Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:55:03.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Symmetrical objects in Moro: Challenges and solutions1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2015

FARRELL ACKERMAN ,
ROBERT MALOUF  and
JOHN MOORE
FARRELL ACKERMAN*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
ROBERT MALOUF*
Affiliation:
San Diego State University
JOHN MOORE*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
*
Author’s address: Department of Linguistics, University of California,San Diego,0108, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla,CA 92093-0108, USA fackerman@ucsd.edu
Author’s address: Department of Linguistics and Asian/Middle Eastern Languages, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego,CA 92182-7727, USA rmalouf@mail.sdsu.edu
Author’s address: Department of Linguistics, University of California,San Diego,0108, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla,CA 92093-0108, USA moorej@ucsd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the syntactic and semantic behavior of object arguments in Moro, a Kordofanian language spoken in central Sudan. In particular, we focus on multiple object constructions (ditransitives, applicatives, and causatives) and show that these objects exhibit symmetrical syntactic behavior; e.g., any object can passivize or be realized as an object marker, and all can do so simultaneously. Moreover, we demonstrate that each object can bear any of the non-agentive roles in a verb’s semantic role inventory and that the resulting ambiguities are an entailment of symmetrical object constructions of the type found in Moro. Previous treatments of symmetrical languages have assumed a syntactic asymmetry between multiple objects and have developed theoretical analyses that treat symmetrical behaviors as departures from an asymmetrical basic organization of clausal syntax. We take a different approach: we develop a Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar account that allows a partial ordering of the argument structure (arg-st) list. The guiding idea is that languages differ with respect to the organization of their arg-st lists and their consequences for grammatical function realization: there is no privileged encoding, but there is large variation within the parameters defined by arg-st organization. This accounts directly for the symmetrical behaviors of multiple objects. We also show how this approach can be extended to account for certain asymmetrical behaviors in Moro.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , 01 February 2017 , pp. 3 - 50
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Ackerman, Farrell. 1992. Complex predicates and morpholexical relatedness: Locative alternations in Hungarian. In Sag, Ivan A. & Szabolcsi, Anna (eds.), Lexical matters, 55–83. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell. 2009. Affix ordering and the morphosyntax of object marking in Moro. Invited talk, LFG 2009. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280742401_Affix_Ordering_and_the_Morphosyntax_of_Object_Marking_in_Moro.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell & Moore, John. 1999. Syntagmatic and paradigmatic dimensions of causee encodings. Linguistics and Philosophy 22, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell & Moore, John. 2001. Proto-properties and grammatical encoding: A correspondence theory of argument selection. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell & Moore, John. 2013. Objects in Moro. In Schadeberg & Blench (eds.), 83–104.Google Scholar
Alsina, Alex. 1996. The role of argument structure in grammar: Evidence from Romance. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Alsina, Alex. 2001. On the non-semantic nature of argument structure. Language Sciences 23, 355–389.Google Scholar
Alsina, Alex & Mchombo, Sam A.. 1993. Object asymmetries and the Chicheŵa applicative construction. In Mchombo, Sam A. (ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, 17–45. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Aranovich, Raúl & Runner, Jeffrey T.. 2001. Diathesis alternations and rule interaction in the lexicon. In Megerdoomian, K. & Bar-el, L. A. (eds.), WCCFL 20, 15–28. Somervile, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Arka, I. Wayan & Wechsler, Stephen. 1996. Argument structure and linear order in Balinese binding. Paper presented at the Workshop of Lexical-Functional Grammar. Grenoble, August 26–28.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1996. On the structural position of themes and goals. In Rooryck, Johan & Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon, 7–34. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2005. Towards a semantic analysis of argument/oblique alternations in HPSG. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), 12th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 28–48. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Beavers, John. 2006. Argument/oblique alternations and the structure of lexical meaning. Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Beck, David. 2006. Control of agreement in multi-object constructions in Upper Necaxa Totonac. In Fujimori, Atsushi, Silva, Maria & Reis, Amelia (eds.), The 11th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in the Languages of the Americas, 1–11. Vancouver: UBC Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier & Webelhuth, Gert. 2012. The phrase-structural diversity of periphrasis: A lexicalist account. In Chumakina, M. & Corbett, G. (eds.), Periphrasis: The role of syntax and morphology in paradigms, 141–167. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bouma, Gosse, Malouf, Robert & Sag, Ivan A.. 2001. Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19, 1–65.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1995. Linear order, syntactic rank, and empty categories: on weak crossover. In Dalrymple, Mary, Kaplan, Ronald M. & Maxwell, John T. (eds.), Formal issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, 241–274. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Kanerva, Jonni M.. 1989. Locative inversion in Chicheŵa. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 1–50.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Mchombo, Sam A.. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language 63, 741–782.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Moshi, Lioba. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 47–85.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, Stephen & Kiparsky, Paul (eds.), A festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2011. Merge, move, and labels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 1997. Local economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cook, Philippa. 2006. The Datives that aren’t born equal: Beneficiaries and the Dative Passive. In Hole, Daniel, Meinunger, Andre & Abraham, Werner (eds.), Datives and similar cases: Between argument structure and event structure, 141–184. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Crysmann, Berthold & Bonami, Olivier. 2012. Establishing order in type-based realisational morphology. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), 19th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 123–143. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Crysmann, Berthold & Bonami, Olivier. In press. Variable morphotactics in Information-Based Morphology. Journal of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter. 2000. Concrete minimalism, branching structure, and linear order. In Banski, Piotr & Przepiorkowski, Adam (eds.), Proceedings of GLiP-2 (Generative Linguistics in Poland), 23–37. Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw.Google Scholar
Davies, William D. & Dubinsky, Stanley (eds.). 2001. Objects and other subjects. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Anthony R. & Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 2000. Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon. Language 76, 56–91.Google Scholar
Doggett, Teal Bissell. 2004. All things being unequal: Locality in movement. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547–619.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1983. Indirect objects in Kinyarwanda revisited. In Perlmutter, David M. (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar 1, 129–140. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1986. Primary objects, secondary objects, and antidative. Language 62, 808–845.Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro. 1979. Object clitic pronouns in Bantu and the topicality hierarchy. Studies in African Linguistics 10, 31–45.Google Scholar
Gary, Judith & Keenan, Edward L.. 1977. On collapsing grammatical relations in universal grammar. In Cole, Peter & Sadock, Jerrold M. (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 8: Grammatical relations, 83–120. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Geuder, Wilhelm. 2000. Oriented verbs: Issues in the lexical semantics of event adverbs. Universität Tübingen dissertation.Google Scholar
Gibbard, George, Rohde, Hannah & Rose, Sharon. 2009. Moro noun class morphology. In Matondo, M., McLaughlin, F. & Potsdam, E. (eds.), The 38th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, 106–117. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Sag, Ivan A.. 2001. Interrogative investigations. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Theory and description in generative syntax: A case study in West Flemish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth L. & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, Kenneth L. & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from Building 20, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harford, Carolyn. 1991. Object asymmetries in Kitharaka. The 17th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on African Language Structures, 98–105.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. & Duranti, Alessandro. 1982. On the object relation in Bantu. In Hooper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 15: Studies in transitivity, 217–239. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2011. Alternative minimalist visions of language. In Borsley, Robert & Börjars, Kersti (eds.), Non-transformational syntax: Formal and explicit models of grammar, 268–296. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jenks, Peter & Rose, Sharon. 2011. High tone in Moro: Effects of prosodic categories and morphological domains. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29, 211–250.Google Scholar
Jenks, Peter & Rose, Sharon. 2015. Mobile object markers in Moro: The role of tone. Language 91, 269–307.Google Scholar
Jeong, Youngmi. 2007. Applicatives: Structure and interpretation from a minimalist perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1984. Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kimenyi, Alexandre. 1980. A relational grammar of Kinyarwanda (University of California Publications in Linguistics 91). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Davis, Anthony R.. 2003. Semantically transparent linking in HPSG. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), The 10th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 222–235. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Davis, Anthony R.. 2006. The key to lexical semantic representations. Journal of Linguistics 42, 71–108.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1993. On external arguments. University of Massachusetts (Amherst) Occasional Papers 17, 103–113.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335–391.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1998. In Zwicky & Spencer (eds.), Morphology and lexical semantics, 248–271.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L., Haspelmath, Martin & Comrie, Bernard. 2010. Ditransitive constructions: A typological overview. In Malchukov, Andrej L., Haspelmath, Martin & Comrie, Bernard (eds.), Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook, 1–54. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Marten, Lutz & Kula, Nancy C.. 2012. Object marking and morphosyntactic variation in Bantu. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 30.2, 237–253.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 2001. On the distribution of subject properties in Irish. In Davies & Dubinsky(eds.), 157–192.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Variation in the phase structure of applicatives. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1, 101–142.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2005. UTAH at Merge: Evidence from multiple applicatives. MITWPL 49: Perspectives on phases, 183–200. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2008. Applicatives. Language and Linguistics Compass 2, 1225–1245.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha & Gerdts., Donna B.. 2004. A phase-theoretic analysis of Kinyarwanda multiple applicatives. In Burelle, Sophie & Somesfalean, Stanca (eds.), The 2003 Canadian Linguistic Association Annual Conference, 154–165. Montréal: Cahiers Linguistiques de l’Université du Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
McKay, Carolyn J. & Trechsel, Frank R.. 2008. Symmetric objects in Misantla Totonac. International Journal of American Linguistics 74, 227–255.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip. 1992. Clitics and constituents in phrase structure grammar. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip & Sag, Ivan A.. 1997. French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15, 573–639.Google Scholar
Monachesi, Paola. 1999. A lexical approach to Italian cliticization. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Monachesi, Paola. 2005. The verbal complex in Romance: A case study in grammatical interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, John. 2009. Objects and other subjects: Grammatical functions, functional categories, and configurationality (review). Language 85, 468–473.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago and Stanford, CA: University of Chicago Press and CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 1998. The relative order of recipient and patient in the languages of Europe. Constituent order in the languages of Europe, 421–473. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Cases and thematic roles: Ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 2002. Proto-roles and case selection in Optimality Theory. Arbeiten des SFB 282 Theorie des Lexikons (122). 1–39.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 2004. The role-semantic function of basic order and case. In Colleman, Tinothy & Defrancq, Bart (eds.), Contrastive Analysis and Linguistic Theory. The 2nd International Collate Colloquium, 89–133. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon. 2013. The morphological structure of the Moro verb. In Schadeberg & Blench(eds.), 25–56.Google Scholar
Rugemalira, Josephat M. 1991. What is a symmetrical language? Multiple object constructions in Bantu. The Seventeenth Annual Meeting of The Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on African Language Structures, 200–209.Google Scholar
Sadler, Louisa & Spencer, Andrew. 1998. Morphology and argument structure. In Spencer & Zwicky (eds.), Morphology and argument structure, 206–236.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Wasow, Thomas & Bender, Emily M.. 2003. Syntactic theory: A formal introduction, 2nd edn. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Schadeberg, T. & Blench, R. (eds.). 2013. Nuba Mountain language studies. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.). 1998. Handbook of morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stanley, Richard P. 2012. Enumerative combinatorics, vol. 1, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strabone, Andrew & Rose, Sharon. 2012. Morphophonological properties of Moro causatives. In Connell, B. & Rolle, N. (eds.), The 41st Annual Conference on African Linguistics, 92–103. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 2010. Inner aspect: The articulation of VP. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
van Valin, Robert D. 1993. A synposis of Role and Reference Grammar. In van Valin, Robert D. (ed.), Advances in role and reference grammar, 1–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1980. Predication. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 203–238.Google Scholar