Linguistics presentations (MU)The items in this collection are the scholarly output of the faculty, staff, and students of the Linguistics Program.https://hdl.handle.net/10355/104562024-03-19T11:18:19Z2024-03-19T11:18:19ZDP Positions in African LanguagesCarstens, VickiDiercks, MichaelMletshe, Loyiso KevinNdayiragije, JuvenalSikuku, Justinehttps://hdl.handle.net/10355/104572020-06-19T20:14:29Z2010-01-01T00:00:00ZDP Positions in African Languages
Carstens, Vicki; Diercks, Michael; Mletshe, Loyiso Kevin; Ndayiragije, Juvenal; Sikuku, Justine
A central concern of syntactic theory has long been to explain and predict the distribution of nominal expressions, henceforth D(eterminer) P(hrases), and their involvement in morphosyntactic relations. Where can they occur? When can they move, control agreement, and bear Case? The study of Indo-European (IE) languages has yielded strong generalizations upon which the theory is based. As we illustrate, a number of African languages in which such phenomena have been explored seem to
turn these generalizations more or less on their heads. Our project seeks to determine and to explain the possibilities and limitations of DP positions, focusing primarily on Bantu languages. Some of the issues arise also in non-Bantu African languages including Igbo and Ibibio (see Ura 1998 on Igbo hyper-raising, = raising from tensed clauses; Baker and Willie 2010 on Ibibio multiple agreement), and we hope the project can be extended to them as well.
A handout of a presentation given at the Afranaph Project Development Workshop on December 10-11, 2010, at Rutgers University in New Jersey.
2010-01-01T00:00:00ZHead Movement in Bantu DPsCarstens, Vickihttps://hdl.handle.net/10355/104652020-06-19T20:14:30Z2010-01-01T00:00:00ZHead Movement in Bantu DPs
Carstens, Vicki
Carstens argues against the approach of Cinque (2005) to deriving facts of adjunct order related to Greenberg's Universal 20, based on Shona data. Some implications are that head-movement exists in grammar and has syntactic consequences; it is part of narrow syntax. For modifiers at least, order and hierarchy are distinct, and uFs need not be deactivated and deleted from the syntactic object bound for the Conceptual-Intentional interface, where material that isn't semantic is ignored (Epstein, Kitahara, & Seely 2010).
A handout of a presentation given at the 41st Annual Meeting of North East Linguistic Society
at The University of Pennsylvania on October 22nd-24th, 2010.
2010-01-01T00:00:00ZProperties of Subjects in Bantu LanguagesCarstens, VickiDiercks, MichaelLópez, Luis, 1965-Mletshe, Loyiso KevinNdayiragije, JuvenalSikuku, Justinehttps://hdl.handle.net/10355/104642020-06-19T20:14:28Z2010-01-01T00:00:00ZProperties of Subjects in Bantu Languages
Carstens, Vicki; Diercks, Michael; López, Luis, 1965-; Mletshe, Loyiso Kevin; Ndayiragije, Juvenal; Sikuku, Justine
This handout discusses how subject words function in various Bantu languages. Bantu languages are pro-drop, hence null subject languages (NSLs). Our initial findings are that preverbal subjects can, in fact, be non-specific indefinites (in at least Lubukusu and Kirundi). In Kirundi, expressions that are not licit in left-dislocated positions are fine as subjects. Person and tense/aspect influence the availability of inverse scope relations. Our preliminary conclusion is that at least some Bantu subjects are in Spec, TP; hence the nature of subject agreement in NSLs does not in general preclude subjects from occupying that position.
A handout of a presentation given at the Afranaph Project Development Workshop on December 11, 2010, at Rutgers University in New Jersey.
2010-01-01T00:00:00Z