Word-formation by phase in Inuit

Compton, Richard; Pittman, Christine M.

doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2010.03.012

Cited by 41 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The derivation of inverse ordering contrasts with analyses that assume a base-generated right-headed structure (Compton and Pittman 2010). Root movement captures the essential properties of obligatory noun incorporation, where a closed class of verbs requires that another element be morphologically attached.…”

Section: √Vmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8 Observe that, with the exception of the position of RED, the morpheme order in (10a) falls out directly from the right-branching structure (i.e. noun to the left of the verb) (see also Compton and Pittman 2010, who derive morpheme order in a similar fashion). This contrasts with more typical movement accounts where the inverse or mirror ordering (Baker 1985;Cinque 1999) results from base merger of left-headed structures, followed by movement of the head of a complement to the left of a higher head.…”

Section: Noun Incorporation As Head Movementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, for Piggott and Travis, a word-internal complex head may result solely from either (a) heads merging successively through head movement or (b) external merge of two heads in an independent workspace, followed by merge of that new object with another head in the main workspace. A number of linguists (Massam 2001;Compton and Pittman 2010;Barrie and Mathieu 2012;Mathieu 2013;Barrie and Mathieu 2016;Mathieu, Fry, and Barrie in press) do not believe that such restrictions hold in noun incorporation, and therefore do not accept that noun incorporation involves head movement. Mathieu (2013), for example, argues that ikwe-zhenz-ish in (12) is merged as a phrase, and gives further examples, such as (13), where prenominal modifiers are found word-internally.…”

Section: Heads Versus Phrasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One benefit to root movement is that it provides a basis of explanation for the distribution of incorporating verbs, as compared to non-incorporating verbs, which are roots. There is no need to label the incorporating verbs as affixes (see also Compton and Pittman 2010), since it is inherent lack of root material in the light verbs that triggers movement of the nominal. 11 It also explains why obligatory noun incorporation so often involves the same verb meanings cross-linguistically (see e.g.…”

Section: √Vmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Noun Incorporation

Johns

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter provides an overview of noun incorporation in broad terms, examining nominals found either within or strictly adjacent to predicates from numerous languages. Syntactic issues have shifted from an earlier debate about whether noun incorporation was an operation in the lexicon or syntax to more recent discussion about whether noun incorporation is a narrow syntax or PF operation. Other issues concern whether phrases or just heads can incorporate. If phrases incorporate, are they phrasal at the point of incorporation? AGREE analyses examine the trigger for incorporation. A number of analyses posit that there is no movement of the nominal at all (pseudo noun incorporation), and utilize an adjacency relation between the verb and incorporated nominal. It remains clear that languages show similar cross‐linguistic properties in noun incorporation, even to the extent that language‐internal differences are often similar, often relating to verb class. The expansion of the set of empirical data from semantic analyses and other work continues to lead toward refinements.

show abstract

Section: √Vmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Noun Incorporation As Head Movementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Heads Versus Phrasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: √Vmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Noun Incorporation

Johns

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent examples of this trend among studies of Algonquian languages include Branigan, Brittain, and Dyck's (2005) analysis of verb stems in Innu-aimun, which postulates syntactic sources for verbs that include both phrasal and clausal structures, and Mathieu's (2007Mathieu's ( , 2008 account of Ojibwe verbs, which likewise derives verb stems from highly articulated syntactic structures via phrasal movement. Compton and Pittman (2010) treat essentially all word formation in Eskimo languages as syntax. 6 It is my contention that the view of word structure in polysynthetic languages that such work represents is on the wrong track.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Maliseet-Passamaquoddy Have VP-Ellipsis?

LeSourd

2013

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Richards (2009) proposes that VP-Ellipsis relates pairs of sentences in the Eastern Algonquian language Maliseet-Passamaquoddy that contain morphologically related verbs, one of which lacks a stem component that appears in the other. Under his proposal, the polysynthetic verbs of the language are decomposed into abstract syntactic structures, and VP-Ellipsis is applicable within the word. I argue that his data are better explained without postulating VP-Ellipsis for Maliseet-Passamaquoddy. The verbs that he sees as derived via ellipsis are independently occurring lexical items. There are in fact no ellipsis gaps in the structures he considers, only null pronouns, and overt pronouns may always occur in the relevant positions. My conclusions are fully consistent with the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis of Bresnan and Mchombo (1995).

show abstract

Radical Non‐Configurationality

Bliss

2017

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Originally conceived of as a large‐scale macroparameter, non‐configurationality was thought to delimit languages lacking in hierarchical phrase structure (Chomsky 1981). However, non‐configurationality can be defined instead as a cover term for languages in which there is hierarchical phrase structure, but the evidence for such structure is obscured. In the narrow sense, non‐configurational languages are those that meet three criteria: (i) free word order, (ii) extensive null anaphora, and (iii) discontinuous expressions (Hale 1983). In the broad sense, non‐configurational languages are those that fail a variety of tests for asymmetric c‐command between the subject and the object, and/or tests for VP constituency. These languages are genetically, geographically, and typologically diverse, and they cannot be classified as a single language type. There have been various attempts to reduce non‐configurational properties to a single grammatical source or macroparameter: the Dual Structure approach (e.g., Austin and Bresnan 1996), the Pronominal Argument approach (e.g., Baker 1996), and the Computational Relevancy approach (Pensalfini 2004) All of these approaches focus on the paradoxical nature of non‐configurational languages: they exhibit subject/object asymmetries in some domains, but not others. However, these approaches, which treat non‐configurationality as a macroparameter, are neither theoretically nor empirically motivated. Other work on non‐configurational languages such as Warlpiri, Mohawk, the Salish languages, and the Algonquian languages have paved the way for a microparametric view of non‐configurationality, in which various diverse and independently motivated grammatical principles can conspire to yield a non‐configurational profile.

show abstract

Word-formation by phase in Inuit

Cited by 41 publications

References 12 publications

Noun Incorporation

Noun Incorporation

Does Maliseet-Passamaquoddy Have VP-Ellipsis?

Radical Non‐Configurationality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About