V1 in Kipsigis: Head movement and discourse-based scrambling

Bossi, Madeline; Diercks, Michael

doi:10.5334/gjgl.246

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their constraint on feature gluttony blocks derivations with multiple agreement/movement from converging at the interfaces, and is meant to capture Āextraction restrictions in certain Mayan languages. However, such a constraint is clearly not universal, as evidenced by the patterns discussed by van Urk and Richards (2015) and Bossi and Diercks (2019). Moreover, they propose that non-DPs as well as DPs are prevented from Ā-moving across DPs in Mayan, which is captured by their ban on multiple movements, and which is not the case in Tagalog.…”

Section: Conclusion -What Have We Learned?mentioning

confidence: 98%

Probing for the Closest DP: A Reply to Branan and Erlewine 2022

Newman

2023

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Branan and Erlewine (2022) argue for the existence of an Ā-probe that can only be satisfied if its goal is the closest DP. The motivation for such a probe comes from a series of relativization strategies in several languages that appear to only target the highest DP in the clause. In this reply, I argue that their data only motivate the existence of probes that attract the closest DP—their data fail canonical diagnostics for Ā-movement, suggesting that we should eliminate Ā from the description. This being the case, I suggest that the descriptive label relative clause applies to both A- and Ā-constructions, where independent diagnostics are needed to distinguish each case.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion -What Have We Learned?mentioning

confidence: 98%

Probing for the Closest DP: A Reply to Branan and Erlewine 2022

Newman

2023

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As for the syntactic properties of the language, Kipsigis is pro-drop, and the pragmatically unmarked word order is VSO (but it has extensive post-verbal scrambling; see Bossi & Diercks 2019). The language has the typologically rare marked nominative case system (see König 2006;Handschuh 2014), with nominative expressed tonally (Toweett 1979;Kouneli & Nie 2021;Jolin 2022).…”

Section: Conjugation Classes In Kipsigis: Not Therementioning

confidence: 99%

Inflectional classes in Kipsigis

Kouneli

2022

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I provide a description and analysis of conjugation classes in Kipsigis (Nilotic; Kenya). While traditional descriptions discuss two conjugation classes, I show that the morphophonological properties of Class II can be reduced to the presence of a moraic affix spelling out a verbalizing head (little v in theories like DM). On the semantic side, I show that Class II is primarily used for causative verbs, and I identify the verbalizing head as vCAUSE. The analysis highlights three properties of inflectional classes that are relevant for their analysis cross-linguistically: i) there is a close (historical or synchronic) connection between conjugation classes and transitivity, ii) what looks like a conjugation class can be reduced to the spellout of a verbalizing head, iii) there is an asymmetry between nouns and verbs for a number of languages: verbs tend to have fewer inflectional classes than nouns. Finally, the analysis of the Kipsigis facts contributes to a growing body of literature on mora affixation in Nilotic and beyond (e.g., Trommer & Zimmermann 2014), and it shows that such abstract representations in combination with regular phonology are sufficient to derive apparently complex morphophonological alternations. 

show abstract

“…Composite probes, as van Urk [55] labels them, are two probes located on a single head, forming a probe conglomerate-an assumption that has been made for TMA-features on T or Infl already for a while (e.g., the combination of tense and φ-features on a single head; see also the more fine-grained approaches to φ-probes in, among many others, [60][61][62][63][64][65]). Although the CP has traditionally been treated as a pure A domain, more recently, it has been suggested that not only the inflectional domain can combine features on a single head, but that the C-domain can do so, too, in particular that A -features and A-features can form composite probes on C (among others [55,[66][67][68][69][70][71][72]). If a head carries such a composite A /A-probe, it triggers agreement (and movement) of mixed A /A-quality and therefore exhibits mixed A /A-properties.…”

Section: Composite Probes and Their Probing Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The C.R head in construction 5 carries the two probes [A ] and [A] which probe separately and independently from each other and can establish feature satisfaction with two different goals. This assumption follows Bossi and Diercks [70] who propose that in Kipsigis, a single head can carry two independent probes which can trigger agreement and movement independently of each other and with different goals. Following the nomenclature in [77,78], we call this probing process independent satisfaction.…”

Section: Composite Probes and Their Probing Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Prolepsis to Hyperraising

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Case, agreement, and A-movement dependencies across finite clause boundaries, such as Hyperraising (to subject or object) or Long-Distance Case or Agreement [LDA], are available in many typologically diverse languages. The research on such dependencies typically distinguishes between cross-linguistically restricted true A-dependencies across finite clauses, and generally available binding-like A′-dependencies as found in Prolepsis. In this paper, we investigate both types of configurations in parallel and refer to this as the A-domain. Since the diagnostics to distinguish A-configurations vary across languages and often cannot be compared directly, we define four characteristic properties: (A) whether the construction is restricted by matrix predicate selection, (B) whether movement in the embedded clause is involved, (C) whether the dependency shows locality restrictions (in particular, A-Minimality), and (D) whether there are semantic restrictions on the relevant DP. By combining different values of the characteristic properties, we show, differently from previous approaches, that the A-domain does not simply consist of two types of configurations, but that the empirical landscape represents a continuum of five A-constructions. We suggest a theoretical implementation of our empirical findings, which is built on a predicational relator phrase above the embedded CP and propose that, in some of the constructions, these two projections fuse into one. We employ a minimalist probing approach which relies on differences in the base-generated position of the relevant DP (matrix clause, high in the embedded clause, argument position in the embedded clause), differences in the feature composition of the embedded C (a plain A′-head, or a bundled predicational C head involving composite A/A′ probes), a composite probe hierarchy yielding three types of feature-dependencies of composite probes, and, resulting from that, different probing mechanisms (conjunctive satisfaction, dependent satisfaction, and independent satisfaction). Lastly, this paper also contributes methodological tools for disentangling constructions of the A-domain.

show abstract

V1 in Kipsigis: Head movement and discourse-based scrambling

Cited by 6 publications

References 69 publications

Probing for the Closest DP: A Reply to Branan and Erlewine 2022

Probing for the Closest DP: A Reply to Branan and Erlewine 2022

Inflectional classes in Kipsigis

From Prolepsis to Hyperraising

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About