Heads – a Canonical Approach*

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Heads – a Canonical Approach* * Heads – a Greville canonical G. Corbett approach Surrey Morphology Group, University of Surrey • 1 Relevance to PIPCs • One approach to PIPCs would be that these are constructions in which the • dependent has ‘ ideas above its ’, status taking some head properties. This implies that headedness is a gradient notion. Survey of possible head properties, concentrating on nominal phrases (cf the discussion of headedness in Meakins & Nordlinger (to appear)). • 2 •History important notion for Bloomfield (1933), though it goes back further • behind the development of X-­‐‑bar theory (Chomsky 1970, Jackendoff 1977, and compare Kornai & Pullum 1990) • vital part of theoretical syntax since GPSG azdar (G & Pullum 1981, Gazdar, • Klein, Pullum & Sag 1985), and central in HPSG (Pollard & Sag 1994) • the heart of Dependency Grammar (as in Hudson 1984: 75-­‐‑79) key idea in typology since Nichols (1986); also Evans & Fenwick (2013) interesting debate between Zwicky and Hudson on criteria, leading to the • volume on headedness (Corbett, Fraser & McGlashan 1993), with contributions by Zwicky, Hudson and others at least since Abney’s thesis (1987), ‘head’ has become increasingly theory-­‐‑dependent. I will use ‘nominal phrase’ as a neutral term (NP/DP). • 3 •Canonical heads and all canonical dependents: criteria Quick introduction to canonicity all Basic strategy: a canonical head has possible head properties; similarly a canonical dependent has possible dependent properties. canonical head canonical dependent determines semantic has no impact on semantic semantic properties of phrase properties of phrase determines external has no impact on external external syntax of phrase syntax of phrase syntactic determines internal has no impact on internal internal syntax of phrase syntax of phrase has morphological has morphological marker morphological marker of head of dependent has phonological has phonological marker phonological marker of head of dependent * Figure 1: Canonical heads and dependents The support of the AHRC under grant AH/M010708/1 (Prominent possessors) is gratefully acknowledged. I also thank these colleagues for useful suggestions: Oliver Bond, Patricia Cabredo-­‐‑Hofherr, Peter Sells, Nigel Vincent and especially Erich Round. Greville G. Corbett Prominent Internal Possessors SOAS, September 2016 3.1 Semantic The idea of a semantic head goes back at least to Jespersen. Following him, Zwicky (1985: 4) writes: “we could take the head/modifier distinction to be at root semantic: in a combination X+Y, X is the 'semantic head' if, speaking very crudely, X + Y describes a kind of the ” thing described by X. So it is natural to suggest that the head will determine the co-­‐‑occurrence restrictions of its phrase. For issues with semantic heads see McGlashan (1993). Ton French (Hulk & Tellier 1999: 183) (1) phénomènedistrait-­‐‑e *distrait de fille est your.M.SG phenomenon(M) of daughter(F) COP .3SG bien . ( (M)) quite absent-­‐‑minded-­‐‑FEM.SG ‘That amazing daughter of yours is quite absent-­‐‑minded.’ laquelle French (consultant) (2) Ton phénomène de fille, Elleavec your.M.SG phenomenon(M) of daughter(F) with REL.F.SG je viens de parl-­‐‑er ... ... 1SG come.1SG of speak-­‐‑INF ... 3SG.FEM ... ‘That amazing daughter of yours, with whom I have just been speaking ... She ...’ (There are various related constructions, where the balance between syntactic and semantic head can differ: recall Koptjevskaja-­‐‑Tamm 2001 on pseudo-­‐‑ partitives, taken up from an acquisition perspective by Stickney 2007.) Attraction: George Bush (Washington, 23 January 2004): (3) ... the illiteracy level of our children are appalling. Scandinavian ‘pancake sentences’ (Enger 2004, Corbett 2006: 223-­‐‑224), Haugen & Enger 2014) god-­‐‑t. Norwegian (Bokmål/Nynorsk, Faarlund 1977: 240) (4) Pannekake-­‐‑r er pancake-­‐‑PL COP good-­‐‑N.SG ‘Pancakes is good.’ (‘Eating pancakes is good.’) Nystekt-­‐‑e god-­‐‑t Norwegian (Bokmål, Enger 2004: 20) (5) pannekake-­‐‑r er . new.fried-­‐‑PL pancake-­‐‑PL COP good-­‐‑N.SG ‘Newly-­‐‑fried pancakes is good.’ (‘Eating -­‐‑ newly fried pancakes is good.’) som grusom-­‐‑t Norwegian (Bokmål, Corbett 2006: 223, Hans -­‐‑Olav Enger, p. communication) (6) Narkotika, erde -­‐‑t for både misbrukere og Narcotic(M)[SG], which COP awful-­‐‑N.SG for both addicts and pårørende, skulle aldri vært oppfunnet. relatives.spouses, it-­‐‑N.SG should never been invented ‘Drugs, which is awful for both addicts and those close to them, -­‐‑ it should never have been invented.’ 2 Greville G. Corbett Prominent Internal Possessors SOAS, September 2016 (7) Constructional mismatches and the Agreement Hierarchy: (Corbett 2006: 208-­‐‑224) Agreement relative personal attributive predicate Hierarchy: pronoun pronoun Russian conjoined sg / (PL) (sg) / PL (sg) / PL ((sg)) / PL noun phrases (PL 14%) (PL 71%) Serbian/Croatian/ remnant / (remnant) / French Bosnian complex lower remnant (M.PL) M.PL M.PL noun numeral phrases phrases (M.PL 18%) (M.PL 62%) Norwegian syntactic SEMANTIC SEMANTIC SEMANTIC agreement vs. head HEAD HEAD HEAD default agreement DEFAULT DEFAULT DEFAULT Associatives sg PL no data PL (Talitsk Russian) Note: lower case indicates syntactic agreement, and upper case SEMANTIC AGREEMENT; parentheses indicate a less frequent variant. 3.2 Syntactic It is in syntax that the notion of head is most important. “The head of a constituent/phrase is the element which determines the most important properties of the constituent/phrase. At the same time, the head also determines the composition of the phrase. That is, the head requires certain other elements sent to be pre in the phrase.” Müller (2016: 28) 3.2.1 Numeral phrases in Russian and other Slavonic languages Russian (8) odin žurnal one[M.SG] magazine(M)[SG] ‘one magazine’ (9) odn-­‐‑a gazet-­‐‑a one-­‐‑F.SG newspaper(F)-­‐‑SG ‘one newspaper’ (10) odn-­‐‑o pis´m-­‐‑o one-­‐‑N.SG letter(N)-­‐‑SG ‘one letter’ (11) odn-­‐‑i nožnic-­‐‑y one-­‐‑PL scissors-­‐‑PL ‘one pair of scissors’ 3 Greville G. Corbett Prominent Internal Possessors SOAS, September 2016 odin dva Thus with ‘one’ we see agreement in number and in all three gender values, as we would find with an adjective (only the forms are irregular). The numeral ‘two’ agrees in a more limited way: (12) dv-­‐‑a žurnal-­‐‑a two-­‐‑M.NOM magazine(M)-­‐‑SG.GEN ‘two magazines’ (13) dv-­‐‑e gazet-­‐‑y two-­‐‑F.NOM newspaper(F)-­‐‑SG.GEN ‘two newspapers’ (14) dv-­‐‑a pis´m-­‐‑a two-­‐‑N.NOM letters(N)-­‐‑SG.GEN ‘two letters’ Naturally, ‘five’ is rather different: (15) Na ulic-­‐‑e sto-­‐‑it pjat´ dom-­‐‑ov. on street-­‐‑SG.LOC stand-­‐‑3SG five[NOM] house-­‐‑PL.GEN ‘There are five houses on the street.’ (16) k pjat-­‐‑i dom-­‐‑am towards five-­‐‑DAT house-­‐‑PL.DAT ‘towards five houses’ (17) The simple cardinal numerals of Russian odin dva tri pjat´ sto tysjača million 1 2 3 5 100 1,000 1,000,000 1. agrees with noun in syntactic number + -­‐‑ -­‐‑ -­‐‑ -­‐‑ -­‐‑ -­‐‑ 2. agrees in case in the direct case + -­‐‑ -­‐‑ -­‐‑ -­‐‑ -­‐‑ -­‐‑ 3. agrees in gender 4. agrees in animacy + (+) -­‐‑ -­‐‑ -­‐‑ -­‐‑ -­‐‑ 5. has no semantically + + + -­‐‑ -­‐‑ -­‐‑ -­‐‑ independent plural + + + + (-­‐‑) -­‐‑ -­‐‑ 6. fails to take agreeing determiners + + + + + -­‐‑ -­‐‑ 7. does not take noun in genitive plural throughout + + + + + ± -­‐‑ paradigm Each numeral in turn shows slightly fewer adjective-­‐‑like (more noun-­‐‑like, head-­‐‑ like) properties: 4 Greville G. Corbett Prominent Internal Possessors SOAS, September 2016 ‘If the simple cardinal numerals of a given language vary in their syntactic behaviour, the numerals showing nounier behaviour will denote higher numerals than those with less nouny behaviour’ (Corbett 1978: 363; cf. Hurford – 1987: 187 197). Russian predicate agreement: in principle, two possibilities: (18) vošl-­‐‑o pjat´ devušek came.in-­‐‑SG.NEUT five.NOM girl.PL.GEN ‘five girls came in’ (19) vošl-­‐‑i pjat´ devušek came.in-­‐‑PL five.NOM girl.PL.GEN ‘five girls came in’ Table 1 : Predicate agreement with numeral phrases in Slavonic (Corbett 2000: -­‐‑ 214 216 for details and sources, notably Suprun 1969: 175-­‐‑187) 2 3 4 5-­‐‑10 100 West Slavonic: Czech PL PL PL sg sg Slovak PL PL PL PL/sg sg Sorbian DUAL PL PL PL/sg sg 99% PL 91% PL ||100% PL 7% PL Polish (N=123) (N=43) (N=15) (N=68) South Slavonic: Old Church DUAL PL PL (PL)/sg Slavonic Bulgarian PL PL PL PL PL Macedonian PL PL PL PL PL 97% PL 89% PL 83% PL 7% PL Serbo-­‐‑Croat (N=735) (N=249) (N=133) (N=1161) Slovene DUAL PL PL sg sg East Slavonic: 83% PL 79% PL 74% PL 38% PL 21% PL Ukrainian (N=208) (N=150) (N=34) (N=45) (N=14) 92% PL 78% PL 63% PL 39% PL || 50% PL Belarusian 50% PL Russian (N=219) (N=67) (N=16) (N=49) (N=2) 86% PL 77% PL 76% PL (N=541) (N=247) (N=68) (N=220) In Table 1, DUAL (where available) and PL(URAL) represent semantic agreement. When a cell has a single entry (e.g. ‘PL’), this indicates that the form is used in the majority of instances, though not necessarily all. A gap indicates a lack of data. 5 Greville G. Corbett Prominent Internal Possessors SOAS, September 2016 3.2.2 Slavonic possessive adjectives Upper Sorbian (Corbett 1987: 304, citing Faßke 1981: 385) (20) To je naš-­‐‑eho wučerj-­‐‑ow-­‐‑a zahrodk-­‐‑a. That is our-­‐‑GEN.SG.M teacher-­‐‑POSS-­‐‑NOM.SG.F garden(F)-­‐‑NOM.SG Wón‘That is our teacher’s njej garden.’ wjele w dźěła. 3SG.NOM.M a.lot in 3SG.LOC.F works. ‘He [our teacher] works in it a lot.’ (See recent work O'Connor, in Maling & Skarabela. 2013.) 3.2.3 Possessors in Arawan languages Kulina (Dienst 2014: 90-­‐‑91) Agreement with object, possessor
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...

6 pages remaining, click to load more.

Recommended publications
  • A Phonological Effect of Phasal Boundaries in the Construct State Of
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Lingua 150 (2014) 315--331 www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua Where it’s [at]: A phonological effect of phasal boundaries in the construct state of Modern Hebrew Noam Faust * Hebrew University of Jerusalem Received 6 June 2013; received in revised form 31 July 2014; accepted 2 August 2014 Available online 15 September 2014 Abstract The consonant of the feminine marker /at/ of Modern Hebrew is absent from certain configurations, but present in others (N-at+N constructs). In this paper, I propose to regard this phenomenon a case of allomorphy, conditioned both phonologically and morpho- syntactically. The consonant is analyzed as floating. In consequence, additional skeletal support is needed to explain its realization. One possible, independently motivated source for such support is Lowenstamm’s (1996) ‘‘initial CV’’: the floating /t/ attaches to the initial CV of the following word. Still, the question is raised why this happens mainly in that very specific configuration. N-at+N constructions are therefore compared to the minimally different Nat+Adj, and four differences are singled-out. After a prosodic solution is judged insufficient, syntactic structures are proposed for both constructions and the four differences are related to phase-structure, under the assumption that D is the first phasal head of the nominal architecture. Adopting Scheer’s (2009) claim that Lowenstamm’s initial CV marks phase boundaries, rather than word-boundaries, it is then shown that the /t/ remains afloat exactly when the phase structure motivated by the four differences renders the initial CV of the following phase inaccessible; but if phase structure allows it, the same /t/ can be linked to that following CV.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Semantic and Syntactic Negation in Oshiwambo and English
    JULACE: Journal of University of Namibia Language Centre Volume 4, No. 2, 2019 (ISSN 2026-8297) An analysis of semantic and syntactic negation in Oshiwambo and English Immanuel N. Shatepa1 Namibia University of Science and Technology Abstract Negation in languages has been documented since the 1970s and 1980s. This paper attempts to explain the negation structures in semantic and syntactic structures of Oshiwambo and English languages. These two languages have two complete negation structures and how they function to achieve negation is far from being similar. The focus of the paper was on the analysis of the sentential negation and how negative particles are used in English and Oshiwambo, a Bantu language. It analyzes and compares the use of full negatives, affixes and quasi negative words to achieve negation in English and Oshiwambo language. The Oshiwambo and English texts/contents were purposely sampled and content analysis was performed accordingly. The analysis shows that Bantu languages share a common rule of negation which is the use of a pre- initial prefix while the rules to changing negative imperative to interrogative or declarative are different between English and Oshiwambo. Keywords: pre-initial, negation, marker, imperative, declarative, integrative, syntactic, semantic, Bantu Introduction A number of studies on negation of English and Bantu languages have been conducted by linguists. Studies by Kim and Sag (1995); Neba and Tanda (2005) and Weir (2013) show that negation differs from language to language. They further state highlighted that since every language has its own morphological and semantic components to express negation, one rule fits all simply does not work.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hebrew Construct State in an Endocentric Model of the NP
    The Hebrew Construct State in an Endocentric Model of the NP Benjamin Bruening (University of Delaware) rough draft, January 5, 2021 Abstract Ritter (1991) is widely cited as having shown that Hebrew nominals require functional struc- ture like DP and Num(ber)P above the lexical NP (see, e.g., Preminger 2020). I demonstrate here that a very simple analysis is available in a model where the maximal projection of the nominal is a projection of the head N. This analysis posits very little movement and requires few auxiliary assumptions. Most dependents of N are simply base-generated in their surface positions. There is no need for functional projections like DP and NumP, and hence no argu- ment from Hebrew for their existence. 1 Basic Word Order: N and its Arguments Ritter (1991) is widely cited as having shown that Hebrew nominals require functional structure like DP and Num(ber)P above the lexical NP. Preminger (2020) illustrates the argument with the following non-derived noun that takes two arguments, an internal one (a PP) and an external one. In such cases, the order is N-S-O (noun-subject-object):1 (1) nic(a)xon ha-miflaga al yerive-ha victory.CS the-political.party(F) on rival.Pl.CS-3SgF.Poss ‘the victory of the political party over its rivals’ (Preminger 2020: (1a)) (Note that this possessive construction is known as the construct state, “CS” in the gloss; this will be important throughout this paper. The construct state has a head noun, here ‘victory’, followed immediately by a possessor; here the possessor is the external argument of the N, ‘the political party’.) The assumption behind the argument is that the noun and its internal argument (here the PP) combine first, and then the external argument combines with the constituent that results from that combination.
    [Show full text]
  • Classifiers: a Typology of Noun Categorization Edward J
    Western Washington University Western CEDAR Modern & Classical Languages Humanities 3-2002 Review of: Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Edward J. Vajda Western Washington University, edward.vajda@wwu.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/mcl_facpubs Part of the Modern Languages Commons Recommended Citation Vajda, Edward J., "Review of: Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization" (2002). Modern & Classical Languages. 35. https://cedar.wwu.edu/mcl_facpubs/35 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Humanities at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Modern & Classical Languages by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact westerncedar@wwu.edu. J. Linguistics38 (2002), I37-172. ? 2002 CambridgeUniversity Press Printedin the United Kingdom REVIEWS J. Linguistics 38 (2002). DOI: Io.IOI7/So022226702211378 ? 2002 Cambridge University Press Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Classifiers: a typology of noun categorization devices.Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2000. Pp. xxvi+ 535. Reviewedby EDWARDJ. VAJDA,Western Washington University This book offers a multifaceted,cross-linguistic survey of all types of grammaticaldevices used to categorizenouns. It representsan ambitious expansion beyond earlier studies dealing with individual aspects of this phenomenon, notably Corbett's (I99I) landmark monograph on noun classes(genders), Dixon's importantessay (I982) distinguishingnoun classes fromclassifiers, and Greenberg's(I972) seminalpaper on numeralclassifiers. Aikhenvald'sClassifiers exceeds them all in the number of languages it examines and in its breadth of typological inquiry. The full gamut of morphologicalpatterns used to classify nouns (or, more accurately,the referentsof nouns)is consideredholistically, with an eye towardcategorizing the categorizationdevices themselvesin terms of a comprehensiveframe- work.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Hebrew Curriculum – NETA
    BISHVIL HAIVRIT/ ADVANCED INTERMEDIATE ADVANCED BEGINNER BEGINNER SPEAK SPEAK SPEAK SPEAK In conversation about any topic in thirty In dialogue about school, family In a short 10-sentence dialogue In conversation on any topic in 20 sentences sentences or more entertainment in 15 sentences about daily life (holidays, school, -Give a short lecture on a theoretical topic -Speak in an interview schedule, etc.) -Express an opinion in 5-6 sentences WRITE WRITE WRITE WRITE -Personal or chronological report In standard modern Hebrew in various -In short notes (greeting, apology) -A paragraph on a personal topic -Short story adapted in elementary Hebrew forms of communication in 50-70 -In a personal letter of 15 sentences -A memo of 7-8 sentences sentences -In a 10 sentence announcement or request -An assertion of opinion in 5-6 sentences READ READ READ Press releases, journal articles, biblical READ Independently, original literary works (100- -An informative paragraph of 12-15 sentences verses, and short stories in elementary A 10- to 12- sentence 150 pages), Hebrew news articles, and -Comprehend a short story, poem or Hebrew (70-100 sentences) paragraph, description or folktale religious texts supported opinion LISTEN LISTEN LISTEN LISTEN Comprehend most components of a Comprehend short dialogue and Comprehend short dialogue Comprehend short dialogue and conversation of songs and on any topic about daily life (up to 24 sentences) or a about daily life, (up to 25 sentences) or a summarize informative lectures on places, among native speakers
    [Show full text]
  • Morphological Classes and Gender in Ɓəna-Yungur
    Morphological classes and gender in əna-Yungur Mark van de Velde, Dmitry Idiatov To cite this version: Mark van de Velde, Dmitry Idiatov. Morphological classes and gender in əna-Yungur. Shigeki Kaji. Proceedings of the 8th World Congress of African Linguistics, Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, pp.53-65, 2017. halshs-01484016 HAL Id: halshs-01484016 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01484016 Submitted on 6 Mar 2017 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. Morphological classes and gender in Ɓə́ná-Yungur Mark Van de Velde1,2 & Dmitry Idiatov1,2 1Llacan (UMR 8135 CNRS – USPC/Inalco), Paris, France 2Research Centre for Nigerian Languages, KWASU, Malete, Nigeria Abstract This paper provides an analysis of the gender system of Ɓə́ná-Yungur (glottocode: bena1260), distinguishing noun classes proper, defined as agreement classes, from morphological classes, defined in terms of number marking on nouns. The gender system is typologically unusual in its symmetry and simplicity. Ɓə́ná-Yungur has three noun classes in the singular and the same three classes in the plural. All logically possible singular-plural pairings are attested, except one.
    [Show full text]
  • Antisymmetry Kayne, Richard (1995)
    CAS LX 523 Syntax II (1) A Spring 2001 March 13, 2001 qp Paul Hagstrom Week 7: Antisymmetry BE 33 Kayne, Richard (1995). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CDFG 1111 Koopman, Hilda (2000). The spec-head configuration. In Koopman, H., The syntax of cdef specifiers and heads. London: Routledge. (2) A node α ASYMMETRICALLY C-COMMANDS β if α c-commands β and β does not The basic proposals: c-command α. X-bar structures (universally) have a strict order: Spec-head-complement. There is no distinction between adjuncts and specifiers. • B asymmetrically c-commands F and G. There can be only one specifier. • E asymmetrically c-commands C and D. • No other non-terminal nodes asymmetrically c-command any others. But wait!—What about SOV languages? What about multiple adjunction? Answer: We’ve been analyzing these things wrong. (3) d(X) is the image of a non-terminal node X. Now, we have lots of work to do, because lots of previous analyses relied on d(X) is the set of terminal nodes dominated by node X. the availability of “head-final” structures, or multiple adjunction. • d(C) is {c}. Why make our lives so difficult? Wasn’t our old system good enough? • d(B) is {c, d}. Actually, no. • d(F) is {e}. A number of things had to be stipulated in X-bar theory (which we will review); • d(E) is {e, f}. they can all be made to follow from one general principle. • d(A) is {c, d, e, f}. The availability of a head-parameter actually fails to predict the kinds of languages that actually exist.
    [Show full text]
  • 0 German Noun Class As a Nominal Protection Device Richard Futrell
    German Noun Class as a Nominal Protection Device Richard Futrell Undergraduate Honors Thesis Stanford University, Department of Linguistics May 2010 ____________________________________ Faculty advisor: Dan Jurafsky ____________________________________ Second reader: Michael Ramscar 0 Gretchen: Wilhelm, where is the turnip? Wilhelm: She has gone to the kitchen. Gretchen: Where is the accomplished and beautiful English maiden? Wilhelm: It has gone to the opera. - Mark Twain, ―The Awful German Language‖ 1. Introduction Grammatical gender, also known as noun class, afflicts about half of the world's languages. Speakers of these languages must mark each noun for its membership in a certain noun class, and must similarly mark elements such as adjectives or verbs that agree with the noun. In over half of these cases, the choice of gender for a noun has no comprehensive systematic relationship to the meaning of the nouns (Corbett 2008), posing a significant obstacle for L2 learners (Harley 1979, Tucker et al. 1968: 312). Some have taken grammatical gender to be superfluous: for instance, Maratsos (1979: 235) calls the existence of such a system ―excellent testimony to the occasional nonsensibleness of the species.‖ A number of researchers have nonetheless defended noun class against the accusation of uselessness, and I will take up that cause in this paper. I will examine the gender system of Standard German with an eye toward detecting function. I claim that noun class serves as a sort of ‗Nominal Protection Device,‘ alleviating the linguistic difficulties inherent in nouns by reducing uncertainty about nouns. Noun class markers help language users predict nouns in a number of ways: they predict the form of the noun, they predict the semantics of the noun, and they predict 1 which discourse referent a pronoun points to in reference tracking (in the sense of Barlow 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • The Noun Class System Of
    UNIVERSITY OF YAOUNDE !! <f:.,;+ e.>, " PA, FACULTY OF LETTERS DEPARTMENT OF 'AFRICIAN AND SOCIAL SCIENCES LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS THE NOUN CLASS SYSTEM OF A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Award of a Post-Graduate Diploma (Maitrise) in Linguistics BY Irene Swiri ASOBO 8. A. Modern Lefters Supervised by Dr. CarL EBOBISSE (Char@ de cours) September 1989 i Dedicated to my parents, bro-them and sisters, with all my love. C. ACKIIOKLEGEMENT I must acknowledge special indebtedness to my supervisor Dr. Cor1 EBOBISSE for his invaluable contribu- tion ot the realisation of this dissertation. His inde- fatigable patience criticisms and unswerving dcvotion were encouraging especially when I was doubting and discouraged. Llithout his potient guidance this work would not have been acheived. My heortfelt'gratitu8e to fioffessor B.S. Chumbow who assisted and advised me during the writing of this work. My special thanks also goes to Dr. Chia Emmanuel otic? 011 my lecturers who were a source of unwmering support to me. Great thankfulness to my parents Prince snii Mrs V.T. ASOBO for the moral and financial ai& they showered on me. I will like to gratefully 3cknowledge Evclyne Monikang for the wonderful and ucfziling encouragomcnt she gnvc me. She was always a pillar to 1em on. Sincere thanks to 311 my classmates whose camoroderie wc?s a11 T neef-ed to spur me on. All. my friends especially Walters Abie who was always ready to help, Po-po who never stopped to say go on and Dora Mbola for being there when I needed her.
    [Show full text]
  • Antisymmetry and the Lefthand in Morphology*
    CatWPL 7 071-087 13/6/00 12:26 Página 71 CatWPL 7, 1999 71-87 Antisymmetry And The Lefthand In Morphology* Frank Drijkoningen Utrecht Institute of Linguistics-OTS. Department of Foreign Languages Kromme Nieuwegracht 29. 3512 HD Utrecht. The Netherlands Frank.Drijkoningen@let.uu.nl Received: December 13th 1998 Accepted: March 17th 1999 Abstract As Kayne (1994) has shown, the theory of antisymmetry of syntax also provides an explanation of a structural property of morphological complexes, the Righthand Head Rule. In this paper we show that an antisymmetry approach to the Righthand Head Rule eventually is to be preferred on empirical grounds, because it describes and explains the properties of a set of hitherto puzz- ling morphological processes —known as discontinuous affixation, circumfixation or parasyn- thesis. In considering these and a number of more standard morphological structures, we argue that one difference bearing on the proper balance between morphology and syntax should be re-ins- talled (re- with respect to Kayne), a difference between the antisymmetry of the syntax of mor- phology and the antisymmetry of the syntax of syntax proper. Key words: antisymmetry, Righthand Head Rule, circumfixation, parasynthesis, prefixation, category-changing prefixation, discontinuities in morphology. Resum. L’antisimetria i el costat esquerre en morfologia Com Kayne (1994) mostra, la teoria de l’antisimetria en la sintaxi també ens dóna una explicació d’una propietat estructural de complexos morfològics, la Regla del Nucli a la Dreta. En aquest article mostrem que un tractament antisimètric de la Regla del Nucli a la Dreta es prefereix even- tualment en dominis empírics, perquè descriu i explica les propietats d’una sèrie de processos fins ara morfològics —coneguts com afixació discontínua, circumfixació o parasíntesi.
    [Show full text]
  • An Investigation of Possession in Moroccan Arabic
    Family Agreement: An Investigation of Possession in Moroccan Arabic Aidan Kaplan Advisor: Jim Wood Submitted to the faculty of the Department of Linguistics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts Yale University May 2017 Abstract This essay takes up the phenomenon of apparently redundant possession in Moroccan Arabic.In particular, kinship terms are often marked with possessive pronominal suffixes in constructions which would not require this in other languages, including Modern Standard Arabic. In the following example ‘sister’ is marked with the possessive suffix hā ‘her,’ even though the person in question has no sister. ﻣﺎ ﻋﻨﺪﻫﺎش ُﺧﺘﻬﺎ (1) mā ʿend-hā-sh khut-hā not at-her-neg sister-her ‘She doesn’t have a sister’ This phenomenon shows both intra- and inter-speaker variation. For some speakers, thepos- sessive suffix is obligatory in clausal possession expressing kinship relations, while forother speakers it is optional. Accounting for the presence of the ‘extra’ pronoun in (1) will lead to an account of possessive suffixes as the spell-out of agreement between aPoss◦ head and a higher element that contains phi features, using Reverse Agree (Wurmbrand, 2014, 2017). In regular pronominal possessive constructions, Poss◦ agrees with a silent possessor pro, while in sentences like (1), Poss◦ agrees with the PP at the beginning of the sentence that expresses clausal posses- sion. The obligatoriness of the possessive suffix for some speakers and its optionality forothers is explained by positing that the selectional properties of the D◦ head differ between speakers. In building up an analysis, this essay draws on the proposal for the construct state in Fassi Fehri (1993), the proposal that clitics are really agreement markers in Shlonsky (1997), and the account of clausal possession in Boneh & Sichel (2010).
    [Show full text]
  • 4.1 Inflection
    4.1 Inflection Within a lexeme-based theory of morphology, the difference between derivation and inflection is very simple. Derivation gives you new lexemes, and inflection gives you the forms of a lexeme that are determined by syntactic environment (cf. 2.1.2). But what exactly does this mean? Is there really a need for such a distinction? This section explores the answers to these questions, and in the process, goes deeper into the relation between morphology and syntax. 4.1.1 Inflection vs. derivation The first question we can ask about the distinction between inflection and derivation is whether there is any formal basis for distinguishing the two: can we tell them apart because they do different things to words? One generalization that has been made is that derivational affixes tend to occur closer to the root or stem than inflectional affixes. For example, (1) shows that the English third person singular present inflectional suffix -s occurs outside of derivational suffixes like the deadjectival -ize, and the plural ending -s follows derivational affixes including the deverbal -al: (1) a. popular-ize-s commercial-ize-s b. upheav-al-s arriv-al-s Similarly, Japanese derivational suffixes like passive -rare or causative -sase precede inflectional suffixes marking tense and aspect:1 (2) a. tabe-ru tabe-ta eat- IMP eat- PERF INFLECTION 113 ‘eats’ ‘ate’ b. tabe-rare- ru tabe-rare- ta eat - PASS-IMP eat- PASS-PERF ‘is eaten’ ‘was eaten’ c. tabe-sase- ru tabe-sase- ta eat- CAUS-IMP eat- CAUS-PERF ‘makes eat’ ‘made eat’ It is also the case that inflectional morphology does not change the meaning or grammatical category of the word that it applies to.
    [Show full text]