2018
DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.566
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Māori subject extraction

Abstract: This paper focuses on subject extraction in Māori, the indigenous Polynesian language of New Zealand. Māori has a range of verbal and non-verbal predicate constructions. I argue that, whilst subject topicalisation is generally permitted in all constructions, subject questioning is restricted (see Bauer 1993; 1997). More specifically, I claim that subject questioning is permitted in verbal and prepositional predicate constructions, but prohibited in nominal predicate constructions, all else being equal (see als… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…V, N, P, etc. ); on the present account, these basic features may usefully be thought of in the kind of not fully fleshedout "archi" terms discussed in Douglas (2018) and Song (2019). As we will see in section 3.1.2, extended-projection membership imposes structural constraints of different kinds.…”
Section: Recyclingmentioning
confidence: 84%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…V, N, P, etc. ); on the present account, these basic features may usefully be thought of in the kind of not fully fleshedout "archi" terms discussed in Douglas (2018) and Song (2019). As we will see in section 3.1.2, extended-projection membership imposes structural constraints of different kinds.…”
Section: Recyclingmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…(18) a. the pervasiveness of grammaticalisation phenomena in natural language, and the way in which 'pragmaticalisation' (broadly, speaker-hearer-oriented grammaticalization) also draws on existing elements and features in the system; d. the various ways in which the earliest-acquired categories -centring on a basic predicate-/"archi"-V versus argument-/ "archi"-N-type category (cf. also Bouchard 2013;Douglas 2018;and Song 2019 20 ) -are put to "extended" use in grammar structuring. Consider, for example, the varied evidence pointing to the existence of extended projections (Grimshaw 1991 et seq.…”
Section: Recyclingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…I will adopt here the neo-emergentist perspective in Biberauer & Roberts (2015), Biberauer (2018 and the associated findings in Bosch (2023a), according to which development proceeds in the neo-emergentist and edge-centred manner just outlined. According to Biberauer & Roberts (2015), the child initially makes a basic predicate/argument (or 'archi' N/V) distinction (see Douglas 2018, Song 2019 and Biberauer 2019a on 'archi-V' and 'archi-N' features and categories), which then aids them with making a first representational division into the verbal and nominal Extended Projections. Subsequently, the learning path proceeds by making a coarsegrained subdivision between discourse/interactional (CP-and SAP-internal) material and thematic (vP-internal) material 11 .…”
Section: Theoretical Background and Hypothesismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It also establishes that the grammars of Norwegian and Swedish diverge with respect to Comp-t effects. However, we do not know for certain what grammatical features underlie the divergences, since there is still disagreement in the formal literature on how to analyse (i) crosslinguistic variation in island-insensitivity and (ii) Comp-t effects (see, for example, Douglas, 2017; Kandybowicz, 2006; Sobin, 2009; Richards, 2016). For the sake of concreteness, we adopt a relatively general syntactic characterization of the effects that links the divergences to parametric differences in the CP domains of the three languages.…”
Section: Grammatical Differences and Relevant Featuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Turning to the features responsible for Comp-t effects, we adopt the general idea that cross-linguistic differences are tied to variation in features on heads in the CP-domain (e.g. Douglas, 2017; Lohndal, 2009). We adopt the proposal in Lohndal (2009) that cross-linguistic differences stem from variation in (i) which head in the CP-domain the overt complementizer lexicalizes, and (ii) formal features on the lowest head in the CP-domain (Fin 0 in Lohndal, 2009).…”
Section: Grammatical Differences and Relevant Featuresmentioning
confidence: 99%