Exploring linear contiguity
The overlapping decomposition
Pavel Caha
Introduction
1/53
Introduction
Syncretism
2/53
Introduction
Syncretism
• one form, multiple functions: you (sg. or pl.)
2/53
Introduction
Syncretism
• one form, multiple functions: you (sg. or pl.)
• [ADDRESSEE] vs. [ADDRESSEE + OTHERS]
2/53
Introduction
Syncretism
• one form, multiple functions: you (sg. or pl.)
• [ADDRESSEE] vs. [ADDRESSEE + OTHERS]
• underspecification (traditional): you = ADDRESSEE
2/53
Introduction
Syncretism
• one form, multiple functions: you (sg. or pl.)
• [ADDRESSEE] vs. [ADDRESSEE + OTHERS]
• underspecification (traditional): you = ADDRESSEE
• overspecification (Starke 2009): you = ADDRESSEE + OTHERS
2/53
Introduction
Syncretism
• one form, multiple functions: you (sg. or pl.)
• [ADDRESSEE] vs. [ADDRESSEE + OTHERS]
• underspecification (traditional): you = ADDRESSEE
• overspecification (Starke 2009): you = ADDRESSEE + OTHERS
This talk:
• look at Blansitt’s generalization (a *ABA type of generalization)
2/53
Introduction
Syncretism
• one form, multiple functions: you (sg. or pl.)
• [ADDRESSEE] vs. [ADDRESSEE + OTHERS]
• underspecification (traditional): you = ADDRESSEE
• overspecification (Starke 2009): you = ADDRESSEE + OTHERS
This talk:
• look at Blansitt’s generalization (a *ABA type of generalization)
• introduce a new type of decomposition
2/53
Introduction
Syncretism
• one form, multiple functions: you (sg. or pl.)
• [ADDRESSEE] vs. [ADDRESSEE + OTHERS]
• underspecification (traditional): you = ADDRESSEE
• overspecification (Starke 2009): you = ADDRESSEE + OTHERS
This talk:
• look at Blansitt’s generalization (a *ABA type of generalization)
• introduce a new type of decomposition
• can be captured by overspecification
2/53
Introduction
Syncretism
• one form, multiple functions: you (sg. or pl.)
• [ADDRESSEE] vs. [ADDRESSEE + OTHERS]
• underspecification (traditional): you = ADDRESSEE
• overspecification (Starke 2009): you = ADDRESSEE + OTHERS
This talk:
• look at Blansitt’s generalization (a *ABA type of generalization)
• introduce a new type of decomposition
• can be captured by overspecification
• impossible to capture by underspecification
2/53
The pattern
3/53
Datives, allatives, locatives
4/53
Datives, allatives, locatives
dative = recipient
allative = goal of motion
locative = place where
4/53
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.”
5/53
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
5/53
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
attested
5/53
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
attested
attested
5/53
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
attested
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
6/53
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
l.is
‘Sálvo Creek is in the valley.’ Location
7/53
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
8/53
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.
9/53
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.
9/53
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.
10/53
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.
10/53
*ABA: The standard approach
11/53
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).
12/53
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
12/53
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
attested smart smart-er smart-est
attested bad worse wors-t
allowed12/53
Nesting structures
(9) positive
AP
A
(10) comparative
CmprP
Cmpr AP
A
(11) superlative
SprlP
Sprl CmprP
Cmpr AP
A
13/53
Nesting structures
(9) positive
AP
A
(10) comparative
CmprP
Cmpr AP
A
(11) superlative
SprlP
Sprl CmprP
Cmpr AP
A
(12) star-(ý) (old) — star-š-(í) (older)
13/53
Nesting structures
(9) positive
AP
A
(10) comparative
CmprP
Cmpr AP
A
(11) superlative
SprlP
Sprl CmprP
Cmpr AP
A
(12) star-(ý) (old) — star-š-(í) (older) — nej-star-š-(í) (oldest)
13/53
The syncretism-containment conjecture
The syncretism-containment conjecture
*ABA suggests a decomposition of the relevant categories into
‘nesting structures.’
14/53
The syncretism-containment conjecture
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
15/53
Applying the idea to BG: option I
(13) Blansitt’s Generalisation: Dat — All — Loc
(14) dative
DatP
Dat
(15) allative
AllP
All DatP
Dat
(16) locative
LocP
Loc AllP
All DatP
Dat
15/53
Applying the idea to BG: option II
(17) Blansitt’s Generalisation: Loc — All — Dat
16/53
Applying the idea to BG: option II
(17) Blansitt’s Generalisation: Loc — All — Dat
(18) locative
LocP
Loc
(19) allative
AllP
All LocP
Loc
(20) allative
DatP
Dat AllP
All LocP
Loc
16/53
Applying the idea to BG: option II
(17) Blansitt’s Generalisation: Loc — All — Dat
(18) locative
LocP
Loc
(19) allative
AllP
All LocP
Loc
(20) allative
DatP
Dat AllP
All LocP
Loc
However, both of these options fail when containment is
considered. 16/53
Containment
17/53
Tigrinya
(21) The distribution of markers in Tigrinya
dative allative locative
form ne nab ab
18/53
Tigrinya
(21) The distribution of markers in Tigrinya
dative allative locative
form ne ne+ab ab
18/53
Tigrinya
(21) The distribution of markers in Tigrinya
dative allative locative
form ne ne+ab ab
ab
ne
18/53
Macedonian
(22) Macedonian: dat-loc-N
a. Tomič (2006, 78)Muhim.dat
goit.acc
dalgave
podarokotpresent.def
na
dat
sinason
i.her
‘He gave the present to her son.’ Recipient
b. Pantcheva (2011, 36)OdamI-go
na
dat
kaj
loc
parkot.park
‘I am going to the park.’ Goal
c. Kaj
loc
parkotpark.def
sum.am
‘I am at the park.’ Location
19/53
Waris
(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
I-loc
dihel-v.exist-pres
‘The knife is at my house’ (lit. at house at me). Location
20/53
Malayalam
(24) Malayalam: N-loc-dat (Asher & Kumari 1997, 107, 113)
a. HaniphaHanifa
eni-kk@
I-dat
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
21/53
Tsez
(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
22/53
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
23/53
Summary
(27) The ALL tends to be composed of the DAT and the LOC
24/53
Summary
(27) The ALL tends to be composed of the DAT and the LOC
a. dat-loc-N (Tigrinya, Macedonian)
24/53
Summary
(27) The ALL tends to be composed of the DAT and the LOC
a. dat-loc-N (Tigrinya, Macedonian)
b. N-loc-dat (Malayalam,Waris, Tsez)
24/53
Summary
(27) The ALL tends to be composed of the DAT and the LOC
a. dat-loc-N (Tigrinya, Macedonian)
b. N-loc-dat (Malayalam,Waris, Tsez)
c. N-dat-loc (Iatmul)
24/53
Summary
(27) The ALL tends to be composed of the DAT and the LOC
a. dat-loc-N (Tigrinya, Macedonian)
b. N-loc-dat (Malayalam,Waris, Tsez)
c. N-dat-loc (Iatmul)
(28) BG: DAT – ALL – LOC
The nesting structures won’t work for this case.
24/53
Summary
(27) The ALL tends to be composed of the DAT and the LOC
a. dat-loc-N (Tigrinya, Macedonian)
b. N-loc-dat (Malayalam,Waris, Tsez)
c. N-dat-loc (Iatmul)
(28) BG: DAT – ALL – LOC
The nesting structures won’t work for this case.
There must be more ways to *ABA.
24/53
Capturing containment
25/53
The overlapping decomposition
(29) Decomposing the Tigrinya forms
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
ab = [a] ab
ne = [b] ne
form ne ne+ab ab
26/53
The overlapping decomposition
(29) Decomposing the Tigrinya forms
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
ab = [a] ab
ne = [b] ne
form ne ne+ab ab
There is a similar proposal in Bobaljik & Sauerland (2017).
26/53
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
a
loc
NP
...N...
allative
b
dat
locative
a
loc
NP
...N...
27/53
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
a
loc
NP
...N...
allative
b
dat
locative
a
loc
NP
...N...
dative
b
dat
NP
...N...
The dative denotes a path leading to an individual
27/53
Explaining Containment I
(31) a. Macedonian
allative
b
na
locative
a
kaj
NP
...N...
28/53
Explaining Containment I
(31) a. Macedonian
allative
b
na
locative
a
kaj
NP
...N...
b. Waris
allative
locative
NP
...N...
a
ina
b
m
28/53
Explaining Containment II
(32)
NP
gay
allative
b
koot
locative
a
ba
NP
gay
• See Cinque (2005), Abels & Neeleman (2009)
29/53
Capturing syncretism
30/53
Preliminaries
(33) Xabier bulego-ra dietu dute.
Xabier office-all call aux
‘They called Xavier to the office.’ Goal
31/53
Preliminaries
(33) Xabier bulego-ra dietu dute.
Xabier office-all call aux
‘They called Xavier to the office.’ Goal
(34)
NP
gay
allative
b
koot
locative
a
ba
NP
gay
31/53
Preliminaries
(33) Xabier bulego-ra dietu dute.
Xabier office-all call aux
‘They called Xavier to the office.’ Goal
(34)
NP
bulego
allative⇒ ra
b locative
a NP
bulego
31/53
Preliminaries
(33) Xabier bulego-ra dietu dute.
Xabier office-all call aux
‘They called Xavier to the office.’ Goal
(34)
NP
bulego
allative⇒ ra
b locative
a NP
bulego
(35) ra⇔ ba
31/53
Preliminaries
(33) Xabier bulego-ra dietu dute.
Xabier office-all call aux
‘They called Xavier to the office.’ Goal
(34)
NP
bulego
allative⇒ ra
b locative
a NP
bulego
(35) ra⇔ ba
(36) a. ALL = [A, B]
b. LOC = [A]
c. DAT = [B]
31/53
Basque (no syncretism)(37) a. LOC⇔ [A]
b. DAT⇔ [B]
c. ALL⇔ [A, B]
32/53
Basque (no syncretism)(37) a. LOC⇔ [A]
b. DAT⇔ [B]
c. ALL⇔ [A, B]
(38) Overspecification (The Superset Principle):
Lexical items spell out any node they are a superset of.
32/53
Basque (no syncretism)(37) a. LOC⇔ [A]
b. DAT⇔ [B]
c. ALL⇔ [A, B]
(38) Overspecification (The Superset Principle):
Lexical items spell out any node they are a superset of.
(39) Competition in Basque
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
DAT⇔ [b]
32/53
Basque (no syncretism)(37) a. LOC⇔ [A]
b. DAT⇔ [B]
c. ALL⇔ [A, B]
(38) Overspecification (The Superset Principle):
Lexical items spell out any node they are a superset of.
(39) Competition in Basque
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
DAT⇔ [b]
LOC⇔ [a]
32/53
Basque (no syncretism)(37) a. LOC⇔ [A]
b. DAT⇔ [B]
c. ALL⇔ [A, B]
(38) Overspecification (The Superset Principle):
Lexical items spell out any node they are a superset of.
(39) Competition in Basque
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
DAT⇔ [b]
LOC⇔ [a]
ALL⇔ [a b]
32/53
Basque (no syncretism)(37) a. LOC⇔ [A]
b. DAT⇔ [B]
c. ALL⇔ [A, B]
(38) Overspecification (The Superset Principle):
Lexical items spell out any node they are a superset of.
(39) Competition in Basque
dative allative locative
[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]
33/53
Japanese (DAT=ALL=LOC)
(40) ni⇔ [a, b]
(41) No competition in Japanese
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
-ni⇔ [ a b ]
insertion -ni -ni -ni
33/53
Pite Saami (DAT=ALL 6=LOC)
34/53
Pite Saami (DAT=ALL 6=LOC)
(42) Competition in Pite Saami
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
-j⇔ [ a b ]
34/53
Pite Saami (DAT=ALL 6=LOC)
(42) Competition in Pite Saami
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
-j⇔ [ a b ]
-n⇔ [ a ]
34/53
Pite Saami (DAT=ALL 6=LOC)
(42) Competition in Pite Saami
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
-j⇔ [ a b ]
-n⇔ [ a ]
after competition -j -j -n
34/53
Dime (DAT 6=ALL=LOC)
35/53
Dime (DAT 6=ALL=LOC)
(43) Competition in Dime
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
-ó⇔ [ b a ]
35/53
Dime (DAT 6=ALL=LOC)
(43) Competition in Dime
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
-ó⇔ [ b a ]
-in⇔ [ b ]
35/53
Dime (DAT 6=ALL=LOC)
(43) Competition in Dime
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
-ó⇔ [ b a ]
-in⇔ [ b ]
after competition -in -ó -ó
35/53
*ABA
36/53
*ABA
(44) No way to ABA
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
A⇔ [ a b ]
36/53
*ABA
(44) No way to ABA
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
A⇔ [ a b ]
B
36/53
*ABA
(44) No way to ABA
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
A⇔ [ a b ]
B
after competition -A -B -A
36/53
*ABA
(44) No way to ABA
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
A⇔ [ a b ]
B
after competition -A -B -A
(45) However, B is impossible: B⇔ [ a b ]
36/53
Underspecification fails
37/53
Japanese (DAT=ALL=LOC)
38/53
Japanese (DAT=ALL=LOC)
(46) Japanese
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
-ni⇔ [K ø]
38/53
Japanese (DAT=ALL=LOC)
(46) Japanese
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
-ni⇔ [K ø]
insertion -ni -ni -ni
38/53
Pite Saami (DAT=ALL 6=LOC)
39/53
Pite Saami (DAT=ALL 6=LOC)
(47) Competition in Pite Saami
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
-n⇔ [K ø]
39/53
Pite Saami (DAT=ALL 6=LOC)
(47) Competition in Pite Saami
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
-n⇔ [K ø]
-j⇔ [K b]
39/53
Pite Saami (DAT=ALL 6=LOC)
(47) Competition in Pite Saami
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
-n⇔ [K ø]
-j⇔ [K b]
after competition -j -j -n
39/53
Dime (DAT 6=ALL=LOC)
40/53
Dime (DAT 6=ALL=LOC)
(48) Competition in Dime
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
-in⇔ [K ø]
40/53
Dime (DAT 6=ALL=LOC)
(48) Competition in Dime
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
-in⇔ [K ø]
-ó⇔ [K a]
40/53
Dime (DAT 6=ALL=LOC)
(48) Competition in Dime
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
-in⇔ [K ø]
-ó⇔ [K a]
after competition -in -ó -ó
40/53
ABA is derivable
41/53
ABA is derivable
(49)
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
A⇔ [K ø]
41/53
ABA is derivable
(49)
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
A⇔ [K ø]
B
41/53
ABA is derivable
(49)
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
A⇔ [K ø]
B⇔ [K a,b]
41/53
ABA is derivable
(49)
dative allative locative
[b] [a,b] [a]
A⇔ [K ø]
B⇔ [K a,b]
after competition A B A
41/53
Conclusions
42/53
More than one way to derive *ABA
43/53
More than one way to derive *ABA
• Blansitt’s generalisation: DAT—ALL—LOC
43/53
More than one way to derive *ABA
• Blansitt’s generalisation: DAT—ALL—LOC
• Allatives tend to be composed of locatives and datives
43/53
More than one way to derive *ABA
• Blansitt’s generalisation: DAT—ALL—LOC
• Allatives tend to be composed of locatives and datives
• Overlapping decomposition
43/53
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
43/53
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
43/53
Thank you!
44/53
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.
46/53
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.
47/53
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.
50/53
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.
53/53