Morphology

, Volume 21, Issue 3–4, pp 499–513 | Cite as

Case and configurationality: scrambling or mapping?

Original Paper

Abstract

Kanum, a language of southern New Guinea, displays nonconfigurationality only for arguments marked with an overt structural case. After examining a variety of constraints on scrambling, in main and subordinate clauses, I argue that nonconfigurationality is a process of scrambling, rather than independent mapping from functional structure to constituency, and further is dependent on features associated with overt morphological case, and that alternative accounts in terms of grammatical function identity cannot be sustained.

Keywords

Papuan Configurationality Case 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews A.D. (1996) Semantic case stacking and inside-out unification. Australian Journal of Linguistics 16: 1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin P. (2001) Word order in a free word order language: The case of Jiwarli. In: Simpson J., Nash D., Laughren M., Austin P., Alpher B. (eds) Forty years on: Ken Hale and Australian languages. Pacific Linguistics, Canberra, pp 305–323Google Scholar
  3. Austin P., Bresnan J. (1996) Non-configurationality in Australian Aboriginal languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 215–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker M. (1996) The polysynthesis parameter. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker M. (2001) The natures of nonconfigurationality. In: Baltin M., Collins C. (eds) The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 407–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boelaars J.H.M.C. (1950) The linguistic position of South-western New Guinea. E. J. Brill, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  7. Bresnan J., Kanerva J.M. (1989) Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20(1): 1–50Google Scholar
  8. Comrie B. (1978) Ergativity. In: Lehmann W.P. (eds) Syntactic typology: Studies in the phenomenology of language. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp 329–394Google Scholar
  9. Donohue, M. (1997). Cognate objects, nonconfigurationality, (and other issues in ‘transitivity’ in Kanum). Paper presented at the Syntax project meeting, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, 27 November 1997.Google Scholar
  10. Donohue, M. (1999). Conflicts in feature parsing: External possession and Kanum agreement. Paper presented at the Australian Linguistics Society. University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, 1 October 1999.Google Scholar
  11. Donohue M. (2005) Configurationality in the languages of New Guinea. Australian Journal of Linguistics 25(2): 181–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Donohue M. (2008) Complexities with restricted numeral systems. Linguistic Typology 12(3): 423–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drabbe, P. (1947). Nota’s over de Jénggalntjoer-taal. Merauke: Archief.Google Scholar
  14. Drabbe P. (1950) Talen en dialecten van Zuid-West Nieuw-Guinea. Anthropos 45: 545–574Google Scholar
  15. Hale K.L. (1983) Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 5–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jelinek E. (1984) Empty categories, case, and non-configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 39–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kiparsky P. (2001) Structural case in Finnish. Lingua 111(4): 315–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Legate, J. A. (2002). Warlpiri: Theoretical implications. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  19. Nordlinger R. (1998) Constructive case: Evidence from Australian languages. Centre for the Study of Language and Information, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Pensalfini R. (2004) Towards a typology of configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 359–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Simpson J. (1991) Warlpiri morphosyntax: A lexicalist approach. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wunderlich D. (1997) Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 27–68Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian StudiesAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations