Lexical Categories and Argument Structure. A study with reference to Sakha

480 Pages·2016·4.54 MB·English

by  Vinokurova N.

Lexical Categories and Argument Structure
A study with reference to Sakha
Published by
LOT phone: [phone]
Trans 10 fax: [phone]
3512 JK Utrecht e-mail: [email protected]
The Netherlands http://wwwlot.let.uu.nl/

Cover illustration: Open air museum in Suottu. A photograph by Evgenia
Arbugaeva

ISBN 90-76864-00-4
NUR 632

Copyright © 2005 Nadezhda Vinokurova. All rights reserved.
Lexical Categories and Argument Structure
A study with reference to Sakha
(met een samenvatting in het Nederlands)

Lexicale Categorieën en Argumentstructuur
Een studie met betrekking tot het Sakha

Proefschrift

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor
aan de Universiteit Utrecht
op gezag van de Rector Magnificus, Prof. Dr. W.H.Gispen,
ingevolge het besluit van het College voor Promoties
in het openbaar te verdedigen
op vrijdag 18 maart 2005
des ochtends te 10.30 uur

door

Nadezhda Vinokurova
geboren op 12 augustus 1974 te Yakutsk
Promotor: Prof. Dr. E.J. Reuland

ISBN 90-76864-00-4
Contents
0. HISTORICAL PRELUDE 1
0.1. Pānini……………………………………………………………………………1
0.2. Plato and Aristotle……………………………………………………………….1
0.3. The Stoics………………………………………………………………………..2
0.4. Dionysius Thrax…………………………………………………………………3
0.5. Latin grammarians: Varro and Priscian…………………………………………4
0.6. A summary: from Plato to Priscian……………………………………………...5
0.7. Further historical developments…………………………………………………6

1. INTRODUCTION 9
1.1. Lexical categories: Features versus configurations……………………………..9
1.2. Lexical categories: The generative background……………………………….11
1.2.1. Chomsky’s (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax…………………....11
1.2.2. Chomsky’s (1968/70) Remarks on nominalization…………………….12
1.2.3. Lexicalism……………………………………………………………...14
1.2.4. Consequences and implications of the feature formalisms…………….16
1.2.5. Other proposals in current linguistics: Jackendoff 1977;
Déchaine 1993; prototype theory…..…………………………………………20
1.3. Lexicon versus Syntax………………………………………………………....24
1.3.1. Regression: Nature versus convention → anomaly versus
Analogy → lexicon versus syntax?.............................................................27
1.3.2. Syntactic categorization…………………………………………….28
1.3.2.1. Marantz 1997/2001 and Distributed Morphology……....29
1.3.2.2. Some objections to categorization in DM………………34
1.3.2.3. Borer’s (2000, in press) exo-skeletal (XS) approach...…35
1.3.2.4. Some objections to the XS-model………………………39
1.3.2.4.1. Objections to XS-categorization…………….40
1.3.2.4.2. Special meanings as idioms…………………40
1.3.2.4.3. The derivation/inflection dichotomy………..42
1.3.2.4.4. Overgeneration……………………………...45
1.4. Two alternative approaches to argument structure…………………………….46
1.4.1. DM’s approach to argument structure…………………………...…47
1.4.2. The exo-skeletal approach to argument structure………………..…58
1.4.3. A different conception of argument structure: Theta System……....60
1.5. The extended proposal…………………………………………………………67
1.5.1. Relational nouns……………………………………………………75
1.5.2. A note on concepts in TS, DM and XS: Conceptual coercion and on
the necessity of theta features……………………………………………..78
1.6. The proposal in a nutshell……………………………………………………...79
1.6.1. Contrasting the predictions…………………………………………81
1.7. Structure of the dissertation……………………………………………………82

2. DECOMPOSING LEXICAL CATEGORIES IN SAKHA 83
2.1. The inventory of roots and suffixes…………………………………………....84
2.1.1. The evolutionary routes of roots……………………………………85
2.1.1.1. Evidence for bound roots………………………….........87
Contents
2.1.1.2. Evidence from word coining for the psychological
salience of bound roots…………………………………………..89
2.1.2. Simplex and complex suffixes……………………...………………91
2.1.2.1. Suffixal promiscuity…………………………………….92
2.1.2.2. Suffixal instability…………………………..…………..94
2.1.2.3. Not all derivation is suffixation…………………………95
2.1.3. Explaining categorial ambiguities of roots in Theta system…….…96
2.2. Against bare roots………………………………………………………..…….98
2.2.1. Against XS-categorization…………………………………….……99
2.2.2. Against DM-categorization……………………………….………..99
2.2.3. Against bare roots in general: Onomatopoeic words in Sakha…....102
2.2.4. Against bare roots in general: Some notes on parsing……………103
2.3. Derivation: Lexicon versus syntax…………………………………………....104
2.3.1. Untenability of the tenet “All derivation in the syntax”…………..106
2.3.2. Predictions for lexical and syntactic derivation……………….…..112
2.3.3. Some notes on morphological marking of derivation…………….114
2.4. Deriving nouns in the lexicon and syntax…………………………………….118
2.4.1. Deriving nouns from nouns……………………………………….118
2.4.2. Deriving nouns from adjectives………………………….………..119
2.4.3. Deriving nouns from verbs……………………………….……….120
2.5. Deriving adjectives in the lexicon and syntax……………………….……….125
2.5.1. Deriving adjectives from nouns…………………………………...125
2.5.2. Deriving adjectives from adjectives…………………………...….125
2.5.3. Deriving adjectives from verbs…………………………….……..126
2.6. Concluding remarks………………………………………………………..…128

3. NOUNS IN SAKHA 131
3.1. Possession………………………………………………………….…………131
3.1.1. Introducing possessives…………………………………..……….132
3.1.1.1. Possession at the nominal level…………………….….132
3.1.1.2. The lack of genitive case in Sakha and the obligatory
presence of the dummy noun in possessor predicates………….133
3.1.1.3. Clausal possession: Full NP possessor predicates…….134
3.1.1.4. Clausal possession: -LAAX…………………………...135
3.1.1.5. There is a nominative possessor……………………….137
3.1.1.6. There is a dative possessor…………………………….137
3.1.2. Analyzing possessives…………………………………………….138
3.1.2.1. Analyzing –LAAX…………………………………….139
3.1.2.1.1. Associative –LAAX………………………..141
3.1.2.1.2. Temporal –LAAX………………………….145
3.1.2.2. Raising analysis of possession………………………...146
3.1.2.2.1. Possessives and locatives…………………..151
3.1.2.2.2. Capturing the possessor……………………155
3.1.2.3. Inalienable possession………………………………....160
3.1.2.3.1. Inalienability as a grammatical category…..164
3.1.2.3.2. Absence of relationality with possessive
predicates……………………………………………..167
Contents
3.1.2.3.3. Postpositional phrases……………………...170
3.1.2.3.4. Q-ish nouns………………………………...172
3.1.2.4. Adjectival modification and temporary possession…...175
3.1.2.5. Concluding remarks on possession…………………....178
3.2. Nominal compounds: The lexicon/syntax division………………………..….179
3.2.1. Root compounds………………………………………………..…180
3.2.2. Possessive compounds…………………………………………….181
3.2.3. Dvandva compounds……………………………………………...185
3.3. Baker’s (2003) criterion of identity…………………………………………..189
3.4. Nouns as arguments…………………………………………………………..191
3.4.1. Other proposals for nouns as arguments………………………….192
3.4.2. The current proposal: NP-arguments versus DP-arguments…...…195
3.4.2.1. Structural deficiency in Sakha: The missing DP-layer..195
3.4.2.2. Discourse reference and the DP-domain……………....197
3.5. Concluding remarks…………………………………………………………..198

4. ADJECTIVES IN SAKHA 201
4.1. Predication…………………………………………………………………....201
4.1.1. Conjunction………………………………………………...……..202
4.1.2. Agreement………………………………………………………...204
4.1.2.1. Agreement in finite predication……………………….204
4.1.2.2. Agreement in non-finite predication…………………..206
4.1.3. Negation…………………………………………………………..207
4.1.4. Structures for adjectival predication without buol ‘be’ (present
tense)……………………………………………………………………..211
4.1.5. Buol ‘be’ introducing a generic operator……………………….…213
4.1.6. Structures for adjectival predication with buol ‘be’ and for nominal
predication (present tense)……………………………………………….216
4.2. Tense and the three types of predicates………………………………………218
4.2.1. Overview of tenses in Sakha (in the indicative mood)……………220
4.2.1.1. INFL -PART-VP………………………..220
[-TENSE FEATURE]
4.2.1.2. INFL -VP……………………….………223
[+TENSE FEATURE]
4.2.1.3. INFL-AUX-PART-VP………………………………...223
4.2.1.4. Alternating forms: INFL-PART-VP or INFL-AUX-
PART-VP…………………………………………………..…..224
4.2.1.5. Summary 1: Simplex and compound tenses in Sakha...228
4.2.1.6. Summary 2: On the relationship among I, Part,
VP and AP……………...………………………………………229
4.2.2. Deriving tense asymmetry between verbs and adjectives………...231
4.2.3. Deriving allomorphy……………...................................................234
4.2.4. Matrix bare verbs………………….................................................240
4.2.5. A sample derivation for a nominal predicate in the past and future
tenses…………………………………………………………………….247
4.2.6. Comparison with Baker 2003…………………………………..…248
4.3. Embedded predication and the obligatoriness of buol ‘be’ with nonfinite
nominal predicates……………………………………………………………...…252
4.3.1. Non-finite and finite subordination: Verbal predicates…………...253
Contents
4.3.2. Non-finite and finite subordination: Adjectival predicates……….254
4.3.3. Non-finite and finite subordination: Nominal predicates…………255
4.3.4. Argumenthood and referentiality of embedded clauses…………..255
4.4. Extractions out of predicates: the nominal/adjectival/verbal asymmetry…….257
4.4.1. Verb-based relative clauses……………………………………….258
4.4.1.1. Lack of V-to-I movement inside a relative clause…….260
4.4.1.2. Two differences between Sakha and Turkish RCs…....261
4.4.1.3. The argument/adjunct asymmetry in extraction……….262
4.4.2. Adjective-based relative clauses…………………………………..263
4.4.3. Noun-based relative clauses and concluding remarks……….……264
4.5. Attributive modification………………………………………………………265
4.5.1. The structure of attributive modification………………………….265
4.5.1.1. Kayne’s (1994) account……………………………….266
4.5.1.2. Baker’s (2003) account………………………………..266
4.5.1.3. Thematic account……………………………………...269
4.5.1.3.1. Ruling out verbs as attributive modifiers of
nouns………………………………………………….272
4.5.2. The N→A conversion……………………………………………..272
4.5.3. Intersective/nonintersective ambiguities………………………….274
4.5.4. Prenominal/postnominal contrasts………………………………...276
4.6. Adverbial modification……………………………………………………….277
4.7. The use of adjectives as arguments…………………………………………...279
4.8. Impersonal subjects……………………………………………………...……281
4.9. Concluding remarks………………………………………………………..…283

5. CAUSATIVES AND UNACCUSATIVES 285
5.1. Causative/unaccusative alternations……………………………………….…285
5.1.1. Unaccusativity diagnostics in Sakha: Causative alternation and
others…………………………………………………………………….286
5.1.2. Arguments that the transitive alternate is basic…………………...288
5.1.2.1. Irregular causative morphology……………………….288
5.1.2.2. Deverbal nouns………………………………………...291
5.1.2.3. Negation scope…………………………………...……291
5.1.2.4. Adverbial scope……………………………………..…292
5.1.2.5. Levin & Rappaport Hovav’s (1995) arguments……….292
5.2. Verb-based derivation………………………………………………………...294
5.2.1. Lexical V→N derivation: M-reduction of argument structure…....294
5.2.1.1. Lexical nominalization and accusative reduction……..299
5.2.2. V→A derivation…………………………………………………..301
5.2.2.1. Deriving adjectives from intransitive verbs in the
syntax……………………………………………….……….…302
5.2.2.2. Deriving adjectives from intransitive verbs in the
lexicon………………………………………………….............303
5.2.2.3. Deriving adjectives from transitive verbs in the
lexicon……………..…………………………………………...304
5.2.3. A quick summary of N/A-derivation……………………………...305
Contents
5.3. Causativization……………………………………………………………..…305
5.3.1. Introducing Sakha causatives……………………………………..306
5.3.2. Causativization in the Theta System…………………………...…307
5.3.3. Causativization as lexicon-internal operation in Sakha………...…308
5.3.4. High syntactic causatives…………………………………………310
5.4. Causativization in Distributed Morphology…………………………………..312
5.4.1. McGinnis 2000…………………………………………………....312
5.4.2. Pylkkänen 1999…………………………………………...………316
5.5. Concluding remarks…………………………………………………………..317

6. DECOMPOSING ACCUSATIVE CASE 319
6.1. Accusative case in Theta system……………………………………………...319
6.2. Thematic accusative in Sakha: NP-arguments………………………………..322
6.3. Unaccusatives: Accusative case reduction and morphological marking…..…323
6.4. Reflexives: Lexical bundling…………………………………………..……..324
6.4.1. Binding Theory…………………………………………………....325
6.4.2. Arity preservation………………………………………………....326
6.4.3. The self-anaphor beje and the disjoint application of Reflexivity
conditions………………………………………………………………..327
6.4.3.1. Reflexive semantic predicates which are not syntactic
predicates……………………………………………………….327
6.4.3.2. Reflexive-marked syntactic predicates which are not
semantic predicates…………………………………………….327
6.4.4. Logophoric beje………………………………………………...…328
6.5. Inalienable possession reflexives and benefactives………………………..…329
6.5.1. The lexical/syntactic opposition in bundling……………………...331
6.5.2. The low/high opposition in syntactic bundling…………………...332
6.6. Lexical and syntactic passives………………………………………………..335
6.6.1. The lexical/syntactic opposition in passivization…………………336
6.7. Reciprocals……………………………………………………………..……..339
6.7.1. Reciprocals in Sakha……………………………………...………341
6.7.2. Reciprocal verbs in Sakha and the lexicon/syntax dichotomy…....343
6.7.3. Lexical and syntactic reciprocal sets…………………………..….347
6.7.4. s-adjectives……………………………………………..…………349
6.7.5. Comitatives…………………………………………………..……350
6.8. Double accusative in causatives……………………………………………....352
6.8.1. The intransitive case pattern: Accusative only…………………....353
6.8.2. The transitive case pattern: Upper accusative is not thematic…….353
6.8.3. Licensing the causee by functional heads: Appl and Acc………...355
6.8.4. Syntactic causatives and instrumental case……………………….355
6.8.5. Merging the causee…………………………………….………….356
6.8.6. Causation proper and permission………………………………....357
6.8.7. Double accusative as double object……………………………….358
6.9. Double accusative and the part-whole relationship…………………….…….359
6.10. Accusative subjects in Sakha………………………………….…………….361
6.10.1. Extending Moore’s (1998) analysis: Copy raising into the matrix
clause…………………………………………………………………….361
Contents
6.10.2. Interpretive differences between nominative and accusative
subjects………………………………………………………………..…364
6.10.3. The landing site of the embedded subject…………………….....365
6.10.4. Types of predicates………………………………………………365
6.10.4.1. Clausal arguments……………………………………365
6.10.4.2. Clausal adjuncts……………………………………...367
6.10.5. Summary: Discourse accusative versus thematic accusative........368
6.11. Syntactic approaches to Case………………………………………..………370

7. DENOMINAL VERBS 373
7.1. Recapitulating Hale and Keyser (1993, 1998, 2000)………………………....374
7.1.1. Extending H&K's proposal to denominal verb formation
in Sakha……………………………………………………………….....375
7.2. Denominal LAA-verbs………………………………………………………..380
7.2.1. “Provide with N”…………………………………………...……..383
7.2.2. “Apply N (Use N as an instrument)”………………………….…..383
7.2.3. “Remove N”…………………………………………………...….383
7.2.4. “Make/Hunt/Gather N”……………………………….…………..384
7.2.5. “Look after N”………………………………………………….…384
7.2.6. “Consume N”………………………………………………...……385
7.2.7. “Imitate N; Act/Work like N”…………………………………….385
7.2.8. “Go in the direction of N”……………………………...…………385
7.2.9. “Secrete/discharge N”……………………………………...……..386
7.2.10. “Play N”………………………………………………………….386
7.2.11. Weather verbs……………………………………………..……..387
7.2.12. Summary…………………………………………………………387
7.3. Denominal verbs, arity operations and accusative case………………………388
7.3.1. Reflexivization: Lexical and syntactic bundling………………….388
7.3.1.1. Denominal verbs ending in –LA-N................................390
7.3.2. Causativization……………………………………………………392
7.3.3. Reciprocal formation………………………………………….…..392
7.4. Denominal verbs ending in suffixes other than –LAA…………….…………393
7.4.1. Sporadic suffixes………………………………………………….393
7.4.2. Productive suffixes………………………………………………..394
7.5. Unergative verbal roots and unergative verbs as √-suffix combinations……..395

8. CONCLUSIONS 399

Appendix 1: Bound roots in Sakha………………………………………………..401
Appendix 2: Root words in Sakha………………………………………..……….409
Appendix 3: Word formation in Sakha…………………………………………....413
Appendix 4: Causative/unaccusative alternation in Sakha……………………..…437
Appendix 5: n-marking in Sakha………………………………………………….445
REFERENCES 451
SAMENVATTING IN HET NEDERLANDS 463