130 research outputs found
A Featural Typology of Bantu Agreement
The Bantu languages are in some sense remarkably uniform (SVO basic word order, noun classes, verbal morphology), but this extensive language family also show a wealth of morphosyntactic variation. Two core areas in which such variation is attested are subject and object agreement. The book explores the variation in Bantu subject and object marking on the basis of data from 75 Bantu languages, discovering striking patterns (the RANDOM and the AWSOM correlation), and providing a novel syntactic analysis. This analysis takes into account not just phi agreement, but also nominal licensing and information structure. A Person feature, associated with animacy, definiteness, or givenness, is shown to be responsible for differential object agreement, while at the same time accounting for doubling vs. non-doubling object marking – a hybrid solution to an age-old debate in Bantu comparative morphosyntax. It is furthermore proposed that low functional heads can Case-license flexibly downwards or upwards, depending on the relative topicality of the two arguments involved. This accounts for the properties of symmetric object marking in ditransitives (for Appl), and subject inversion constructions (for v). By keeping Agree constant and systematically determining which featural parameters are responsible for the attested variation, the proposed analysis argues for an emergentist view of features and parameters (following Biberauer 2018, 2019), and against both Strong Uniformity and Strong Modularity
A Featural Typology of Bantu Agreement
The Bantu languages are in some sense remarkably uniform (SVO basic word order, noun classes, verbal morphology), but this extensive language family also show a wealth of morphosyntactic variation. Two core areas in which such variation is attested are subject and object agreement. The book explores the variation in Bantu subject and object marking on the basis of data from 75 Bantu languages, discovering striking patterns (the RANDOM and the AWSOM correlation), and providing a novel syntactic analysis. This analysis takes into account not just phi agreement, but also nominal licensing and information structure. A Person feature, associated with animacy, definiteness, or givenness, is shown to be responsible for differential object agreement, while at the same time accounting for doubling vs. non-doubling object marking – a hybrid solution to an age-old debate in Bantu comparative morphosyntax. It is furthermore proposed that low functional heads can Case-license flexibly downwards or upwards, depending on the relative topicality of the two arguments involved. This accounts for the properties of symmetric object marking in ditransitives (for Appl), and subject inversion constructions (for v). By keeping Agree constant and systematically determining which featural parameters are responsible for the attested variation, the proposed analysis argues for an emergentist view of features and parameters (following Biberauer 2018, 2019), and against both Strong Uniformity and Strong Modularity
A typology of Bantu subject inversion
This study charts variation in subject inversion constructions in Bantu languages. It distinguishes between seven types of inversion constructions: formal locative inversion, semantic locative inversion, instrument inversion, patient inversion, (clausal) complement inversion, default agreement inversion and agreeing inversion. Based on a set of nine surface variables, a matrix of inversion constructions is developed which identifies characteristics of the set of constructions overall as well as of each individual construction type. The distribution of the different inversion constructions is documented with reference to a sample of 46 Bantu languages, from which geographical and typological generalisations are drawn. For example, languages with instrument inversion or with patient inversion always have locative inversion (but not vice versa), or if a language has at least one inversion construction, it always has at least either default agreement inversion or agreeing inversion. Finally, underlying parameters potentially accounting for the variation are discussed, such as the status of preverbal locatives as DP or PP, the agreement parameter and the syntactic and thematic restrictions on the preverbal element.Lutz Marten’s part of this research has benefitted from a British Academy UK-Africa
Academic Partnership Scheme grant for ‘Language and Linguistic Studies of Southern
African Languages’, and Jenneke van der Wal’s part is funded by the European Research
Council Advanced Grant No. 269752 ‘Rethinking Comparative Syntax’, both of which
are hereby gratefully acknowledged. Earlier version of this paper were presented to
audiences at Durban, Lyon, Manchester, Paris, SOAS, and Surrey and we are grateful for 61
helpful comments and suggestions received on these occasions as well as from Oliver
Bond, Leston Buell, Thilo Schadeberg, Oliver Stegen, Jochen Zeller and two anonymous
referees. For information about specific languages we are grateful to Leston Buell (Zulu),
Jean Chavula (Tumbuka), Denis Creissels (Tswana), Maud Devos (Makwe and
Shangaci), Yussuf Hamad (Swahili), David Iorio (Bembe), Langa Khumalo (Ndebele),
Ahmed Kipacha (Swahili), Heidrun Kröger (Mozambican Ngoni), Nancy Kula (Bemba),
Michael Marlo (Tiriki), Ferdinand Mberamihigo (Kirundi), Peter Muriungi (Kîîtharaka),
Minah Nabirye (Lusoga), Jean Paul Ngoboka (Kinyarwanda), Steve Nicolle (Digo), Malin
Petzell (Kagulu), Eva-Marie Ström (Ndengereko), Nobuko Yoneda (Matengo), and
Jochen Zeller (Zulu). All mistakes and shortcomings remain our own.This is the accepted manuscript of a paper published in Linguistic Variation 14:2. 2014. iii, 189 pp. (pp. 318–368), DOI: 10.1075/lv.14.2.04ma
Nominal licensing in caseless languages
This paper provides evidence for a kind of nominal licensing (Vergnaud licensing) in a number of morphologically caseless languages. Recent work on Bantu languages, has suggested that abstract Case or nominal licensing should be parameterised (Diercks 2012, Van der Wal 2015a). With this is mind, we critically discuss the status of Vergnaud licensing in six languages lacking morphological case and agreement. While Luganda appears to systematically lack a Vergnaud licensing requirement, Makhuwa more consistently displays evidence in favour of it, as do all of the analytic languages that we survey (Mandarin, Yoruba, Jamaican Creole and Thai). We conclude that, while it seems increasingly problematic to characterise nominal licensing in terms of uninterpretable/abstract Case features, we nonetheless need to retain a (possibly universal) notion of nominal licensing, the explanation for which remains opaque
Recommended from our members
The long and short of verb alternations in Mauritian Creole and Bantu languages
AbstractMauritian Creole displays an alternation between a short and a long form of the verb, which is reminiscent of the conjoint–disjoint alternation found in some eastern Bantu languages. Based on comparison with other French-based creoles and socio-historical evidence, we conclude that the Bantu substrate must have had an impact on the grammatical system of Mauritian Creole. We compare the synchronic properties of the alternations in Mauritian Creole and the most likely substrate Bantu languages of northern Mozambique and examine two possible scenarios for the influence of Bantu on the Mauritian verbal alternation, concluding that probably only the (syntactic) basics of the Bantu alternation motivated the persistence of the alternation in Mauritian Creole.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from De Gruyter via http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/flin-2015-000
Recommended from our members
Diagnosing focus
Many tests have been used in eliciting focus constructions and determining what type of focus a certain linguistic strategy expresses. This paper provides an overview of the various diagnostics for focus, indicating how they show the size of the focused constituent and what semantic-pragmatic type of focus is expressed. These types range from simple pragmatic focus to semantically more complex focus, signalling exclusivity or exhaustivity either as an inherent semantic part of the focus, or merely an implicature. The discussion of these diagnostics brings to light how some diagnostics are flawed, and whether the linguistic strategy tested is actually a dedicated strategy for focus at all.This paper is part of the research project ‘Rethinking Comparative Syntax’, funded by the European Research Council Advanced Grant No. 269752.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from the John Benjamins Publishing Company via https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.40.2.01va
Mirativity and evidentiality in Bantu: An Introduction
This special issue addresses how evidentiality and mirativity are expressed in various Bantu languages. Both the notions of evidentiality and mirativity remain underexamined for the Bantu languages – the following quote is quite typical: “It appears that expressing evidentiality as a verbal affix or clitic is the most common strategy
Movement from the double object construction is not fully symmetrical
A movement asymmetry arises in some languages that are otherwise symmetrical for both A- and A-bar movement in the double object construction (DOC), including Norwegian, North-West British English, and a range of Bantu languages including Zulu and Lubukusu: a Theme object can be A-bar-moved out of a Recipient (Goal) passive, but not vice versa. Our explanation of this asymmetry is based on phase theory, more specifically a stricter version of the Phase Interpretability Condition proposed by Chomsky (2001). The effect is that, in a Theme passive, a Recipient object destined for the C-domain gets trapped within the lower V-related phase by movement of the Theme. The same effect is observed in Italian, a language in which only Theme passives are possible. Moreover, a similar effect is also found in some Bantu languages in connection with object marking/agreement: object agreement with the Theme in a Recipient passive is possible, but not vice versa. We show that this, too, can be understood within the theory that we articulate
Preface
1. The issue The present special issue is developed from a workshop entitled Bantu Universals and Variation at the 10th World Congress of African Linguistics (WOCAL10) held online at Leiden University in June 2021. It includes a selection of papers presented at the workshop, as well as papers submitted in response to an open call for papers. The resultant special issue brings together new perspectives on universals and variation in the Bantu language family, with regards to morphosyntax, sema..
- …