Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 535–576 | Cite as

Restricting noun incorporation: root movement

Article

Abstract

This paper argues that the phenomenon of noun incorporation in Inuktitut derives from the fact that the set of verbs involved are all light verbs in the sense of being functional elements excluding lexical or root material. Verbs found in noun incorporation in Inuktitut are in little v and syntactically Merge with a nominal root complement. A parameter which requires that the first root must syntactically move to the top of the tree results in the leftmost position of the root and its apparent incorporation. Unlike Mohawk, where classical noun incorporation is a result of argument licensing, Inuktitut noun incorporation is a subset of a general syntactic operation which targets roots. The light verb analysis of noun incorporation predicts that the set of verbs found in noun incorporation are a finite class with a restricted and predictable semantic range. It is further proposed that obligatory noun incorporation universally involves light verbs. Data in support of this claim are shown from Wakashan and Chukchi. In contrast to a grammaticalized account of this class of verbs, it is argued that these light verbs are universally available as elementary syntactic components. Thus, the limited range and incorporating nature of this class of verbs is explained by their being light verbs.

Keywords

Noun Incorporation Inuktitut Root movement Light verbs Roots 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, S. (1994). Acquisition of some mechanisms of transitivity alternation in Arctic Quebec Inuktitut, Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University, Montréal.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, S. R. (2000). Some lexicalist remarks on incorporation phenomena. Studia Grammatica, 45, 123–142.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, M. (1985). The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 373–415.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, M. (1996). The polysynthesis parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, M. (2003). Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns and adjectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Barrie, M. (2006). Dynamic antisymmetry and the syntax of noun incorporation, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  8. Bittner, M. (1994). Case, scope, and binding. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Bittner, M., & Hale, K. (1996). Ergativity: Toward a theory of a heterogeneous class. Linguistic Inquiry, 27, 531–604.Google Scholar
  10. Bok-Bennema, R., & Groos, A. (1988). Adjacency and incorporation. In M. Everaert et al. (Eds.), Morphology and modularity (pp. 33–56). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  11. Carnie, A., & Guilfoyle E. (Eds.) (2000). The syntax of verb initial languages. New York: Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 339–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, N. (2006). Approaching UG from Below, ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  16. Chung, S., & Ladusaw, W. (2003). Restriction and saturation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cinque, G. (2005). Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(3), 315–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Compton, R. (2004). On quantifiers and bare nouns in Inuktitut. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 23(1), 1–45.Google Scholar
  20. Compton, R. (2006). On the (possible) (non-)universality of predicate modification - evidence from Inuktitut’, presented at the 10e Atelier bilingue en linguistique théorique/Bilingual Workshop in Theoretical Linguistics, Queens University.Google Scholar
  21. Compton, R., & Johns, A. (2005). How Bare are Nouns in Inuktitut? presented at Nudist(e): Atelier sur les noms nus/Workshop on Bare Nouns, University of Western Ontario, May 2005.Google Scholar
  22. Compton, R., & Pittman, C. (2006). Affixhood is syntactically determined in Inuktitut, presented at The Workshop on Theoretical Morphology, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
  23. Cuervo, M. C. (2003). Datives at large, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  24. Davis, H., & Sawai, N. (2001). WH-Movement as noun incorporation, presented at Grammatical Structures in Indigenous Languages of the Northwest, University of Victoria.Google Scholar
  25. Dowty, D. R. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Folli, R., & Harley, H. (2005). Flavours of v: Consuming results in Italian and English. In P. Kempchinsky & R. Slabakova (Eds.), Aspectual inquiries (pp. 95–120). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fortescue, M. (1983). A comparative manual of affixes for the inuit dialects of Greenland, Canada, and Alaska. Copenhagen: Meddelelser om Grønland.Google Scholar
  28. Fortescue, M. (1992). The development of morphophonemic complexity in Eskimo. Acta Linguistica Hafniensa, 25, 5–27.Google Scholar
  29. Fortescue, M., & Lennert Olsen, L. (1992). The acquisition of West Greenlandic. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 3) (pp. 111–220.) Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Gerdts, D. (1998). Incorporation. In A. Spencer & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Handbook of morphology (pp. 84–100). London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Gerdts, D., & Hukari, T. (2002). Doubling and denominal verbs: Evidence from Halkomelem Salish, presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
  32. Gerdts, D., & Hukari, T. (2004). Halkomelem denominal verbs. Papers for the Thirty-Ninth International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, (UBCWPL 14), 201–214.Google Scholar
  33. Grimshaw, J., & Mester, A. (1988). Light verbs and theta marking. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(2), 205–232.Google Scholar
  34. Hale, K. (2001). Navajo verb structure and noun incorporation. ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  35. Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J. (2002). Prolegema to a theory of argument structure, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 39. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20 (pp. 111–176). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Harley, H. (2005). How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation and the Ontology of verb roots in English. In N. Erteschik-Shir & T. Rapoport (Eds.), The syntax of aspect (pp. 42–64). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Harley, H. (2003). Possession and the double object construction. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 2, 29–68.Google Scholar
  39. Harley, H., & Noyer, R. (2000). Licensing in the non-lexicalist lexicon. In B. Peeters (Ed.), The lexicon/encyclopaedia interface (pp. 349–374). Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  40. Herd, J. (2003). Deriving prosodic inversion: Clitics, cyclicity and the organization of post-syntactic interfaces. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, 61–79.Google Scholar
  41. Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Jespersen, O. (1965). A modern english grammar on historical principles, Part VI. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
  43. Johns, A. (1987). Transitivity and grammatical relations in Inuktitut, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ottawa, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  44. Johns, A. (1999a). The lexical basis of noun incorporation in Inuktitut. presented at the Workshop on Structure and Constituency of the Languages of the Americas, UBC, March 1999.Google Scholar
  45. Johns, A. (1999b). On the lexical semantics of affixal ‘want’ in Inuktitut. International Journal of American Linguistics, 65(2), 176–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Johns, A. (2000). Restricting noun incorporation. presented at the annual meeting of the LSA, Chicago, Jan. 2000.Google Scholar
  47. Johns, A. (2003a). Lexical stability in Inuktitut. presented at the International Conference on Historical Linguistics, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  48. Johns, A. (2003b). Restricting noun incorporation. ms., University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  49. Johns, A. (2006). Ergativity and change in Inuktitut. In A. Johns, D. Massam & J. Ndayiragije (Eds.), Ergativity: Emerging issues (pp. 293–315). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Johns, A., & Massam, D. (1998). Questions raised by noun incorporation. presented at the Third Workshop on Multiple Frameworks in Linguistics, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  51. Julien, M. (2002). Syntactic heads and word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Kayne, R. (1993). Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Studia Linguistica, 47, 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kayne, R. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  54. Kearns, K. (1988). Light verbs in english. ms, New Zealand: University of Canterbury.Google Scholar
  55. Koenig, J.-P., & Davis A. (2001). Sublexical modality and the structure of lexical semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy, 24(1), 71–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In J. Rooryck & L. Zaring (Eds.), Phrase structure and the lexicon (pp. 109–137). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  57. Kurebito, T. (1998). A report on noun incorporation in Chukchi. In O. Miyaoka & M. Oshima (Eds.), Languages of the North Pacific Rim, Vol. 4 (pp. 97–113). Kyoto University.Google Scholar
  58. Kurebito, T. (2001). On lexical affixes in Chukchi. In O. Miyaoka & F. Endo (Eds.), Languages of the Pacific Rim, Vol. 6 (pp. 65–84). Faculty of informatics, Osaka Gakuin University.Google Scholar
  59. Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 335–391.Google Scholar
  60. Longobardi, G. (1994). Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 609–665.Google Scholar
  61. Lowe, R. (2001). Siglit inuvialuit uqautchiita nutaat kipuktirutait aglipkaqtat (Siglit Inuvialuit Eskimo Dictionary) Québec: Éditions Nota Bene.Google Scholar
  62. Mahieu, M.-A., & Tersis, N. (2003). Polysemy and homophony in Inuit with special reference to Nunavimmiutitut (Canadian Eastern Arctic) and Tunumiisut (Greenland)’, presented at the XVIth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  63. Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In A. Dimitriadis et. al. (Eds.), University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(2), 201–225.Google Scholar
  64. Massam, D. (2001). Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19(1), 153–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Massam, D. (2005). The inverse ordering of particles and their interaction with arguments and applicatives, presented to Syntax Project, University of Toronto, June.Google Scholar
  66. Massam, D. (2006). Inverse order and arguments. ms., University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  67. Massam, D., & Smallwood C. (1997). Essential features of predication in english and Niuean. In K. Kusumoto (Ed.), Proceedings of NELS 27 (pp. 236–272). GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  68. Mithun, M. (1984). The evolution of noun incorporation. Language, 60, 847–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mithun, M. (1989). The acquisition of polysynthesis. Journal of Child Language, 16, 285–312.Google Scholar
  70. Mithun, M. (1997). Lexical affixes and morphological typology. In J. Bybee, J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays on language function and language type (pp. 357–371). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  71. Mithun, M. (1999). The languages of North America. New York: Cambridge Language Surveys, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Mithun, M., & Corbett G. (1999). The effect of noun incorporation on argument structure. In L. Mereu (Ed.), Boundaries of morphology and syntax (pp. 49–72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  73. Parkinson, D. (1999). The interaction of syntax and morphology in the acquisition of noun incorporation in Inuktitut, Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  74. Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  75. Partee, B H. In press. Privative adjectives: Subsective plus coercion. In R. Bäuerle, U. Reyle & T. E. Zimmermann (Eds.), Presuppositions and discourse. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  76. Pesetsky, D., & Torrego E. (2001). T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 355–426). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  77. Pesetsky, D., & Torrego E. (2007). The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In S. Karimi, V. Samiian & W. Wilkins (Eds.), Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation (pp. 262–294). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  78. Pittman, C. (2006). Inuktitut restructuring affixes. In the Proceedings of the 2006 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actesproc.html].
  79. Rackowski, A., & Travis, L. (2000). V-initial languages: X or XP movement and adverbial placement. In A. Carnie & E. Guilfoyle (Eds.), The syntax of verb initial languages, Oxford studies in comparative syntax (pp. 117–141). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (1998). Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp. 97–134). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  81. Richards, N. (2001). Movement in language: Interactions and architectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Ritter, E., & Rosen, S. T. (1997). The function of have. Lingua, 101, 295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  84. Rosen, S. T. (1989). Two types of noun incorporation: A lexical analysis. Language, 65, 294–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sadock, J. (1980). Noun incorporation in Greenlandic: A case of syntactic word formation. Language, 56, 300–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sadock, J. (1985). Autolexical syntax: A theory of noun incorporation and similar phenomena. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3, 379–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sadock, J. (1986). Some notes on noun incorporation. Language, 62(1), 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sadock, J. (1991). Autolexical syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  89. Sadock, J. (2002). A survey of denominal verbs in Eskimo-Aleut. presented at the SSILA Meeting, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  90. Sapir, E. (1911). The problem of noun incorporation in American languages. American Anthropologist, 13, 250–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Spreng, B. (2001). Little v in Inuktitut: Antipassive revisited. Linguistica Atlantica, 23, 155–190.Google Scholar
  92. Stonham, J. (2004). Linguistic theory and complex words: Nuuchahnulth word formation. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  93. Stonham, J. To appear. Complex verb composition in Nuuchahnulth. International Journal of American Linguistics.Google Scholar
  94. Svenonius, P. (2007). 1...3-2. In G. Ramchand & C. Reis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 239–288). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Travis, L. (2003). Lexical items and zero morphology. In J. Liceras et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approach to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA 2002) (pp. 315–330). Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, MA.Google Scholar
  96. Van Geenhoven, V. (1998a). Semantic incorporation and indefinite descriptions: Semantic and syntactic aspects of noun incorporation in west greenlandic Dissertations in Linguistics, Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  97. Van Geenhoven, V. (1998b). On the argument structure of some noun incorporating verbs in West Greenlandic. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.) The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp. 225–263). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  98. Van Geenhoven, V. (2002). Raised possessors and noun incorporation in West Greenlandic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20, 759–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Waldie, R. (2004). Nuu-chah-nulth denominal verbs. M.A. thesis, University of Victoria, Victoria.Google Scholar
  100. Wharram, D. (2003). On the interpretation of (un)certain indefinites in Inuktitut and related languages, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
  101. Williams, E. (1980). Predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 11(2), 203–238.Google Scholar
  102. Wojdak, R. (2005). The linearization of affixes: Evidence from Nuu-chah-nulth, Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics, Robarts LibraryUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations