5,464
edits
Minhast/Noun Incorporation: Difference between revisions
→Type II Noun Incorporation
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
To illustrate the reason why Antipassivation was blocked by NI of a Patient, Sentence 10c presents a theoretical situation resulting from the application of Antipassivation after a Patient has been incorporated: | To illustrate the reason why Antipassivation was blocked by NI of a Patient, Sentence 10c presents a theoretical situation resulting from the application of Antipassivation after a Patient has been incorporated: | ||
10c) **Yadukaran [missing ABS] ayukkaslubarampi → yaduk=aran [missing ABS] ayup- kaslub-ar-an-pi (boy.ABS point.at-dog-PST-INTRANS-ANTI) | 10c) **Yadukaran [missing ABS] ayukkaslubarampi → yaduk=aran [missing ABS] ayup- kaslub-ar-an-pi (boy.ABS point.at-dog-PST-INTRANS-ANTI) | ||
Sentence 10c is ungrammatical because NI has already removed the PT (kaslub), resulting in a | |||
monovalent clause with only one core argument, the Absolutive (yaduk). Antipassivation would | |||
Sap min Aynuw-ast min gubbāturrād sattabe- | |||
demote the Absolutive yaduk to a Dative peripheral argument, yadukaran, leaving no other argument to 17 | |||
fill in the missing Absolutive position. Minhast forbids zero-valent sentences , so the simultaneous application of NI and Antipassivation renders Sentence 10c infelicitous. | |||
Thus, both Minhast and Chukchi treat NI and Antipassivation as two separate, distinct operations. But whereas the Chukchi samples showed that the Antipassive does not surface when even an Instrumental noun is incorporated, Minhast allows Antipassivation of Instruments if valency reduction to demote a Patient is required, allowable provided the IN is an Instrumental argument. | |||
16 A pivot is a syntactic construct in multi-clause sentences wherein the syntactic role of a core argument that has been omitted by PRO-drop, is recovered from its role in a higher level clause. There are two types of Pivots identified by Robert Dixon in Ergativity (1994): S/A Pivots and S/O Pivots. S/A Pivots, associated with Nominative-Accusative language, assign the Nominative argument as the argument (Pivot) that is coreferrent with the null argument of successive clauses. Syntactically Ergative languages, in contrast, assign the Absolutive as the Pivot of successive clauses. | |||
17 There is one exception to this rule: Minhast has a closed set of Interrogative verbs, some of which take zero core arguments. | |||
-ar-an- | |||
=naft yak=de nusill-ek-u, ...[PRO | |||
= gubbāturrād] nurr-wastane-0-ek-nes-u-d | |||
“Sap min Aynuw-ast min gubbāturrād | |||
sattabe-redad-ar-an=naft yak=de nusill-ek-u” | |||
The use of Case Manipulation accounts for the majority of NI in Minhast. This is not surprising, since Minhast, as a syntactically ergative language, utilizes various grammatical devices to maintain and manipulate the S/O pivot to cross-reference the Absolutive argument across clauses. | |||
== Type III Noun Incorporation == | == Type III Noun Incorporation == | ||