Schultze-Berndt, Eva

English

The formal and functional analysis of split (discontinuous) noun phrases continues to be a matter of debate (see e.g. De Kuthy 2002, van Hoof 2005, Fanselow &amp; Fery 2006, Fery 2006). Some approaches "save" constituency in an underlying structure by assuming move¬ment out of a phrase. Others assume base-generation of two (elliptical) phrases, or generation of identical copies of (non-elliptical) NPs with subsequent elision (Fanselow &amp; Ćavar 2002). Some recent analyses have evolved mainly to account for a phenomenon of "split topicali¬zation", encountered e.g. in German and in some Slavic languages, where the first part of the "split NP" quite clearly assumes the discourse function of topic, and the second part the function of focus, as in (1). (1) Bohnen mag er nur grüne German bean:PL likes he only green:PL ‘As for beans, he likes only green ones.’ (van Hoof 2005) Similar analyses have been proposed by McGregor (1997) and Merlan (1994: 242) for the Australia languages Gooniyandi and Wardaman. This fits in with earlier generalisations about split NPs in Australian languages according to which the first nominal element tends to be semantically more generic and the second more specific (see Blake 2001). The assumption of two distinct phrases does indeed seem plausible for such structures with different information structure values. In this paper, I will argue, based on analysis of first-hand data, that split NPs are also employ-ed in at least some Northern Australian languages to mark the annuntiative or presen¬tational subtype of thetic (all-new) clauses, which serve to alert the hearer to the presence of an entity not previously part of the discourse. This can be illustrated with the out-of-the-blue utterances in (2) and (3). (2) jurrwumurlung gurdij garra-ny garndi Ngarinyman (Ngumpin; Pama-Ny.) long stand be-NPST tree ‘there is a tall tree standing up’ (3) burdaj ga-ram=ngardi gujugu Jaminjung (Mirndi; Non-Pama-Ny.) wind 3sg-come.PRS=SENT.FOC big ‘a big wind is coming! This is a function not recognised in the literature on split NPs so far. It also adds a so far un¬documented strategy to the cross-linguistic strategies for the marking of theticity identified by Sasse (1987, 2006), such as verb-fronting, subject accenting, and clefting. Sasse argues that these strategies are iconic in that they prevent the default assignment of a topic-comment structure to the clause in question. I will argue that the occurrence of split NPs in thetic clauses is motivated in the same way: the splitting of the noun phrase and its distribution to both sides of the predicate prevents the division of the clause into a coherent topic and a distinct comment. This strategy is possible for annuntiative thetic clauses because in announc¬ing the presence of an entity not previously part of the discourse, more often than not a speci¬fic property of that entity is being pointed out, such as the length of the tree in (2) and the strength of the wind in (3), so that more than one nominal is available. Other subtypes of thetic clauses are marked in other ways which remain to be explored more fully, e.g., in Jaminjung, solely by means of the sentence focus clitic also illustrated in (3). The phenomenon just described also provides new evidence against an analysis of all split NPs as two coreferential phrases. It will be proposed that a surface- and construction-based analysis is best suited to capture this particular phenomenon, along the lines of McGregor (1997) and Croft (2001, 2006), who argue for a separation of semantic dependency and hierarchical configuration. In this particular case, the discontinuity – which despite the non-configurational character of the languages in question is highly marked in terms of frequency – is licenced by the occurrence in a larger construction, the annuntiative thetic clause. References Blake, Barry, 2001. The noun phrase in Australian languages. In Jane Simpson, David Nash, Mary Laughren, Peter Austin and Barry Alpher (eds) Forty years on: Ken Hale and Australian languages, 415-425. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Croft, William, 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Croft, William, 2006. A Radical Construction Grammar analysis of noun phrase structure. (7th Meeting of the High Desert Linguistic Society, Albuquerque, 2006). http://www.unm.edu/~wcroft/Papers/HDLS7-06M.pdf De Kuthy, Kordula (2002) Discontinuous NPs in German. A Case Study of the Interaction of Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Fanselow, Gisbert and Damir Ćavar 2002. Distributed deletion. In Alexiadou, Artemis (ed.), Theoretical Approaches to Universals. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 65–107. Fanselow, Gisbert and Caroline Féry, 2006. Prosodic and Morphosyntactic Aspects of Discontinuous Noun Phrases: a Comparative Perspective. University of Potsdam. http://www.sfb632.uni-potsdam.de/ homes/fery/NeuePapiere/SplitTypol.pdf Féry, Caroline, 2006. The Prosody of Topicalization. In Schwabe, Kerstin &amp; Susanne Winkler (eds.) On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins: 69-86. McGregor, William B. 1997. Functions of noun phrase discontinuity in Gooniyandi. Functions of Language 4: 83-114. Merlan, Francesca. 1994. A grammar of Wardaman. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen, 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511-580. Sasse, Hans-Jürgen, 2006. Theticity. In G. Bernini and M.L. Schwarz (eds.), Pragmatic Organization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 255-308. van Hoof, Hanneke (2005). Split Topicalization. In M. Everaert &amp; H. van Riemsdijk (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. London: Blackwel

The University of Manchester - Institutional Repository

The University of Manchester ResearchDiscontinuous noun phrases as an iconic strategy ofmarking thetic clauses.Link to publication record in Manchester Research ExplorerCitation for published version (APA):Schultze-Berndt, E. (2008). Discontinuous noun phrases as an iconic strategy of marking thetic clauses. In Syntaxof the World's Languages III, BerlinPublished in:Syntax of the World's Languages III, BerlinCiting this paperPlease note that where the full-text provided on Manchester Research Explorer is the Author Accepted Manuscriptor Proof version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use thepublisher's definitive version.General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Explorer are retained by theauthors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise andabide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.Takedown policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please refer to the University of Manchester’s TakedownProcedures [http://man.ac.uk/04Y6Bo] or contact uml.scholarlycommunications@manchester.ac.uk providingrelevant details, so we can investigate your claim.Download date:09. Jun. 2022DISCONTINUOUS NOUN PHRASES AS AN ICONICSTRATEGY OF MARKING THETIC CLAUSESSyntax of the World's Languages III, Berlin, 28 Sept. 2008Eva Schultze-Berndt, University of Manchestereva.schultze-berndt@manchester.ac.uk1. IntroductionThe existence of discontinuous NPs challenges the very nature of  syntacticmodels which are based on a strictly hierarchical arrangement of constituents. Ina functional-typological perspective, they are also puzzling since they violate aprinciple of diagrammatic iconicity first formulated by Behaghel (1932: 4), andrephrased below (Givón 1990: 970): “Entities that are closer together functionally, conceptually, or cognitively willbe placed closer together at the code level, i.e. temporally or spatially.“ There are two popular solutions for dealing with this dilemma: a) The language in question is denied a phrasal NP level altogether, i.e. it iscalled “non-configurational” or “flat” – this is still a widely held view aboutAustralian languages, even though “nonconfigurationality” has turned outnot to be tenable as a single parameter (Austin & Bresnan 1996).The  existence  in  Warlpiri  of  discontinuous  expressions  –  in  particular,discontinuous  nominal  expressions  (...)  –  can  also  be  seen,  in  part,  as  afunction  of  free  lexical  insertion.  (...)  It  happens  that  Warlpiri  sentencesformed in this way receive coherent interpretations, including ones in whichthe syntactically separate nominals constitute single composite expressionsin logical form.  (Hale 1983: 9)In cases of apparent discontinuity [as opposed to true discontinuity, ESB] theconstituent in question is  not  part  of  an integral  NP. Instead,  it  can be areferring expression that has an appositional relationship with another NP,as in e.g. the Australian languages referred to above (...).  (Rijkhoff 2002: 256)b) Faced with languages where the existence of a phrasal constituent NPcannot be disputed, various theoretical approaches to discontinuousstructures are currently converging in finding functional motivations fortheir occurrence, e.g. different information structure values for thecoreferential nominals – iconically reflected in formal separation (De Kuthy2002, van Hoof 2005; for Australian languages McGregor 1997, Merlan 1994: 242).1(1) Bohnen mag er nur grüne. (German)bean:PL likes he only green:PL‘As for beans, he likes only green ones.’ (Van Hoof 2005)In this paper, I will argue for the Northern Australian language Jaminjung that  it has true NPs, and discontinuous NPs distinct from “appositionalstructures” discontinuous NPs have a function not previously recognised in theliterature on split NPs or information structure: that of marking a specialsubtype of thetic clauses the motivation for this function is ultimately also iconic2. Noun phrases in Jaminjung2.1. Background information Spoken in the Victoria River District, inthe north-west of the Northern Territory “Jaminjung”  short for Jaminjung andNgaliwurru, two closely related varieties Sole varieties still spoken in the Westernbranch of the Mindi language family(Non-Pama-Nyungan); no closely relatedlanguagesHighly endangered: at most 100 speakers todayMain typological characteristics:Head + dependent marking of core argumentsErgative-Absolutive case system (Absolutive unmarked, not glossed in examples)Pragmatically conditioned word orderAround 35 inflecting, generic verbs with classificatory function"Northern Australian style" (Schultze-Berndt 2000, 2003; McGregor 2002)2.2. Continuous noun phrasesCoreferential nominals in contiguity are the unmarked case in terms of textfrequency (thus iconicity principles are valid in Australia too!). They can beanalysed as a single phrase, on the grounds of  prosodic contiguity: no pause and no boundary contour intervenes betweenthe nominals (prosodic phrases are currently being investigated by ongoing PhDresearch by Candide Simard)2 Word order restrictions: a demonstrative determiner may precede or follow ahead noun but always precedes a qualifying nominal (which itself mayprecede or follow). the possibility of phrase-level case marking (ex. 2) (as well as repetition ofcase-marking in agreement, ex. (3))(2) [ngarrgina marlayi] thanthu1sg:POSS woman DEMnyilng ganma [ngarrgina-ni mugurla]promise.wife 3sg>1sg-hit.PST 1sg:POSS-ERG aunt'That is my woman, my aunt promised her to me!' (Kriol: main anti bintelim mi promis, thets mai waif). (fictitious argument between a man andhis rival) [DP/ES97_A02_03](3) [bulgarding-ni ngarrgina-ni] gan-ijja-ny \ .. yangarra \father-ERG 1sg:POSS-ERG 3sg>3sg-spear-PST kangaroojungguwurru gan-angu \  .. malajagu \echidna 3sg>3sg-get.PST     goanna'My father speared this (for you), the kangaroo; he (also) got an echidna,and a goanna.' (quotation in a narrative about traditional ways)[VP/ES99_V01_06a]2.3. Dislocated structuresDislocated structures are defined here in prosodic terms, as coreferentialnominals or nominal structures which are separated by a pause / boundarycontour (ex. 4; see also yangarra 'kangaroo' in (3)). (4) lubayi yirramaya ngiyiwula \ .. guju-gujugu \many 1pl.excl>3sg-have-PRS DEM REDUP-big'we have many (of them) here, big ones' [IP/ES97_A03_01](a comment on the occurrence of a rat-like species in the area.)2.4. True discontinuous NPsTrue discontinuous NPs are found within one and the same intonation unit (seealso McGregor 1997). (5) lilaj yirr-inyji::: \swim 1pl.excl-go.IMPFmangarra yirra-mila buj-ngarna yinawurla=biyang .. wayidaplant.food 1pl.excl>3sg-get.IMPF bush-ASSOC DEM:DIR=NOW bush.yamwarnmala=gun mangarra \ warnbud \bush.yam plant.food paddy.melon'We used to swim across, and we used to get bush tucker over there – bushyam, bush yam (is the) plant, and paddy melon.'  [VP/ES99_V01_06a]33. Jaminjung discontinuous NPs in annuntiative utterancesAnnuntiative: “out-of-the-blue” statement, “announcing” a stateof affairs, or alerting the addressee to the existence or appearanceof an entity not previously present in the universe of discourse(see further Section 4 below).Discontinuous NPs are used recurrently (though not exclusively) in such annun-tiative contexts by Jaminjung speakers (but are rarely recorded ...). The NP al-ways consists of two nominals, denoting a quality/quantity and an entity,respectively, in either order. Fig. 1: Representation of the “annuntiative discontinuous NP” construction Form N1iEntity ORquality/quantityPredicate(existence orappearance)N2iQuality/quantityOR entityConstr. Meaning Alerting the addressee to the presence of a new entity inthe discourse universe while highlighting a special qualityof the participantExamples(6) gujugu ga-ram motika thanthiyabig 3sg-come.PRS car DEM:ADV'a big car is coming there!' [overheard, ER:ESB:12/05/2008](Context: out-of-the-blue utterance uttered by the speaker in the passengerseat when  spotting a truck coming towards us.)(7) warrgad ga-ram=yirrag mayilong 3sg-come.PRS man'a tall man is coming for us!' (Context: spontaneous exampleillustrating warrgad 'long, tall' during elicitation of size expressions.)(8) “burduj ba-jga gabardaggo.up IMP-go quickburdaj ga-ram=ngardi gujugu! yaniny-ma!”wind 3sg-come.PRS=SENT.FOC big IRR-3sg>2sg-hityirriyu=nu=biyang1pl.excl>3SG-say/do.PST=3sg.OBL=NOW‘“Climb up quickly! A big wind is coming! It might hit us!” we said to her'[IP/ES97_A03_10] (quotation within a narrative)4(9) [yina mawarn ga-ram!]DIST cloud 3sg-come.PRSmawarn=gun yina ga-yu murrguncloud=CONTR DIST 3sg-be.PRS three‘[there are clouds coming ... ], there are three clouds.’ [DP/ES99_V02_01](Context: out-of-the-blue utterance by Speaker 1 upon noticing threeclouds in the sky in the middle of the dry season. The utterance in bracketsoverlaps with an utterance about an unrelated matter (Speaker 2)).4. An iconic motivation for “annuntiative discontinuous NPs”:marking of sentence focus (theticity) The “annuntiative” utterances illustrated in Section 3 constitute a subtypeof “sentence focus” / “all-new” / “thetic” clauses (Sasse 2006: 281-284).4.1. Theticity defined In sentence focus (“thetic”) structures, assertion and focus coincide; “nopragmatic presupposition is formally evoked” (Lambrecht 1994: 233). Thismay mean, but does not necessarily mean, that participants and the eventitself that is discussed are “new”, i.e. not identifiable by the hearer.Main functions of sentence focus / thetic utterances (Sasse 1987, 2006)Annuntiative Out-of-the-blue utterances, exclamations, headlinesIntroductive Introduction of new discourse topic / new referentsInterruptive Event which interrupts “normal” topic chain; sudden eventDescriptive Scene-setting – existential or related verbExplanative Answer to the question “what happened”; explanation ofpreceding discourse context or non-linguistic situation Sentence focus (“thetic”) constructions universally tend to be maximallydifferent formally from the much more frequent topic-comment (“predicatefocus”, “categorical”) constructions. In contrast, formal overlap with otherconstructions – e.g. narrow focus constructions – seems to be tolerated (seeKuroda 1972, Sasse 1987, 1995, 2006, Lambrecht 1994:235, 2000).Categorical  utterances  are  said  to  be  bipartite  predications,  involving  apredication  base,  the  entity  about  which  the  predication  is  made,  and  apredicate, which says something about the predication base. In other words,one of the arguments of the predicate is picked out as a “topic” in the literal5sense, namely, an object about which something is asserted. Thetic utterances,on the other hand, are monomial predications (...); no argument is picked outas a predication base; the entire situation, including all of its participants, isasserted as a unitary whole. (…) [T]his notional difference is often reflected“iconically” in the formal structure of the two types of utterances, whatevermechanism a language uses to express the distinction.  (Sasse 1995: 4-5)  The formal correlates of theticity attested cross-linguistically (and alsowithin individual languages) are rather heterogeneous, but all aremaximally different from topic-comment structures, and iconically reflectthe “monomial” nature of thetic clauses.4.2.  Cross-linguistically attested formal correlates of the thetic-categoricaldistinctionTable 1. Frequent structures found in categorical and thetic statements (Sasse 1987, 2006)Topic-Comment(categorical)Sentence focus (thetic) ExampleAccent Accent on constituentwithin predicateAccented subject (10)Word order SV(X) VS, XVS  (12) Subject incorporationTopic Topic marking No topic (13)Special constr. “Unmarked” Split structure (cleft), Expletive subject (14)(11)Nr of arguments Several argumentexpressions possibleUsually only one overtargument (monoargu-mentality)Subject accent vs. predicate accent (German and English)(10a) (Warum bist du so spät? / Why are you late?)Das TELefon hat geklingelt / The PHONE rang “thetic”Mein AUTO ist kaputt / My CAR broke downNB. Subject-accented clauses can receive a sentence-focus or (narrow) argumentfocus interpretation (e.g. as a reply to the question Did your motorcycle breakdown?) – see Lambrecht (1994, 2000).    (b) (Was ist denn mit deinem Auto? / What's wrong with your car?)Es verliert ÖL / It's losing OIL. “categorical”6Expletive subjects (German and English)(11a) Es regnet / It's raining “thetic”    (b) Es waren viele Linguisten eingeladen “thetic”'Many LINGUISTS were invited'    (c) There were many LINGUISTS in the room “thetic”    (d) Many linguists skipped the morning session “categorical”Verb-initial vs. subject-initial word order (Modern Greek)(12a) Xtipise to tilefono “thetic”rang ART telephone'The PHONE rang’   (b) To tilefono xtipise “categorical”'The phone RANG’ (Sasse 1987)Absence vs. presence of topic marker wa (Japanese)(13a) Inu ga hassit-te iru “thetic”dog NOM run-CONV is'There is a dog running’    (b) Inu wa hassit-te iru “categorical”'A/the dog is running’ (Sasse 1987: 538)Presentational/cleft constructions (Modern spoken French)(14a) Voilà la sirène qui hurle. “thetic”there.it.is DEF sirene REL wail‘The SIRENE is wailing' (lit.: 'That’s the sirene that’s wailing’)    (b) Que se passe-t-il? – Le chat qui est tombé par la fenêtre.DEF cat REL AUX fallen through DEF window‘What’s happening? –The CAT has fallen out of the window’ (Sasse 1987: 563)4.3.  Discontinuous NPs as a further strategy of marking sentence focus? The strategies of marking sentence focus illustrated above are iconic in thesense that they remove from its position, or mark in an unusual way, thetypical candidate for topic assignment (the subject). By preventing thedefault assignment of a topic-comment structure to the sentence in question,they underline the monolithic character of the structure and facilitateassignment of focus to the sentence as a whole. 7 Arguably, the occurrence of split NPs in sentence focus utterances ismotivated in the same way: framing the predicate with the two nominalelements signals the monolithic, “all-new” character of the sentence:distributing the information about the discourse participant in this waymakes it a less likely target for topic assignment. In other words, thestructure is iconically motivated. Discontinuous NPs thus constitute a further strategy of marking sentencefocus that has not previously been described in the literature. This strategy is possible in annuntiative clauses because in announcing thepresence of an entity not previously part of the discourse, often a specificproperty of that entity is being pointed out, such as the size of the car in (2)and the strength of the wind in (4) – thus, more than one nominal isavailable.  It is however to be expected that languages employing this strategy alsohave other strategies at their disposal (in Jaminjung e.g. a sentence-focusclitic, illustrated in (4)) In a thetic structure, all constituents are equally in the scope of the focus, sothere is less motivation for an analysis as distinct, coreferential phrases thanin the case of split constructions with different information structure valuesof the nominal constituents (as in (1)). The annuntiative construction couldprofitably be described in a construction-based framework that separatessemantic dependency and hierarchical configuration (McGregor 1997, Croft2001, 2006), where the discontinuity is licenced by the occurrence in a largerconstruction, the  thetic clause (as in Fig. 1).8ReferencesAustin, Peter & Joan Bresnan, 1996. Non-Configurationality in Australian AboriginalLanguages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 215–268.Behaghel, Otto, 1932. Deutsche Syntax: eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Vol IV:Wortstellung-Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Croft,  William,  2001.  Radical  Construction  Grammar:  Syntactic  Theory  in  TypologicalPerspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Croft, William, 2006. A Radical Construction Grammar analysis of noun phrasestructure. High Desert Linguistic Society, Albuquerque.[www.unm.edu/~wcroft/Papers/HDLS7-06M.pdf]De Kuthy, Kordula, 2002. Discontinuous NPs in German. A Case Study of the Interaction ofSyntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications.ĆFanselow, Gisbert and Damir avar, 2002. Distributed Deletion. In A. Alexiadou (ed.),Theoretical Approaches to Universals. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 65–109.Givón, Talmy, 1990. Syntax. A functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Hale, Ken, 1983. Warlpiri and the Grammar of Non-Configurational Languages.Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 5–47.Kuroda, S.-Y., 1972. The categorical and the thetic judgment. Evidence from Japanesesyntax. Foundations of Language 9: 153-185.Lambrecht, Knud, 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus and the mentalrepresentations of discourse referents. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Lambrecht, Knud, 2000. When subjects behave like objects: an analysis of the mergingof S and O in sentence-focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language24(3): 611-682.McGregor, William B., 1997. Functions of noun phrase discontinuity in Gooniyandi.Functions of Language 4: 83-114. McGregor, William, 2002. Verb classification in Australian languages. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.Merlan, Francesca, 1994. A grammar of Wardaman. Berlin: Mouton.Rijkhoff, Jan, 2002. The Noun Phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Sasse, Hans-Jürgen, 1987. The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics 25: 511-580.Sasse, Hans-Jürgen, 1995. Theticity and VS order: a case study. Sprachtypologie undUniversalienforschung (STUF) 48,1/2: 3-31.Sasse, Hans-Jürgen, 2006. Theticity. In G. Bernini & M. Schwarz (eds.), PragmaticOrganization of Discourse in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton, 255-308.Schultze-Berndt,  Eva,  2000. Simple  and  complex  verbs  in  Jaminjung:  A  study  of  eventcategorisation in an Australian language. Nijmegen: MPI Series in Psycholinguistics.Van Hoof,  Hanneke,  2005.  Split  Topicalization.  In  M.  Everaert  & H.  van Riemsdijk(eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. London: Blackwell.9

Discontinuous noun phrases as an iconic strategy of marking thetic clauses.

https://pure.manchester.ac.uk/ws/files/32380504/FULL_TEXT.PDF

Discontinuous noun phrases as an iconic strategy of marking thetic clauses.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

The University of Manchester - Institutional Repository