Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:49:15.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conjunctive agreement in Lamaholot1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2010

KUNIO NISHIYAMA
KUNIO NISHIYAMA*
Affiliation:
Ibaraki University
*
Author's address: College of Humanities, Ibaraki University, 2-1-1 Bunkyo, Mito, 310-8512, Japankn20@mx.ibaraki.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a description and a theoretical analysis of agreement within coordination in Lamaholot (Austronesian), where the first conjunct agrees with the conjunction ‘and’. Conjunctive agreement is obligatory in the subject position but is optional in the object position. The analysis is couched in terms of markedness of case and proposes that the case of the subject (nominative) is unmarked compared to the case of the object (accusative), and that only unmarked case enables phi-features of the agreement control to be copied onto the agreement host. Apparent optionality is accounted for by manners of case spreading in coordination. Conjunctive agreement is also reported in the genetically unrelated but areally related language of Walman. Although conjunctive agreement originates in verbal agreement with the comitative function in both languages, it is shown that grammaticalization from the comitative to the conjunction is more advanced in Lamaholot, at least in terms of syntax and morphology.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , July 2011 , pp. 381 - 405
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

This study is part of a larger project on Lamaholot, started while I was visiting the University of Hawaii at Manoa from 2004 to 2005. I first thank Herman Kelen for his enduring patience and cooperation in providing me with Lamaholot data. I also thank the Language Documentation Project of the Department of Linguistics at the University of Hawaii for providing us with the opportunity to work together. Part of this paper was presented at the University of Hawaii, and I would like to thank the audiences there for comments and suggestions. I am also indebted to the three JL reviewers and other reviewers of earlier or related versions of this article, as well as Luis Lopez, Yoshiki Ogawa, William O'Grady, Yuko Otsuka and Kamil Ud Deen. This study has been supported by grants from the Fulbright Program and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Grant #19520325).Abbreviations: 1, 2, 3=1st, 2nd, 3rd person; acc=accusative; c=complementizer; dat=dative; defl=default agreement; ex=exclusive; f=feminine; fut=future; gen=genitive; imp=imperfective; in=inclusive; m=masculine; nom=nominative; obj=object; pl=plural; pst=past; red=reduplication; sg=singular; subj=subject.Working orthography for Lamaholot (following Nishiyama & Kelen 2007): v=schwa; '=glottal stop; word-final n indicates that the preceding vowel is nasalized.

References

REFERENCES

Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad. 2004. Beyond morphology. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoun, Joseph, Benmamoun, Elabbas & Sportiche, Dominique. 1994. Agreement and conjunction in some variables of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 195–220.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph, Benmamoun, Elabbas & Sportiche, Dominique. 1999. Further remarks on first conjunct agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 669–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arndt, P. Paul. 1937. Grammatik der Solor-Sprache. Ende, Flores: Arnoldus-Drukkerij.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2008. The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béjar, Susana & Hall, Daniel Currie. 1999. Marking markedness: The underlying order of diagonal syncretisms. Presented at the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, University of Connecticut, October 1999.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Where's phi? Agreement as a postsyntactic operation. In Harbour, Daniel, Adger, David & Béjar, Susana (eds.), Phi theory: Phi-features across modules and interfaces, 295–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric (ed.). 2006. Agreement systems. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2009. Unifying first and last conjunct agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 27, 455–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Lea & Dryer, Matthew S.. 2008. The verb for ‘and’ in Walman, a Torricelli language of Papua New Guinea. Language 84, 528–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camacho, José. 2003. The structure of coordination: Conjunction and agreement phenomena in Spanish and other languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstens, Vicki. 2001. Multiple agreement and case-deletion: Against ϕ-(in)completeness. Syntax 4, 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. 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
Corbett, Greville G. 1983. Hierarchies, targets and controllers: Agreement patterns in Slavic. London: Croom Helm & University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth. 2005. A note on number. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 441–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelenhoven, Aone van. 2004. Leti, a language of Southwest Maluku. Leiden: KITLV Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, Julie, Lassi, Glenda, Frauenfelder, Ulrich H. & Rizzi, Luigi. 2006. Agreement and movement: A syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition 101, 173–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The view from Building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hull, Geoffrey. 2001. A morphological overview of the Timoric sprachbund. Studies in Languages and Cultures of East Timor 4, 98–205. [Instituto Nacional de Linguistíca, Universidade Nacional de Timor Lorosa'e, East Timor]Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin (ed.). 2004. Coordinating constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ionin, Tania & Matushansky, Ora. 2003. DPs with a twist: A unified analysis of Russian comitatives. In Browne, Wayles, Kim, Ji-yung, Partee, Barbara & Rothstein, Robert (eds.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Amherst Meeting, 255–274. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian. 2002. Typical features of Austronesian languages in central/eastern Indonesia. Oceanic Linguistics 41, 363–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klavans, Judith. 1985. The independence of syntax and phonology in cliticization. Language 61, 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 2006. Agreement configurations: In defense of ‘Spec head’. In Boeckx, (ed.), 159–199.Google Scholar
Lord, Carol. 1973. Serial verbs in transition. Studies in African Linguistics 4, 269–296.Google Scholar
Lord, Carol. 1993. Historical change in serial verb constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorimor, Heidi. 2007. Conjunctions and grammatical agreement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign.Google Scholar
McNally, Louise. 1993. Comitative coordination: A case study in group formation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 11, 347–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1988. The grammaticalization of coordination. In Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, 331–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munn, Alan. 1999. First conjunct agreement: Against a clausal analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 643–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishiyama, Kunio. 2010. Relabelling and multi-directionality in the development of coordination. To appear in English Linguistics [The English Linguistic Society of Japan] 27.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishiyama, Kunio & Kelen, Herman. 2007. A grammar of Lamaholot, eastern Indonesia: The morphology and syntax of the Lewoingu dialect. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
O'Grady, William & Yamashita, Yoshie. 2002. Partial agreement in second-language acquisition. Linguistics 40, 1011–1019.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljiana. 2003. Structures for coordination. In Cheng, Lisa & Sybesma, Rint (eds.), The second GLOT international state-of-the-article book, 241–287. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic change: A Minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Published 1986, Infinite syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex.]Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 1999. English expletive constructions are not infected. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 467–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 2001. On the nature of default case. Syntax 4, 205–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 2000. AND-languages and WITH-languages. Linguistic Typology 4, 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 2001. Noun phrase coordination. In Haspelmath, Martin (ed.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, 1105–1111. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Timmermans, Mark, Schriefers, Herbert, Dijkstra, Ton & Haverkort, Marco. 2004. Disagreement on agreement: Person agreement between coordinated subjects in Dutch and German. Linguistics 42, 905–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vassilieva, Masha & Larson, Richard K.. 2005. The semantics of the plural pronoun construction. Natural Language Semantics 13, 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velde, John te. 2005. Deriving coordinate symmetries: A phase-based approach integrating Select, Merge, Copy and Match. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vries, Mark de. 2005. Coordination and syntactic hierarchy. Studia Linguistica 59, 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61, 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar