exploring linear contiguity - the overlapping...

Exploring linear contiguity

The overlapping decomposition

Pavel Caha

Introduction

Syncretism

Introduction

Syncretism

• one form, multiple functions: you (sg. or pl.)

Introduction

Syncretism

• [ADDRESSEE] vs. [ADDRESSEE + OTHERS]

Introduction

Syncretism

• underspecification (traditional): you = ADDRESSEE

Introduction

Syncretism

• overspecification (Starke 2009): you = ADDRESSEE + OTHERS

Introduction

Syncretism

This talk:

• look at Blansitt’s generalization (a *ABA type of generalization)

Introduction

Syncretism

This talk:

• introduce a new type of decomposition

Introduction

Syncretism

This talk:

• can be captured by overspecification

Introduction

Syncretism

This talk:

• can be captured by overspecification

• impossible to capture by underspecification

The pattern

Datives, allatives, locatives

dative = recipient

allative = goal of motion

locative = place where

Datives, allatives, locatives

dative = recipient

allative = goal of motion

locative = place where

(1) Basque (Hualde & de Urbina 2003, 856, 412, 392)

a. NikI

alta-ri

father-dat

etaand

ama-ri

mother-dat

opariagift

emangive

diet.aux

‘I’ve given a gift to my father and mother.’ Recipient

b. XabierXabier

bulego-ra

office-all

dietucall

dute.aux

‘They called Xavier to the office.’ Goal

c. PatxikPatxi

soro-an

field-loc

gariawheat

ereinsow

du.aux

‘Patxi sowed wheat in the field.’ Location4/53

Blansitt’s generalization

Blansitt (1988) notes that “the functions

(2) dative – allative – locative

can be identically marked only if the identically marked functions

are contiguous in the order shown.”

(3) Syncretism patterns and Blansitt’s generalization

dative allative locative

attested

not attested A B A5/53

DAT = ALL = LOC

(4) Japanese (Takamine 2010, 55, 57)

a. Taro-gaTaro-nom

tomodach-ni

friend-dat

hon-obook-acc

ageta.gave

‘Taro gave a book to his friend.’ Recipient

b. Kodomotachi-wachildren-top

futatu-notwo.cl-gen

kooen-ni

park-all

itta.went

‘The children went to two parks.’ Goal

c. Akiyama & Akiyama (2002, 51)

Ginza-waGinza-top

Tokyo-ni

Tokyo-loc

arimasu.is

‘Ginza is in Tokyo.’ Location

DAT = ALL 6= LOC

(5) Pite Saami (Wilbur 2014, 86-7, 90)

a. Vaddagive.imp

Jåssjå-jJosh-dat

aj.too

‘Give (one) to Josh, too!’ Recipient

b. Danow

vuodjadrive.3pl

bijla-jncar.com

Ornvika-j.Ornvika-all

‘Now one drives to Ornvika by car.’ Goal

c. Vágge-nvalley-loc

Sálvo-jåhkkåSálvo-creek.nom.sg

‘Sálvo Creek is in the valley.’ Location

DAT 6= ALL = LOC

(6) Dime (Seyoum 2008, 47, 55, 152)

a. Paté1.sg

šiftay-inshiftaye-dat

mesáf-imbook-acc

Pim-tub.give-fut

‘I will give the book to Shiftaye.’ Recipient

b. KEnédog

Péh-óhouse-loc

ýiz-i-n.run-pf-3

‘A dog ran home.’ Goal

c. Ńits-ischild-def

Péh-óhouse-loc

dán.cop

‘The child is in the house’ Location

What is excluded

(7) Pseudo English (*ABA)

a. He gave the book in Mary.

b. He went to the pub.

c. He lives in New York.

What is excluded

(7) Pseudo English (AAB)

a. He gave the book to Mary.

b. He went to the pub.

c. He lives in New York.

Blansitt’s sample

71 genetically unrelated languages: Accoli, Adamawa, Alawa, Awa,

Basque, Bimoba, Birom, Cambodian, Chagatay, Chrau, Dehu, Dinka,

English, French, Gidabal, Grebo, Guaraní, Gumbaynnggir, Guugu

Yimiddhir, Hopi, Hungarian, Iai, Izi, Jalanga, Kalkatungu, Kamasu,

Kapau, Kirghiz, Khasi, Kunjen, Kurdish, Kwanga, Lamani, Lithuanian,

Manambu, Mandak, Maranungku, Mixteco, Moroccan Arabic,

Orokaiva, Papago, Parji, Pengo, Quichua, Quiotepec Chinantec,

Raramuri, Resigaro, Ronga, Sebe, Shuar, Shuswap, Spanish, Somali,

Southern Sierra Miwok, Tahitian, Tamazight, Tarascan, Tatar, Tboli,

Tigrinya, Tlingit, Turkish, Warao, Welsh, Yele.

Blansitt’s sample

71 genetically unrelated languages: Accoli, Adamawa, Alawa, Awa,

Basque, Bimoba, Birom, Cambodian, Chagatay, Chrau, Dehu, Dinka,

English, French, Gidabal, Grebo, Guaraní, Gumbaynnggir, Guugu

Yimiddhir, Hopi, Hungarian, Iai, Izi, Jalanga, Kalkatungu, Kamasu,

Kapau, Kirghiz, Khasi, Kunjen, Kurdish, Kwanga, Lamani, Lithuanian,

Manambu, Mandak, Maranungku, Mixteco, Moroccan Arabic,

Orokaiva, Papago, Parji, Pengo, Quichua, Quiotepec Chinantec,

Raramuri, Resigaro, Ronga, Sebe, Shuar, Shuswap, Spanish, Somali,

Southern Sierra Miwok, Tahitian, Tamazight, Tarascan, Tatar, Tboli,

Tigrinya, Tlingit, Turkish, Warao, Welsh, Yele.

A related study by Rice & Kabata (2007) confirms the findings.

*ABA: The standard approach

Root suppletion in degree morphology

The comparative-superlative generalisation I: (Bobaljik 2012)

If the comparative degree of an adjective is suppletive, then the

superlative degree is also suppletive (i.e. with respect to the

positive).

(8) Root suppletion patterns

positive comparative superlative

not attested A B A

positive).

(8) Root suppletion patterns

positive comparative superlative

not attested A B A

attested smart smart-er smart-est

attested bad worse wors-t

allowed12/53

Nesting structures

(9) positive

(10) comparative

Cmpr AP

(11) superlative

Sprl CmprP

Cmpr AP

Nesting structures

(9) positive

(10) comparative

Cmpr AP

(11) superlative

Sprl CmprP

Cmpr AP

(12) star-(ý) (old) — star-š-(í) (older)

Nesting structures

(9) positive

(10) comparative

Cmpr AP

(11) superlative

Sprl CmprP

Cmpr AP

(12) star-(ý) (old) — star-š-(í) (older) — nej-star-š-(í) (oldest)

The syncretism-containment conjecture

*ABA suggests a decomposition of the relevant categories into

‘nesting structures.’

The syncretism-containment conjecture

*ABA suggests a decomposition of the relevant categories into

‘nesting structures.’

participles Starke (2009)

case Caha (2009); Harðarson (2016); Zompì (2017)

directionals Pantcheva (2011)

case/numberMoskal (2015); Smith et al. (2015)

negation De Clercq (2013)

wh-pronouns Vangsnes (2013)

demonstratives Lander & Haegeman (2016)

personal pronouns Vanden Wyngaerd (2017)

complementizers Baunaz (2017)14/53

Applying the idea to BG: option I

(13) Blansitt’s Generalisation: Dat — All — Loc

Applying the idea to BG: option I

(13) Blansitt’s Generalisation: Dat — All — Loc

(14) dative

(15) allative

All DatP

(16) locative

Loc AllP

All DatP

Applying the idea to BG: option II

(17) Blansitt’s Generalisation: Loc — All — Dat

(18) locative

(19) allative

All LocP

(20) allative

Dat AllP

All LocP

(18) locative

(19) allative

All LocP

(20) allative

Dat AllP

All LocP

However, both of these options fail when containment is

considered. 16/53

Containment

Tigrinya

(21) The distribution of markers in Tigrinya

form ne nab ab

Tigrinya

form ne ne+ab ab

Tigrinya

form ne ne+ab ab

Macedonian

(22) Macedonian: dat-loc-N

a. Tomič (2006, 78)Muhim.dat

goit.acc

dalgave

podarokotpresent.def

sinason

‘He gave the present to her son.’ Recipient

b. Pantcheva (2011, 36)OdamI-go

parkot.park

‘I am going to the park.’ Goal

c. Kaj

parkotpark.def

sum.am

‘I am at the park.’ Location

(23) Waris: N-loc-dat (Brown 1988, 44, 46, 55)

a. Him-bahe-top

bukubook

ka-mI-dat

vrahoi.gave

‘He just gave me a book.’ Recipient

b. Deuv-ra-m

house-loc-dat

Luk-ina-m

Luke-loc-dat

ka-vaI-top

ga-v.go-pres

‘I go to Luke’s house.’ Goal

c. Ovlaknife

deuv-ra

house-loc

ka-ina

dihel-v.exist-pres

‘The knife is at my house’ (lit. at house at me). Location

Malayalam

(24) Malayalam: N-loc-dat (Asher & Kumari 1997, 107, 113)

a. HaniphaHanifa

eni-kk@

iithis

pustakanbook

tannu.gave

‘Hanifa gave me this book.’ Recipient

b. Kiíihaí

birdskunúú-ilee-kk@

nest-loc-dat

parannufly-pp

pookunnu.go.pres

‘The birds fly to their nests.’ Goal

c. Viiúú-ilhouse-loc

aarokkewho all

uïú@?be.pres

‘Who are there at home?’ Location

(25) Tsez essives and allatives (Comrie & Polinsky 1998, 104)

essive allative dative

in -a -a-r -r

among -λ -λ-er -r

on (horizontal) -ň’(o) -ň’o-r -r

under -ň -ň-er -r

at -x(o) -xo-r -r

near -de -de-r -r

on (vertical) -qo -qo-r -r

Iatmul

(26) Iatmul: N-dat-loc (Staalsen 1965, 10, 21)

a. Kooda-koot

who-dat

viyoo-a?hit-1st.dual

‘For whom did we two hit?’ Recipient

b. gay-koot-ba

house-dat-loc

‘to the house’ Goal

c. gay-ba

house-loc

‘in the house’ Location

Summary

(27) The ALL tends to be composed of the DAT and the LOC

Summary

a. dat-loc-N (Tigrinya, Macedonian)

Summary

b. N-loc-dat (Malayalam,Waris, Tsez)

Summary

c. N-dat-loc (Iatmul)

Summary

(28) BG: DAT – ALL – LOC

The nesting structures won’t work for this case.

Summary

(28) BG: DAT – ALL – LOC

The nesting structures won’t work for this case.

There must be more ways to *ABA.

Capturing containment

(29) Decomposing the Tigrinya forms

[b] [a,b] [a]

ab = [a] ab

ne = [b] ne

form ne ne+ab ab

(29) Decomposing the Tigrinya forms

[b] [a,b] [a]

ab = [a] ab

ne = [b] ne

form ne ne+ab ab

There is a similar proposal in Bobaljik & Sauerland (2017).

In tree format

The allative denotes a path leading to location (Jackendoff 1983;

Koopman 2000; van Riemsdijk & Huybregts 2002; Zwarts 2005;

den Dikken 2003; Cinque 2010; Svenonius 2010)

(30) locative

...N...

allative

locative

...N...

In tree format

The allative denotes a path leading to location (Jackendoff 1983;

Koopman 2000; van Riemsdijk & Huybregts 2002; Zwarts 2005;

den Dikken 2003; Cinque 2010; Svenonius 2010)

(30) locative

...N...

allative

locative

...N...

dative

...N...

The dative denotes a path leading to an individual

Explaining Containment I

(31) a. Macedonian

allative

locative

...N...

Explaining Containment I

(31) a. Macedonian

allative

locative

...N...

b. Waris

allative

locative

...N...

Explaining Containment II

allative

locative

• See Cinque (2005), Abels & Neeleman (2009)

Capturing syncretism

Preliminaries

(33) Xabier bulego-ra dietu dute.

Xabier office-all call aux

Preliminaries

allative

locative

Preliminaries

bulego

allative⇒ ra

b locative

bulego

Preliminaries

bulego

allative⇒ ra

b locative

bulego

(35) ra⇔ ba

Preliminaries

bulego

allative⇒ ra

b locative

bulego

(35) ra⇔ ba

(36) a. ALL = [A, B]

b. LOC = [A]

c. DAT = [B]

Basque (no syncretism)(37) a. LOC⇔ [A]

b. DAT⇔ [B]

c. ALL⇔ [A, B]

b. DAT⇔ [B]

c. ALL⇔ [A, B]

(38) Overspecification (The Superset Principle):

Lexical items spell out any node they are a superset of.

b. DAT⇔ [B]

c. ALL⇔ [A, B]

(39) Competition in Basque

[b] [a,b] [a]

DAT⇔ [b]

b. DAT⇔ [B]

c. ALL⇔ [A, B]

[b] [a,b] [a]

DAT⇔ [b]

LOC⇔ [a]

b. DAT⇔ [B]

c. ALL⇔ [A, B]

[b] [a,b] [a]

DAT⇔ [b]

LOC⇔ [a]

ALL⇔ [a b]

b. DAT⇔ [B]

c. ALL⇔ [A, B]

[b] [a,b] [a]

DAT⇔ [b]

LOC⇔ [a]

ALL⇔ [a b]

after competition DAT ALL LOC 32/53

Japanese (DAT=ALL=LOC)

(40) ni⇔ [a, b]

(41) No competition in Japanese

[b] [a,b] [a]

-ni⇔ [ a b ]

insertion -ni -ni -ni

Pite Saami (DAT=ALL 6=LOC)

(42) Competition in Pite Saami

[b] [a,b] [a]

-j⇔ [ a b ]

[b] [a,b] [a]

-j⇔ [ a b ]

-n⇔ [ a ]

[b] [a,b] [a]

-j⇔ [ a b ]

-n⇔ [ a ]

after competition -j -j -n

Dime (DAT 6=ALL=LOC)

(43) Competition in Dime

[b] [a,b] [a]

-ó⇔ [ b a ]

[b] [a,b] [a]

-ó⇔ [ b a ]

-in⇔ [ b ]

[b] [a,b] [a]

-ó⇔ [ b a ]

-in⇔ [ b ]

after competition -in -ó -ó

(44) No way to ABA

[b] [a,b] [a]

A⇔ [ a b ]

(44) No way to ABA

[b] [a,b] [a]

A⇔ [ a b ]

(44) No way to ABA

[b] [a,b] [a]

A⇔ [ a b ]

after competition -A -B -A

(44) No way to ABA

[b] [a,b] [a]

A⇔ [ a b ]

after competition -A -B -A

(45) However, B is impossible: B⇔ [ a b ]

Underspecification fails

(46) Japanese

[b] [a,b] [a]

-ni⇔ [K ø]

(46) Japanese

[b] [a,b] [a]

-ni⇔ [K ø]

insertion -ni -ni -ni

[b] [a,b] [a]

-n⇔ [K ø]

[b] [a,b] [a]

-n⇔ [K ø]

-j⇔ [K b]

[b] [a,b] [a]

-n⇔ [K ø]

-j⇔ [K b]

after competition -j -j -n

[b] [a,b] [a]

-in⇔ [K ø]

[b] [a,b] [a]

-in⇔ [K ø]

-ó⇔ [K a]

[b] [a,b] [a]

-in⇔ [K ø]

-ó⇔ [K a]

after competition -in -ó -ó

ABA is derivable

[b] [a,b] [a]

A⇔ [K ø]

ABA is derivable

[b] [a,b] [a]

A⇔ [K ø]

ABA is derivable

[b] [a,b] [a]

A⇔ [K ø]

B⇔ [K a,b]

ABA is derivable

[b] [a,b] [a]

A⇔ [K ø]

B⇔ [K a,b]

after competition A B A

Conclusions

More than one way to derive *ABA

• Blansitt’s generalisation: DAT—ALL—LOC

• Allatives tend to be composed of locatives and datives

• Overlapping decomposition

• Overspecification approach can derive the facts

• Underspecification fails

Thank you!

References I

Abels, Klaus & Ad Neeleman. 2009. Universal 20 without the LCA.

In José M. Brucart, Anna Gavarró & Jaume Solà (eds.),Merging

features: Computation, interpretation and acquisition, 60–79.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Akiyama, Nobuo & Carol Akiyama. 2002. Japanese grammar. New

York: Barron’s Educational Series.

Asher, R. E. & T. C. Kumari. 1997. Malayalam (Descriptive

Grammars). London: Routledge.

Baunaz, Lena. 2017. Decomposing complementizers: The fseq of

French, Modern Greek, Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian

complementizers. Ms. Universität Zürich, to appear in Exploring

Nanosyntax volume at OUP.45/53

References II

Blansitt, Edward L. 1988. Datives and allatives. In Michael

Hammond, Edith Moravcsik & Jessika R. Wirth (eds.), Studies in

syntactic typology, vol. 17 (Studies in Languages), 173–191.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2012. Universals in comparative morphology:

Suppletion, superlatives, and the structure of words. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Bobaljik, Jonathan & Uli Sauerland. 2017. *ABA and the

combinatorics of morphological features. Ms. Uconn and ZAS, to

appear in Glossa, available at lingbuzz/003320.

Brown, Robert. 1988. Waris case system and verb classification.

Language and linguistics in Melanesia 19(1-2). 37–80.

References III

Caha, Pavel. 2009. The nanosyntax of case. Tromsø: CASTL,

University of Tromsø dissertation.

Cinque, Guglielmo. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s universal 20 and its

exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 315 – 332.

Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. Mapping spatial PPs: An introduction. In

Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.), The cartography of

syntactic structure, vol. 6, 3–25. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Comrie, Bernard & Maria Polinsky. 1998. The great Daghestanian

case hoax. In Anna Siewerska & Jae Jung Song (eds.), Case,

typology and grammar: In honor of Barry J. Blake, 95–114.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

References IV

De Clercq, Karen. 2013. A unified syntax of negation. Ghent: Ghent

University dissertation.

den Dikken, Marcel. 2003. On the syntax of locative and directional

adpositional phrases. Ms. CUNY.

Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and

the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser

(eds.), The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of

Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Harðarson, Gísli Rúnar. 2016. A case for a weak case contiguity

hypothesis—a reply to Caha. Natural Language & Linguistic

Theory 34(4). 1329–1343.

Hualde, José Ignacio & Jon Ortiz de Urbina. 2003. A grammar of

Basque, vol. 26. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 48/53

References V

Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Koopman, Hilda. 2000. Prepositions, postpositions,

circumpositions, and particles. In Hilda Koopman (ed.), The

syntax of specifiers and heads, 204–260. London: Routledge.

Lander, Eric & Liliane Haegeman. 2016. The nanosyntax of spatial

deixis. Studia Linguistica Early View.

Moskal, Beata. 2015. Limits on allomorphy: A case study in nominal

suppletion. Linguistic Inquiry .

Pantcheva, Marina. 2011. Decomposing Path. The nanosyntax of

directional expressions. Tromsø: CASTL, University of Tromsø

dissertation.49/53

References VI

Rice, Sally & Kaori Kabata. 2007. Crosslinguistic grammaticalization

patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology 11(3). 451–514.

Seyoum, Mulugeta. 2008. A grammar of Dime. Leiden: Universiteit

Leiden dissertation.

Smith, Peter W., Beata Moskal, Jungmin Kang, Ting Xu & Jonathan

Bobaljik. 2015. Pronominal suppletion: Case and number. In Thuy

Bui & Deniz Özyıldız (eds.), Proceedings of the 45th annual

meeting of the North East linguistic society, vol. 3, 69–78.

Amherst: GLSA, UMass.

Staalsen, Philip. 1965. Iatmul grammar sketch.

Https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/31101.

References VII

Starke, Michal. 2009. Nanosyntax. A short primer to a new

approach to language. In Peter Svenonius, Gillian Ramchand,

Michal Starke & Tarald Taraldsen (eds.), Nordlyd 36: Special issue

on Nanosyntax, 1–6. Tromsø: University of Tromsø. Available at

www.ub.uit.no/munin/nordlyd/.

Svenonius, Peter. 2010. Spatial P in English. In Guglielmo Cinque &

Luigi Rizzi (eds.), The cartography of syntactic structure, vol. 6,

127–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Takamine, Kaori. 2010. The postpositional hierarchy and its

mapping to clause structure in Japanese. Tromsø: CASTL,

University of Tromsø dissertation.

Tomič, Olga Mišeska. 2006. Balkan Sprachbund morpho-syntactic

features. Dordrecht: Springer.51/53

References VIII

van Riemsdijk, Henk & Riny Huybregts. 2002. Location and locality.

In Marc van Oostendorp & Elena Anagnostopoulou (eds.),

Progress in grammar: Articles at the 20th anniversary of the

comparison of grammatical models group in Tilburg, 1–23.

Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut.

Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido. 2017. The feature structure of pronouns:

A probe into multidimensional paradigms. Ms. KU Leuven,

CRISSP, to appear in Exploring Nanosyntax volume at OUP.

Vangsnes, Øystein A. 2013. Syncretism and functional expansion in

Germanic wh-expressions. Language Sciences 36. 47–65.

Wilbur, Joshua. 2014. A grammar of Pite Saami. Berlin: Language

Science Press.52/53

References IX

Zompì, Stanislao. 2017. Case decomposition meets dependent-case

theories. Pisa, Italy: Università di Pisa MA thesis.

Zwarts, Joost. 2005. The case of prepositions: Government and

compositionality in German PPs. Paper presented at the 21st

Annual Meeting of the Israel Asso-

ciation for Theoretical Linguistics, Haifa, June 23, downloadable at:

http://www.let.uu.nl/users/Joost.Zwarts/personal/Papers/CofPs.pdf.

exploring linear contiguity - the overlapping...

Documents

variation in spoken datives and genitives in britain ... et...

low applicative datives in spanish as a second …

locatives and biclausal progressives in...

iceland2017.nelsconference.orgiceland2017.nelsconference.org/wp-content/uploads/... ·...

the syntax of the addressee in imperatives what levantine...

on the pragmatics of subjectification: emergence and...

learning datives: the tolerance principle in monolingual

the gascon Énonciatif system: past, present, and future a...

goal and dom datives 1. definite/animate objects and the...

attitude datives in lebanese arabic and the interplay of ......

i love me some datives: expressive meaning, free datives ......

the formation of idioms: evidence from possessive datives...

from lexical to dependent: the case of greek...

john benjamins publishing company · cent, advz =...

minimal pairs and hyperarticulation of singleton and...

locality,neutrality,andcontrast:...

travel information from the airport to...

pronominal datives - tal linzentallinzen.net › media ›...

travel information from the airport to barcelona (plaça de...

data appendix – - orbi.uliege.be · advz adverbializer,...