|
|
 E-mail this message to a friend
|
|
Title:
|
On the Syntactic Incorporation of Linguistic Units
|
|
Author:
|
Anthony Aristar
|
|
Email:
|
click here to access email
|
|
Homepage:
|
http://linguistlist.org/aristar/
|
|
Degree Awarded:
|
University of Texas at Austin
, Department of Linguistics
|
|
Degree Date:
|
1984
|
|
Linguistic Subfield(s):
|
Typology
|
|
Subject Language(s):
|
Awngi
|
|
Director(s):
|
Winfred Lehmann
|
|
|
Abstract:
|
|
Cross-linguistic examination of morphological similarities, supported by diachronic reconstruction of their source constructions, suggests the existence of a new kind of linguistic universal. This putative universal consists of morphological strategies in which morphemes diachronically derived either from dative or genitive case-markers or from pronominals incorporate linguistic strings into higher structures.
These strategies are called 'incorporation strategies'; and their use or non-use allows us to distinguish between two sets of linguistic elements - those which are already 'incorporable' and do not require the use of the strategies, and those which are 'non-incorporable' and do require the strategies if they are to fulfill certain syntactic functions. For example, nominals high on the semantic hierarchy are marked for incorporation when taking case functions such as locative or instrumental-functions for which they have less 'affinity' than for agent or dative roles. These 'non-incorporable' high hierarchy nominals are marked as performing locative or instrumental functions by means of strategies involving dative, genitive, and pronominal markers. The same strategies mark alienable genitives,adjectives and relatives and certain kinds of transitive objects-those which are less affected or high in hierarchical status.
On the other hand, a second set of linguistic elements does not occur with the incorporation strategies. Where a contrast between alienable and inalienable genitives exists, the inalienable set is not found with an incorporation strategy. Nominals which are closely bound to the verb - e.g. incorporated objects or the highly affected objects of perfective verbs - do not take the incorporation strategies, nor do objects low in hierarchical status. And nominals do not take incorporation marking when their case-functions are of the same hierarchical value as the nominals they are appended to. Thus, locatives or instrumentals on nominals low in hierarchical status appear unmarked by incorporation strategies. Datives on nominals high in hierarchical status are similarly unmarked.
The distinction between 'incorporable' and 'non-incorporable' elements is explained in terms of varying degrees of real-world affinity between the elements which compose the structure. Those elements requiring the presence of incorporation strategies are exactly those which lack affinity between themselves and the elements to which they are bound.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page Updated: 27-Nov-2009
Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.
|
|
