Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:32:09.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

External possession in Chimwiini1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2014

BRENT HENDERSON
BRENT HENDERSON*
Affiliation:
University of Florida
*
Author's address: Department of Linguistics, University of Florida, 4131 Turlington Hall, PO Box 115454, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most discussion surrounding external possessors has centered around dative NPs or clitics in Indo-European or Semitic languages and focused on whether or not such structures are derived via movement. This paper examines external possessors in Chimwiini, a Bantu language that lacks datives. It will be shown that while these constructions share certain structural and semantic restrictions with their counterparts in other languages, these properties do not straightforwardly correlate with arguments for a movement or base-generation analysis. This suggests the derivational mechanics of the constructions involved are independent of the semantic restrictions placed on them.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , July 2014 , pp. 297 - 321
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[1]

Many thanks go to Charles Kisseberth for sharing his insights into Chimwiini phonology and syntax and unpublished data, as well as to Abdulrahman Banafunzi, Bana Banafunzi and others from the Wantu waMiini community for their native speaker insights. Thanks also to the audience at Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory 3 (SOAS, London, December 2012) for their feedback on an earlier version of this work, and to three anonymous Journal of Linguistics reviewers for suggesting important revisions. This work is supported by a grant from the NSF/NEH joint program on Documenting Endangered Languages (DEL PD-50009-09).

List of abbreviations used in examples and glosses: Ø = null morpheme, 2sg = second person singular, 3pl = third person plural, 3sg = third person singular, acc = accusative, agr = agreement, app = applicative, asc = associative, fut = future tense, fv = final vowel, inf = infinitive marker, obj = object marker, p3 = distant past, pass = passive, poss = possessive marker, prep = preposition, pst = past, rel = relative marker, stat = stative. Underlined consonants in Chimiini transcriptions are dentals. Numbers on noun and agr glosses indicate noun class. Forward slash (/) in example line indicates the right edge of phonological phrase boundary. Equals sign (=) indicates clitic attachment.

References

REFERENCES

Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and chains: Resumption as stranding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit & Yosef, Grodzinsky. 1986. Syntactic vs. lexical cliticization: The case of Hebrew dative clitics. In Borer, Hagit (ed.), The syntax of pronominal clitics, 175–215. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bošković, Želko. 2005. On the locality of left branch extraction and the structure of NP. Studia Linguistica 59, 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Želko. 2012. On NPs and clauses. In Grewendorf, Günther & Zimmermann, Thomas Ede (eds.), Discourse and grammar: From sentence types to lexical categories, 179–246. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buell, Leston. 2007. Semantic and formal locatives: Implications for the Bantu locative inversion typology. In Kula, Nancy & Marten, Lutz (eds.), SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 15, 105–120. London: University of London.Google Scholar
Burridge, Kate. 1996. Degenerate cases of body parts in Middle Dutch. In Chappell, & McGregor, (eds.), 679–710.Google Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 2000. Concord in minimalist theory. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 319–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Hilary & McGregor, William (eds.). 1996. The grammar of inalienability. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo & Krapova, Iliana. 2009. The two ‘possessor raising’ constructions of Bulgarian. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 18, 65–88.Google Scholar
Cuervo, María Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1995. Questions, relatives, and minimal projection. Language Acquisition 4, 49–71.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine & Mmusi, Sheila. 1997. Presentational focus and thematic structure in comparative Bantu. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 18, 1–19.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert. 2001. Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 1996. The syntax of body parts in Haya. In Chappell, & McGregor, (eds.), 865–893.Google Scholar
Jeong, Youngmi. 2006. The landscape of applicatives. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keach, Camilla & Rochemont, Michael. 1992. On the syntax of possessor raising in Swahili. Studies in African Linguistics 23, 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles & Abasheikh, Mohamad Imam. 1974. Vowel length in chiMwi:ni – case study of the role of grammar in phonology. In Bruck, Anthony, Fox, Robert & Galy, Michael La (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology, 193–209. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles & Abasheikh, Mohamad Imam. 2011. Chimwiini phonological phrasing revisited. Lingua 121, 1987–2013.Google Scholar
Landau, Ian. 1997. Projection and bounding in possessor raising. In Shahin, Kimary, Blake, Susan & Kim, Eun-Sook (eds.), 17th Conference on Formal Linguistics, 1–15. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 1999. Possessor raising and the structure of VP. Lingua 107, 1–37.Google Scholar
Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera. 2006. German possessor datives: Raised and affected. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9, 101–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakamura, Yumiko. 1999. The syntax of possessor raising. MA thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Pancheva, Roumyan. 2004. Balkan possessive clitics: The problem of case and category. In Tomić, Olga M. (ed.), Balkan syntax and semantics, 175–219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Payne, Doris & Barshi, Immanuel. 1999. External possession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Schneider-Zioga, Patricia. 2007. Anti-agreement, anti-locality and minimality: The syntax of dislocated subjects. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 25, 403–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi & Sim, Chang-Yong. 2005. Event structure of the inalienable possession in Korean. In Arunachalam, Sudha, Scheffler, Tatjana, Sundaresan, Sandhya & Tauberer, Joshua (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 279–292. Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa. 1992. The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and in English. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 595–652.Google Scholar
Vermeulen, Reiko. 2005. The syntax of external possession: Its basis in Theta-theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar