structures a. Object control DP1 DP2(i) [PRO(i) DP3 V-inf] DE b. ECM/Raising to Object DP1 [DP2 (DP3) V-inf] DE (Bhatt 2005) (4) Complex predicate (Butt 1995; 1998) a. C-structures: DP1 DP2 DP3 [V-inf + DE] (Butt 1995:87) DP1 DP2 [DP3 V-inf] DE (Miriam Butt, p.c.) b. Argument (a) structure (Miriam Butt, p.c.) <give AG GO EVt> | read <AG TH> (matrix GO is identified with embedded AG) The LFG monoclausal argument structure (4 a and b) is proposed by Butt nominative, OBL - oblique, PF - perfective, PL - plural. 2 (1995); the verb de- and the infinitive form a complex predicate, whose arguments are the subject, indirect object DP2, and a direct object DP3, as in (1). This ‘flat’ structure is achieved by argument identification at a-structure, whereas the c-structure can be realized as a complex predicate with an embedded verb (Miriam Butt, p.c.; see Butt, this volume, section 4). In minimalist syntactic terms, the structure (3a) is an instance of object control, in which the indirect object DP2 is a matrix constituent, controlling the null PRO subject of an embedded clause. This structure is similar to other clearly defined object control structures, such as ‘tell DP to do something’, ‘force DP to do something’, ‘compel, demand, require’, etc.2 The structure (3b) is also biclausal, an instance of an ECM structure (or Raising to Object) assumed for the permissive in Bhatt (2005). DP2 represents the subject of the embedded infinitive. The evidence for Butt’s LFG analysis of the permissive (4) includes agreement, adjunct control and reflexive versus pronoun interpretations (Butt 1995: 37-43); there are some speaker differences in these interpretations, as a reviewer points out. Butt’s LFG argument structure coindexes the matrix goal or indirect object with the embedded clause subject; see further discussion in section 7. Butt notes some syntactic similarities in c-structure between the complex predicate permissive described above and the instructive ‘tell’, which involves object control (3a). The similarities include scrambling, negation and coordination (Butt 1995: 44-51, Butt 1998. An anonymous reviewer, however, finds some differences in the construal of negation and negative polarity items, suggesting that there are differences of structure. The ECM structure (3b) is proposed in Bhatt (2005). DP2 is the subject of the embedded infinitive rather than the indirect object of the matrix verb. In my discussion of this structure, I will call it ECM rather than Raising to Object, in order to contrast the control/ECM structures in the clearest possible way, and also to avoid the controversy over the representation of control as raising (Hornstein 1999), which is not relevant to the issues of this paper. The proposal I will make in this paper is the following. The permissive is biclausal and has both the control structure (3a) as in (5) below and the ECM 2The permissive differs from other control complements because there is no postposition on the infinitive clause (see the following note). Postpositions are known to block agreement in HU. So the permissive construction also allows optional long distance agreement with the embedded clause nominative argument (cf. Bhatt 2005). Agreement is one of Butt’s (1995) arguments for monoclausality. Bhatt (2005) argues that this kind of agreement is associated with a reduced or restructured embedded clause, so the combination of infinitive and matrix is in effect one clause for the purposes of agreement. But note that the ECM structure (4b) has a projected subject, and is not a reduced clause. So I will represent (4b) ECM clauses as fully biclausal, pace Bhatt (2005), with a subject in the embedded clause, and optional agreement. 3 structure (3b) as in (6) below. I propose that the permissive structure is syntactically ambiguous between control and ECM, but the control analysis is the default choice, reflecting the ditransitive argument structure of de-na ‘give’. The ECM analysis requires special factors to be present. In addition, the meaning associated with the control structure implies the meaning associated with the ECM structure, but not the reverse. The control structure has the meaning ‘allow to do’, which implies ‘allow to happen’. The ECM analysis only conveys ‘allow to happen’. The ECM analysis comes to the fore under specific lexical and pragmatic circumstances, to be defined below. h (5) mã =ne bɑccõi=ko [PROi kıtab-ẽ pɑṛ -ne] dĩ mother=ERG child.m.pl=DAT book-F.PL read-INF.OBL give.PF.F.PL ‘Mother allowed (the) children to read (the) books.’ [Control] (6) pıta=ne [peṛ kɑṭ-ne ] di-e father=ERG tree.M.PL[NOM] be.cut-iNF.OBL give-PF.MPL Father allowed [the trees to be cut].’ (Bhatt 2005) [Exceptional Case Marking] The difference is that DP2 is a matrix indirect object coindexed with PRO in (5) (Control), and a structurally cased embedded subject in (6) (ECM). I will first argue for the control structure, then for the ECM structure, and then discuss various facets of the relationship between the two structures. I will return at the end of the paper to discuss some data that support Butt’s monoclausal complex predicate analysis (4) because they are not explained by the biclausal control analysis, perhaps because of the specific lexical properties of de-na ‘give’. 3 De-na ‘allow’ as a control construction In this section, I will make the case that the permissive is an object control construction. I will use three syntactic arguments, one based on the similarity of thematic roles and case to other object control predicates, another based on lexical case in control contexts, and the third argument based on reflexive binding, which is constrained by syntactic factors such as clause structure and grammatical functions (Gurtu 1992). I begin by showing the similarities of the permissive to a clear case of obligatory object control (7), the ‘instructive’ in Butt (1995).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Long and Short Adjunct Fronting in HPSG
    Long and Short Adjunct Fronting in HPSG Takafumi Maekawa Department of Language and Linguistics University of Essex Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Linguistic Modelling Laboratory, Institute for Parallel Processing, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Held in Varna Stefan Muller¨ (Editor) 2006 CSLI Publications pages 212–227 http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2006 Maekawa, Takafumi. 2006. Long and Short Adjunct Fronting in HPSG. In Muller,¨ Stefan (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Varna, 212–227. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Abstract The purpose of this paper is to consider the proper treatment of short- and long-fronted adjuncts within HPSG. In the earlier HPSG analyses, a rigid link between linear order and constituent structure determines the linear position of such adjuncts in the sentence-initial position. This paper argues that there is a body of data which suggests that ad- junct fronting does not work as these approaches predict. It is then shown that linearisation-based HPSG can provide a fairly straightfor- ward account of the facts. 1 Introduction The purpose of this paper is to consider the proper treatment of short- and long-fronted adjuncts within HPSG. ∗ The following sentences are typical examples. (1) a. On Saturday , will Dana go to Spain? (Short-fronted adjunct) b. Yesterday I believe Kim left. (Long-fronted adjunct) In earlier HPSG analyses, a rigid link between linear order and constituent structure determines the linear position of such adverbials in the sen- tence-initial position. I will argue that there is a body of data which sug- gests that adjunct fronting does not work as these approaches predict.
    [Show full text]
  • Animacy and Alienability: a Reconsideration of English
    Running head: ANIMACY AND ALIENABILITY 1 Animacy and Alienability A Reconsideration of English Possession Jaimee Jones A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the Honors Program Liberty University Spring 2016 ANIMACY AND ALIENABILITY 2 Acceptance of Senior Honors Thesis This Senior Honors Thesis is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the Honors Program of Liberty University. ______________________________ Jaeshil Kim, Ph.D. Thesis Chair ______________________________ Paul Müller, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Jeffrey Ritchey, Ph.D. Committee Member ______________________________ Brenda Ayres, Ph.D. Honors Director ______________________________ Date ANIMACY AND ALIENABILITY 3 Abstract Current scholarship on English possessive constructions, the s-genitive and the of- construction, largely ignores the possessive relationships inherent in certain English compound nouns. Scholars agree that, in general, an animate possessor predicts the s- genitive while an inanimate possessor predicts the of-construction. However, the current literature rarely discusses noun compounds, such as the table leg, which also express possessive relationships. However, pragmatically and syntactically, a compound cannot be considered as a true possessive construction. Thus, this paper will examine why some compounds still display possessive semantics epiphenomenally. The noun compounds that imply possession seem to exhibit relationships prototypical of inalienable possession such as body part, part whole, and spatial relationships. Additionally, the juxtaposition of the possessor and possessum in the compound construction is reminiscent of inalienable possession in other languages. Therefore, this paper proposes that inalienability, a phenomenon not thought to be relevant in English, actually imbues noun compounds whose components exhibit an inalienable relationship with possessive semantics.
    [Show full text]
  • Logophoricity in Finnish
    Open Linguistics 2018; 4: 630–656 Research Article Elsi Kaiser* Effects of perspective-taking on pronominal reference to humans and animals: Logophoricity in Finnish https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0031 Received December 19, 2017; accepted August 28, 2018 Abstract: This paper investigates the logophoric pronoun system of Finnish, with a focus on reference to animals, to further our understanding of the linguistic representation of non-human animals, how perspective-taking is signaled linguistically, and how this relates to features such as [+/-HUMAN]. In contexts where animals are grammatically [-HUMAN] but conceptualized as the perspectival center (whose thoughts, speech or mental state is being reported), can they be referred to with logophoric pronouns? Colloquial Finnish is claimed to have a logophoric pronoun which has the same form as the human-referring pronoun of standard Finnish, hän (she/he). This allows us to test whether a pronoun that may at first blush seem featurally specified to seek [+HUMAN] referents can be used for [-HUMAN] referents when they are logophoric. I used corpus data to compare the claim that hän is logophoric in both standard and colloquial Finnish vs. the claim that the two registers have different logophoric systems. I argue for a unified system where hän is logophoric in both registers, and moreover can be used for logophoric [-HUMAN] referents in both colloquial and standard Finnish. Thus, on its logophoric use, hän does not require its referent to be [+HUMAN]. Keywords: Finnish, logophoric pronouns, logophoricity, anti-logophoricity, animacy, non-human animals, perspective-taking, corpus 1 Introduction A key aspect of being human is our ability to think and reason about our own mental states as well as those of others, and to recognize that others’ perspectives, knowledge or mental states are distinct from our own, an ability known as Theory of Mind (term due to Premack & Woodruff 1978).
    [Show full text]
  • Predicate Logic
    Logical Form & Predicate Logic Jean Mark Gawron Linguistics San Diego State University [email protected] http://www.rohan.sdsu.edu/∼gawron Logical Form & Predicate Logic – p. 1/30 Predicates and Arguments Logical Form & Predicate Logic – p. 2/30 Logical Form The Logical Form of English sentences can be represented by formulae of Predicate Logic, What do we mean by the logical form of a sentence? We mean: we can capture the truth conditions of complex English expressions in predicate logic, given some account of the denotations (extensions) of the simple expressions (words). Logical Form & Predicate Logic – p. 3/30 The Leading Idea: Extensions Nouns, verbs, and adjectives have predicates as their translations. What does ’predicate’ mean? ’Predicate’ means what it means in predicate logic. Logical Form & Predicate Logic – p. 4/30 Intransitive verbs Translating into predicate logic (1) a. Johnwalks. b. walk(j) (2) a. [[j]] = John b. “The extension of ’j’ is the individual John.” c. [[walk]] = {x | x walks } d. “The extension of ’walk’ is the set of walkers” (3) a. [[John walks]] = [[walk(j)]] b. [[walk(j)]] = true iff [[j]] ∈ [[walk]] Logical Form & Predicate Logic – p. 5/30 Extensional denotations • Remember two kinds of denotation. For work with logic, denotations are always extensions. • We call a denotation such as [[walk]] (a set) an extension, because it is defined by the set of things the word walk describes or “extends over” • The denotation [[j]] is also extensional because it is defined by the individual the word John describes. • Next we extend extensional denotation to transitive verbs, nouns, and sentences.
    [Show full text]
  • Romani Syntactic Typology Evangelia Adamou, Yaron Matras
    Romani Syntactic Typology Evangelia Adamou, Yaron Matras To cite this version: Evangelia Adamou, Yaron Matras. Romani Syntactic Typology. Yaron Matras; Anton Tenser. The Palgrave Handbook of Romani Language and Linguistics, Springer, pp.187-227, 2020, 978-3-030-28104- 5. 10.1007/978-3-030-28105-2_7. halshs-02965238 HAL Id: halshs-02965238 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-02965238 Submitted on 13 Oct 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Romani syntactic typology Evangelia Adamou and Yaron Matras 1. State of the art This chapter presents an overview of the principal syntactic-typological features of Romani dialects. It draws on the discussion in Matras (2002, chapter 7) while taking into consideration more recent studies. In particular, we draw on the wealth of morpho- syntactic data that have since become available via the Romani Morpho-Syntax (RMS) database.1 The RMS data are based on responses to the Romani Morpho-Syntax questionnaire recorded from Romani speaking communities across Europe and beyond. We try to take into account a representative sample. We also take into consideration data from free-speech recordings available in the RMS database and the Pangloss Collection.
    [Show full text]
  • L2/20-246 Teeth and Bellies: a Proposed Model for Encoding Book Pahlavi
    L2/20-246 Teeth and bellies: a proposed model for encoding Book Pahlavi Roozbeh Pournader (WhatsApp) September 7, 2020 Background In Everson 2002, a proposal was made to encode a unified Avestan and Pahlavi script in the Unicode Standard. The proposal went through several iterations, eventually leading to a separate encoding of Avestan as proposed by Everson and Pournader 2007a, in which Pahlavi was considered non-unifiable with Avestan due to its cursive joining property. The non-cursive Inscriptional Pahlavi (Everson and Pournader 2007b) and the cursive Psalter Pahlavi (Everson and Pournader 2011) were later encoded too. But Book Pahlavi, despite several attempts (see the Book Pahlavi Topical Document list at https://unicode.org/L2/ topical/bookpahlavi/), remains unencoded. Everson 2002 is peculiar among earlier proposals by proposing six Pahlavi archigraphemes, including an ear, an elbow, and a belly. I remember from conversations with Michael Everson that he intended these to be used for cases when a scribe was just copying some text without understanding the underlying letters, considering the complexity of the script and the loss of some of its nuances to later scribes. They could also be used when modern scholars wanted to represent a manuscript as written, without needing to over-analyze potentially controversial readings. Meyers 2014 takes such a graphical model to an extreme, trying to encode pieces of the writing system, most of which have some correspondence to letters, but with occasional partial letters (e.g. PARTIAL SHIN and FINAL SADHE-PARTIAL PE). Unfortunately, their proposal rejects joining properties for Book Pahlavi and insists that “[t]he joining behaviour of the final stems of the characters in Book Pahlavi is more similar to cursive variants of Latin than to Arabic”.
    [Show full text]
  • Pronouns, Logical Variables, and Logophoricity in Abe Author(S): Hilda Koopman and Dominique Sportiche Source: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol
    MIT Press Pronouns, Logical Variables, and Logophoricity in Abe Author(s): Hilda Koopman and Dominique Sportiche Source: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Autumn, 1989), pp. 555-588 Published by: MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178645 Accessed: 22-10-2015 18:32 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Linguistic Inquiry. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:32:27 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Hilda Koopman Pronouns, Logical Variables, Dominique Sportiche and Logophoricity in Abe 1. Introduction 1.1. Preliminaries In this article we describe and analyze the propertiesof the pronominalsystem of Abe, a Kwa language spoken in the Ivory Coast, which we view as part of the study of pronominalentities (that is, of possible pronominaltypes) and of pronominalsystems (that is, of the cooccurrence restrictionson pronominaltypes in a particulargrammar). Abe has two series of thirdperson pronouns. One type of pronoun(0-pronoun) has basically the same propertiesas pronouns in languageslike English. The other type of pronoun(n-pronoun) very roughly corresponds to what has been called the referential use of pronounsin English(see Evans (1980)).It is also used as what is called a logophoric pronoun-that is, a particularpronoun that occurs in special embedded contexts (the logophoric contexts) to indicate reference to "the person whose speech, thought or perceptions are reported" (Clements (1975)).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 Mirativity and the Bulgarian Evidential System Elena Karagjosova Freie Universität Berlin
    Chapter 6 Mirativity and the Bulgarian evidential system Elena Karagjosova Freie Universität Berlin This paper provides an account of the Bulgarian admirative construction andits place within the Bulgarian evidential system based on (i) new observations on the morphological, temporal, and evidential properties of the admirative, (ii) a criti- cal reexamination of existing approaches to the Bulgarian evidential system, and (iii) insights from a similar mirative construction in Spanish. I argue in particular that admirative sentences are assertions based on evidence of some sort (reporta- tive, inferential, or direct) which are contrasted against the set of beliefs held by the speaker up to the point of receiving the evidence; the speaker’s past beliefs entail a proposition that clashes with the assertion, triggering belief revision and resulting in a sense of surprise. I suggest an analysis of the admirative in terms of a mirative operator that captures the evidential, temporal, aspectual, and modal properties of the construction in a compositional fashion. The analysis suggests that although mirativity and evidentiality can be seen as separate semantic cate- gories, the Bulgarian admirative represents a cross-linguistically relevant case of a mirative extension of evidential verbal forms. Keywords: mirativity, evidentiality, fake past 1 Introduction The Bulgarian evidential system is an ongoing topic of discussion both withre- spect to its interpretation and its morphological buildup. In this paper, I focus on the currently poorly understood admirative construction. The analysis I present is based on largely unacknowledged observations and data involving the mor- phological structure, the syntactic environment, and the evidential meaning of the admirative. Elena Karagjosova.
    [Show full text]
  • Persian Language
    v course reference persian language r e f e r e n c e زبان فارسی The Persian Language 1 PERSIAN OR FARSI? In the U.S., the official language of Iran is language courses in “Farsi,” universities and sometimes called “Farsi,” but sometimes it is scholars prefer the historically correct term called “Persian.” Whereas U.S. government “Persian.” The term “Farsi” is better reserved organizations have traditionally developed for the dialect of Persian used in Iran. 2 course reference AN INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGE Persian is a member of the Indo-European Persian has three major dialects: Farsi, language family, which is the largest in the the official language of Iran, spoken by 50 world. percent of the population; Dari, spoken mostly in Afghanistan, and Tajiki, spoken Persian falls under the Indo-Iranian branch, in Tajikistan. Other languages in Iran are comprising languages spoken primarily Arabic, New Aramaic, Armenian, Georgian in Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, India, and Turkic dialects such as Azerbaidjani, Bangladesh, areas of Turkey and Iraq, and Khalaj, Turkemenian and Qashqa”i. some of the former Soviet Union. INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES GERMANIC INDO-IRANIAN HELLENIC CELTIC ITALIC BALTO-SLAVIC Polish Russin Indic Greek Serbo-Crotin North Germnic Ltin Irnin Mnx Irish Welsh Old Norse Swedish Scottish Avestn Old Persin Icelndic Norwegin French Spnish Portuguese Itlin Middle Persin West Germnic Snskrit Rumnin Ctln Frsi Kurdish Bengli Urdu Gujrti Hindi Old High Germn Old Dutch Anglo-Frisin Middle High Germn Middle Dutch Old Frisin Old English Germn Flemish Dutch Afrikns Frisin Middle English Yiddish Modern English vi v Persian Language 3 ALPHABET: FROM PAHLAVI TO ARABIC History tells us that Iranians used the Pahlavi Unlike English, Persian is written from right writing system prior to the 7th Century.
    [Show full text]
  • Serial Verb Constructions Revisited: a Case Study from Koro
    Serial Verb Constructions Revisited: A Case Study from Koro By Jessica Cleary-Kemp A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Associate Professor Lev D. Michael, Chair Assistant Professor Peter S. Jenks Professor William F. Hanks Summer 2015 © Copyright by Jessica Cleary-Kemp All Rights Reserved Abstract Serial Verb Constructions Revisited: A Case Study from Koro by Jessica Cleary-Kemp Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Associate Professor Lev D. Michael, Chair In this dissertation a methodology for identifying and analyzing serial verb constructions (SVCs) is developed, and its application is exemplified through an analysis of SVCs in Koro, an Oceanic language of Papua New Guinea. SVCs involve two main verbs that form a single predicate and share at least one of their arguments. In addition, they have shared values for tense, aspect, and mood, and they denote a single event. The unique syntactic and semantic properties of SVCs present a number of theoretical challenges, and thus they have invited great interest from syntacticians and typologists alike. But characterizing the nature of SVCs and making generalizations about the typology of serializing languages has proven difficult. There is still debate about both the surface properties of SVCs and their underlying syntactic structure. The current work addresses some of these issues by approaching serialization from two angles: the typological and the language-specific. On the typological front, it refines the definition of ‘SVC’ and develops a principled set of cross-linguistically applicable diagnostics.
    [Show full text]
  • Tagalog Pala: an Unsurprising Case of Mirativity
    Tagalog pala: an unsurprising case of mirativity Scott AnderBois Brown University Similar to many descriptions of miratives cross-linguistically, Schachter & Otanes(1972)’s clas- sic descriptive grammar of Tagalog describes the second position particle pala as “expressing mild surprise at new information, or an unexpected event or situation.” Drawing on recent work on mi- rativity in other languages, however, we show that this characterization needs to be refined in two ways. First, we show that while pala can be used in cases of surprise, pala itself merely encodes the speaker’s sudden revelation with the counterexpectational nature of surprise arising pragmatically or from other aspects of the sentence such as other particles and focus. Second, we present data from imperatives and interrogatives, arguing that this revelation need not concern ‘information’ per se, but rather the illocutionay update the sentence encodes. Finally, we explore the interactions between pala and other elements which express mirativity in some way and/or interact with the mirativity pala expresses. 1. Introduction Like many languages of the Philippines, Tagalog has a prominent set of discourse particles which express a variety of different evidential, attitudinal, illocutionary, and discourse-related meanings. Morphosyntactically, these particles have long been known to be second-position clitics, with a number of authors having explored fine-grained details of their distribution, rela- tive order, and the interaction of this with different types of sentences (e.g. Schachter & Otanes (1972), Billings & Konopasky(2003) Anderson(2005), Billings(2005) Kaufman(2010)). With a few recent exceptions, however, comparatively little has been said about the semantics/prag- matics of these different elements beyond Schachter & Otanes(1972)’s pioneering work (which is quite detailed given their broad scope of their work).
    [Show full text]
  • Two Types of Serial Verb Constructions in Korean: Subject-Sharing and Index-Sharing
    Two Types of Serial Verb Constructions in Korean: Subject-Sharing and Index-Sharing Juwon Lee The University of Texas at Austin Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar University at Buffalo Stefan Muller¨ (Editor) 2014 CSLI Publications pages 135–155 http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2014 Lee, Juwon. 2014. Two Types of Serial Verb Constructions in Korean: Subject- Sharing and Index-Sharing. In Muller,¨ Stefan (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st In- ternational Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University at Buffalo, 135–155. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Abstract In this paper I present an account for the lexical passive Serial Verb Constructions (SVCs) in Korean. Regarding the issue of how the arguments of an SVC are realized, I propose two hypotheses: i) Korean SVCs are broadly classified into two types, subject-sharing SVCs where the subject is structure-shared by the verbs and index- sharing SVCs where only indices of semantic arguments are structure-shared by the verbs, and ii) a semantic argument sharing is a general requirement of SVCs in Korean. I also argue that an argument composition analysis can accommodate such the new data as the lexical passive SVCs in a simple manner compared to other alternative derivational analyses. 1. Introduction* Serial verb construction (SVC) is a structure consisting of more than two component verbs but denotes what is conceptualized as a single event, and it is an important part of the study of complex predicates. A central issue of SVC is how the arguments of the component verbs of an SVC are realized in a sentence.
    [Show full text]