Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:01:38.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the status of inversion in an inverse language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Ileana Paul  and
Diane Massam
Diane Massam
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article addresses inversion in an inverse (VSO) language, Niuean, focusing on two issues. First, it has been proposed that in certain types of copular sentences, such as pseudo-cleft constructions (PCCs), the predicate rather than the subject may move into the specifier position of TP. This raises the question of PCCs in a language in which the predicate normally moves there. Such sentences might exhibit their normal inverse order or the inverse of this. The second issue is what constitutes the predicate in a PCC. The headless relative (and not the DP) is usually analyzed as the predicate because, in standard theories of predication, a referential nominal cannot be a predicate. However, in Niuean PCCs, the DP is usually analyzed as the predicate. I propose that it is in fact a reduced headless relative with a null predicate. It becomes clear that there is no special copular inversion: the inversion requirement is taken care of by the general predicate-fronting process. The analysis thus sheds new light on the general nature of copular inversion and allows Niuean PCCs to fall into the standard view of predication theory.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article étudie 1’ inversion dans une langue inverse (VSO), le niuéen, et se concentre sur deux questions. D’abord, il a été proposé que dans certains types de phrases à copule, telles que les pseudo-clivées (CPC), il est possible qu’un prédicat se déplace dans le spécifieur du Syntagme Temps plutôt que le sujet. Cela soulève la question des CPC dans une langue où le prédicat se déplace par défaut dans la position sujet. De telles phrases pourraient manifester leur ordre inverse habituel ou l’inverse de celui-ci. La deuxième question porte sur le statut du prédicat dans une CPC. La relative substantive (et non le SD) est habituellement identifiée comme le prédicat parce que, selon les théories conventionnelles de la prédication, un nom référentiel ne peut être un prédicat. Cependant, dans les CPC en niuéen, le SD est habituellement analysé comme le prédicat. Dans cet article, je propose qu’il est en fait une relative substantive réduite avec un prédicat nul. Il n’y a par conséquent aucune inversion copulative spéciale : l’exigence d’inversion est satisfaite par la nature générale du processus d’antéposition du prédicat. Cette analyse nous permet donc de mieux comprendre la nature générale de l’inversion copulative et situe les CPC en niuéen dans la perspective standard de la théorie de la prédication.

Keywords

inverse word ordercopular constructionpseudo-cleftpredicationheadless relativeordre des mots inverseconstruction à copulepseudo-clivéprédicationrelative substantive
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 57 , Issue 2: Properties of predication/Proprietes de la predication , July 2012 , pp. 241 - 260
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adger, David and Ramchand, Gillian. 2003. Predication and equation. Linguistic Inquiry 34:325–359.Google Scholar
Asekona, Berry, Manamana, Harry F., Noue, Esau, and Beaumont, Clive H.. 2005. Ko e tuumaiaga he Niu [The origin of the coconut tree in Niue]. Ranui, Auckland, New Zealand: C.H. and D.J.M. Beaumont.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2003. Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
Blanc, R.R.V. and Tongakilo, (translator). 1965. Ne Toka Hifo e Kuki e Higoa haana he tau Aelani [Cook leaves his name in the islands]. Wellington: Islands Education Division, Dept. of Education, New Zealand Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1994. Locative inversion. Language 70:72–131.Google Scholar
Broschart, Jurgen. 1997. Why Tongan does it differently: Categorial distinctions in a language without nouns and verbs. Linguistic Typology 1:123–165.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, Hermon, Gabriella, and Aman, Norhaida. 2009. Headless relative clauses and wh questions in Singapore Malay. In Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life, ed. Uyechi, Linda Ann, Wee, Lian-Hee, 201–212. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).Google Scholar
Cook, Kenneth. 1999. Hawaüan he, ‘o and i: Copular verbs, prepositions or determiners? Oceanic Linguistics 38:43–65.Google Scholar
Vries, De 2006. The syntax of appositive relativization. Linguistic Inquiry 37:229–270.Google Scholar
Delorme, Evelyne and Dougherty, Ray C.. 1972. Appositive NP constructions. Foundations of Language 8:2–29.Google Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2005. Specificational copular sentences and pseudoclefts. In The Black-well companion to syntax, vol. 4, ed. Everaert, Martin and Riemsdijk, Henk van, 292–408. Amsterdam: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Den Dikken, Marcel. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inersion, and copulas. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Doron, Edit. 1994. The discourse function of appositives. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics and of the Workshop on Discourse, ed. Buchal, Rhonna, and Mittwoch, Anita, 53–62. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean. 1979. The linguistic description of opaque contexts. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Gorrie, Colin, Kellner, Alexandra, and Massam, Diane. 2010. Determiners in Niuean. Australian Journal of Linguistics 30:349–366.Google Scholar
Halitsky, David. 1974. Deep Structure Appositive and Complement NPs. Language 50:446–455.Google Scholar
Heggie, Lorie. 1988. The syntax of copular constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Herd, Jonathon, Macdonald, Catherine, and Massam, Diane. 2011. Genitive relative constructions in Polynesian. Lingua 121:1252–1264.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 1991. Layers of predication: The non-lexical syntax of clauses. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. Layers of predication and the syntax of the copula. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 7:95–123.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline and Kroch, Anthony. 1999. Pseudocleft Connectedness: Implications for the LF interface level. Linguistic Inquiry 30:365–397.Google Scholar
Higgins, Roger. 1973. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).Google Scholar
Kaulima, Aiao and Beaumont, Clive H.. 2002. Learning Niuean [Tohi Ako Vagahau Niue]. Combined ed. Ranui, , Auckland, New Zealand: C.H. and D.J.M. Beaumont.Google Scholar
Law, Paul. 2005. Questions and clefts in Malagasy. In UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics: Proceedings of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA) 12, ed. Heinz, Jeffrey and Ntelitheos, Dimitris, 195–209. Los Angeles: UCLA Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
Paul, Law 2007. The syntactic structure of the cleft construction in Malagasy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25:765–823.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2000. VSO is VOS: Aspects of Niuean word order. In The syntax of verb initial languages, ed. Carnie, Andrew and Guilfoyle, Eithne, 97–117. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2001a. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19:153–197.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2001b. On predication and the status of subjects in Niuean. In Objects and other subjects, ed. Davies, William and Dubinsky, Stanley, 225–246. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2003. Questions and the left periphery in Niuean. In Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics: Proceedings of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA) 19, ed. Riehl, Anastasia and Savella, Thess, 94–106. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2010a. VI or V2? On the left in Niuean. Lingua 120:284–302.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane. 2010b. Deriving inverse movement. In Austronesian and Theoretical Linguistics, ed. Mercado, Raphael, Potsdam, Eric, and Travis, Lisa, 271–296. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane, Lee, Josephine, and Rolle, Nicholas. 2006. Still a preposition: The category of ko. Te Reo Journal of the New Zealand Linguistics Association 49:3–38.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1990. There-raising: Principles across levels. Paper presented at the 13th Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW) colloquium, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 1997. The raising of predicates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Niue: A History of the Island. 1982. Published jointly by the Institute of Pacific Studies of the University of the South Pacific and the Government of Niue, Alofi, Niue.Google Scholar
Oda, Kenji. 2005. VI and wh-questions: A typology. In Verb first: On the syntax of verb-initial languages, ed. Carnie, Andrew, Harley, Heidi, and Dooley, Sheila Ann, 107–134. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins.Google Scholar
Paul, Ileana. 2001. Concealed Pseudo-clefts. Lingua 111:707–727.Google Scholar
Paul, Ileana. 2008. On the topic of pseudoclefts. Syntax 11:91–124.Google Scholar
Potsdam, Eric. 2006. The cleft structure of Malagasy wh-questions. In Clause structure and adjuncts in Austronesian languages, ed. Gaertner, Hans-Martin, Law, Paul, and Sabel, Joachim, 195–232.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Potsdam, Eric and Polinsky, Maria. 2011. Questions and word order in Polynesian. In textit-Topics in Oceanic morphosyntax, ed. Moyse-Faurie, Claire and Sabel, Joachim, 107–134. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 1995. Small clauses and copular constructions. In Small clauses, ed. Cardinaletti, Anna and Guasti, Maria-Teresa, 27–48. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sabel, Joachim. 2003. Malagasy as an optional multiple wh-extracting language. In Mulitple wh-fronting, ed. Boeckx, Cedric and Grohmann, Kleanthes, 229–254.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Seiter, William. 1980. Studies in Niuean syntax. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1983. Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 26:423–446.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1990. Pseudoclefts and the order of the logic of English. Linguistic Inquiry 21:485–189.Google Scholar