BELIEF-OF-EXISTENCE DETERMINERS: EVIDENCE FROM THE SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS OF NATA AUGMENTS by Joash Johannes Gambarage B.A (Education), The University of Dar Es Salaam, 2004 M.A (Linguistics), The University of Dar Es Salaam, 2007 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULLFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (Linguistics) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) October 2019 © Joash Johannes Gambarage, 2019 The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dis- sertation entitled: Belief-of-Determiners in Bantu: Evidence from the Syntax and Semantics of Nata Augments submitted by Joash Johannes Gambarage in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics Examining Committee: Lisa Matthewson Co-supervisor Rose-Marie Déchaine Co-supervisor Michael Rochemont (deceased) Supervisory Committee Member Hotze Rullmann University Examiner Gloria Onyeoziri-Miller University Examiner ii Abstract This thesis makes two inter-related claims about the augment (a.k.a pre- prefix or initial vowel) based on evidence from Nata (Eastern Bantu, E45). Syntactically, the Nata augment is the realization of the functional category D(eterminer). The view that the augment is D is consistent with the claim that argument expressions are DPs, while predicate nominals obligatorily lack the D shell (cf. Longobardi 1994; Matthewson 1998; Déchaine and Tremblay 2011 and others). Semantically, I argue that the D distinction in Nata is solely based on speaker’s belief of existence. Beyond Nata, I claim that the core notion of existence is pertinent to other Bantu languages as well. The thesis challenges the widely held view that the D position is necessarily related to specificity or definiteness. I demonstrate that, once definiteness and specificity are controlled forina precise fashion, the true contribution of Nata Ds as belief-of-existence Ds can be discerned. Cross-linguistically, the Bantu belief-of-existence D intersects with Sal- ish assertion-of-existence Ds. In Salish, existence is asserted based on the speaker’s personal knowledge (Matthewson 1998). In Nata, this require- ment is lacking. The Nata belief of existence D thus behaves as “the weak- est D”, as it does not require a speaker to have personal knowledge of the individual. The theoretical implications of this analysis are twofold. First, existence Ds come in (at least) two guises, belief-of-existence versus assertion-of-existence. Second, existence Ds—in both Bantu and Salish— differ from “common ground” Ds of the type found in English, withthe latter (but not the former) coding definiteness/specificity. iii Lay Summary In this thesis I studied the determiner systems of the Nata (Bantu) language. I concluded that common semantic features of definiteness and specificity found in other well-studied languages are missing in Nata. My work opens up the notion of existence as it relates to the article system of Lillooet (Sal- ish) following Matthewson’s (1998) study. While the similarities between Bantu and Salish – two unrelated families – suggest that the notion of ex- istence is robustly available as a determiner distinction, I proposed that existence determiners come in (at least) two guises, one is a system like Nata in which a speaker’s personal knowledge of the referent is not re- quired (belief of existence), the second is a system like Lillooet in which a speaker’s personal knowledge of the referent is required (assertion of ex- istence). I have argued that existence determiners are also found in other Bantu languages. iv Preface This dissertation consists of original and independent work by the author, Joash Johannes Gambarage, and is mainly based on fieldwork data from native speakers of Nata spoken in Tanzania and from the introspective judg- ments of the researcher. This fieldwork is covered by UBC Ethics Certificate number H16-01163 under the title “Weak Determiners in Bantu: Evidence from the Syntax and Semantics of Pre-prefixes in Nata”. A version of Chapter 2 of this dissertation, The Nata augment: now you see it, now you don’t! appeared earlier as a qualifying paper under the UBC Working Papers in Linguistics volume 34, pages 45–59. Some sections of the same chapter also appeared earlier as an article entitled The Pre-prefix in Nata: An Interface Account in the Selected Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conference on African Linguistics, University of Kansas volume 30, pages 194–266. The picture presented as Figure 1.1 was taken with permission from the Scope Fieldwork Project directed by Dr. Benjamin Bruenning (University of Delaware). Map 1, The Ikoma-Nata-Isenye Cline, is from Higgins (2011) who cites the Survey Department of SIL’s Uganda-Tanzania Branch for providing her with such maps. v Table of Contents Abstract . iii Lay Summary . iv Preface . v Table of Contents . vi List of Tables . xv List of Figures . xvii List of Abbreviations . .xviii Acknowledgements . xxi Dedication . .xxiv 1 Introduction . 1 1.1 The goals of the thesis . 4 1.2 Theoretical assumptions . 4 1.2.1 The DP hypothesis . 4 1.2.2 The predicate/argument hypothesis . 5 1.2.3 The assertion-of-existence hypothesis . 5 1.2.4 Choice function accounts . 6 1.3 Methodology . 7 vi 1.4 The language and the people . 9 1.4.1 Language classification . 10 1.4.2 Dialect continuum and Nata neighbours . 11 1.4.3 Language endangerment . 13 1.4.4 Previous literature on Nata . 13 1.4.5 Orthography and transcriptions . 14 1.5 Why study Nata? . 15 1.5.1 Phonology of the augment . 16 1.5.1.1 The V–type augments . 17 1.5.1.2 The VV–type augment . 17 1.5.1.3 The CV–type augment . 18 1.5.1.4 The CVV–type augment . 19 1.5.2 Morphology of the augment . 20 1.5.3 Syntax . 22 1.5.3.1 Syntactic categories . 22 1.5.3.2 Agreement . 23 1.5.3.3 The verb complex . 25 1.6 Thesis outline . 27 2 The Nata augment: now you see it, now you don’t! . 28 2.1 The puzzling behaviour of the Nata augment . 30 2.1.1 Sometimes the Nata augment is there . 30 2.1.2 Sometimes the Nata augment isn’t there . 32 2.2 Possible accounts and why they don’t work . 34 2.2.1 The mass-count contrast does not condition the aug- ment . 34 2.2.2 Case does not condition the augment . 40 2.2.2.1 Verb extensions do not license the augment . 45 2.2.2.2 No evidence for morphological Case in Nata 47 2.2.2.3 The augment is not semantically vacuous . 49 2.2.3 Deixis does not condition the augment . 51 2.2.3.1 Defining deixis . 51 2.2.3.2 The Nata augment does not encode deixis . 51 vii 2.2.4 Definiteness does not condition the augment . 55 2.2.4.1 Defining definiteness . 56 2.2.4.2 The Nata augment does not encode novelty- familiarity . 56 2.2.4.3 The Nata augment does not presuppose ex- istence . 58 2.2.4.4 The Nata augment does not presuppose uniqueness . 60 2.2.4.5 The Nata augment does not assert uniqueness 62 2.2.4.6 The Nata augment does not presup- pose/assert maximality . 63 2.2.4.7 Augments are not weak/strong German def- inite Ds . 65 2.2.5 Specificity does not condition the augment . 70 2.2.5.1 Defining specificity . 70 2.2.5.2 The Nata augment does not encode specificity 74 2.2.5.3 The augment is not the English this-specific indefinite . 77 2.2.5.4 The augment is not the English indefinite a . 80 2.2.6 The Nata augment is not a ‘domain restrictor’ . 82 2.2.6.1 Similarities between the Nata Ds and do- main restriction Ds . 84 2.2.6.2 Differences between the Nata augment and domain restriction Ds . 90 2.3 Solving the Nata puzzle: the two ingredients . 94 2.3.1 Ingredient 1: argument vs predicate nominals . 95 2.3.2 Ingredient 2: overt versus covert augment . 96 2.4 Summary and conclusion . 97 3 The Syntax of Nata D . 99 3.1 Introduction . 99 3.2 The internal syntax of the Nata DP . 100 3.2.1 The decomposition of the Nata noun . 100 viii 3.2.2 The augment as a proclitic D . 103 3.2.2.1 The augment does not co-occur with the DEM proclitic . 104 3.2.2.2 The augment does not co-occur with the honorific proclitic . 105 3.2.3 Predictions for the proposal that augments are Ds . 106 3.3 Predicates . 108 3.3.1 Nata nominal predicates are '-N . 109 3.3.1.1 Simple nominal predicates lack a D . 109 3.3.1.2 D-linked wh-phrases as complex nominal predicates . 112 3.3.2 Nata adnominal predicates are '-A . 114 3.3.2.1 Post-copula adjectives lack a D . 114 3.3.2.2 Adjectival modifiers lack a D . 115 3.3.3 Nata secondary predicates are '-X . 116 3.3.3.1 Nata secondary nominal predicates lack a D 117 3.3.3.2 Nata secondary adjectival predicates lack a D118 3.3.4 Nata adverbials lack a D . 120 3.3.5 Nata infinitives lack a D-layer . 122 3.4 Argument nominals are D-'-N . 123 3.4.1 D is required in all argument positions . 125 3.4.1.1 D is required in subject position .