DOCSLIB.ORG

A Unified Syntax for Logophors and Anaphors: Evidence from Verbal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Unified Syntax for Logophors and Anaphors: Evidence from Verbal A unified syntax for logophors and anaphors: evidence from verbal agreement in Tamil GLOW 36 Colloquium, Lund University, April 3, 2013 Sandhya Sundaresan, University of Tromsø [email protected], https://sites.google.com/site/sndhysndrsn 1 Overview Based on evidence from verbal agreement triggered under an anaphor, in the Dravidian language Tamil, I will argue that anaphoricity and logophoricity are built up from the same two dependencies: (i) a purely structural relationship, formalized as Agree, between the anaphor and a DP in the specifier of a Perspectival Phrase (PerspP) in the local phase of the anaphor, that “stands in” for its linguistic antecedent. (ii) a predominantly conceptual relationship, which is the equivalent of non-obligatory control (Williams, 1980), between the DP representing the linguistic antecedent and the DP in the [Spec, PerspP] of the anaphor’s local phase. + I will thus show that a unified syntactic treatment of logophoricity and anaphoricity is not only possible but empirically warranted. Before embarking on this task, however, I’d like to discuss the theoretical reasons why this is a goal worth pursuing. 2 The need for a better binding theory + It has been long recognized, particularly in the realm of nominal anaphora (see e.g. Clements, 1975; Kuno, 1987; Sells, 1987), that discourse perspective (mental and/or spatio-temporal) guides the nature of binding relations. This is nicely illustrated by the Icelandic minimal pair below (Sells, 1987): (1) Barniði lét ekki í ljós [CP að það hef-ði verið hugsað vel um child.def put not in light that there had-sbjv been thought well about sig{i,∗j}]. anaph “[The child]i didn’t reveal [CP that she{i,∗j} had been taken good care of].” (2)* Barnið i bar þess ekki merki [CP að það hef-ði verið hugsað vel child.def bore of it not signs that there had-sbjv been thought well um sigi]. about anaph “[The child]i didn’t look [CP as if shei had been taken good care of].” 1 Sandhya Sundaresan A unified syntax for logophors and anaphors As Reuland (2001, 345), describing these sentences, reports: “The difference in acceptability between [(1)] and [(2)] can be attributed to the fact that in [(1)] the report is made from the child’s point of view, i.e., it is the child, and not the speaker, who didn’t reveal that he/she had been taken good care of, whereas in [(2)], it is the speaker who reports that the child didn’t look as if he/she had been taken good care of.” • In other words, the linguistic antecedent of the anaphor in these structures must denote an individual who holds a perspective toward the (minimal) predication containing the anaphor. • This isn’t an isolated instance: parallels can be found in a wide range of languages ranging from other Germanic languages like Faroese (Strahan, 2010), Dutch and Nor- wegian (spatial anaphora patterns reported in Rooryck and vanden Wyngaerd, 2011; Lødrup, 2007, respectively) to non-Germanic ones like Italian (Giorgi, 2006), Japanese (Kuno, 1987; Oshima, 2007), Malayalam (Jayaseelan, 1997), and Chinese (Huang and Tang, 1991). + However, the traditional wisdom in the literature has been to treat perspective as a purely discourse-pragmatic concept, one that, furthermore, doesn’t feed into the core grammatical modules of syntax and semantics. + So strong is this assumption that evidence indicating that binding is sensitive to struc- tural constraints, like locality, minimality, and c-command (Chomsky, 1981; Pica, 1987; Huang and Tang, 1991; Progovac, 1993), has automatically been taken as evidence against the involvement of perspective. + Conversely, evidence supporting binding sensitivity to discourse-pragmatic factors, as in the case of the so-called “logophoric” phenomena, has automatically been taken as evidence against the involvement of structure. + This has led to a splitting up of binding phenomena into (at least) two categories: those that are structurally regulated and those that are conceptually driven. The problem is that such a strict dichotomy doesn’t seem to be empirically justified: (i) The “well-behaved” structural binding phenomena (involving e.g. anaphors that obey c-command and locality conditions) frequently also display the effects of thematic and discourse-pragmatic factors (Reinhart and Reuland, 1993; Kuno, 1987). (ii) Conversely, phenomena that have been treated as being predominantly conceptual/semantico- pragmatic manifest sensitivity to structural constraints (e.g. indexical pronouns may be variable bound (Kratzer, 2009)). (iii) Pro-forms, like logophors, whose distribution is putatively purely conceptually driven, as well as anaphors, whose distribution is putatively purely structurally driven, fre- quently look morphophonologically alike crosslinguistically. 2 GLOW 36 April 3, 2013 + In an elegant system, these crosslinguistically robust correlations would be treated, not as a coincidence or accident, but as the result of a principled mapping between discourse perspective and syntactico-semantic structure. + But such an approach would necessarily require giving up the assumption that per- spective is non-structural. The central goal of this talk is to demonstrate that a unified syntactic treatment of logophoricity and anaphoricity (in certain languages) is not only possible, but empirically warranted. 3 Evidence against structural involvement: conditions on antecedence + The involvement of structural restrictions on binding dependencies in a language like Tamil is, however, far from clear. + On the face of it, all binding dependencies in this language seem to be conceptually driven. 3.1 Exceptions to “well-behaved” antecedence Here is a “well-behaved” binding structure in Tamil: (3) Ramani Krishnan-kiúúærund˘uj [CP taan{i,∗j} paris- æ Raman[nom] Krishnan-abl anaph[nom] prize- acc Ãejkka-poo-r-aan-nn˘u] kaïãupiãi-tt-aan. win-go-prs-3msg-comp find.out-pst-3msg “Ramani found out from Krishnanj [CP that he{i,∗j} was going to win the prize.]” Such sentences suggest that a DP that qualifies as an antecedent has the following structural properties: (i) It is a syntactic subject, not an object. (ii) It c-commands the anaphor. + The problem is that there is a principled “exception” to each of the characteristics in (i)-(iii) above. + Such evidence comes from logophoric structures, binding under psych predicates, as well as “standard” cases of long-distance binding. 3 Sandhya Sundaresan A unified syntax for logophors and anaphors 3.1.1 The logophoric “exception” + In the so-called “logophoric” structures, the subjecthood and c-command restrictions on antecedence are trivially violated – since the antecedent is not clause-internally represented, to begin with. This is illustrated below: (4) Seetha-v˘ukk˘ui oïïum purija-læ. Taan{i,∗j} maúúum een ivvaíav˘u Seetha-dat anything understand-neg. anaph.nom alone why this.much kašúappaãa-ïum? suffer-must? Seethai didn’t understand at all. Why must she{i,∗j} alone suffer this much? • However, the standard wisdom (Reinhart and Reuland, 1993; Hicks, 2009; Rooryck and vanden Wyngaerd, 2011), is that logophoricity is an extra-grammatical phenomenon that is intrinsically different from anaphoricity. • As such, we might claim, the rules for anaphoric binding aren’t expected to apply to logophoric binding. 3.1.2 The psych predicate “exception” + The problem is that even non-logophoric binding involves exceptions to the antecedence conditions laid out in (i)-(iii). Consider the following psych-predicate structure: (5)[ CP [DP Taani avvaíav˘u eeõæ-jaaga ir˘und-ad˘u] [DP [DP anaph[nom] so poor-adj be-pst-3nsg.nom Raman-ooã-æ]i aïïaavæ] rombæ-vee baadi-jir˘u-kkir-ad˘u.] his-gen brother-acc very-emph affect-be-prs-3nsg “[DP Hisi having been so poor] has really affected [DP [DP Raman’si] brother].” • In (5), the antecedent Raman is a possessor contained inside the experiencer DP. • Regardless of whether this experiencer DP itself is analyzed as a “deep” subject or object (Beletti and Rizzi, 1988), as c-commanding or non-c-commanding, it is clear that the possessor DP Raman is not the clausal subject; nor does it c-command the anaphor. 3.2 Structural ill-formedness in “well-behaved” binding • One way of getting out of such problems would be to claim that binding under psych- predicates, like logophoric binding, is outside the purview of standard binding condi- tions. E.g. Minkoff (2003) treats instances of “backward” binding ((5)), as instances of logophoricity. 4 GLOW 36 April 3, 2013 • Another option would be to enrich the existing binding conditions to accommodate argument-structural sensitivity to the psych vs. non-psych distinction (Reinhart and Reuland, 1993). The problem with both approaches is that: + Logophoric binding, for all its surface similarities to anaphoric binding, must still be treated as an underlyingly distinct phenomenon. + Even the putatively well-behaved instances of binding involve principled violations of structural well-formedness. Specifically, long-distance binding in Tamil and other lan- guages, appears to violate syntactic conditions of locality, minimality, and determinacy. Non-locality: Long-distance binding in Tamil really is long-distance – in principle, ta(a)n can be bound by any superordinate subject regardless of how many clausal boundaries may intervene:1 (6)[ CP Raman Anand-kiúúæ [CP Seetha tann-æi Raman[nom] Anand-all Seetha[nom] anaph-acc kaappaatt-in-aaí-˘unn˘u] so-nn-aan-nn˘u] Krishnani save-pst-3fsg-comp] say-pst-3msg-comp Krishnan[nom] paar-tt-aan. saw-pst-3msg “Krishnani saw [CP that Raman told Anand [CP that Seetha saved himi.] ]” Non-minimality: (6) also shows that the antecedent may also bind ta(a)n across other DPs (potential antecedents and non-antecedents alike), in apparent violation of Relativized Minimality. Optionality: The choice of antecedent for the anaphor is not deterministic but can be cho- sen from a range of suitable candidates, both sentence-internally and in the discourse.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Logophoricity in Finnish
    Open Linguistics 2018; 4: 630–656 Research Article Elsi Kaiser* Effects of perspective-taking on pronominal reference to humans and animals: Logophoricity in Finnish https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0031 Received December 19, 2017; accepted August 28, 2018 Abstract: This paper investigates the logophoric pronoun system of Finnish, with a focus on reference to animals, to further our understanding of the linguistic representation of non-human animals, how perspective-taking is signaled linguistically, and how this relates to features such as [+/-HUMAN]. In contexts where animals are grammatically [-HUMAN] but conceptualized as the perspectival center (whose thoughts, speech or mental state is being reported), can they be referred to with logophoric pronouns? Colloquial Finnish is claimed to have a logophoric pronoun which has the same form as the human-referring pronoun of standard Finnish, hän (she/he). This allows us to test whether a pronoun that may at first blush seem featurally specified to seek [+HUMAN] referents can be used for [-HUMAN] referents when they are logophoric. I used corpus data to compare the claim that hän is logophoric in both standard and colloquial Finnish vs. the claim that the two registers have different logophoric systems. I argue for a unified system where hän is logophoric in both registers, and moreover can be used for logophoric [-HUMAN] referents in both colloquial and standard Finnish. Thus, on its logophoric use, hän does not require its referent to be [+HUMAN]. Keywords: Finnish, logophoric pronouns, logophoricity, anti-logophoricity, animacy, non-human animals, perspective-taking, corpus 1 Introduction A key aspect of being human is our ability to think and reason about our own mental states as well as those of others, and to recognize that others’ perspectives, knowledge or mental states are distinct from our own, an ability known as Theory of Mind (term due to Premack & Woodruff 1978).
    [Show full text]
  • II Levels of Language
    II Levels of language 1 Phonetics and phonology 1.1 Characterising articulations 1.1.1 Consonants 1.1.2 Vowels 1.2 Phonotactics 1.3 Syllable structure 1.4 Prosody 1.5 Writing and sound 2 Morphology 2.1 Word, morpheme and allomorph 2.1.1 Various types of morphemes 2.2 Word classes 2.3 Inflectional morphology 2.3.1 Other types of inflection 2.3.2 Status of inflectional morphology 2.4 Derivational morphology 2.4.1 Types of word formation 2.4.2 Further issues in word formation 2.4.3 The mixed lexicon 2.4.4 Phonological processes in word formation 3 Lexicology 3.1 Awareness of the lexicon 3.2 Terms and distinctions 3.3 Word fields 3.4 Lexicological processes in English 3.5 Questions of style 4 Syntax 4.1 The nature of linguistic theory 4.2 Why analyse sentence structure? 4.2.1 Acquisition of syntax 4.2.2 Sentence production 4.3 The structure of clauses and sentences 4.3.1 Form and function 4.3.2 Arguments and complements 4.3.3 Thematic roles in sentences 4.3.4 Traces 4.3.5 Empty categories 4.3.6 Similarities in patterning Raymond Hickey Levels of language Page 2 of 115 4.4 Sentence analysis 4.4.1 Phrase structure grammar 4.4.2 The concept of ‘generation’ 4.4.3 Surface ambiguity 4.4.4 Impossible sentences 4.5 The study of syntax 4.5.1 The early model of generative grammar 4.5.2 The standard theory 4.5.3 EST and REST 4.5.4 X-bar theory 4.5.5 Government and binding theory 4.5.6 Universal grammar 4.5.7 Modular organisation of language 4.5.8 The minimalist program 5 Semantics 5.1 The meaning of ‘meaning’ 5.1.1 Presupposition and entailment 5.2
    [Show full text]
  • Pronouns, Logical Variables, and Logophoricity in Abe Author(S): Hilda Koopman and Dominique Sportiche Source: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol
    MIT Press Pronouns, Logical Variables, and Logophoricity in Abe Author(s): Hilda Koopman and Dominique Sportiche Source: Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Autumn, 1989), pp. 555-588 Published by: MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178645 Accessed: 22-10-2015 18:32 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Linguistic Inquiry. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.97.27.20 on Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:32:27 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Hilda Koopman Pronouns, Logical Variables, Dominique Sportiche and Logophoricity in Abe 1. Introduction 1.1. Preliminaries In this article we describe and analyze the propertiesof the pronominalsystem of Abe, a Kwa language spoken in the Ivory Coast, which we view as part of the study of pronominalentities (that is, of possible pronominaltypes) and of pronominalsystems (that is, of the cooccurrence restrictionson pronominaltypes in a particulargrammar). Abe has two series of thirdperson pronouns. One type of pronoun(0-pronoun) has basically the same propertiesas pronouns in languageslike English. The other type of pronoun(n-pronoun) very roughly corresponds to what has been called the referential use of pronounsin English(see Evans (1980)).It is also used as what is called a logophoric pronoun-that is, a particularpronoun that occurs in special embedded contexts (the logophoric contexts) to indicate reference to "the person whose speech, thought or perceptions are reported" (Clements (1975)).
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Shared Syntax for Shifted Indexicals and Logophoric Pronouns
    Toward a Shared Syntax for Shifted Indexicals and Logophoric Pronouns Mark Baker Rutgers University April 2018 Abstract: I argue that indexical shift is more like logophoricity and complementizer agreement than most previous semantic accounts would have it. In particular, there is evidence of a syntactic requirement at work, such that the antecedent of a shifted “I” must be a superordinate subject, just as the antecedent of a logophoric pronoun or the goal of complementizer agreement must be. I take this to be evidence that the antecedent enters into a syntactic control relationship with a null operator in all three constructions. Comparative data comes from Magahi and Sakha (for indexical shift), Yoruba (for logophoric pronouns), and Lubukusu (for complementizer agreement). 1. Introduction Having had an office next to Lisa Travis’s for 12 formative years, I learned many things from her that still influence my thinking. One is her example of taking semantic notions, such as aspect and event roles, and finding ways to implement them in syntactic structure, so as to advance the study of less familiar languages and topics.1 In that spirit, I offer here some thoughts about how logophoricity and indexical shift, topics often discussed from a more or less semantic point of view, might have syntactic underpinnings—and indeed, the same syntactic underpinnings. On an impressionistic level, it would not seem too surprising for logophoricity and indexical shift to have a common syntactic infrastructure. Canonical logophoricity as it is found in various West African languages involves using a special pronoun inside the finite CP complement of a verb to refer to the subject of that verb.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Basic Categorial Syntax
    Hardegree, Compositional Semantics, Chapter 1 : Basic Categorial Syntax 1 of 27 Chapter 1 Basic Categorial Syntax 1. The Task of Grammar ............................................................................................................ 2 2. Artificial versus Natural Languages ....................................................................................... 2 3. Recursion ............................................................................................................................... 3 4. Category-Governed Grammars .............................................................................................. 3 5. Example Grammar – A Tiny Fragment of English ................................................................. 4 6. Type-Governed (Categorial) Grammars ................................................................................. 5 7. Recursive Definition of Types ............................................................................................... 7 8. Examples of Types................................................................................................................. 7 9. First Rule of Composition ...................................................................................................... 8 10. Examples of Type-Categorial Analysis .................................................................................. 8 11. Quantifiers and Quantifier-Phrases ...................................................................................... 10 12. Compound Nouns
    [Show full text]
  • Assibilation Or Analogy?: Reconsideration of Korean Noun Stem-Endings*
    Assibilation or analogy?: Reconsideration of Korean noun stem-endings* Ponghyung Lee (Daejeon University) This paper discusses two approaches to the nominal stem-endings in Korean inflection including loanwords: one is the assibilation approach, represented by H. Kim (2001) and the other is the analogy approach, represented by Albright (2002 et sequel) and Y. Kang (2003b). I contend that the assibilation approach is deficient in handling its underapplication to the non-nominal categories such as verb. More specifically, the assibilation approach is unable to clearly explain why spirantization (s-assibilation) applies neither to derivative nouns nor to non-nominal items in its entirety. By contrast, the analogy approach is able to overcome difficulties involved with the assibilation position. What is crucial to the analogy approach is that the nominal bases end with t rather than s. Evidence of t-ending bases is garnered from the base selection criteria, disparities between t-ending and s-ending inputs in loanwords. Unconventionally, I dare to contend that normative rules via orthography intervene as part of paradigm extension, alongside semantic conditioning and token/type frequency. Keywords: inflection, assibilation, analogy, base, affrication, spirantization, paradigm extension, orthography, token/type frequency 1. Introduction When it comes to Korean nominal inflection, two observations have captivated our attention. First, multiple-paradigms arise, as explored in previous literature (K. Ko 1989, Kenstowicz 1996, Y. Kang 2003b, Albright 2008 and many others).1 (1) Multiple-paradigms of /pʰatʰ/ ‘red bean’ unmarked nom2 acc dat/loc a. pʰat pʰaʧʰ-i pʰatʰ-ɨl pʰatʰ-e b. pʰat pʰaʧʰ-i pʰaʧʰ-ɨl pʰatʰ-e c.
    [Show full text]
  • Nominal Internal and External Topic and Focus: Evidence from Mandarin
    University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 20 Issue 1 Proceedings of the 37th Annual Penn Article 17 Linguistics Conference 2014 Nominal Internal and External Topic and Focus: Evidence from Mandarin Yu-Yin Hsu Bard College Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl Recommended Citation Hsu, Yu-Yin (2014) "Nominal Internal and External Topic and Focus: Evidence from Mandarin," University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 20 : Iss. 1 , Article 17. Available at: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol20/iss1/17 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol20/iss1/17 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Nominal Internal and External Topic and Focus: Evidence from Mandarin Abstract Taking the Cartographic Approach, I argue that the left periphery of nominals in Mandarin (i.e., the domain before demonstrative) has properties similar to the split-CP domain proposed by Rizzi (1997). In addition, I argue that the nominal internal domain (i.e., under demonstrative but outside of NP) encodes information structure in a way similar to the sentence-internal Topic and Focus that has been put forth in the literature. In this paper, I show that identifying Topic and Focus within a nominal at such two distinct domains helps to explain various so-called “reordering” and extraction phenomena affecting nominal elements, their interpretation, and their associated discourse functions. The result of this paper supports the parallelisms between noun phrases and clauses and it provides a new perspective to evaluate such theoretical implication, that is, the interaction between syntax and information structure.
    [Show full text]
  • A THEORY of NOMINAL CONCORD a Dissertation Submitted in Partial Satisfaction of the Requirements for the Degree Of
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ A THEORY OF NOMINAL CONCORD A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in LINGUISTICS by Mark Norris June 2014 The Dissertation of Mark Norris is approved: Professor Jorge Hankamer, Chair Professor Sandra Chung Professor James McCloskey Dean Tyrus Miller Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Copyright © by Mark Norris 2014 Table of Contents List of Figures vi List of Tables vii Abstract viii Dedication x Acknowledgments xi 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Themainpuzzle.................................. 3 1.2 EmpiricalBackground ... ...... ..... ...... ...... ... 5 1.2.1 Grammaticalsketch ........................... 6 1.2.2 Nominalmorphology........................... 8 1.2.3 Nominal morphophonology . 12 1.2.4 Datasources ............................... 14 1.2.5 ThecaseforEstonian...... ..... ...... ...... .... 16 1.3 Theoretical Background . 16 1.3.1 Some important syntactic assumptions . ..... 17 1.3.2 Some important morphological assumptions . ...... 20 1.4 Organization.................................... 21 2 Estonian Nominal Morphosyntax 23 2.1 Introduction.................................... 23 2.2 TheDPlayerinEstonian .. ...... ..... ...... ...... ... 25 2.2.1 Estonian does not exhibit properties of articleless languages . 28 2.2.2 Overt material in D0 inEstonian..................... 44 2.2.3 Evidence for D0 from demonstratives . 50 2.2.4 Implications for the Small Nominal Hypothesis . ....... 54 2.3 Cardinal numerals in Estonian . 60 2.3.1 The numeral’s “complement” . 60 2.3.2 Previous analyses of numeral-noun constructions . ......... 64 iii 2.4 Two structures for NNCs in Estonian . ..... 75 2.4.1 The size of the NP+ ............................ 76 2.4.2 The higher number feature in Estonian . 79 2.4.3 Higher adjectives and possessors . 81 2.4.4 Plural numerals in Estonian are specifiers .
    [Show full text]
  • Intro to Linguistics – Syntax 1 Jirka Hana – November 7, 2011
    Intro to Linguistics – Syntax 1 Jirka Hana – November 7, 2011 Overview of topics • What is Syntax? • Part of Speech • Phrases, Constituents & Phrase Structure Rules • Ambiguity • Characteristics of Phrase Structure Rules • Valency 1 What to remember and understand: Syntax, difference between syntax and semantics, open/closed class words, all word classes (and be able to distinguish them based on morphology and syntax) Subject, object, case, agreement. 1 What is Syntax? Syntax – the part of linguistics that studies sentence structure: • word order: I want these books. *want these I books. • agreement – subject and verb, determiner and noun, . often must agree: He wants this book. *He want this book. I want these books. *I want this books. • How many complements, which prepositions and forms (cases): I give Mary a book. *I see Mary a book. I see her. *I see she. • hierarchical structure – what modifies what We need more (intelligent leaders). (more of intelligent leaders) We need (more intelligent) leaders. (leaders that are more intelligent) • etc. Syntax is not about meaning! Sentences can have no sense and still be grammatically correct: Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. – nonsense, but grammatically correct *Sleep ideas colorless furiously green. – grammatically incorrect Syntax: From Greek syntaxis from syn (together) + taxis (arrangement). Cf. symphony, synonym, synthesis; taxonomy, tactics 1 2 Parts of Speech • Words in a language behave differently from each other. • But not each word is entirely different from all other words in that language. ⇒ Words can be categorized into parts of speech (lexical categories, word classes) based on their morphological, syntactic and semantic properties. Note that there is a certain amount of arbitrariness in any such classification.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Do New Words Like Boobage, Flamage, Ownage Come From? Tracking the History of ‑Age Words from 1100 to 2000 in the OED3
    Lexis Journal in English Lexicology 12 | 2018 Lexical and Semantic Neology in English Where do new words like boobage, flamage, ownage come from? Tracking the history of ‑age words from 1100 to 2000 in the OED3 Chris A. Smith Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/lexis/2167 DOI: 10.4000/lexis.2167 ISSN: 1951-6215 Publisher Université Jean Moulin - Lyon 3 Electronic reference Chris A. Smith, « Where do new words like boobage, flamage, ownage come from? Tracking the history of ‑age words from 1100 to 2000 in the OED3 », Lexis [Online], 12 | 2018, Online since 14 December 2018, connection on 03 May 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/lexis/2167 ; DOI : 10.4000/ lexis.2167 This text was automatically generated on 3 May 2019. Lexis is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Where do new words like boobage, flamage, ownage come from? Tracking the hist... 1 Where do new words like boobage, flamage, ownage come from? Tracking the history of ‑age words from 1100 to 2000 in the OED3 Chris A. Smith Introduction 1 This study aims to trace the evolution of nominal ‑age formation in the OED3, from its origins as a product of borrowing from Latin or French from 1100, to its status as an innovative internal derivation process. The suffix ‑age continues today to coin newly- or non-lexicalized forms such as ownage, boobage, brushage, suggestive of the continued productivity of a long-standing century-old suffix. This remarkable success appears to distinguish ‑age from similar Latinate suffixes such as ‑ment and ‑ity (see Gadde [1910]) and raises the question of the reasons behind this adaptability.
    [Show full text]
  • The Syntax of Word Order Derivation and Agreement in Najrani Arabic: a Minimalist Analysis
    English Language Teaching; Vol. 10, No. 2; 2017 ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education The Syntax of Word Order Derivation and Agreement in Najrani Arabic: A Minimalist Analysis Abdul-Hafeed Ali Fakih1 & Hadeel Ali Al-Sharif2 1 Department of English, University of Ibb, Yemen & Department of English, University of Najran, Saudi Arabia 2 Department of English, University of Najran, Saudi Arabia Correspondence: Abdul-Hafeed Ali Fakih, Department of English, University of Najran, Saudi Arabia. E-mail: [email protected] Received: December 1, 2016 Accepted: January 7, 2017 Online Published: January 9, 2017 doi: 10.5539/elt.v10n2p48 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n2p48 Abstract The paper aims to explore word order derivation and agreement in Najran Arabic (henceforth, NA) and examines the interaction between the NA data and Chomsky’s (2001, 2005) Agree theory which we adopt in this study. The objective is to investigate how word order occurs in NA and provide a satisfactorily unified account of the derivation of SVO and VSO orders and agreement in the language. Furthermore, the study shows how SVO and VSO word orders are derived morpho-syntactically in NA syntax and why and how the derivation of SVO word order comes after that of VSO order. We assume that the derivation of the unmarked SVO in NA takes place after applying a further step to the marked VSO. We propose that the default unmarked word order in NA is SVO, not VSO. Moreover, we propose that the DP which is base-generated in [Spec-vP] is a topic, not a subject.
    [Show full text]
  • Ikizu-Sizaki Orthography Orthography Statement
    IKIZUIKIZU----SIZAKISIZAKI ORTHOGRAPHY STATEMENT SIL International UgandaUganda----TanzaniaTanzania Branch IkizuIkizu----SizakiSizaki Orthography Statement Approved Orthography Edition Acknowledgements Many individuals contributed to this document by formatting the structure, contributing the language data, organizing the data, writing the document and by giving advice for editing the document. This document was authored by Holly Robinson, and it is an updated and expanded version of the Ikizu Orthography Sketch, which was authored by Michelle Smith and Hazel Gray. Additional contributors from SIL International include: Oliver Stegen, Helen Eaton, Leila Schroeder, Oliver Rundell, Tim Roth, Dusty Hill, and Mike Diercks. Contributors from the Ikizu language community include: Rukia Rahel Manyori and Ismael Waryoba (Ikizu Bible translators), as well as Kitaboka Philipo, Bahati M. Seleman, Joseph M. Edward, Magwa P. Marara, Mwassi Mong’ateko, Ibrahimu Ketera, Amosi Mkono, Dennis Paul, Nickson Obimbo, Muhuri Keng’are, Matutu Ngese. © SIL International UgandaUganda----TanzaniaTanzania Branch P.O Box 44456 00100 Nairobi, Kenya P.O. Box 60368 Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania P.O. Box 7444 Kampala, Uganda Approved Orthography Edition: April 2016 2 Contents 1.1.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... ......... 555 1.1 Classification ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]