Pseudo-noun incorporation and differential object marking imke driemel all chapter instant download
Pseudo-Noun Incorporation and Differential Object Marking Imke Driemel
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://ebookmass.com/product/pseudo-noun-incorporation-and-differential-object-ma rking-imke-driemel-2/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
David Adger and Hagit Borer, Queen Mary University of London
AdvisoryEditors
Stephen Anderson, Yale University; Daniel Büring, University of Vienna; Nomi Erteschik-Shir, Ben-Gurion University; Donka Farkas, University of California, Santa Cruz; Angelika Kratzer, University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Andrew Nevins, University College London; Christopher Potts, Stanford University; Barry Schein, University of Southern California; Peter Svenonius, University of Tromsø; Moira Yip, University College London
RECENT TITLES
68 The Structure of Words at the Interfaces
editedby Heather Newell, Máire Noonan, Glyne Piggott, and Lisa de Mena Travis
69 Pragmatic Aspects of Scalar Modifiers
TheSemantics-PragmaticsInterface
byOsamu Sawada
70 Encoding Events
FunctionalStructureandVariation byXuhui Hu
71 Gender and Noun Classification editedbyÉric Mathieu, Myriam Dali, and Gita Zareikar
72 The Grammar of Expressivity
byDaniel Gutzmann
73 The Grammar of Copulas Across Language
editedbyMaría J. Arche, Antonio Fábregas, and Rafael Marín
74 The Roots of Verbal Meaning
byJohn Beavers and Andrew Koontz-Garboden
75 Contrast and Representations in Syntax
editedbyBronwyn M. Bjorkman and Daniel Currie Hall
76 Nominalization
50YearsonfromChomsky’sRemarks
editedbyArtemis Alexiadou and Hagit Borer
77 Majority Quantification and Quantity Superlatives ACrosslinguisticAnalysisofMost byCarmen Dobrovie-Sorin and Ion Giurgea
78 The Grammar of the Utterance HowtoDoThingswithIbero-Romance byAlice Corr
79 The Derivational Timing of Ellipsis
editedbyGüliz Güneş and Anikó Lipták
80 Negation and Negative Dependencies
byHedde Zeijlstra
81 Angles of Object Agreement
editedby Andrew Nevins, Anita Peti-Stantić, Mark de Vos, and Jana Willer-Gold
82 Pseudo-Noun Incorporation and Differential Object Marking
byImke Driemel
For a complete list of titles published and in preparation for the series, see pp. 349–351.
Pseudo-Noun Incorporation and Differential Object Marking
IMKE DRIEMEL
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2023930766
ISBN 978–0–19–286640–0
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192866400.001.0001
Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
Generalpreface
Preface
Listofsymbolsandabbreviations
1. Introduction
2. Methodology and main results
2.1 Diagnostics
2.2 Elicitation methods, consultants
2.3 Main results
3. Pseudo-incorporation as a category change phenomenon
3.1 Sequential hybrids
3.2 Theoretical assumptions
3.3 Implementation
3.4 Sequential hybrids vs layered projections
4. Pseudo-incorporation vs differential object marking
4.1 Case loss is post-syntactic
4.2 PNI within post-syntactic DOM accounts
4.3 Case studies
4.3.1 Tamil
4.3.2 Mongolian
4.3.3 Turkish
4.3.4 Korean
4.3.5 German
5. PNI-property I: Restriction to low scope
5.1 Evidence for scopal inertness of verbal categories
5.2 PNI-ed arguments are restricted to the event domain
5.3 PNI-ed arguments reconstruct
5.4 Case studies
5.4.1 Tamil
5.4.2 Mongolian
5.4.3 Turkish
5.4.4 Korean
5.4.5 German
6. PNI-property II: Lack of binding and control
6.1 Tamil
6.2 Mongolian
6.3 Turkish
6.4 Korean
6.5 German
7. PNI-property III: Movement patterns
7.1 Tamil
7.2 Mongolian
7.3 Turkish
7.4 Korean
7.5 German
8. Differential object marking
8.1 Tamil
8.2 Korean
9. Previous approaches
9.1 Head movement accounts
9.2 DP/NP accounts
9.3 Raising accounts
10. Summary References
LanguageIndex
SubjectIndex
General preface
The theoretical focus of this series is on the interfaces between subcomponents of the human grammatical system and the closely related area of the interfaces between the different subdisciplines of linguistics. The notion of ‘interface’ has become central in grammatical theory (for instance, in Chomsky’s Minimalist Program) and in linguistic practice: work on the interfaces between syntax and semantics, syntax and morphology, phonology and phonetics, etc. has led to a deeper understanding of particular linguistic phenomena and of the architecture of the linguistic component of the mind/brain.
The series covers interfaces between core components of grammar, including syntax/morphology, syntax/semantics, syntax/phonology, syntax/pragmatics, morphology/phonology, phonology/phonetics, phonetics/speech processing, semantics/pragmatics, and intonation/discourse structure, as well as issues in the way that the systems of grammar involving these interface areas are acquired and deployed in use (including language acquisition, language dysfunction, and language processing). It demonstrates, we hope, that proper understandings of particular linguistic phenomena, languages, language groups, or interlanguage variations all require reference to interfaces.
The series is open to work by linguists of all theoretical persuasions and schools of thought. A main requirement is that authors should write so as to be understood by colleagues in related subfields of linguistics and by scholars in cognate disciplines.
In recent years, investigations of the relationship between a verb and its object have begun to uncover rich patterns of complexity. While some objects maintain a fair amount of independence with respect to the selecting verb, others are morphologically and semantically bonded to it. The closest such bonding is full noun incorporation, where the verb and object form a single word, but there are looser dependencies and one of these, pseudo-noun incorporation, is the focus of this volume. In a careful, crosslinguistic exploration of the construction, Imke Driemel shows that it is distinct from full incorporation, and from the superficially similar Direct Object Marking phenomenon, and argues that it involves a categorial change in the object from a nominal to a verbal category. This categorial change explains patterns of movement, control, and binding in the syntax, but in addition feeds into the systems that interface with syntax to capture the particular semantic and morphological patterns that collocate cross-linguistically with pseudo noun incorporation. Overall, the book not only makes a strong argument for a more complex typology of verb object dependencies in the syntax than is usually assumed, but also shows how to understand that complexity in terms of established syntactic possibilities.
David Adger Hagit Borer
Preface
This book is a revised version of my dissertation, filed in April 2020 at Leipzig University. The work was made possible to a large extent by the people who shared their language with me. I thank the speakers of the languages of this study, who invested time and energy into answering the many questions I had via skype, facebook, email, phone, online questionnaires, and in person—thank you all so much for your patience! My work also benefited from conversations I had with a number of linguists. Since there is significant overlap between these two sets, I will list them all together: Artemis Alexiadou, Sukhbat Baatar, Rajesh Bhatt, Bronwyn Bjorkman, Emily Clem, Rümeysa Dijle, Erdenekhishig Eldev-Ochir, Daniel Gleim, Dolgor Guntsetseg, Fabian Heck, Johannes Hein, Anke Himmelreich, Adiyasuren Jamiyandagva, Greg Kobele, Hyunjung Lee, Gereon Müller, Andrew Murphy, Johannes Mursell, Jegan Murugesan, Yining Nie, Bilal & Fatoş Özdemir, Manfred Sailer, Martin Salzmann, Ganzaya Sengee, Rajamathangi Shanmugam, Barbara Stiebels, Aravindhan Sukumar, Sandhya Sundaresan, Sergej Tatevosov, Sören Tebay, Gombosuren Tsermed, Philipp Weisser, Joanna Zaleska, and Malte Zimmermann.
I have presented parts of this work at a number of conferences and departments, where I received valuable feedback. Thanks go to the audiences of the Workshop on Nominals at the Interfaces (2018), North East Linguistic Society (2019), Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft (2019), GLOW in Asia (2022), as well as the linguistics departments at Leipzig University,
Humboldt-University Berlin, Potsdam University, Goethe University Frankfurt, and University of Pennsylvania.
Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends, including Jasper, Kati, Jette, Tabea, Theresa, Siri, Jelena, Luise, Anne, Elton, Paula, and Maria for being supportive and accepting the increasingly workaholic lifestyle I have adopted over the past couple of years, while writing this book.
List of symbols and abbreviations
Glosses
1,2,3 1st, 2nd, 3rd person
ABL ablative
ABS absolutive
ACC accusative
ADD additive particle
ADV adverbial suffix
ADJ adjectival suffix
AG agent
AGR agreement
AOR aorist
ATTR attributive
AV agent voice
CAUS causative
CL classifier
CLIT clitic
CMPD compound
COMP complementizer
CONJ conjunction
COP copula
CV converb
DAT dative
DECL declarative
DEF definite
DEM demonstrative
DET determiner
DOM differential object marking
DP discourse particle
DUR durative
EMPH emphatic
ERG ergative
EXIST existential
F feminine
FACT factual
FAM familiar
FOC focus
FUT future
GEN genitive
HAB habitual
HON honorific
INF infinitive
IMP imperative
IMPF/IPFV imperfective
IND indicative
INST instrumental
INT intimate
INTR/INTRANS intransitive
JOIN epenthetic vowel
L L-suffix
LNK linking morpheme
LOC locative
M masculine
MIR mirative
MOD modality
N neuter
NE nominal particle
NEG negation
NMLZ nominalizer
NOM nominative
NPREF nominal prefix
NSF noun suffix
NT neutral
OBJ object
OBL oblique
OV patient voice
PAT patient
PERF/PFV perfective
PL plural
POSS possessive
PROG progressive
PST past
PRS present
PUNC punctual
REFL reflexive
REL relative
RES resultative
S S-suffix
SBJ subject
SG singular
STAT stative
T tense
TR/TRANS transitive
TOP topic
UNM unmarked morphological case
VOL volitional
Abbreviations
BIER binder index evaluation rule
DM Distributional Morphology
DOM differential object marking
EC existential closure
EF edge feature
EI event identification
FA functional application
[∙F∙] structure-building feature
[*F*] agree feature
[∙F∙], [*F*], [F] deactivated features
GQ generalized quantifier
LF Logical Form
NI noun incorporation
OT Optimality Theory
MIR movement interpretation rule
PA predicate abstraction
PIC Phase Impenetrability Condition
PF Phonological Form
PM predicate modification
PNI pseudo-noun incorporation
QR quantifier raising
SCC Strict Cycle Condition
1 Introduction
Pseudo-noun incorporation (PNI) describes a phenomenon in which an argument forms a ‘closer than usual’ relation with the verb. The syntactic consequence most often diagnosed is loss of case marking, potentially along with the lack of other functional material such as number marking and overtly expressed determiners. A correlating interpretive consequence is expressed by scope inertness. Both aspects are exemplarily shown for Hindi in (1), where (1a) shows that objects can be optionally marked for case and (1b) illustrates the correlation of case loss and a obligatory narrow scope reading. (1)
A common intuition many analyses share is that pseudo-incorporated arguments are somehow reduced in their syntactic as well as their semantic capacity. Together with the observation that pseudoincorporation seems to be restricted to occur with bare nouns and indefinites, both case loss and scope inertness are often traced back
to the size of the argument. Pseudo-incorporated arguments are claimed to be NPs, denoting properties , which do not require case and cannot take scope (Dayal 2011; Massam 2001; van Geenhoven 1998). Within the recent literature on differential object marking (Aissen 2003; Bossong 1991), this size restriction has also been argued to be the cause for lack of specificity/animacy interpretations (Kalin 2014; Levin 2019; López 2012; van Urk 2019b), shown here for Spanish in (2). One of the questions this study will address is whether pseudo-incorporation and differential object marking can be considered as two sides of the same coin.1 (2)
This book pursues the idea that the effects of pseudo-noun incorporation are not related to size but to category. Pseudoincorporated arguments transform from nouns into verbs during the course of the derivation. The verbal nature is responsible for the case drop and the inability to take wide scope: verbs are commonly taken to be incapable of inducing scope shift (Chomsky 2001; Harley 2004) and are cross-linguistically observed to constitute unsuitable hosts for case morphology (Moravcsik 2012; Nichols 1986).
Two additional effects can be made to follow from the verbal character of pseudo-incorporated arguments. As has been observed for Turkish (Öztürk 2009), Hindi (Bhatt 2007), and Spanish (Leonetti 2004; López 2012), pseudo-incorporation is not licensed in contexts that require the argument to act as a binder or controller. These properties are illustrated in (3) for Turkish.
(3)
The incompatibility of binding and control with pseudo-noun incorporation has been attributed to the need to raise into or be merged in a dedicated position where case is assigned and from which control and binding takes place (Bhatt 2007; López 2012; Öztürk 2009). The account put forward in this book argues that pseudo-incorporated arguments are incapable of binding a pronoun since binding, i.e. the ability to introduce an index, is a property essentially tied to nominal categories (Baker 2004; Büring 2005). Furthermore, control relations cannot be established since control is dependent on binding (Chomsky 1981; Manzini 1983).
The categorial approach pursued in this book makes an additional prediction about the movement behaviour of pseudo-incorporated arguments, a property that has so far not received much attention, as it is known to vary across pseudo-noun incorporation languages. Since pseudo-incorporated arguments turn from nouns into verbs, their movement patterns will mimick the movement pattern of VPs, predicting potential cross-linguistic variation across languages which exhibit pseudo-noun incorporation. The account presented here is, thus, well equipped to explain why languages like Tamil and Sakha do not permit movement of pseudo-incorporated arguments (Baker 2014b), in contrast to Turkish (Gračanin-Yüksek and İşsever 2011; Jo and Palaz 2019) and Hindi (Dayal 2011), shown in (4) and (5).
(4)
(5)
The empirical basis of this book is formed by elicitation with speakers of Tamil, Mongolian, Korean, Turkish, and German. Five diagnostics are applied across eleven noun types in each of the languages under consideration, including bare nouns, numerals, weak and strong quantifiers, weak and strong definites, demonstratives, proper names, and pronouns. What emerges is a coherent effect on pseudo-incorporated arguments that maps loss of case marking to obligatory narrow scope, lack of binding and control relations, as well as cross-varying restrictions on movement. While case properties are regularly tied to scope and mobility restrictions by DP/NP accounts of pseudo-incorporation (Dayal 2011; DobrovieSorin et al. 2006; Massam 2001), binding and control properties are often made use of by raising approaches (Bhatt and Anagnostopoulou 1996; Kelepir 2001; López 2012). The study provides a unifying theory that is able to capture all properties with a single assumption: pseudo-incorporation effects result from noun phrases that are made up of a nominal and a verbal category feature. Implemented in a minimalist derivational framework (Chomsky 1995, 2000), the nominal feature is active early in the derivation and in that responsible for c-selection and nominal modification, while the verbal feature is active late and crucially derives the effects we have come to recognize as pseudo-noun incorporation. In contrast to previous accounts, the current theory is able to explain cross-linguistic variation considering the extent to
which pseudo-incorporated nouns are restricted in their movement capacities by demonstrating parallels to VP movement in each of the languages under consideration.
Beyond identifying the core properties of the phenomenon, the book contributes a number of additional empirical observations, the most important being that optional case marking is not necessarily caused by pseudo-incorporation. Tamil and Korean provide evidence that only a subset of optionally case-marked noun types show a correlation with scope, binding, control, and movement constraints. This insight enforces the conclusion that one and the same language can make use of both pseudo-noun incorporation and differential object marking. Moreover, the broad range of noun types investigated in this study allows for important insights into the nominal domain generally, with a particular focus on bare argument languages. The study shows that Mongolian patterns with Turkish, which has previously been reported to allow optional case marking for weak quantifiers and numerals but not for strong quantifiers (Enç 1991). Tamil, however, patterns with Hindi in that only bare nouns are permitted to undergo pseudo-noun incorporation. The crosslinguistic differences support analyses that make use of the potential adjectival status of weak quantifiers, numerals, and indefinite articles (Ionin and Matushansky 2006; Milsark 1977; Partee 1988). Further valuable insights are also gained with respect to weak and strong definiteness (Schwarz 2009, 2019), in that case marking is essential to familiarity-based definites, in contrast to uniqueness-based definites. By shifting the scope to morpho-syntactic properties, the study provides a new direction for a research area that has so far primarily focused on the overt spell out of determiners in bare argument languages (Ahn 2017; Hanink 2018; Jenks 2015, 2018).
The book is structured as follows. Chapter 2 justifies the diagnostics used in this study and discusses the elicitation methods, while also summarizing the main results. In Chapter 3, basic theoretical assumptions are laid out and applied to the main idea of
this thesis, followed by a brief discussion of the literature on category change. Chapter 4 is dedicated to the most prominent syntactic diagnostic of pseudo-incorporation, that is loss of case marking in correlation with semantic effects. For each language, I will propose two ways to model case loss post-syntactically. Chapter 5 presents the scope facts in more detail and the implementation of the categorial approach in terms of the widely observed low scope restriction. In Chapter 6, I extend the proposal to control and binding facts, while Chapter 7 will present the cross-linguistic variation in the movement restrictions of pseudo-incorporated arguments. The two languages of this study that display optional case marking for noun types without correlating scopal behaviour will be given a detailed look in Chapter 8. Finally, Chapter 9 compares the results of this study to existing accounts of pseudonoun incorporation and DOM and Chapter 10 concludes.
Note
1 I will use the term ‘differential object marking’ (DOM) in this book to subsume differential object marking and differential subject marking.
2
Methodology and main results
This chapter presents the main results of the study, describes in detail the elicitation methods which were used, and justifies the diagnostics chosen to identify pseudo-noun incorporation.
2.1 Diagnostics
Pseudo-noun incorporation is notoriously difficult to diagnose. Since there is no clear overt morpho-syntactic process of forming a complex noun–verb predicate, as is the case with noun incorporation, an interplay of factors is often taken into consideration when diagnosing PNI. A correlation which has frequently been argued to be indicative of pseudo-noun incorporation is the simultaneous restriction to low scope with the absence of case marking (Baker 2014b; Dayal 2011; Kwon and Zribi-Hertz 2006; López 2012; Massam 2001; Öztürk 2005). An example from Hindi was already provided in the introduction, where scopal properties were tested with respect to negation. In (1), we see another example from Spanish, including a universal quantifier. Case-marked objects often show flexible scope. If case marking is dropped, the existentials cannot take scope over negation (1) or a quantified
subject (1). For similar scope interactions, see Kwon and Zribi-Hertz (2006: 118) for Korean, Kelepir (2001: 59) for Turkish, Lyutikova and Pereltsvaig (2013: 129) for Tatar, Lidz (2006: 14) for Kannada, and Testelets and Arkadiev (2014: 7) for Adyghe.
(1)
While the link between low scope and case drop will be used as a primary diagnostic to identify pseudo-noun incorporation within my data set, we can furthermore observe that PNI-ed arguments lose the ability to act as binders or controllers. These interactions have been noticed previously for Spanish (Leonetti 2004; López 2012), Turkish (Öztürk 2005, 2009), Tatar (Lyutikova and Pereltsvaig 2013), and Hindi (Bhatt 2007), see (2) and (3) for illustration. (2)
(3)
The correlation between loss of case marking on the one hand and restriction to low scope as well as lack of binding and control on the other hand provides a robust package diagnostic to track down the types of arguments which can undergo PNI within the languages investigated in this study. Further support is provided if the class of nouns aligns with the cross-linguistic restriction to bare nouns and indefinites.
An additional property PNI-ed arguments display is a peculiar movement pattern, one that is different from the case-marked counterparts. This diagnostic, however, should be considered with caution. Movement properties are certainly not homogeneous across languages. Yet there is a general tendency that PNI-ed arguments are more restricted in their movement capabilities than proper arguments. Consider Spanish again: while caseless arguments cannot be left-dislocated (Leonetti 2004; Melis 1995; Pensado 1995), see (4b), they can still precede the subject, shown in (5). Casemarked arguments, however, can additionally undergo leftdislocation.
(4)
There are PNI accounts that solely rely on an adjacency requirement with the verb, either because case is not marked morphologically on arguments (Coon 2010; Levin 2015) or because case marking is not influenced by PNI (Frey 2015; Farkas and de Swart 2003). I will aim for a theory of pseudo-noun incorporation that can provide a global explanation for the absence of case, wide scope, binding, and control while also being able to account for cross-linguistic variation with respect to movement restrictions.
In this study, we will take a detailed look at five languages which have been argued to show effects of pseudo-noun incorporation: Mongolian (Guntsetseg 2009, 2010, 2016), Tamil (Baker 2014b), Turkish (Enç 1991; Öztürk 2005; von Heusinger and Kornfilt 2005), Korean (Ha. Lee 2006; Kwon and Zribi-Hertz 2006), and German (Frey 2015). In contrast to previous work, we will take a rather large number of different argument types into consideration and run each of them through the diagnostics discussed in this section. Two properties are always paired, for the most part we will investigate case loss on arguments and each of its correlations with scope, binding, control, and movement capabilities. German is the only language in the sample set which does not exhibit case drop. Nevertheless, it is argued to pseudo-incorporate bare nouns as well as indefinites, depending on the position in the clause. For German, therefore, we will take sentence position instead of case drop as a primary diagnostic and pair it with the other three. Besides bare nouns and indefinites, this study considers pronouns, proper names, demonstrative and possessor phrases, numerals, and quantifiers. Since the majority of the languages in the set qualify as bare
argument languages, contexts were set up to probe for definiteness, thereby paying attention to the weak–strong distinction (Roberts 2003; Schwarz 2009).
The upshot of this procedure is two-fold: (i) we can inspect the size restriction proposed for PNI languages across languages and thereby—if uniform—make a valuable contribution to the set of PNI diagnostics and (ii) we can tease apart case drop as a result of PNI from case drop being unrelated to PNI. The latter often falls into the category of differential object marking, a phenomenon which similarly centres around loss/addition of case marking but is traditionally linked to animacy, specificity, and definiteness constraints (Aissen 2003; Bossong 1991). Chapter 8 provides a detailed comparison and discussion for Korean and Tamil, the two languages form the core data set which exhibit DOM as well as PNI effects depending on the argument type.
Data from the five languages is primarly based on questionnaires and interviews run with native speakers of the respective languages. Two more languages, Spanish and Hindi, enter the picture for comparison’s sake. Data from those languages are taken exclusively from the literature. The results from Spanish and Hindi appear in the overview tables but are visually separated from the core data set and may contain gaps.
2.2 Elicitation methods, consultants
The Mongolian data were elicited with the help of a questionnaire, put together via skype interviews with Dolgor Guntsetseg, a native speaker of Mongolian and a linguist who has done extensive work on the case system of Mongolian. The questionnaire was passed on to five native speakers via an online study. The consultants are speakers of Khalka Mongolian, between the ages of 28–49, and live and work in Ulaanbaatar, the capital of Mongolia. All speakers have
