Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Dynamic Antisymmetry and the Syntax of Noun Incorporation pp 1–22Cite as

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 475 Accesses

Part of the book series: Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory ((SNLT,volume 84))

Abstract

This chapter outlines the major goals of this monograph and gives a brief overview of how these goals will be accomplished. These goals include (i) to present a thorough analysis of NI in Northern Iroquoian, (ii) to recast. (Dynamic) Antisymmetry in a BPS framework, (iii), to argue for a Dynamic Antisymmetric analysis of NI, and (iv) to illustrate the Dynamic Antisymmetric analysis of NI with data from a variety of other languages This chapter also introduces the phenomenon of NI and presents its properties that are pertinent to the discussion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    These will come up later in the discussion where appropriate. Representative examples include snowballing (Aboh 2004a) and intraposition movement (Rackowski and Travis 2000).

  2. 2.

    Throughout this monograph, I use the term bare noun to mean functionally bare (i.e., a bare root or a bare nP), rather than morphologically bare in the sense of Giorgi and Longobardi (1991). This distinction is important because a morphologically bare noun in this other sense could contain a large number of functional projections with phonologically empty heads.

  3. 3.

    Of course OV word order is possible with full DP objects, as German is an SOV language. The point here is that full DP objects can appear in either VO or OV word order, depending on whether the verb appears in 2nd position or sentence-finally. With bare nominal objects as in the progressive beim construction, only OV word order is found.

  4. 4.

    Unless otherwise stated, all German data are from Bettina Spreng and Martina Wiltschko (personal communication).

  5. 5.

    Unless otherwise stated, all Persian data are provided by Jila Ghomeshi, Arsalan Kahnemuyipour, and Nick Pendar (personal communication).

  6. 6.

    See Öztürk (2009) and Cagri (2009), however, for discussions on so-called subject incorporation in Turkish as well as Polinsky (1990) for subject incorporation in Chukchi.

  7. 7.

    The use of the label modifier stranding to describe example 8 has theoretical implications that I discuss in greater detail in Chapter 4.

  8. 8.

    Not all languages with productive NI were classified as OV or VO languages, hence the discrepancy in totals.

  9. 9.

    Note that I have nothing to say about the correlation between VO/OV order and V+N, N+V order despite the fact that this is significant.

  10. 10.

    Larson takes issue with the fact that Pylkkänen has divorced the goal argument from the event semantics. Thus, in a construction such as John baked Mary a cake, Mary is related to the cake by a to.the.possession.of predicate, but is not related to the event. Fatally, however, Larson argues that this approach fails to capture the fact that the subject, John, must be responsible for Mary’s receipt of the cake. Under Pylkkänen’s approach, the sentence above is compatible with a scenario in which John baked a cake and someone else brought it to Mary. Since I do not ultimately adopt Pylkkänen’s approach, I won’t pursue this line of reasoning further here.

  11. 11.

    Note that a restitutive reading is available with 19b; however, this is independent of the instrumental phrase. The same reading is available with the following sentence.

    1. i.

      Joyce is trimming flowers again (and they used to be trimmed before).

      This reading is somewhat odd because cut flowers don’t typically re-grow their stems (thus requiring re-trimming). Nevertheless, it is available. Under Beck and Johnson’s approach, we would assume a stative BE predicate, which the adverb again could take scope over.

    2. ii.

      Joyce CAUSE flowers BE trim.

    Crucially, the instrumental phrase is not introduced by an additional predicative head since or else we would predict yet another restitutive reading.

  12. 12.

    Many of the arguments for the various proposals for the structure of ditransitives rely on a number of semantic distinctions. Further details of these semantic properties in Northern Iroquoian languages will have to wait for future research.

  13. 13.

    Note that this idiom is apparently found only in the Syracuse community in New York. My consultants in Six Nations did not recognize this idiom.

References

  • Abbott, Clifford. 2000. Oneida. Munich: Lincom Europa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abney, Stephen. 1987. “The English Noun Phrase and its Sentential Aspect.” PhD diss., MIT press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aboh, Enoch. 2004a. The Morphosyntax of Complement-Head Sequences: Clause Structure and Word Order Patterns in Kwa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, Mark C. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, Mark C., Roberto Aranovich, and Lucía A. Golluscio. 2005. “Two Types of Syntactic Noun Incorporation: Noun Incorporation in Mapudungun and Its Typological Implications.” Language 81 (1):138–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrie, Michael. 2008. “Bare Nouns in Cantonese.” Paper presented at the 12th Bilingual Workshop in Theoretical Linguistics, Ottawa, ON, December 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, Sigrid, and Kyle Johnson. 2004. “Double Objects Again.” Linguistic Inquiry 35 (1):97–123. doi:10.1162/002438904322793356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bittner, Maria. 1994. Case, Scope, and Binding. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bonvillain, Nancy. 1972. “Noun Incorporation in Mohawk.” In Papers in Linguistics from the 1972 Conference on Iroquoian Research, edited by Michael K. Foster, 18–26. Mercury Series Ethnology Division. Ottawa, ON: National Museum of Man.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caballero, Gabriela, Michael J. Houser, Nicole Marcus, Teresa McFarland, Anne Phycha, Maziar Toosarvandani, Suzanne Wilhite, and Johanna Nichols. 2008. “Nonsyntactic Ordering Effects in Syntactic Noun Incorporation.” Linguistic Typology 12 (3):383–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cagri, Ilhan M. 2009. “Arguing Against Subject Incorporation in Turkish Relative Clauses.” Lingua 119 (2):359–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, Gregory N. 1977. “Reference to Kinds in English.” PhD diss., University of Massachussetts, Amherst, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Rint Sybesma. 1999. “Bare and Not-So-Bare Nouns and the Structure of NP.” Linguistic Inquiry 30 (4):509–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare Phrase Structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MITWPL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, Eung-Do, and Andrea Wilhelm. 1998. “Noun Incorporation: New Evidence from Athapaskan.” Studies in Language 22 (1):49–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuoq, Jean-André. 1866. Etudes philologiques sur quelques langues sauvages. Montreal, QC: Dawson Brothers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Edwin Williams. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryer, Matthew S. 2008. Map 83: Order of Object and Verb. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. http://wals.info/feature/83. Accessed August 13, 2010.

  • Froman, Frances, Alfred J. Keye, Lottie Keye, and Carrie Dyck. 2002. English-Cayuga/Cayuga-English Dictionary. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerdts, Donna B. 1998. “Incorporation.” In The Handbook of Morphology, edited by Andrew Spencer, and Arnold M. Zwicky, 84–100. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghomeshi, Jila. 2003. “Plural Marking, Indefiniteness, and the Noun Phrase.” Studia Linguistica 57 (2):47–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi, Alessandra, and Giuseppe Longobardi. 1991. The Syntax of Noun Phrases. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glougie, Jennifer. 2000. “Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Blackfoot Quantifiers and Nominals.” MA Thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guimarães, Maximiliano. 2000. In Defense of Vacuous Projections in Bare Phrase Structure. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 9:90–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley, Heidi. 2008. “Bare Roots, Conflation and the Canonical Use Constraint.” University of Lund, Lund, Sweden, February 5–6, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang-King, Ping. 1998. “Sonority Constraints on Tonal Patterns.” In The Proceedings of the Seventeenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Kimary Shahin, Susan Blake, and Eun-Sook Kim, 332–46. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayne, Richard. 2009a. Antisymmetry and the Lexicon. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 8 (1):1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiparsky, Paul. 1997. “Remarks on Denominal Verbs.” In Complex Predicates, edited by A. Alsina, Joan Bresnan, and Peter Sells, 247–88. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinschmidt, Samuel. 1852. Grammatik der grönländischen Sprache mit theilweisem einschluss des Labradordialects. Berlin: Reimer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroeber, Alfred L. 1909. “Noun Incorporation in American Languages.” Paper presented at the XVI. Internationalen Amerikanisten-Kongress, 2d, Vienna and Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, Richard K. 1988. “On the Double Object Construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 19 (3):335–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, Richard K. 1990. “Double Objects Revisited: Reply to Jackendoff.” Linguistic Inquiry 21 (4):589–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, Richard K. 2004. “Sentence Final Adverbs and “Scope”.” In Proceedings of NELS 34, edited by Keir Moulton, and Matthew Wolf, 23’43. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, Richard K. 2010. “On Pylkkänen’s Semantics for Low Applicatives.” Linguistic Inquiry 41(4):701–04. doi:10.1162/LING_a_00020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 2010. “Case and Objects.” Paper presented at the GLOW in Asia VIII, Beijing Language and Culture University, August 12–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, Floyd Glenn. 1949. “Iroquoian Morphology.” PhD diss., Yale University, New Haven, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, Floyd Glenn. 1953. Oneida Verb Morphology. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, Alec. 1997. “No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2):201–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marantz, Alec. 2001. “Words.” Paper presented at the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, University of Southern California, February 23–25, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massam, Diane. 2001. “Pseudo Noun Incorporation in Niuean.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19 (1):153–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massam, Diane. 2009. Noun Incoporation: Essentials and Extensions. Language and Linguistics Compass 3 (4):1076–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Megerdoomian, Karine. 2008. “Parallel Nominal and Verbal Projections.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, edited by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizaretta, 73–103. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michelson, Karin. 1991. “Possessor Stranding in Oneida.” Linguistic Inquiry 22 (4):756–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michelson, Karin, and Mercy Doxtator. 2002. Oneida-English/English-Oneida Dictionary. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mithun, Marianne. 1984. “The Evolution of Noun Incorporation.” Language 60 (4):847–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic Antisymmetry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moro, Andrea. 2004. “Linear Compression as a Trigger for Movement.” In Triggers, edited by Anne Breitbarth, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 387–430. Berlin, New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oishi, Masayuki. 2003. “When Linearity Meets Bare Phrase Structure.” Current Issues in English Linguistics 2:18–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Öztürk, BalkIz. 2009. “Incorporating Agents.” Lingua 119 (2):334–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polinsky, Maria. 1990. “Subject Incorporation: Evidence from Chukchee.” In Grammatical Relations: A Cross-Theoretical Perspective, edited by Katarzyna Dziwirek, Patrick Farrell, and Errapel Mejias-Bikandi, 349–64. Stanford, CA: The Center for the Study of Language and Information.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postal, Paul. 1979. On Some Syntactic Rules in Mohawk. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pylkkänen, Liina. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rackowski, Andrea, and Lisa Travis. 2000. “V-Initial Languages: X or XP Movement and Adverbial Placement.” In The Syntax of Verb Initial Languages, edited by Andrew Carnie, and Eithne Guilfoyle, 117–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, Keren. 1991. “Intransitives in Slave (Northern Athapaskan): Arguments for Unaccusatives.” International Journal of American Linguistics 57 (1):51–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, Norvin. 2001a. “A Distinctness Condition on Linearization.” In 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, edited by Karine Megerdoomian. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, Elizabeth. 1992. “Cross-Linguistic Evidence for Number Phrase.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37 (2):197–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, Elizabeth. 1993. “Where’s Gender?” Linguistic Inquiry 24 (4):795–803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, Sara Thomas. 1989. “Two Types of Noun Incorporation: A Lexical Analysis.” Language 65 (2):294–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruhlen, Merritt. 1975. A Guide to the Languages of the World. Stanford, CA: Language Universals Project, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadock, Jerrold. 1980. “Noun Incorporation in Greenlandic: A Case of Syntactic Word Formation.” Language 56 (2):300–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadock, Jerrold. 1986. “Some Notes on Noun Incorporation.” Language 62 (1):19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sapir, Edward. 1911. “The Problem of Noun Incorporation in American Languages.” American Anthropologist 13:250–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sato, Yosuke. 2010. “Bare Verbal Nouns, Idiomatization and Icorporation in Japanese.” Paper presented at the Theoretical East Asian Linguistics, 6, Peking University: Beijing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, Andrew. 1995. “Incorporation in Chukchi.” Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America 71 (3):439–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szabolcsi, Anna. 1983. “The Possessor that Ran Away from Home.” The Linguistic Review 3 (1):89–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. “Multiple Spell Out.” In Working Minimalism, edited by Samuel Epstein, and Norbert Hornstein, 251–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. “Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions: Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic.” Dissertations in Linguistics. (DiLi). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Edwin. 2007. “Dumping Lexicalism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, edited by Gillian Ramchand, and Charles Reiss. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodbury, Hanni. 1975a. “Noun Incorporation in Onondaga.” PhD diss., Yale University, New Haven, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodbury, Hanni. 1975b. “Onondaga Noun Incorporation: Some Notes on the Interdependence of Syntax and Semantics.” International Journal of American Linguistics 41 (1):10–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodbury, Hanni. 2003. Onondaga-English/English-Onondaga Dictionary. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics, University of Ottawa, Arts Hall, 70 Laurier Avenue East, K1N 6N5, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    Michael Barrie

Authors
  1. Michael Barrie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Barrie .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Barrie, M. (2011). Introduction. In: Dynamic Antisymmetry and the Syntax of Noun Incorporation. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 84. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1570-7_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation