DOCSLIB.ORG

The Nature of Specific Language Impairment: Optionality and Principle Conflict

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Nature of Specific Language Impairment: Optionality and Principle Conflict Lee Davies Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University College London August 2001 ProQuest Number: U642667 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest U642667 Published by ProQuest LLC(2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 *I see nobody on the road,* said Alice. 7only wish I had such eyes,* the King remarked in a fretful tone. * To he able to see Nobody! And at that distance too! Why it*s as much as I can do to see real people, by this light!,... ABSTRACT This thesis focuses upon two related goals. The first is the development of an explanatory account of Specific Language Impairment (SLI) that can effectively capture the variety and complexity of the children’s grammatical deficit. The second is to embed this account within a restrictive theoretical framework. Taking as a starting point the broad characterisation of the children’s deficit, developed by Heather van der Lely in her RDDR (Representational Deficit for Dependant Relations) research program, I refine and extend her position by proposing a number of principled generalisations upon which a theoretical explanation can be based. These generalisations embody three specific claims; that SLI is a disorder that affects both productive and receptive language, that SLI children’s errors are mainly errors of omission and not commission, and that even the children’s ungrammatical production is representative of their grammar. I motivate these claims and consider how they might inform the development of a theoretical account of the disorder. My theoretical proposals are based on the concept of Principle Conflict. I propose that the SLI child’s grammar contains two principles which conflict in a way that makes them each select different optimal derivations from a given lexical array. As a result of this conflict, the child optionally produces a range of constructions which are ungrammatical for the Normal Development grammar. My proposals make a number of empirical predictions for the children’s speech. I present findings from a range of experimental studies which test many of my predictions for the domain of syntactic Negation. Negation is examined because it is a relatively new area of research and provides a range of interesting diagnostics for the particular syntactic phenomena which is my interest. Finally I consider the implications of my findings for my explanatory account. I also examine some of the most recent theoretical developments in the Minimalist program and discuss how my account can accommodate these. Now my thesis is done, I should take this time to thank the people who helped make it possible. First of all, I want to thank my teacher, Neil Smith. It has been an honour to work under his supervision. Neil’s dedication to his students and to linguistics is incredible. He has consistently inspired me and I have never left his office without feeling a little better about myself and the world in general. My main regret is that now I’m finished I won’t see him as often. However, he really should get an office lower down the building, all those steps! I tried counting them in base 12 as he suggested, but it doesn’t help. Next, I would like to thank Heather van der Lely, my second supervisor. Heather is one of the people I most admire in our research field. It was her vision and help that both inspired my research project and made it possible. She has always been ready to offer advise and new perspectives for which I will be forever grateful. I want to thank the children who participated in the study and their parents and teachers. In particular, I would like to thank the staff and pupils at the Moorhouse school, Hurst Green; Glebe Infants and Picklenash Juniors, Newant; and Buxton Community School, Buxton. They were great company and page turners. There are so many people at UCL who have helped me, here are just some of them: Ad Neeleman, Alex Perovic, Amela Camdzic, Annabel Cormack, Demetria Papangeli, Eleni Gregoromichelaki, Georgia Panitsa, Hans van der Koot, Hye-Kyung Kang, Karen Proud, Kristza Szendroi, Sam Martin, Vina Tsakali, and all the regulars at the Minimalist Reading Group. Last, but not least, Dirk Bury. Dirk is not just a beard (now I don’t even notice it!). He also makes great food, and knows almost every second hand book shop in London. Thanks for putting up with my inane ramblings and being my cinema companion (and he’s quite a good linguist too). If I forgot anyone. I’m really sorry. Please insert your name here _________ . From the Linguistics Department at Bangor, three people’s names particularly stand out; Bob Borsley, Margaret Deuchar, and Anna Roussou. Bob and Margaret were both my supervisors at Bangor and I’m grateful for their help and wise guidance. Anna was another guiding light in my development as a linguist. During my time at Bangor, I took nearly all her classes, some twice. Thanks for some of the most enjoyable linguistics I’ve ever done. Some people in London still need to be mentioned. First is Melanie Jones, (formally at Birkbeck) who should be given an award for teaching me how to use SPSS in 8 hours, and Jackie Battel (also formally at Birkbeck) who first took me to Moorhouse to meet the kids. My flat mates at Clandon House: Bernard, Jangho and particularly Sukant, a true friend. Thanks for the late night games of scrabble. I’m ashamed to say that although I was the only native speaker of English in the flat, I never won once -perhaps next time. Now back to home. I’d like to thank two people from my past who both had strong influences on me; Pat White and Paul Black. Also my old friends Lee, James, Timon, and Paul, Jo and Nathan. Now my family; thanks to my Grandparents, particularly my Grandmas (who feature in my examples). Thanks to my brother, Sean and my Mum and Dad, who have supported me unfailingly all the way. I hope I can live up to your example. Finally, Rebecca. There is so much that I have to thank her for. Over the past four years she has constantly supported me with love and advice. I can truly say that I couldn’t have done it without her. You unclose me Becca. This thesis is dedicated to you. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 11 1.1 Approach to SLI ................................................................................... 12 1.2 Theoretical basis ............................................................................................. 13 1.2.1 The components of the language faculty ......................................... 14 1.3 Organisation of the thesis ................................................................................ 16 Chapter 2 2.1 The nature of S L I ............................................................................................. 19 2.1.1 Clinical definition ................................... 19 2.1.2 The prevalence of S L I ................................................................ 20 2.1.3 The genetics of SLI ........................................................................... 20 2.1.4 The neurobiology of SLI .................................................................. 22 2.1.5 Subgroups of SLI ........................................................................ 24 2.2 Characterising SLI: the grammatical deficit .....................................................26 2.2.1 Morphology ....................................................................................... 26 2.2.2 Errors of syntactic structure ............................................................. 27 2.2.3 Wh- questions ................................................................................... 29 2.2.4 C ase.................................................................................................... 30 2.3 Accounts of S L I ............................................................................................... 31 2.3.1 Processing accounts: The Surface Hypothesis and The Sparse Morphology Hypothesis ................................................ 32 2.3.2 Grammatical accounts of SLI ........................................................... 35 2.3.2.1 Accounts of the morphological deficit ...........................................35 2.3.2.1.1 The Rules Formation Deficit Account ............................ 35 2.3.2.1.2 The Agreement Deficit Account ......................................37 2.3.2.1.3 The Extended Optional Infinitive Account ......................39 2.3.2.2 Broader deficit accounts ............................................................... 41 2.3.2.2.1 The Representative Deficit for Dependent Relations (c.f. van der Lely 9 6 ) ............................................................................41 23.2.2.2 The Impaired D-System Account (Tsimpli & Stavrakaki 9 9 ) ..................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Transparency in Language a Typological Study

    Transparency in Language a Typological Study

    Transparency in language A typological study Published by LOT phone: +31 30 253 6111 Trans 10 3512 JK Utrecht e-mail: [email protected] The Netherlands http://www.lotschool.nl Cover illustration © 2011: Sanne Leufkens – image from the performance ‘Celebration’ ISBN: 978-94-6093-162-8 NUR 616 Copyright © 2015: Sterre Leufkens. All rights reserved. Transparency in language A typological study ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. dr. D.C. van den Boom ten overstaan van een door het college voor promoties ingestelde commissie, in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Agnietenkapel op vrijdag 23 januari 2015, te 10.00 uur door Sterre Cécile Leufkens geboren te Delft Promotiecommissie Promotor: Prof. dr. P.C. Hengeveld Copromotor: Dr. N.S.H. Smith Overige leden: Prof. dr. E.O. Aboh Dr. J. Audring Prof. dr. Ö. Dahl Prof. dr. M.E. Keizer Prof. dr. F.P. Weerman Faculteit der Geesteswetenschappen i Acknowledgments When I speak about my PhD project, it appears to cover a time-span of four years, in which I performed a number of actions that resulted in this book. In fact, the limits of the project are not so clear. It started when I first heard about linguistics, and it will end when we all stop thinking about transparency, which hopefully will not be the case any time soon. Moreover, even though I might have spent most time and effort to ‘complete’ this project, it is definitely not just my work. Many people have contributed directly or indirectly, by thinking about transparency, or thinking about me.
  • Author Index

    Author Index

    Cambridge University Press 0521807611 - Case, Second Edition Barry J. Blake Index More information AUTHOR INDEX Abondolo, 101, 105 Cook, 66, 80 Agud, 32, 72, 207 Corbett, 104 Aikhenvald, 191 Croft, 192, 193, 207 Allen, 150 Crowley, 100 Andersen, 163 Cutler, 99, 190 Anderson, J., 62, 71, 80–3, 135, 197, 207 Anderson, S., 109 Delancey, 123, 192 Anttila, 165 Dench, 108–9, 116, 154, 190 Aristotle, 18, 30 Derbyshire, 100, 191 Armagost, 156 Dik, 62, 66, 68, 91–2, 188, 207 Artawa, 89, 124 Dionysius Thrax, 19 Austerlitz, 165 Dixon, 56, 105, 114, 124, 185, 191, 192, Austin, 12, 101, 112, 182–3 193, 194, 207 DuBois, 192 Baker, 187 Durie, 124, 192 Balakrishnan, 158 Blake, 15, 67, 78, 89, 107, 114–15, 124, 127–8, Ebeling, 121, 152 137, 143, 151, 154, 158, 186, 188, 192–3 Evans, 108–9, 116, 154, 190 Bloomfield, 13, 63 Bopp, 37 Filliozat, 64 Bowe, 26 Fillmore, 47, 62–3, 66–8, 74, 80, 82, 91, Branch, 105, 116 188, 197, 207 Breen, 28, 125 Foley, 72, 92, 110, 192, 207 Bresnan, 47, 92, 185, 186, 187 Frachtenberg, 190 Bryan, 102 Franchetto, 124 Burridge, 174 Friberg, 123 Burrow, 117, 181 Gilligan, 99, 190 Caesar, 19, 73, 98 Giridhar, 100 Calboli, 18, 19, 31, 48, 207 Giv´on, 112, 192, 193, 207 Cardona, 64, 65 Goddard, 186 Carroll, 138 Greenberg, 15, 160 Carvalho, de, 31, 40, 186, 192 Groot, de, 30 Catullus, 184 Gruber, 67–9, 205 Chafe, 66, 80, 207 Chaucer, 148 Haegeman, 59, 187, 190 Chidambaranathan, 158 Hale, 96, 107, 168, 194 Chomsky, xiii, 47, 57, 58, 61, 62, 186, 187, 189 Halliday, 66 Cicero, 23, 112 Hansen, 193 Cole, 110 Harris, 124, 126, 147, 192 Coleman, 105 Hawkins, 99, 190 Comrie, 87–8, 104, 140–1, 142, 152, 154, 185, Heath, 155, 159 190, 191, 207 Heine, 162, 165, 193 219 © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521807611 - Case, Second Edition Barry J.
  • Morphology Building Syntax: Constructive Case in Australian Languages

    Morphology Building Syntax: Constructive Case in Australian Languages

    Morphology Building Syntax Constructive Case in Australian Languages Rachel Nordlinger Stanford University Pro ceedings of the LFG Conference University of California San Diego Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King Editors CSLI Publications httpwwwcslistanfordedupublications LFG R Nordlinger Morphology Building Syntax Constructive Case in Australia Intro duction A dening characteristic of lfg is that morphological words can carry the same kinds of functional information as syntactic phrases words and phrases are alternative means of enco ding the same syntactic relations Kaplan and Bresnan Bresnan That morphology comp etes with syntax in this way Bresnan is seen most clearly in noncongurational languages where inectional morphology takes on much of the functional load of phrase structure in more congura tional languages like English determining grammatical functions and constituency relations lfg is thus wellsuited to the analysis of noncongurationality and has pioneered muchwork on non congurational languages b oth in Australia and elsewhere Mohanan Bresnan Simpson Kro eger T Mohanan Austin and Bresnan Nordlinger and Bresnan Andrews among many others In this pap er I will b e concerned with the function of case in the dep endentmarking non congurational languages of Australia These Australian languages haveunusually extensive case marking and case concord Intuitively as has b een suggested bymany researchers working with these languages eg Hale Simpson Nash Austin Evans a it is this case marking that enables their
  • Compound Case in Bodic Languages

    Compound Case in Bodic Languages

    Case Compounding in the Bodic Languages Michael Noonan University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 1. introduction Case compounding has received a certain amount of attention in the literature in recent years, in particular the phenomenon known as Suffixaufnahme [e.g. in Plank 1995a] and the various sorts of case compounding in Australian languages, some of which manifest Suffixaufnahme and other types of case compounding. There has been relatively less attention paid to the phenomenon outside of these two areas of research, and this paper is an attempt to rectify the situation somewhat by presenting data from a large family of languages, the Bodic languages, spoken in the areas straddling the spine of the Himala- yas. 1.1 bodic languages: The Bodic languages are a large and ramified branch of the Ti- beto-Burman languages.1 It is a controversial grouping in the sense that there is no con- sensus as to what should be placed within it and indeed whether it is a legitimate ge- netic grouping at all or just an assemblage of Tibeto-Burman languages that have been spoken in the region of the Himalayas long enough for the languages to have influ- enced each other in a variety of ways. A figure illustrating possible relationships among the Bodic languages can be found in Appendix 1. For our purposes, nothing crucial hinges on the assumption that these languages form a genetic grouping. It suffices that structurally these languages share certain fea- tures, among which is a tendency to compound markers of case within a phonological word. 1.2 definition of case compounding: We will define case compounding as the inclu- sion of two or more case markers within a phonological word.
  • One Feature Versus Two for Kayardild Tense-Aspect-Mood

    One Feature Versus Two for Kayardild Tense-Aspect-Mood

    Morphology DOI 10.1007/s11525-016-9294-3 The theory of feature systems: One feature versus two for Kayardild tense-aspect-mood Erich R. Round1,2 · Greville G. Corbett2 Received: 21 October 2015 / Accepted: 5 May 2016 © The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Features are central to all major theories of syntax and morphology. Yet it can be a non-trivial task to determine the inventory of features and their values for a given language, and in particular to determine whether to postulate one feature or two in the same semantico-syntactic domain. We illustrate this from tense-aspect- mood (TAM) in Kayardild, and adduce principles for deciding in general between one-feature and two-feature analyses, thereby contributing to the theory of feature systems and their typology. Kayardild shows striking inflectional complexities, investigated in two major stud- ies (Evans 1995a; Round 2013), and it proves particularly revealing for our topic. Both Evans and Round claimed that clauses in Kayardild have not one but two con- current TAM features. While it is perfectly possible for a language to have two fea- tures of the same type, it is unusual. Accordingly, we establish general arguments which would justify postulating two features rather than one; we then apply these specifically to Kayardild TAM. Our finding is at variance with both Evans and Round; on all counts, the evidence which would motivate an analysis in terms of one TAM feature or two is either approximately balanced, or clearly favours an analysis with just one.
  • Insubordination and Its ·Uses •

    Insubordination and Its ·Uses •

    11 Insubordination and its ·uses NICHOLAS EVANS • 11.1 Introduction -- Prototypical finite clauses are main clauses-indeed, the ability to occur in a main clause is often taken as definitional for finiteness, e.g. by Crystal (1997: 427 }l-and prototypical nonfinite clauses are subordinate clauses. Problems thus arise when clauses that would by standard criteria be analysed as non­ finite are used as main clauses; examples are the use in main clauses of the English bare infinitive go (1a) or Spanish ir in (1b) (both from Etxepare and Grohmann 2005: 129), or the Italian and German infinitives used to express commands in (2). (1) a. John go to the movies?! No way, man. b. diYo ir a esa fiesta?! iJamas! l.SG go.INF to this party never 'Me go to that party? Never!' (2) a. Alza-r-si, porc-i, av-ete cap-ito? Rifa-re get.up-INF-REFL pig-PL have-2PL understand-PSTPTCP make-INF i lett-i, rna presto! Puli-r-si le scarp-e the.M.PL bed-PL but quickly clean-INF-REFL the.F.PL shoe-PL This chapter has had a long gestation, and earlier versions were presented at the Monash University Seminar Series (1989), the inaugural conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology in Vitoria Gasteiz (1995), and at the Cognitive Anthropology Research Group of the Max Planck Institut fur Psycholinguistik (1995). I thank Frans Plank for inviting me to revise it for the present volume, thereby rescuing it from further neglect, and Irina Nikolaeva for her subsequent editorial comments.
  • INFORMATION to USERS the Most Advanced Technology Has Been

    INFORMATION to USERS the Most Advanced Technology Has Been

    INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been used to photo­ graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the original text directly from the copy submitted. Thus, some dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from a computer printer. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyrighted material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­ produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is available as one exposure on a standard 35 mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black and white photographic print for an additional charge. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. 35 mm slides or 6" X 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. vdUMIAccessing the World's Information since 1938 300 North 7eeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA Order Number 8812241 The Russian verbal prefixpo- as an invariant cognitive structure Dick, Warren Harlan, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1988 Copyright ©1988 by Dick, Warren Harlan. All rights reserved. UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.
  • Features Perspectives on a Key Notion in Linguistics

    Features Perspectives on a Key Notion in Linguistics

    OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 20/7/2010, SPi Features Perspectives on a Key Notion in Linguistics EDITED BY ANNA KIBORT AND GREVILLE G. CORBETT 1 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 20/7/2010, SPi 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox26dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York # 2010 editorial matter and organization Anna Kibort and Greville G. Corbett The moral rights of the authors have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) # 2010 the chapters their authors All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
  • Unimorph Schema)

    Unimorph Schema)

    The Composition and Use of the Universal Morphological Feature Schema (UniMorph Schema) John Sylak-Glassman Center for Language and Speech Processing Johns Hopkins University [email protected] June 2, 2016 c John Sylak-Glassman ** Working Draft, v. 2 ** Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Overview 4 3 Construction Methodology 5 3.1 Guiding Principles . .5 3.2 Constructing the Schema . .6 4 Annotation Formatting Guidelines 7 5 Dimensions of Meaning and Features 8 5.1 Aktionsart . .8 5.2 Animacy . 10 5.3 Argument Marking . 12 5.4 Aspect . 13 5.5 Case . 15 5.5.1 Core Case . 15 5.5.2 Non-Core, Non-Local Case . 16 5.5.3 Local Case . 18 5.6 Comparison . 20 5.7 Definiteness . 21 5.8 Deixis . 22 5.8.1 Distance . 22 5.8.2 Reference Point . 22 5.8.3 Visibility . 23 5.8.4 Verticality . 23 5.8.5 Summary . 24 1 5.9 Evidentiality . 24 5.10 Finiteness . 26 5.11 Gender and Noun Class . 27 5.12 Information Structure . 28 5.13 Interrogativity . 29 5.14 Language-Specific Features . 29 5.15Mood ............................................ 30 5.16 Number . 34 5.17 Part of Speech . 36 5.18 Person . 40 5.19 Polarity . 42 5.20 Politeness . 42 5.20.1 Speaker-Referent Axis . 43 5.20.2 Speaker-Addressee Axis . 44 5.20.3 Speaker-Bystander Axis . 44 5.20.4 Speaker-Setting Axis . 45 5.20.5 Politeness Features . 45 5.21 Possession . 46 5.22 Switch-Reference . 49 5.23 Tense . 53 5.24 Valency . 55 5.25 Voice .
  • Case: Oblique, Inherent, Semantic, Quirky Avery D

    Case: Oblique, Inherent, Semantic, Quirky Avery D

    Case: Oblique, Inherent, Semantic, Quirky Avery D. Andrews The Australian National University Avery.Andrewsanu.ed.au abstract: In the last several decades, a variety of terminology has been developed for describing case-marking patterns and uses of case-marking. Here I will review the related concepts of semantic, oblique and quirky/inherent case, discussing their development, and how they have been applied to describe case systems in various languages, with the sorts of problems that arise in trying to discriminate them from other kinds of case phenomena. keywords: case, structural case, quirky case, inherent case, grammatical relation, core grammatical relation, adjunct, oblique 1 Prior to the 1970s, and well into them, both theoretical and descriptive studies of case tended to merely list the various cases found in a language with their names and discussions of how they were used, without attempting to classify cases into types, or to theorize about what kinds of underlying mechanisms might be responsible for different kinds of behavior. Blake (1977) illustrates this approach. But during the seventies and later, various broader classifications were developed and came to be widely used, and connected to theoretical proposals. For example Chomsky (1981, pp. 170-171) has a distinction between ‘structural’ and ‘inherent’ case, the former imposed by various structural conditions, and the latter by specific lexical items, while Blake (1994, pp. 124-124) has a division between ‘grammatical’ and ‘semantic’. Further terms and divisions have been introduced, such as ‘quirky’, but with little consistency between authors. In this chapter, we will consider cases and case uses that have been described as ‘semantic’, ‘lexical’, ‘inherent’, ‘oblique’ and ‘quirky’.
  • Aspects of the Theory of Morphology (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs)

    Aspects of the Theory of Morphology (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs)

    Aspects of the Theory of Morphology ≥ Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 146 Editors Walter Bisang Hans Henrich Hock Werner Winter Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York Aspects of the Theory of Morphology by Igor Mel’cˇuk edited by David Beck Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin. The publication of this volume was made possible by the generous financial support of (i) the Alexander Humboldt Foundation, Germany and (ii) the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, through the Aid to Scholarly Publications Programme, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Țȍ Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Mel’cˇuk, Igor, 1932Ϫ Aspects of the theory of morphology / by Igor Mel’cˇuk ; edited by David Beck. p. cm. Ϫ (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs ; 146) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-3-11-017711-4 (hardcover : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 3-11-017711-0 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Grammar, Comparative and general Ϫ Morphology. I. Beck, David, 1963Ϫ II. Title. III. Series. P241.M45 2006 4151.9Ϫdc22 2005026841 ISBN-13: 978-3-11-017711-4 ISBN-10: 3-11-017711-0 ISSN 1861-4302 Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at Ͻhttp://dnb.ddb.deϾ.
  • Some Problems from Kayardild

    Some Problems from Kayardild

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by The Australian National University TYPOLOGIES OF AGREEMENT: SOME PROBLEMS FROM KAYARDILD BY NICHOLAS EVANS University of Melbourne ‘that rarity, nouns.., those most reluctant agreers, agreeing in case, of all categories’ (Plank 1995:32) ABSTRACT In this paper I describe a number of agreement-type phenomena in the Australian language Kayardild, and assess them against existing definitions stating both the boundaries of what is to be considered agreement, and characteristics of prototypical agreement phenomena. Though conforming, prima facie, to definitions of agreement that stress semantically-based covariance in inflections on different words, the Kayardild phenomena considered here pose a number of challenges to accepted views of agreement: the rich possibilities for stacking case-like agreement inflections emanating from different syntactic levels, the fact that inflections resulting from agreement may change the word class of their host, and the semantic categories involved, in particular tense/aspect/mood, which has been claimed not to be an agreement category on nominals. Two types of inflection, in particular – ‘modal case’ and ‘associating case’ – lie somewhere between prototypical agreement and prototypical government. Like agreement, and unlike government, they are triggered by inflectional rather than lexical features of the head, and appear on more than one constituent; like government, but unlike agreement, the semantic categories on head and dependent are not isomorphic. Other types of inflection, though unusual in the categories involved, the possibility of recursion, and their effects on the host’s word-class, are close to prototypical in terms in how they fare in Corbett’s proposed tests for canonical agreement.