The nanosyntax of Nguni noun class prefixes and concords

Taraldsen, Knut Tarald

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2009.10.004

Cited by 61 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In some languages, the additional component has been identified as the associative linker a- (Khumalo 1992, Demuth & Harford 1999, Cheng 2006, Zeller 2004, Henderson 2006, Taraldsen 2010; 8 in others, as the so called augment vowel, a nominal prefix (Cheng 2006, Diercks 2010, Henderson 2013. Pietraszko (2017) shows, on the basis of morphosyntactic and phonological evidence, that Ndebele relative prefixes contain all three morphemes: a regular agreement prefix, an augment vowel and the associative linker.…”

Section: ) T To V Lowering In Englishmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generalized head movement

Arregi

Pietraszko²

2018

Proc Ling Soc Amer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We argue for a unified account of head movement and lowering in which lowering is in essence the covert movement counterpart of head movement. This proposal is supported by the existence of successive cyclic lowering (evidenced by relative prefix formation in Ndebele), in which complex heads built by lowering have the Mirror-Principle-obeying structure expected under a head movement derivation. It also predicts that lowering can feed head movement, giving the appearance of long head movement, which we argue is the case in Mainland Scandinavian V2. Keywords. head movement; lowering; Mirror Principle; Head Movement Constraint; V2; ellipsis; do-support; relative clauses; vowel coalescence; Ndebele; Danish 1. Introduction. Since at least Emonds 1970, two similar types of movements relating head positions (terminal nodes) have been distinguished in the literature. Their differences can be illustrated with the distribution of finite lexical (nonauxiliary) verbs in French and English. While in the former V moves out of VP to a higher (c-commanding) head position hosting finite inflection (represented here as T), lexical V in English stays in situ, and instead T lowers into V's VPinternal position, 1 as diagnosed, for instance, by the relative position of the finite verb with respect to adverbs adjoined to the left of VP (Chomsky 1957, Emonds 1970:211-226, 1978:65-68, Pollock 1989: 2

show abstract

Section: ) T To V Lowering In Englishmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generalized head movement

Arregi

Pietraszko²

2018

Proc Ling Soc Amer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(1) two, masc man, sg nom dv-a muž acc dv-a muž-e gen dv-ou muž-e loc dv-ou muž-i dat dv-ěma muž-i ins dv-ěma muž-em Hierarchies are inferred from such paradigms given structural contiguity as a requisite for syncretism, a theorem falling out from an independently developed spellout mechanism in the Nanosyntax approach of Starke (2002;Caha (2009);Taraldsen (2009);Pantcheva (2011);De Clercq (2013);Márkus (2015); Vanden Wyngaerd (2016) among others -but see also e.g. Bobaljik (2007); Burzio (2007) for different approaches.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Resolving (DAT = ACC) ≠ GEN

Starke

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The traditional notion of case is too coarse to distinguish between the English prepositional dative and the English shifted dative, the Spanish bare accusative and the Spanish "a" accusative, etc. I show that refining our typology of case to include such distinctions resolves a *ABA counterexample to Caha's 2009 case hierarchy and I discuss where these new distinctions should be placed in the underlying representation of case.

show abstract

“…In several recent studies on *ABA, such patterns are encoded by means of the socalled feature cumulation (see Bobaljik 2012;Starke 2009;Caha 2009;Taraldsen 2010;Pantcheva 2011;De Clercq 2013;Vangsnes 2013;Smith et al 2015;Harðarson 2016;Lander & Haegeman 2016;Vanden Wyngaerd 2017;Baunaz 2017). The idea is that the categories which make up the contiguity sequence, decompose into features, and the number of such features monotonically grows as we go from one side of the generalisation to the other.…”

Section: (7)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…), which is based on phrasal spell out. However, this is by no means necessary; one can also adopt sequential spanning (Williams 2003;Abels & Muriungi 2008;Taraldsen 2010) or various other conceivable approaches. As long as one keeps the logic of over-specification depicted in (24), the results follow, as will become clear as we proceed.…”

Section: Deriving the *Abamentioning

confidence: 99%

How (not) to derive a *ABA: The case of Blansitt’s generalisation

Caha

2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I provide an account for the so-called Blansitt’s generalisation (Blansitt 1988). The generalisation says that in the linear sequence DATIVE—ALLATIVE—LOCATIVE, only adjacent functions may be marked the same. In previous work (Bobaljik 2012; Starke 2009; Caha 2009), analogous *ABA patterns have been encoded by the so-called feature cumulation. Feature cumulation means that the amount of features characteristic for individual categories monotonically grows in the order given in any such sequence. However, Blansitt observes that in the case of datives, allatives and locatives, the allative (which is in the middle) tends to be composed of the dative and the locative, so the account based on cumulation does not work. The present paper thus argues for a different representation of the underlying categories, namely as containing (abstractly) the features A, AB and B respectively (following in part Bobaljik & Sauerland 2017). I refer to this as the “overlapping” decomposition. When such a decomposition is combined with the Superset Principle (Starke 2009), it yields both the *ABA restriction and the observed syncretism and containment patterns. I further argue that this is a non-trivial result, since traditional underspecification approaches face significant challenges in deriving the *ABA pattern on the basis of the overlapping decomposition. This article is part of the Special Collection: *ABA

show abstract

The nanosyntax of Nguni noun class prefixes and concords

Cited by 61 publications

References 16 publications

Generalized head movement

Generalized head movement

Resolving (DAT = ACC) ≠ GEN

How (not) to derive a *ABA: The case of Blansitt’s generalisation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About