Indefinite subjects in Durban Zulu

Abstract

It has long been observed that subjects cross-linguistically have topic properties: they are typically definite, referential and/or generic (Givón 1976). Bantu languages are said to illustrate this generalization: preverbal position for NPs is equated with both subject and topic status and postverbal position with focus (and non-subject). However, there is a growing body of work showing that preverbal subjects are not necessarily syntactically or semantically equivalent to topics. For example, Zerbian’s (2006) careful study of preverbal position in Northern Sotho shows that preverbal subjects meet few of the semantic tests for aboutness topics. The study of restrictions on preverbal subjects in Durban Zulu presented in this paper builds on Zerbian (2006) and Halpert (2012). In particular, we investigate the interpretational properties of preverbal indefinite subjects. These subjects show us that preverbal subjects carry a presupposition of existence. We explore an analysis connecting the "strong reading" of preverbal subjects with how high the verb moves in Zulu (following Tsai’s 2001 work on Mandarin).

Penultimate lengthening in isiNdebele: A system and its variations

“…Specifically, in our current limited data set, material preceding non-restrictive relative clauses always exhibits at least some degree of penultimate lengthening, as in (49a), while lengthening seems to be optional before restrictive relative clausesfull or partial lengthening occurs in some, but not all, of our examples (49b vs. 45a). This situation may contrast with that of Durban Zulu, where Cheng and Downing (2007) report greater systematicity: Durban Zulu non-restrictive relative clauses always phrase separately (PUL on preceding head noun phrase), and restrictive relative clauses always phrase together with the preceding noun (no PUL on preceding head noun phrase). Our observations on isiNdebele are tentative, as we were only able to collect systematic relative clause data from one speaker, and the optional lengthening before restrictive relative clauses might be due to that speaker's careful speech.…”

“…Although penultimate lengthening is a fairly well-studied phenomenon in southern Bantu languages, and although the three (or more) lengths have been widely noted in the literature, most recent studies of PUL, including those dealing with PUL in Nguni languages, treat it primarily as a binary distinction relevant to the phonology-syntax interface (e.g. Jokweni 1995;Buell 2005;Buell 2006;Cheng & Downing 2007;Donnelly 2009;Cheng and Downing 2014).…”

“…This distinction is described as "phrase-penultimate lengthening" (e.g. Cheng and Downing 2007 on Zulu; Donnelly 2009 on Phuthi), more specifically as lengthening of the penult of a phonological phrase (e.g. Jokweni 1995 on Xhosa), 19 or as prepausal lengthening (e.g.…”

Flexible syntax–prosody mapping of Intonational Phrases in the context of varying verb height

“…In a similar vein, it has been argued that ι corresponds to syntactic phases (CP and vP), with the caveat that only non-complement embedded CPs form phases (e.g. non-restrictive relative clauses; Cheng and Downing 2007, 2009).…”

Intonation in Bemba

“…Subjects are easily dislocated in Bantu owing to the presence of subject-verb agreement. See Cheng & Downing (2014) for some discussion on contrasting evidence for treating pre-verbal NPs as subjects or topics in Bantu. Similar to subjects, objects can be argued to be right dislocated most clearly in cases where the object is object marked on the verb (Cheng & Downing 2009, Downing 2011, Marten & Kula 2012, Zeller 2015.…”