Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics Thesis Approval Sheet This thesis, entitled Noun modification in Suri narrative texts written by Meaghan E. Smith and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts with major in Applied Linguistics has been read and approved by the undersigned members of the faculty of the Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics. Mickad bendts Michdel Boutin (Supervising Professor) Peter Unseth Ervin Starwalt 21, 21,20og Date NOUN MODIFICATION IN SURI NARRRATIVE TEXTS By Meaghan E. Smith Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts with major in Applied Linguistics Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics June 2018 © 2018 Meaghan E. Smith All Rights Reserved CERTIFICATE I acknowledge that use of copyrighted material in my thesis may place me under an obligation to the copyright owner, especially when use of such material exceeds usual fair use provisions. I hereby certify that I have obtained the written permission of the copyright owner for any and all such occurrences and that no portion of my thesis has been copyrighted previously unless properly referenced. I hereby agree to indemnify and hold harmless the Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics from any and all claims that may be asserted or that may arise from any copyright violation. Signature So22,20IK Date THESIS DUPLICATION RELEASE I hereby authorize the Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics Library to duplicate this thesis when needed for research and/or scholarship. Agreed: Refused: ABSTRACT Noun Modification in Suri Narrative Texts Meaghan E. Smith Master of Arts with major in Applied Linguistics The Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics, June 2018 Supervising Professor: Michael Boutin This thesis provides an analysis of noun modification in narrative texts in Suri [suq], a Southeastern Surmic Nilo-Saharan language of southwestern Ethiopia. The structure, distribution, and function of modified noun constructions, both clausal and non-clausal, in Suri narrative texts are discussed in terms of both syntax and discourse. The semantic distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive modification is usually confined to a discussion of relative clauses. This thesis shows that the distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive modification is marked in both clausal and non- clausal modification constructions and that this distinction is crucial for understanding both relative clauses and non-clausal modifiers in Suri. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS So many people have played a role in this thesis coming to be. I want to acknowledge everyone from my preschool teachers to the friend I had coffee with this morning, but I’m told I only have these two pages. So I’ll stick to the major categories... My thesis committee members, without whom I would still be only half done: Michael Boutin, thank you for chairing my thesis committee, and for much longer than either of us anticipated. I can’t think of anyone better suited for the role. Pete Unseth, it was an honor to have you on my committee. You have been a rich source of knowledge, wisdom, and encouragement all along the way. Ervin Starwalt, thank you for stepping into new terrain to serve on my committee. Those who have composed, recorded, and translated the Suri texts which became my corpus of study, including Daniel Bambu, Mike Bryant, Ulrike Beyer, and the Suri curriculum writers: Thank you for sharing with the rest of us. My colleagues in Ethiopia, who have been patient with my extended absence: I cannot list all of the ways all of you have contributed to this, but know that I am grateful. A few of you have had a more direct impact on this thesis: Mike Bryant, your writings made it possible for me to look more in depth at one part of the language; and your heart for the Suri people spurred me on. Anne-Christie Hellenthal, Andreas Joswig, and Colleen Ahland, thank you for the many tea break and lunchtime conversations about my vii hypotheses. Your suggestions and encouragement have been invaluable. David Ford, thank you for graciously doing long-distance library work for me while I was stateside. The teachers, professors, and school staff members who have equipped me for this task: Thank you for pouring into students even when you may not see direct results. It all adds up. I have not the space to name you all, but I am thankful for the ways you have encouraged my curiosity, cultivated my analytical and critical thinking, drawn out my words, and called me to excellence. Those who have had more a direct impact on this thesis include Dr. Paul Kroeger, both as my grammar professor and as an ad hoc advisor regarding specific points within my thesis and Dr. Shin Ja Hwang, as my discourse analysis professor and as the author of several helpful articles on relative clauses. Special thanks to Professor Gerrit Dimmendaal, for his decades of work on Surmic and other Nilo-Saharan languages and for his answering the emails of this scholar who is new to the field. My family and friends in Wichita, Asheville, Dallas, Addis Ababa, Tulge, and elsewhere, who have walked alongside me these past few years of thesis writing: Thank you for graciously welcoming me in every time my revolving-door life opens your way and for encouraging me from a distance when I’m somewhere else. You have been of help in so many ways. Special thanks to Amanda Jarus and Melissa Smith for helping me talk through and work out solutions to particularly tricky portions of this thesis. June 2018 viii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... VI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................VII TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... IX LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ XI LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................XII ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... XIII 1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................1 1.1 Research problem and purpose ........................................................................... 1 1.2 Language classification ....................................................................................... 2 1.3 Literature review ................................................................................................. 5 1.4 Corpus of study ................................................................................................... 9 1.5 Conventions ...................................................................................................... 12 1.6 Overview of thesis ............................................................................................ 15 2 LANGUAGE OVERVIEW .....................................................................................17 2.1 Phonemes .......................................................................................................... 17 2.2 Orthography ...................................................................................................... 20 2.3 Phonological processes ..................................................................................... 21 2.4 Word classes ..................................................................................................... 24 2.5 Syntax overview................................................................................................ 32 3 NOUN MORPHOLOGY.........................................................................................41 3.1 Inflection ........................................................................................................... 41 3.2 Bound word clitics n= ‘SINGULAR’ and g(i)= ‘PLURAL’ ................................... 53 3.3 Compound nouns .............................................................................................. 54 4 NOUN MODIFICATION: PRELIMINARY MATTERS ...................................56 4.1 Parallels between various noun modification constructions ............................. 56 4.2 Restrictive/Non-restrictive ................................................................................ 58 4.3 Relative clauses ................................................................................................. 59 5 NON-CLAUSAL NOUN MODIFICATION CONSTRUCTIONS .....................62 5.1 Genitive noun constructions ............................................................................. 62 5.2 Possessive pronoun constructions ..................................................................... 64 5.3 Adjectival constructions.................................................................................... 75 5.4 Numerals ........................................................................................................... 79 5.5 Specific indefinite articles................................................................................. 80 5.6 General pronouns .............................................................................................. 84 ix 6 CLAUSAL MODIFICATION CONSTRUCTIONS ............................................87