DOCSLIB.ORG

An Analysis of the Syntax of Comanche Samantha Price

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Analysis of the Syntax of Comanche Samantha Price An Analysis of the Syntax of Comanche Samantha Price Northeastern University 1 Introduction This paper discusses Comanche syntax, examining both its complexities and its unique relationship with the language’s morphological system. Section 2 provides a brief overview of the language: its historic roots, its evolution, and its current state. The following section (Section 3) supplies details about Comanche’s basic SOV word order, including instances where this word order is maintained and situations where irregular word orders arise. The typology of Comanche’s word order is examined as well, with an emphasis on whether it possesses the characteristics of a typical SOV language. Section 4 focuses on the formation of noun phrases and the structures that are commonly seen (basic nouns, nouns/determiners, objective/possessive nouns, nominal case markings). Section 5 transitions to verb phrases, specifically the structure of phrases with different verb types (intransitive, transitive, etc.), as well as the construction of questions. Lastly, two significant features of Comanche’s morphosyntax are highlighted in Section 6: case reference markers and oblique relatives. 2 Sociolinguistic Profile This section presents a brief overview of the Comanche language.1 Comanche is spoken by members of the Comanche Nation in Western Oklahoma. Although this tribe once dominated the Great Plains region of the Western U.S. and Mexico, historical mistreatment of Native Americans by westward-bound settlers led to its decline and present-day diminished state (Charney 1993:1). Today, the Comanche tribe is surrounded by a diverse collection of other Native American nations (see Figure 1); few 1 of these tribes are members of its Numic genus or Uto-Aztecan family due to the U.S. government’s tribal relocation policies. Figure 1: Map of Southeastern U.S.; Comanche Nation circled in red (Ethnologue 2009). According to WALS, languages within Comanche’s genus and family, like Chemehuevi and Kawaiisu, are found in California and its neighboring states. Comanche’s closest language relative is Shoshone; the Comanche and Shoshone tribes were once a united nation inhabiting the Plains-Plateau-Basin area of modern day Wyoming (Charney 1993:1). When a group of Shoshones migrated to the Plains after 1850, their communications became the linguistically distinct Comanche language (Charney 1993:2). As of the year 2007, there were 100 remaining native Comanche speakers (all over the age of fifty) within an ethnic population of 8,500. Since the language is no 2 longer transmitted to offspring, this number has likely decreased since then. English- Comanche bilingualism tends to exist among the older generation because of English’s dominance and wider appeal. While Comanche may have been utilized extensively during the tribe’s height of power, the lack of native speakers today results in the language’s confinement to a small area. Ethnologue classifies this language as 8a (moribund/nearly extinct, see Figure 2), and UNESCO characterizes it as severely endangered, meaning the language is solely spoken by older generations. Comanche’s relatives have fared slightly better; Shoshone and Chemehuavi are categorized as threatened, with evidence of occasional transmission to offspring. Figure 2: Comanche’s placement on the EGIDS scale (8a) (Ethnologue 2018). There is no concrete evidence to indicate the acquisition of Comanche by non- native speakers, though classes in the language were offered at the University of Oklahoma (as reported in 2007). Comanche is preserved in various texts, but it is rarely utilized functionally in private or public settings, and there is yet to be a widespread movement to revive the language. 3 This paper primarily derives its information from Jean Ormsbee Charney’s A Grammar of Comanche, as this grammar is both the most recent and the most comprehensive examination of the Comanche language (according to WALS). Charney constructed her grammar with the consultants Lucille McClung, Agnes Wermy, and Theresa Saupitty throughout the 1980s, favoring these firsthand accounts over other linguists’ dated evidence. Other notable resources (specified by WALS) include Elliott Canonge’s compilation of Comanche folklore and anecdotes (1958), Henry Osborn and William A. Smalley’s study of Comanche word formation (1949), and Venda Riggs’s Alternate Phonemic Analyses of Comanche (1949). Another related work is Lila Wistrand-Robinson and James Armagost ‘s Comanche Dictionary and Grammar (1990). As Charney mentions, that grammar employs Canonge’s Comanche texts rather than data from language consultants (1993:3). Wistrand-Robinson and Armagost’s work is consulted for this paper, but Charney’s grammar remains the predominant source unless otherwise stated. 2 3 Word Order This section analyzes the word order of Comanche, beginning with an explanation of its customary Subject-Object-Verb structure (Section 3.1). Although this structure defines the language, there is a degree of fluidity allowed in the placement of words, as morphological markers are favored to provide context and define grammatical categories. Consequently, Section 3.2 briefly describes common irregular word orders and their causes. Section 3.3 concludes with an analysis of the typology of Comanche syntax and 4 the characteristics of the language that might align (or differ) with the features of SOV languages in general. For the examples of this section (and the entire paper), Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) constituent projections are used to display the syntactical complexities of a polysynthetic language like Comanche. 3 For information about the Leipzig abbreviations and the phonemic symbols that are employed, consult Section 9.1 and Section 9.2 respectively. For more information about Comanche word order, see Charney (1993:194). 3.1 Basic Word Order As mentioned above, the general structure of Comanche sentences is Subject-Object- Verb. Although the subject usually precedes the object and verb, it is often not the first word in a sentence, as “there is a strong tendency in Comanche for the subject to be moved into sentential second position” (Charney 1993:94). The element in the first position is determined by the topicalized particles -tsa or -se (discussed further in Section 3.2). Example 1 provides two simple sentences with SV or SOV word orders and no adjuncts. (1) a. nɨ nːɨ-se pɑː -kʷɑpi-tɨ = 1PL.EXCL-CNTR water-lie.PL.SBJ-GEN:ASP ‘We swam.’ b. nɨ -se uhti mɑ kɑ -n 1SG-CNTR 3PL.OBJ feed-CMPL:ASP ‘I fed them.’ 5 The structures of both examples are consistent with what one would expect from an SOV language. Figure 3 provides an RRG projection for data point (1a); it demonstrates the straightforward, typical structure of an SV sentence. The subject argument comes before the verb nucleus. Figure 3: Simple SV structure with no adjuncts The placement of adjuncts in Comanche sentences tends to vary, depending on the types of sentences and other factors (discussed in 3.2). There is no definable pattern, but instrumental prefixes are a popular choice to add specific details to a sentence. Each instrumental prefix corresponds to some physical action that can make an intransitive verb become transitive (Charney 1993:117). For more information about instrumental prefixes and their functions, consult Charney (1993:117-123). Example 2 offers 6 instances of Comanche sentences which involve instrumental adjuncts. The instrumental prefixes and their corresponding meanings are highlighted in bold. (2) a. ɾ eɾ un-tsɑ huː tsuː -ʔɑ kɨ H-jɑː -kɑ =tɨ = name-TOP bird-OBJ INS.in.mouth-carry.SG.OBJ-have ‘Rerun (a dog) has a bird in his mouth.’ b. nɨ -tsoʔ nikɑ -ʔɑ nɨ ː tsɑ H-kʷ eʔ jɑ -i 1SG.POSS-hat-OBJ 1SG INS.with.hand-remove.SG.OBJ-CMPL:ASP ‘I took off my hat (with my hand)’. In both point (2a) and point (2b), the instrumental prefixes function as adjuncts because they are not necessary for each sentence to make sense. Figure 4 represents the RRG constituent projection for data point (2a). As can be seen by the diagram, the phrase ‘in his mouth’ is treated as a periphery; the sentence would still be complete without the phrase, indicating that it is not an argument. The verb’s meaning is already ‘hold/carry’, so the addition of ‘in his mouth’ only adds further information about how the object is carried. 7 Figure 4: Basic Subject-Object-Verb structure (with adjunct) in Comanche There are other, rarer variations of adjuncts and main clauses, but to explore them is beyond the scope of this paper. 3.2 Alternative Word Orders The main sources of variant word orders in Comanche are the topic suffixes -tsa and -se. Any morpheme that is suffixed with either of these particles becomes the first word in a given sentence, forcing the subject into a sentential second position (Charney 1993:194). As a result, Comanche sentences often begin with various word types. In the case where there is no topicalized particle attached to any morpheme, the subject moves to the second position automatically. Two common Comanche sentence structures, Object- Subject-Verb and Object-Verb-Subject, are formed in the latter way. Transitive 8 sentences (discussed further in Section 5.2.2) often have the OSV order when the object of the sentence is nominal. Example 3 demonstrates instances with and without the topic particle. (3) a. otɨ kʷɨ h-tsɑ nɑ nɑ -kʷɨ =-tu-i-nɨ kʷɨ h those.DU-TOP RECP-female-marry-CMPL:ASP-DU ‘Those two are getting married.’ b. nɨ -wɑ ʔ o nɨ ː nɑ suwɑ tsi-n my-cat.OBJ 1SG forget-CMPL:ASP ‘I forgot my cat.’ As can be seen by the bolded element in data point (3a), otikʷih suffixed with the topic particle begins the sentence. Figure 5 displays the RRG projection for data point (3a). Figure 5: Represents a sentence with the topic particle -tsa.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ditransitive Verbs in Language Use
    Chapter 3 Aspects of description: ditransitive verbs in language use This chapter provides a corpus-based description of individual ditransitive verbs in actual language use. First, the two verbs that are typical of ditransitivity in ICE-GB will be analysed: give and tell (see section 3.1). Second, the four habitual ditransitive verbs in ICE-GB (i.e. ask, show, send and offer) will be scrutinised (see section 3.2). Particular emphasis in all the analyses will be placed on the different kinds of routines that are involved in the use of ditransitive verbs. The description of peripheral ditransitive verbs, on the other hand, will centre on the concepts of grammatical institutionalisation and conventionalisation (see section 3.3). At the end of this chapter, the two aspects will be discussed in a wider setting in the assessment of the role of linguistic routine and creativity in the use of ditransitive verbs (see section 3.4). 3.1 Typical ditransitive verbs in ICE-GB In the present study, typical ditransitive verbs are verbs which are frequently attested in ICE-GB in general (i.e. > 700 occurrences) and which are associated with an explicit ditransitive syntax in some 50% of all occurrences or more (cf. Figure 2.4, p. 84). These standards are met by give (see section 3.1.1) and tell (see section 3.1.2). 3.1.1 GIVE In light of recent psycholinguistic and cognitive-linguistic evidence, it is not sur- prising that the most frequent ditransitive verb in ICE-GB is GIVE.1 Experiment- al data have led Ninio (1999), for example, to put forward the hypothesis that children initially acquire constructions through one (or very few) ‘pathbreaking verbs(s)’.
    [Show full text]
  • Flexible Valency in Chintang.∗
    Flexible valency in Chintang.∗ Robert Schikowskia , Netra Paudyalb , and Balthasar Bickela a University of Zürich b University of Leipzig 1 e Chintang language Chintang [ˈts̻ ʰiɳʈaŋ]̻ (ISO639.3: ctn) is a Sino-Tibetan language of Nepal. It is named aer the village where it is mainly spoken. e village lies in the hills of Eastern Nepal, bigger cities within day’s reach being Dhankuṭā and Dharān. ere are no official data on the number of speakers, but we estimate there to be around 4,000 - 5,000 speakers. Most speakers are bi- or trilingual, with Nepali (the Indo-Aryan lingua franca of Nepal) as one and Bantawa (a related Sino-Tibetan language) as the other additional language. Monolingual speakers are still to be found mainly among elderly women, whereas a considerable portion of the younger generation is rapidly shiing to Nepali. Genealogically, Chintang belongs to the Kiranti group. e Kiranti languages are generally accepted to belong to the large Sino-Tibetan (or Tibeto-Burman) family, although their position within this family is controversial (cf. e.g. urgood 2003, Ebert 2003). Based on phonological evidence, Chintang belongs to the Eastern subgroup of Kiranti (Bickel et al. 2010). ere are two major dialects (Mulgaũ and Sambugaũ ) named aer the areas where they are spoken. e differences between them concern morphology and the lexicon but, as far as we know, not syntax, and so we will not distinguish between dialects in this chapter. For all examples the source has been marked behind the translation. Wherever possible, we take data from the Chintang Language Corpus (Bickel et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Native American Languages Act Hearing
    S. HRG. 108–107 NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGES ACT HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON S. 575 TO AMEND THE NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGES ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUPPORT OF NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGE SURVIVAL SCHOOLS MAY 15, 2003 WASHINGTON, DC ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 87–260 PDF WASHINGTON : 2003 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Chairman DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Vice Chairman JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, KENT CONRAD, North Dakota PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico HARRY REID, Nevada CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota GORDON SMITH, Oregon MARIA CANTWELL, Washington LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska PAUL MOOREHEAD, Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel PATRICIA M. ZELL, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel (II) C O N T E N T S Page S. 575, text of ........................................................................................................... 2 Statements: Brown, William Y., director, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI ....................... 55 Cheek, John, director, National Indian Education Association, Alexan- dria, VA .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Representation of Third Person and Its Consequences for Person-Case Effects
    The Representation of Third Person and Its Consequences for Person-Case Effects The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Nevins, Andrew. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25 (2007): 273-313. Published Version http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9017-2 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:2223518 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP Nat Lang Linguist Theory (2007) 25:273–313 DOI 10.1007/s11049-006-9017-2 ORIGINAL PAPER The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects Andrew Nevins Received: 13 June 2005 / Accepted: 3 July 2006 / Published online: 28 April 2007 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007 Abstract In modeling the effects of the Person-Case Constraint (PCC), a common claim is that 3rd person “is not a person”. However, while this claim does work in the syntax, it creates problems in the morphology. For example, characterizing the well-known “spurious se effect” in Spanish simply cannot be done without reference to 3rd person. Inspired by alternatives to underspecification that have emerged in phonology (e.g., Calabrese, 1995), a revised featural system is proposed, whereby syntactic agreement may be relativized to certain values of a feature, in particular, the contrastive and marked values.
    [Show full text]
  • The Diachronic Development of Differential Object Marking in Spanish Ditransitive Constructions Klaus Von Heusinger Universität Zu Köln
    Chapter 11 The diachronic development of Differential Object Marking in Spanish ditransitive constructions Klaus von Heusinger Universität zu Köln Differential Object Marking (DOM) in Spanish synchronically depends on the referential features of the direct object, such as animacy and referentiality, and on the semantics of the verb. Recent corpus studies suggest that the diachronic development proceeds along the same features, which are ranked in scales, namely the Animacy Scale, the Referentiality Scale and the Affectedness Scale. The present paper investigates this development in ditran- sitive constructions from the 17th to the 20th century. Ditransitive constructions in Spanish are of particular interest since the literature assumes that the differential object marker a is often blocked by the co-occurrence of the case marker a for the indirect object. The paper focuses on the conditions that enhance or weaken this blocking effect. It investigates three types of constructions with a ditransitive verb: (i) constructions with indirect objects real- ized as a-marked full noun phrases, (ii) constructions with indirect objects as clitic pronouns, and (iii) constructions with non-overt indirect objects. The results clearly show that DOM is more frequent with (iii) and less frequent with (i). Thus the results support the observation that the co-occurrence of an a-marked indirect object (partly) blocks a-marking of the di- rect object to a certain extent. Furthermore, the results show for the first time that indirect objects realized as clitic pronouns without the marker a have a weaker blocking effect, but still a stronger one than constructions without overt indirect objects. In summary, the paper presents new and original evidence of the competition between arguments in a diachronic perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • Ditransitive Constructions Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig (Germany) 23-25 November 2007
    Conference on Ditransitive Constructions Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig (Germany) 23-25 November 2007 Abstracts On “Dimonotransitive” Structures in English Carmen Aguilera Carnerero University of Granada Ditransitive structures have been prototypically defined as those combinations of a ditransitive verb with an indirect object and a direct object. However, although in the prototypical ditransitive construction in English, both objects are present, there is often omission of one of the constituentes, usually the indirect object. The absence of the indirect object has been justified on the basis of the irrelevance of its specification or the possibility of recovering it from the context. The absence of the direct object, on the other hand, is not so common and only occur with a restricted number of verbs (e.g. pay, show or tell).This type of sentences have been called “dimonotransitives” by Nelson, Wallis and Aarts (2002) and the sole presence in the syntactic structure arises some interesting questions we want to clarify in this article, such as: (a) the degree of syntactic and semantic obligatoriness of indirect objects and certain ditransitive verbs (b) the syntactic behaviour of indirect objects in absence of the direct object, in other words, does the Oi take over some of the properties of typical direct objects as Huddleston and Pullum suggest? (c) The semantic and pragmatic interpretations of the missing element. To carry out our analysis, we will adopt a corpus –based approach and especifically we will use the International Corpus of English (ICE) for the most frequent ditransitive verbs (Mukherjee 2005) and the British National Corpus (BNC) for the not so frequent verbs.
    [Show full text]
  • Grammatical Sketch of Beng
    Mandenkan Numéro 51 Bulletin d’études linguistiques mandé Printemps 2014 ISSN: 0752-5443 Grammatical sketch of Beng Denis PAPERNO University of Trento, Italy [email protected] Denis Paperno Content 1. Introduction 1 2. General information 9 2.1. Beng people and their language 9 2.2. Sociolinguistic situation 11 2.3. Names of the language 12 3. The history of Beng studies 12 3.1. Students of the Beng language and society 12 3.2. Beng dialects according to reports from the early 1900s 13 3.2.1. Delafosse: Beng of Kamélinsou 15 3.2.3. Tauxier: Beng of Groumania neighbourhood 16 4. Beng phonology 18 4.1. Phonological inventory 18 4.1.1. Tones 20 4.1.2. Syllable structure 22 4.1.3. Segmental sandhi 22 4.1.4. Tonal sandhi 22 4.2. Morphonology 23 4.2.1. ŋC simplification 23 4.2.2. Deletion of /l/ 24 4.2.3. High tone in the low tone form of verbs 24 5. Personal Pronoun Morphology 25 5.1. On the allomorphy of the 1SG subject pronoun 27 5.2. Contraction with 3SG object pronoun 28 5.3. Subject series of pronouns 29 5.4. Stative pronouns with verbs tá, nṵ̄ 29 6. Morphology of content words 30 6.1. Tonal changes in suffixation 31 6.1.1. Mobile tone suffixes 31 6.1.2. Low tone suffixes 31 6.1.3. Other suffixes 31 6.1.4. Stems ending in L tone 31 3 Denis Paperno 6.1.5. The verb blö ‘to press out’ 32 6.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Partitioning the Timeline a Cross-Linguistic Survey of Tense
    Partitioning the timeline A cross-linguistic survey of tense Viveka Velupillai Justus Liebig University Giessen The database The following gives the languages and their values in my database. The lan- guage names are primarily based on the source(s) and WALS Online (Dryer & Haspelmath 2013); where these differ from theEthnologue (Lewis et al. 2013) lan- guage names the Ethnologue name has been given in parenthesis. The ISO-639–3 codes are given in square brackets after the language name. I have relied onWALS Online where possible for the family and genus affiliation; where this was not pos- sible I relied on the source(s) and Ethnologue. The values for fusion type were tak- en from Bickel and Nichols (2013a) where possible; those languages are marked with an asterisk (*). For those languages that were not in Bickel & Nichol’s (2013a) database, I coded the fusion type according to the principles set out in Bickel & Nichols (2013b) using the reference indicated in the ‘Source’ column. Studies in Language 40:1 (2016), 1–42. doi 10.1075/sl.40.1.04ve2 issn 0378–4177 / e-issn 1569–9978 © John Benjamins Publishing Company 2 Viveka Velupillai Viveka No tense Language Genus Family Fusion Source Abui [abz] Greater Alor Timor-Alor-Pantar Isolating/Concatenative (Kratochvíl 2007: 209ff, 350) Achumawi [acv] Palaihnihan Hokan Concatenative (Angulo & Freeland 1930: 89ff, 111) Ainu [ain] Ainu Ainu Concatenative (Shibatani 1990: 80) Apinajé (Apinayé) [apn] Ge-Kaingang Macro-Ge Isolating (Cunha de Oliveira 2005: 170f) Arandai [jbj] South Bird’s Head Marind
    [Show full text]
  • UC Berkeley Dissertations, Department of Linguistics
    UC Berkeley Dissertations, Department of Linguistics Title An Updated Typology of Causative Constructions: Form-function Mappings in Hupa (California Athabaskan), Chungli Ao (Tibeto-Burman) and Beyond Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4556v4g6 Author Escamilla, Ramón Publication Date 2012 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California An Updated Typology of Causative Constructions: Form-Function Mappings in Hupa (California Athabaskan), Chungli Ao (Tibeto-Burman) and Beyond By Ramón Mahew Escamilla, Jr. 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: Professor Eve Sweetser, Chair Professor Richard A. Rhodes Professor Johanna Nichols Fall 2012 Abstract An Updated Typology of Causative Constructions: Form-Function Mappings in Hupa (California Athabaskan), Chungli Ao (Tibeto-Burman) and Beyond by Ramón Mahew Escamilla, Jr. Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Professor Eve Sweetser, Chair Taking up analytical issues raised primarily in Dixon (2000) and Dixon & Aikhenvald (2000), this dissertation combines descriptive work with a medium-sized (50-language) typological study. Chapter 1 situates the dissertation against a concise survey of typological-functional work on causative constructions from the last few decades, and outlines the major research questions. Chapter 2 presents a case study of causative encoding in Hupa (California Athabaskan). I describe the morphosyntax and semantics of the Hupa syntactic causative construction, and analyze its distribution with respect to Dixon’s (2000) proposals for a typology of causative constructions. I demonstrate that causee control (Dixon’s parameter 3) over the caused microevent is a significant semantic factor in licensing this construction.
    [Show full text]
  • Features of Lexical Verbs in the Discussion Section of Masters' Dissertations
    FEATURES OF LEXICAL VERBS IN THE DISCUSSION SECTION OF MASTERS' DISSERTATIONS FAIZAH BINTI MOHAMAD NUSRI FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR 2018 FEATURES OF LEXICAL VERBS IN THE DISCUSSION SECTION OF MASTERS' DISSERTATIONS FAIZAH BINTI MOHAMAD NUSRI DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGLISH AS SECOND LANGUAGE FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR 2018 UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA ORIGINAL LITERARY WORK DECLARATION Name of Candidate: Faizah binti Mohamad Nusri I.C/Passport No: 860610-38-6394 Matric No: TGB 120045 Name of Degree: Master of English as Second Language Title of Project Paper/Research Report/Dissertation/Thesis (“this Work”): Features of Lexical Verbs in the Discussion Section of Masters’ Dissertations Field of Study: Corpus Linguistics I do solemnly and sincerely declare that: (1) I am the sole author/writer of this Work; (2) This Work is original; (3) Any use of any work in which copyright exists was done by way of fair dealing and for permitted purposes and any excerpt or extract from, or reference to or reproduction of any copyright work has been disclosed expressly and sufficiently and the title of the Work and its authorship have been acknowledged in this Work; (4) I do not have any actual knowledge nor do I ought reasonably to know that the making of this work constitutes an infringement of any copyright work; (5) I hereby assign all and every rights in the copyright to this Work to the University of Malaya (“UM”), who henceforth shall be owner of the copyright in this Work and that any reproduction or use in any form or by any means whatsoever is prohibited without the written consent of UM having been first had and obtained; (6) I am fully aware that if in the course of making this Work I have infringed any copyright whether intentionally or otherwise, I may be subject to legal action or any other action as may be determined by UM.
    [Show full text]
  • English Ditransitive Verbs Often Allow Two Distinct Structures, the Double Object and the To-Dative Constructions
    SHIGERU MIYAGAWA AND TAKAE TSUJIOKA ARGUMENT STRUCTURE AND DITRANSITIVE VERBS IN JAPANESE Ditransitive verbs such as send and give appear in two distinct structures in English, the double object and the to-dative constructions. It is well known that the two differ semantically and syntactically. In some recent works, it is suggested that the semantic differences observed by Bresnan (1978), Oehrle (1976) and others, and the struc- tural properties noted by Barss and Lasnik (1986), Larson (1988), and others, can both be captured by postulating an extra head for the Double Object Construction (DOC, e.g., Marantz (1993), Harley (1995), Pylkkänen (2002)). This head, which corresponds to the applicative head in Bantu languages, takes the goal as its speci- fier and relates it either to the VP that contains the verb and the theme (Marantz (1993)), or directly to the theme (Pylkkänen (2002)). The applicative head contributes the meaning distinct to the DOC, and it gives rise to the hierarchical structure noted by Barss and Lasnik. This applicative head is missing in the to-dative so that this con- struction has an argument structure distinct from the DOC. In this paper, we will look at the corresponding construction(s) in Japanese. Unlike English, Japanese appears to have only one structure, in which the goal is marked with the dative and the theme with the accusative case marking. The goal-theme order is assumed to be the basic order (Hoji (1985), Takano (1998), Yatsushiro (1998, 2003)). The only variation is that the theme can occur before the goal, but this is viewed simply as an instance of optional scrambling.
    [Show full text]
  • Ditransitive Constructions: Creole Languages in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective
    Creolica, 23 avril 2003 – Ditransitive constructions : Creole languages in a cross-linguistic perspective – Susanne Michaelis et Martin Haspelmath CREOLICA Ditransitive constructions: Creole languages in a cross-linguistic perspective 23 avril 2003, par Susanne Michaelis & Martin Haspelmath (Max-Planck-Institut für evolutionäre Anthropologie, Leipzig) To Annegret Bollée on the occasion of her 65th birthday 1. Introduction The goal of this paper is to describe and explain ditransitive constructions in creole languages. By ditransitive constructions we mean constructions with verbs of transfer like 'give', 'send', 'show' which require two objects, a Recipient (or receiver) and a Theme (or patient), i.e. the entity that is transferred1. Thus our class of ditransitive verbs does not comprise verbs like 'put', 'fill' or 'load', which in addition to a Theme role also have a Location role. In this paper we will mainly concentrate on the verb 'give', which is by far the most frequent ditransitive verb in all languages. There are three major constructions for expressing Recipient and Theme of ditransitive verbs in creole languages. First, there is the Double-Object Construction in which Recipient and Theme are equally zero-marked. Example (1) from English illustrates this construction: Double-Object Construction (DOC): (1) Lea gave Teresa a mango. A second option is the Indirect-Object Construction. An example is given in (2), in which the Recipient is marked by a special preposition: Indirect-Object Construction (IOC): (2) Lea gave the mango to Teresa. 1 We prefer the term "theme", which is not to be confused with "theme" in the (information-structural) theme/rheme-distinction. Creolica, 23 avril 2003 – Ditransitive constructions : Creole languages in a cross-linguistic perspective – Susanne Michaelis et Martin Haspelmath There is yet another possibility to link the two objects in question, the Serial-Verb Construction.
    [Show full text]