Prosodic Noun Incorporation and Verb-Initial Syntax
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Prosodic Noun Incorporation and Verb-Initial Syntax The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Clemens, Lauren Eby. 2014. Prosodic Noun Incorporation and Verb- Initial Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:13070029 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA ©2014 Lauren Eby Clemens All rights reserved. Dissertation advisor: Professor Maria Polinsky Author: Lauren Eby Clemens Prosodic Noun Incorporation and Verb-Initial Syntax Abstract To date, no real consensus has emerged among syntacticians about how to derive verb- initial order (V1); but the two main approaches, V0-raising and VP-raising, receive par- ticularly widespread support in the literature. The syntax of Niuean pseudo noun incor- poration (PNI) has played an important role in the propagation of the VP-raising analysis (Massam 2001), especially for VSO languages and languages with a VSO option. In this thesis, I present an analysis of the prosody of Niuean PNI and show that the PNI verb and incorporated argument form a prosodic constituent. While this re- sult is consistent with the syntactic analysis of Massam (2001), it is also consistent with a prosodic restructuring analysis that explains the VOS order of PNI by appealing to prosodic well-formedness. I take the second approach. Specifically, the principle behind Selkirk’s (1984) Sense Unit Condition requires that the verb and its internal argument(s) form a unique phonological phrase. In order to satisfy this requirement, the incorporated argument moves into a position adjacent to the verb at PF. Positionally motivated cate- gorical feature sharing (Adger and Svenonius 2011; Pesetsky and Torrego 2007) allows PF to reference the head-argument relationship between the verb and its internal argument, even though they are not sent to PF in structurally adjacent positions. The main result for the syntactic analysis of Niuean is that V0-raising replaces VP- raising. The benefits of the V0-raising approach include i) less phonologically vacuous structure in places where Niuean has overt morphology, e.g., a perpetually null T0 in the face of overt tense markers; and ii) observance of the idea that thematic roles are corre- lated to structural positions. Thus, the prosodic analysis of Niuean PNI has a number of positive outcomes for Niuean syntax, as well as the potential to simplify the derivation of VSO cross-linguistically. iii Contents 1 Introduction to the thesis 1 1.1 Theoretical orientation . .2 1.1.1 Spell-out to PF . .2 1.1.2 Prosodic constituency . .5 1.1.3 Linearization . .8 1.2 Overview of the thesis . 10 1.2.1 Verb-initial languages . 10 1.2.2 The prosody of Niuean PNI . 12 1.2.3 A prosodic account of VOS . 14 1.2.4 Head-raising account of Niuean V1 . 15 1.3 Niuean essentials . 17 1.3.1 Geography and genetic affiliation . 17 1.3.2 Data and orthographic convention . 19 1.3.3 Morphosyntax and predicate structure . 20 1.3.4 Pseudo Noun Incorporation (PNI) . 23 2 Verb initial languages 29 2.1 Introduction . 29 2.1.1 Overview of V1 languages . 30 2.1.2 Main analyses of V1 . 35 2.2 Base-generating VOS and deriving VSO . 36 2.2.1 VOS and right-branching specifiers . 37 2.2.2 VSO derived by a right-branching subject and object postposing . 42 2.3 V1 derived by phrasal movement . 46 2.3.1 VOS via VP-raising . 48 2.3.2 VP-remnant raising . 53 2.4 Head movement . 58 2.4.1 Deriving VSO via V-raising . 59 2.4.2 VOS in V-raising accounts . 62 2.5 V1 and the EPP . 65 2.5.1 Satisfying Affix Support .......................... 67 2.5.2 Affix Support and V1 . 69 2.6 V1 without VP constituency . 70 2.6.1 V1 and flat structure . 70 2.6.2 V1 and the Pronominal Argument Hypothesis . 71 iv 2.7 V1 at the syntax-phonology interface . 72 2.7.1 Subject lowering . 73 2.7.2 Pronoun postposing in Irish . 78 2.8 V1 typology and grammatical theory . 81 2.8.1 V1 and Wh1 . 81 2.8.2 V1 and Pred1 . 82 2.9 Conclusion . 83 3 The prosody of Niuean PNI 85 3.1 Introduction . 85 3.2 Niuean PNI (revisited) . 86 3.2.1 Morphological and syntactic analyses . 89 3.2.2 Prosodic predictions . 96 3.3 Instrumental study . 98 3.3.1 Materials and methods . 98 3.3.2 Results . 100 3.4 Analysis of prosodic data . 106 3.4.1 The right edge of phonological phrases . 106 3.4.2 The left edge of phonological phrases . 108 3.4.3 Tense-Aspect-Mood . 114 3.5 Conclusion . 117 4 A prosodic account of Niuean VOS 118 4.1 Introduction . 118 4.2 Sense Unit Condition (Selkirk 1984) . 120 4.2.1 Complement-' (Henderson 2012) . 122 4.2.2 Selectional Contiguity (Richards 2014) . 124 4.3 Argument-' .................................... 126 4.3.1 Implementing Argument-' ....................... 130 4.3.2 An identity problem . 137 4.3.3 C-selection and feature sharing . 140 4.4 Multiple Spell-Out . 145 4.4.1 Consequences for the syntax/prosody interface . 145 4.4.2 Multiple Spell-Out and PNI . 147 4.5 Sample derivations . 149 4.5.1 Prosodic account of PNI: start to finish . 149 4.5.2 Where PNI fails to occur . 151 4.6 Conclusion . 154 5 Head-raising account of Niuean V1 155 5.1 Introduction . 155 5.1.1 V- vs. VP-raising . 157 5.1.2 Niuean verbal complex . 161 5.2 Restructuring predicates . 167 5.2.1 Niuean data . 169 v 5.2.2 The X/XP-raising analysis of restructuring predicates . 172 5.2.3 The uniform X-raising analysis of restructuring predicates . 174 5.3 The location of TAM . 177 5.3.1 The X/XP-raising analysis of TAM . 178 5.3.2 The uniform X-raising analysis of TAM . 181 5.4 Postverbal particles and inverse order . 182 5.4.1 XP roll-up movement . 183 5.4.2 X-raising and postverbal secondary predicates . 186 5.4.3 Inverse order and X-raising: verbal projections . 190 5.4.4 Inverse order and X-raising: TAM projections . 203 5.5 Negation . 210 5.5.1 Negation data . 210 5.5.2 X/XP-raising analysis of Negation . 212 5.5.3 Standard negation in Maori¯ and Tongan . 214 5.5.4 Nakai¯ fakaai ................................ 216 5.5.5 Restructuring analysis of nakai¯ ..................... 219 5.6 Conclusion . 224 6 Possible extension to Chol 225 6.1 VP-raising account Chol V1 . 226 6.2 Phase-based analysis of syntactic ergativity . 230 6.3 Applying Argument-' to Chol . 234 7 Conclusion 236 vi Acknowledgments Individual accomplishments tend to represent the effort of many; this time, I am grate- ful for the opportunity to thank the people whose support made this milestone attainable. I am very fortunate to have worked closely with Masha Polinsky over the last five years. I am inspired by the variety of viewpoints from which she approaches her research, and I hope to attain a fraction of her versatility over the course of my career. Masha is a generous advisor and has dedicated a good deal of time, energy, and resources to helping me develop a research program of my own. Finally, if not for her support, encouragement, and consistent standards as I negotiated dissertation writing and infant care, I would still be outlining the first chapter. Thank you also for being “GrandMasha” to my daughter. To all of the members of my committee, thank you for the care with which you read different versions of these chapters. I am particularly grateful to Kevin Ryan for his op- timistic approach to problem solving, to Norvin Richards for taking even my outlandish ideas seriously, and to Ryan Bennett for keeping me accountable to the big picture. I have benefited greatly from the opportunity to work with these inspiring linguists, and their influence will be reflected in my work for years to come. Fakaaue lahi to members of the Niuean academic community, including Diane Mas- sam, Jason Brown, Nicholas Rolle, and especially Kara-Ann Tukuitoga whose generosity with her language made this project possible. Special thanks to Zena Falepeau, Krypton Okesene, Mata Okesene, Nena Pisa, Granby Siakimotu, and Grace Tukuitoga for partici- pating in the prosodic study. Yours is a beautiful language. Interactions with members of the Mayan linguistic community have also been for- mative in the development my dissertation. Thanks especially to Judith Aissen, Ryan Bennett, Jessica Coon, Rodrigo Gutierrez-Bravo,´ Robert Henderson, Pedro Mateo Pedro, Kirill Shklovsky, Alexandre Tokovinine, and honorary linguist Ana Lopez de Mateo. Although I will acknowledge some of these people multiple times, I would like to thank Judith Aissen, Abbas Benmamoun, Jessica Coon, Henry Davis, Emily Elfner, Car- vii oline Fery,´ Caitlin Keenan, Gretchen Kern, Eric Potsdam, Omer Preminger, Lisa Travis, and Michael Wagner for helpful comments and/or discussion of different components of this dissertation. My introduction to the field of linguistics took place at the University of Iowa. To Jill Beckman, Bill Davies, Alice Davison, Elena Gavruseva, Cathie Ringen, Jurek Rubach, and Roumyana Slabakova, thank you for the solid foundation for independent research; I still consider myself one of yours. Thanks also to Iowa colleagues, Ulrike Carlson, Ivan Ivanov, Molly Kelley, Vladimir Kulikov, Kum-Young Lee, Tomomasa Sasa, and Marta Tryzna, and especially to my classmates, Danny Kang, Eri Kurniawan, and Lindsey Quinn-Wriedt.