Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:04:55.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sulawesi Relatives, V-Raising, and the CP-Complement Hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Daniel L. Finer
Daniel L. Finer*
Affiliation:
SUNY at Stony Brook
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

DPs in several Austronesian languages from southwestern Sulawesi show the D head as an enclitic on an element within the DP. Where N is unmodified, D cliticizes to N, and where D is modified, D cliticizes to the modifier. A structure in which NP and the modifying phrase are treated as arguments of D is proposed, and the cliticization pattern is analyzed as resulting from head movement. Depending on the valency of the DP, NP will either be specifier or complement of D. This analysis extends easily to account for some otherwise puzzling patterns shown in relative clauses where D cliticizes to the right periphery of the verb of the modifying CP. Under the minimalist hypotheses that overt movement is a function of feature strength and that the strength of the relevant features can vary from language to language, certain patterns of head-adjunction involving V, I, C, and D are expected and the predictions are discussed.

Résumé

Résumé

Les DP de plusieurs langues austronésiennes parlées dans le sud-ouest des îles Célèbes montrent la particularité que la tête D est un enclitique sur un élément à l’intérieur du DP. Lorsque N est non-modifié, D se cliticise sur N, alors que s’il est modifié, D se cliticise sur le modifieur. Une structure dans laquelle le NP et le syntagme modifieur sont traités comme des arguments de D est proposée et le patron de cliticisation est analysé comme résultant du mouvement de tête. Selon la valence du DP, le NP apparaîtra soit comme spécifieur du DP soit comme complément de D. Cette analyse peut facilement être étendue pour rendre compte de patrons autrement inattendus dans les phrases relatives où D se cliticise à la périphérie droite du verbe du CP relatif. Selon les hypothèses minimalistes que le mouvement visible est fonction de la force des traits et que cette force peut varier d’une langue à l’autre, on s’attend à certains patrons d’adjonction de tête qui impliquent V, I, C, et D.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 43 , Special Issue 3-4: Arguments and Structure in Austronesian Languages , December 1998 , pp. 283 - 306
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1998

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.)

References

Adelaar, Alexander. 1995. Problems of definiteness and ergativity in Embaloh. Oceanic Linguistics 34:375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Basri, Hasan. 1997. Plural marking in Selayarese. Ms., SUNY at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
Basri, Hasan, Broselow, Ellen, Finer, Daniel, and Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1997. Prosodic adjuncts in Makassarese. Paper read at the Conference on the Phonological Word, Berlin.Google Scholar
Basri, Hasan, and Finer, y. 1987. The definiteness of trace. Linguistic Inquiry 18:141–147.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1993. Nominally absolutive is not absolutely nominative. In WCCFL XI: The proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Mead, Jonathan, 44–60. CSLI, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Brotchie, Amanda. 1992. Verbal agreement and constituent order in Bugis. Honours thesis, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Déprez, Viviane. 1998. Semantic effects of agreement: The case of past participle agreement. Probus 10:1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1978. The verbal complex of V′—V in French. Linguistic Inquiry 9:151–175.Google Scholar
Finer, Daniel. 1994. On the nature of two A′ positions in Selayarese. In Studies on scrambling, ed. Corver, Norbert and Riemsdijk, Henk van, 153–183. Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finer, Daniel. 1996. Covert movement and the distribution of the Selayarese absolutive marker. Ms., SUNY at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
Finer, Daniel. 1997. Contrasting Ā-dependencies in Selayarese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15:677–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28:373–422.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert, and Prinzhorn, Martin, eds. 1986. Verb second phenomena in Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical representation of syntactic relations. In The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay, 53–109. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert, and Lightfoot, David W., eds. 1993. Verb movement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine, and Embick, David. 1994. Conditional inversion. In NELS 24: The proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society, ed. Gonzàlez, Mercè, 189–203. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Kahler, Hans. 1974. Relative clause formation in some Indonesian languages. Oceanic Linguistics 13:257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 1984. The syntax of verbs. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1988. The double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19:335–391.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1994. The projection of DP and DegP structure. Ms., SUNY at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
Levin, Juliette, and Massam, Diane. 1985. Surface ergativity. Case/theta relations reexamined. In NELS XV: Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society, ed. Berman, Steven, Choe, Jae-Wong, and McDonough, Joyce, 286–301. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, Claire, and Muysken, Pieter. 1988. Mixed Categories. Nominalizations in Quechua. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry 25:609–665.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1995. The minimalist program. In Government binding theory and the minimalist program, ed. Webelhuth, Gert, 349–381. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 1985. Case theory and the projection principle. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20:365–424.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1995. Head movement and adjacency. Ms., Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1998. Head movement and adjacency. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16:633–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1995. Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. In Parameters and functional heads: Essays in comparative syntax, ed. Belletti, Adriana and Rizzi, Luigi, 63–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1992. Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1995 The prosodic structure of function words. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, ed. Beckman, Jill, Dickey, Laura Walsh, and Urbanczyk, Suzanne, 439–466. GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota. 1964. Determiners and relative clauses in a generative grammar of English. Language 40:37–52. Also in Modern studies in English, ed. Reibel, David and Schane, Sanford, 247–263. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert, Schachter, Paul, and Partee, Barbara. 1973. The major syntactic stuctures of English. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Zamparelli, Roberto. 1996. Layers in the determiner phrase. Doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester.Google Scholar