Lexical Categories and Argument Structure A study with reference to Sakha Published by LOT phone: +31 30 253 6006 Trans 10 fax: +31 30 253 6000 3512 JK Utrecht e-mail: [email protected] The Netherlands http://wwwlot.let.uu.nl/ Cover illustration: Open air museum in Suottu. A photograph by Evgenia Arbugaeva ISBN 90-76864-00-4 NUR 632 Copyright © 2005 Nadezhda Vinokurova. All rights reserved. Lexical Categories and Argument Structure A study with reference to Sakha (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) Lexicale Categorieën en Argumentstructuur Een studie met betrekking tot het Sakha Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de Rector Magnificus, Prof. Dr. W.H.Gispen, ingevolge het besluit van het College voor Promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op vrijdag 18 maart 2005 des ochtends te 10.30 uur door Nadezhda Vinokurova geboren op 12 augustus 1974 te Yakutsk Promotor: Prof. Dr. E.J. Reuland ISBN 90-76864-00-4 Contents 0. HISTORICAL PRELUDE 1 0.1. Pānini……………………………………………………………………………1 0.2. Plato and Aristotle……………………………………………………………….1 0.3. The Stoics………………………………………………………………………..2 0.4. Dionysius Thrax…………………………………………………………………3 0.5. Latin grammarians: Varro and Priscian…………………………………………4 0.6. A summary: from Plato to Priscian……………………………………………...5 0.7. Further historical developments…………………………………………………6 1. INTRODUCTION 9 1.1. Lexical categories: Features versus configurations……………………………..9 1.2. Lexical categories: The generative background……………………………….11 1.2.1. Chomsky’s (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax…………………....11 1.2.2. Chomsky’s (1968/70) Remarks on nominalization…………………….12 1.2.3. Lexicalism……………………………………………………………...14 1.2.4. Consequences and implications of the feature formalisms…………….16 1.2.5. Other proposals in current linguistics: Jackendoff 1977; Déchaine 1993; prototype theory…..…………………………………………20 1.3. Lexicon versus Syntax………………………………………………………....24 1.3.1. Regression: Nature versus convention → anomaly versus Analogy → lexicon versus syntax?.............................................................27 1.3.2. Syntactic categorization…………………………………………….28 1.3.2.1. Marantz 1997/2001 and Distributed Morphology……....29 1.3.2.2. Some objections to categorization in DM………………34 1.3.2.3. Borer’s (2000, in press) exo-skeletal (XS) approach...…35 1.3.2.4. Some objections to the XS-model………………………39 1.3.2.4.1. Objections to XS-categorization…………….40 1.3.2.4.2. Special meanings as idioms…………………40 1.3.2.4.3. The derivation/inflection dichotomy………..42 1.3.2.4.4. Overgeneration……………………………...45 1.4. Two alternative approaches to argument structure…………………………….46 1.4.1. DM’s approach to argument structure…………………………...…47 1.4.2. The exo-skeletal approach to argument structure………………..…58 1.4.3. A different conception of argument structure: Theta System……....60 1.5. The extended proposal…………………………………………………………67 1.5.1. Relational nouns……………………………………………………75 1.5.2. A note on concepts in TS, DM and XS: Conceptual coercion and on the necessity of theta features……………………………………………..78 1.6. The proposal in a nutshell……………………………………………………...79 1.6.1. Contrasting the predictions…………………………………………81 1.7. Structure of the dissertation……………………………………………………82 2. DECOMPOSING LEXICAL CATEGORIES IN SAKHA 83 2.1. The inventory of roots and suffixes…………………………………………....84 2.1.1. The evolutionary routes of roots……………………………………85 2.1.1.1. Evidence for bound roots………………………….........87 Contents 2.1.1.2. Evidence from word coining for the psychological salience of bound roots…………………………………………..89 2.1.2. Simplex and complex suffixes……………………...………………91 2.1.2.1. Suffixal promiscuity…………………………………….92 2.1.2.2. Suffixal instability…………………………..…………..94 2.1.2.3. Not all derivation is suffixation…………………………95 2.1.3. Explaining categorial ambiguities of roots in Theta system…….…96 2.2. Against bare roots………………………………………………………..…….98 2.2.1. Against XS-categorization…………………………………….……99 2.2.2. Against DM-categorization……………………………….………..99 2.2.3. Against bare roots in general: Onomatopoeic words in Sakha…....102 2.2.4. Against bare roots in general: Some notes on parsing……………103 2.3. Derivation: Lexicon versus syntax…………………………………………....104 2.3.1. Untenability of the tenet “All derivation in the syntax”…………..106 2.3.2. Predictions for lexical and syntactic derivation……………….…..112 2.3.3. Some notes on morphological marking of derivation…………….114 2.4. Deriving nouns in the lexicon and syntax…………………………………….118 2.4.1. Deriving nouns from nouns……………………………………….118 2.4.2. Deriving nouns from adjectives………………………….………..119 2.4.3. Deriving nouns from verbs……………………………….……….120 2.5. Deriving adjectives in the lexicon and syntax……………………….……….125 2.5.1. Deriving adjectives from nouns…………………………………...125 2.5.2. Deriving adjectives from adjectives…………………………...….125 2.5.3. Deriving adjectives from verbs…………………………….……..126 2.6. Concluding remarks………………………………………………………..…128 3. NOUNS IN SAKHA 131 3.1. Possession………………………………………………………….…………131 3.1.1. Introducing possessives…………………………………..……….132 3.1.1.1. Possession at the nominal level…………………….….132 3.1.1.2. The lack of genitive case in Sakha and the obligatory presence of the dummy noun in possessor predicates………….133 3.1.1.3. Clausal possession: Full NP possessor predicates…….134 3.1.1.4. Clausal possession: -LAAX…………………………...135 3.1.1.5. There is a nominative possessor……………………….137 3.1.1.6. There is a dative possessor…………………………….137 3.1.2. Analyzing possessives…………………………………………….138 3.1.2.1. Analyzing –LAAX…………………………………….139 3.1.2.1.1. Associative –LAAX………………………..141 3.1.2.1.2. Temporal –LAAX………………………….145 3.1.2.2. Raising analysis of possession………………………...146 3.1.2.2.1. Possessives and locatives…………………..151 3.1.2.2.2. Capturing the possessor……………………155 3.1.2.3. Inalienable possession………………………………....160 3.1.2.3.1. Inalienability as a grammatical category…..164 3.1.2.3.2. Absence of relationality with possessive predicates……………………………………………..167 Contents 3.1.2.3.3. Postpositional phrases……………………...170 3.1.2.3.4. Q-ish nouns………………………………...172 3.1.2.4. Adjectival modification and temporary possession…...175 3.1.2.5. Concluding remarks on possession…………………....178 3.2. Nominal compounds: The lexicon/syntax division………………………..….179 3.2.1. Root compounds………………………………………………..…180 3.2.2. Possessive compounds…………………………………………….181 3.2.3. Dvandva compounds……………………………………………...185 3.3. Baker’s (2003) criterion of identity…………………………………………..189 3.4. Nouns as arguments…………………………………………………………..191 3.4.1. Other proposals for nouns as arguments………………………….192 3.4.2. The current proposal: NP-arguments versus DP-arguments…...…195 3.4.2.1. Structural deficiency in Sakha: The missing DP-layer..195 3.4.2.2. Discourse reference and the DP-domain……………....197 3.5. Concluding remarks…………………………………………………………..198 4. ADJECTIVES IN SAKHA 201 4.1. Predication…………………………………………………………………....201 4.1.1. Conjunction………………………………………………...……..202 4.1.2. Agreement………………………………………………………...204 4.1.2.1. Agreement in finite predication……………………….204 4.1.2.2. Agreement in non-finite predication…………………..206 4.1.3. Negation…………………………………………………………..207 4.1.4. Structures for adjectival predication without buol ‘be’ (present tense)……………………………………………………………………..211 4.1.5. Buol ‘be’ introducing a generic operator……………………….…213 4.1.6. Structures for adjectival predication with buol ‘be’ and for nominal predication (present tense)……………………………………………….216 4.2. Tense and the three types of predicates………………………………………218 4.2.1. Overview of tenses in Sakha (in the indicative mood)……………220 4.2.1.1. INFL[-TENSE FEATURE]-PART-VP………………………..220 4.2.1.2. INFL[+TENSE FEATURE]-VP……………………….………223 4.2.1.3. INFL-AUX-PART-VP………………………………...223 4.2.1.4. Alternating forms: INFL-PART-VP or INFL-AUX- PART-VP…………………………………………………..…..224 4.2.1.5. Summary 1: Simplex and compound tenses in Sakha...228 4.2.1.6. Summary 2: On the relationship among I, Part, VP and AP……………...………………………………………229 4.2.2. Deriving tense asymmetry between verbs and adjectives………...231 4.2.3. Deriving allomorphy……………...................................................234 4.2.4. Matrix bare verbs………………….................................................240 4.2.5. A sample derivation for a nominal predicate in the past and future tenses…………………………………………………………………….247 4.2.6. Comparison with Baker 2003…………………………………..…248 4.3. Embedded predication and the obligatoriness of buol ‘be’ with nonfinite nominal predicates……………………………………………………………...…252 4.3.1. Non-finite and finite subordination: Verbal predicates…………...253 Contents 4.3.2. Non-finite and finite subordination: Adjectival predicates……….254 4.3.3. Non-finite and finite subordination: Nominal predicates…………255 4.3.4. Argumenthood and referentiality of embedded clauses…………..255 4.4. Extractions out of predicates: the nominal/adjectival/verbal asymmetry…….257 4.4.1. Verb-based relative clauses……………………………………….258 4.4.1.1. Lack of V-to-I movement inside a relative clause…….260 4.4.1.2. Two differences between Sakha and Turkish RCs…....261 4.4.1.3. The argument/adjunct asymmetry in extraction……….262 4.4.2. Adjective-based relative clauses…………………………………..263 4.4.3. Noun-based relative clauses and concluding remarks……….……264 4.5. Attributive modification………………………………………………………265 4.5.1. The structure of attributive modification………………………….265 4.5.1.1. Kayne’s (1994) account……………………………….266 4.5.1.2. Baker’s (2003) account………………………………..266 4.5.1.3. Thematic account……………………………………...269 4.5.1.3.1. Ruling out verbs as attributive modifiers of nouns………………………………………………….272 4.5.2. The N→A