LINGUIST List 10.1655

Mon Nov 1 1999

Qs: Lexical relations, Inalienable nouns, EPP

Editor for this issue: Jody Huellmantel <jodylinguistlist.org>

Directory

1. Lynne Murphy, Cognitive approaches to lexical relations
2. Martha Larson, Inalienable nouns vs. proper names
3. Lotfi, Persian data and EPP

Hello all,

I'm interested to know whether anyone working in Cognitive
Linguistics/Cognitive Semantics (i.e., in the style of Langacker, G.
Lakoff, R. Dirven, John Taylor...) has published anything that
specifically relates to the treatment of paradigmatic semantic
relations among words (i.e., antonymy, synonymy, hyponymy). Any
references are welcome and will be gratefully received--even brief
mentions of paradigmatic relations are of interest.

I think I'm pretty up-to-date on the non-cognitive approaches, but if
you know of something that's new or forthcoming that I might not have
seen, I'd be glad to hear about it. I'm writing a survey of the
different approaches to these relations.

Best wishes,
Lynne Murphy

- 

M. Lynne Murphy, Assistant Professor in Linguistics
Department of English, Baylor University
PO Box 97404, Waco, TX 76798 USA
Phone: 254-710-6983 Fax: 254-710-3894
http://www.baylor.edu/~M_Lynne_Murphy

Dear fellow linguists,

I am researching inalienable nouns in a West African language of the
Tano group called Baule. Inalienable nouns are nouns that have an
obligatory possessor argument. I've noticed that inalienable nouns in
Baule pattern with proper names, in particular, when the inalienable
nouns are themselves possessors. More concretely, in Baule, "mother"
is an inalienable noun but "teacher" is not. The pattern is that
"Aya's house" and "His mother's house" share the same structural
possibilites for possessive construction but "Aya's house" and "His
teacher's house" do not (Aya is a Baule proper name).

I remember reading somewhere a while ago something about another
language where inalienable nouns pattern with proper names. Try as I
might, I can't remember where. Does anyone know of any references that
mention this phenomenon? I will sumarize if I get interesting
feedback. Thanks.

Martha Larson, Grad.
Cornell University

Dear Linguists,

The Persian verb 'bayestan' (meaning 'to have to') is deficient in the
sense that contrary to other Persian verbs it cannot be inflected for
person. It may assume one of three morphologically isolated forms: (a)
'bayad' mainly used for present and future events (and even for past
ones if the verb to follow is already inflected for past tense), and
(b) 'bayest/bayesti' for past (but again not necessarily as they can
be used with other verbs inflected for present tense in order to refer
to a present/future tense event). Then when used in a phrase, it is
the verb to follow that must be inflected for person and tense
(although 'bayad' is not atemporal itself as mentioned above):

1. a. (Man) bayad beravam.
 I must go-1st-sing-present.
 "I must go"
 b. (To) bayad beravi.
 You must go-2nd-sing-present.
 "You must go"
 c. ...
2. a. (Man) bayad/bayest miraftam.
 I must go-1sr-sing-past
 " I had to go"
 b. (To) bayad/bayest mirafti.
 You must go-2nd-ding-past
 "You had to go"
 c. ...

'Bayad' cannot be an auxiliary verb because Persian doesn't use
AUXs. Perhaps 'khastan' is the only verbial element that one may
consider as a future-tense auxiliary in Persian:

3. a. (Man) khaham raft.
 I want-1st-sing.-future go-nonfinite
 "I will go"
 b. (To) khahi raft.
 You want-2nd-sing.-future go
 "You will go"
 c. ...

Anyway, here it is 'khastan' that is inflected for tense and
agreement; the main verb (raft) remains non-finite. 'Bayad' cannot be
an auxiliary because it is the verb to follow and not 'bayad' itself
that is inflected for tense and agreement. Interestingly enough, in
Persian subjectless sentences like (4) below there's no inflection for
agreement and tense on the second verb either:

4. Bayad raft.
 must go-nonfinite
 roughly meaning "To go is a must/ one must go"

'Bayad' is not inflected either. Perhaps it is just some temporal
feature of 'bayad' that makes it still a (present-time) sentence.
Although Persian is a prodrop language, one cannot assume that pro is
the subject of such sentences. Actually, the sentence is neutral with
regard to the subject, and whatever personal subject pronoun one
inserts in the subject position will make the sentence ungrammatical:

5. *a. Man bayad raft.
 *b. To bayad raft.
 *c. ...

The sentence will be still ungrammatical if a universal quantifier
occupies the subject position:

6. * Har kas bayad raft.
 every one must go

The grammatical version of (6) is:

7. Har kas bayad beravad.
 every one must go-3rd-sing-present

This seems to be a violation of the Extended Projection Principle
because it is grammatically necessary for the predicate 'bayad raft'
NOT to have a subject.

Does anyone know of similar phenomena in other languages? Please send
emails to my address below. If I gather sufficient data, I'll post a
summary. Any idea or comment is welcome.

Ahmad R. Lotfi, Ph. D.
English Dept.
Graduate School
Azad University at Khorasgan
Esfahan, IRAN.
MailTo: lotfiwww.dci.co.ir
- ----------------------------------------------------