LINGUIST List 25.2888
Thu
Jul 10 2014
Review: Morphology;
Syntax: Libert (2013)
Editor for this issue:
Mateja Schuck <mschucklinguistlist.org>
Date: 06-Mar-2014
From: Andrew Harvey
<aharvey
mun.ca>
Subject: Adpositions and Other
Parts of Speech
E-mail this message to a
friend
Discuss this
message
Book announced at
http://linguistlist.org/issues/24/24-4625.html
AUTHOR: Libert Alan Reed
TITLE: Adpositions and Other Parts of
Speech
PUBLISHER: Peter Lang AG
YEAR: 2013
REVIEWER: Andrew David Thomas Harvey, School of
Oriental and African Studies, University of
London
SUMMARY
Libert’s “Adpositions and Other Parts of
Speech” is a cross-linguistic review
of how a diverse range of scholars refer to
words on “the border between
adpositions and some other parts of speech”
(vii). Less about proposing
solutions than it is about underscoring
difficulties and highlighting issues
for further investigation, the work addresses a
broad scope of terms,
examining the context in which they are used,
as well as the consistency with
which they are used. It consists of eight
chapters, the contents of which are
listed below. Because of the various ways in
which linguists have applied the
expressions which Libert examines, many
subsections read like brief resumes of
how each linguist has come to understand that
label in their particular
language of examination. As such, for each
topic discussed, if there is no
consensus on how a term is employed
cross-linguistically, I will list the
languages included in the discussion.
In Chapter 1: Introduction outlines, the book
is outlined and some forms of
adpositions are exemplified and addressed. It
is established that words
should be defined according to their functions
(for example, words ‘used as’
adpositions, as well as adpositions which ‘are
actually/really some other part
of speech’, should be referred to simply as
adpositions). The use of the
terms ‘Fausses Prépositions, Fake Adpositions,
and True Adpositions’ in
several Indo-European languages as well as
Arabic is examined next. ‘Unechte
and Uneigentliche Adpositions’ are reviewed as
labels for nouns and adverbs
used as prepositions. The inconsistency
surrounding the use of the epithet
‘Quasi-Adpositions’ for certain deverbal
prepositions is examined, followed by
an explanation of the labels ‘Semi-Adpositions’
and ‘Pseudo-Adpositions’ as
being reserved for verbs or adverbs which have
not completely made the
transition to preposition (i.e. that have not
fully lexicalized as
prepositions). The designation ‘So-Called
Adpositions’, employed applied to
describe Yoruba and Lolo, is then examined,
followed by ‘Adposition-Like
Words’ which is an expression reserved for
cases when the boundaries between
word classes are fuzzy. ‘Other Terminology’
includes discussions of ‘impure
prepositions’, ‘marginal prepositions’,
‘equivalent to prepositions’, and
‘nominal prepositions’ and ‘verbal
prepositions’ (and several variations of
the latter two), as well as Uyghur
‘role-shifted prepositions’ versus ‘proper
prepositions’. ‘Mental State Postpositions and
Other Adpositions with Unusual
Semantics’ is a short exploration of
adpositions which mark semantic roles
typically denoted by nouns, verbs, or
adjectives.
Chapter 2: Adpositions and Nouns, examines the
borderline between adpositions
and nouns. The problem of classification is
illustrated with some comments
from Suutari (2006) on Mixtec, as well as an
example from the Khoisan language
!Xun. ‘Adpositions in General as Nouns’ raises
the issue of words which are
grammatically nouns in a language (e.g.
Mongolian) being classified as
adpositions in grammars simply because they
translate into English as
adpositions. ‘Some Adpositions as Nouns’
examines languages in which it has
been argued that some of the supposed
adpositions are nouns, including
examples from Persian, Telugu, Ma’di, and
Turkish, among others. The
following section examines ‘The
Presence/Absence of Inflection as a
Criterion’, highlighting that, though
invariability has been used as a method
of distinguishing adpositions from nouns, it is
not an entirely satisfactory
way of doing so. Similarly, the presence of
genitive case on complements is
also examined as a criterion, to similar
effect, as “adpositions in different
languages assign different cases, […] as do
some verbs” (40). Two further
measures are examined in ‘Other Criteria’:
whether the word in general does or
does not have a corresponding noun, as well as
semantic meaning type (as
proposed by Vajda 2004 for Ket). The next terms
to be examined are
‘Pseudo-Postpositions’ in Chagatay, and
‘Substantive Adpositions’ in Welsh,
Twi, and Sinhala. ‘Noun-Like Adpositions’ in
Uralic languages, Toqabaqita,
and Turkish are discussed, followed by
‘Adpositional Nouns’ in Seimat, Yakut,
Brahui, Berbice Dutch Creole, and Hausa.
‘Nominal Adpositions’ are reviewed
as they apply to Persian (specifically
prepositions which are found with the
ezafe marker), and Hungarian. ‘Relator Nouns’
are discussed for Finnish,
Rabha, and Kurtöp, as well as Southeast Asian
languages, which the literature
employs to refer to words sometimes called
locational prepositions.
‘Relational Nouns’ as the label applies to Mam,
Mangghuer, and Burushaski is
then examined. ‘Local Nouns, Locative Nouns,
and Location(al) Nouns’ are then
discussed for Longgu, Basque, Ewe, Gújjolaay
Eegimaa, and Tamangic, followed
by ‘Region(al) Nouns’ in Thai, Zapotec,
‘Spatial Nouns’ in Japanese, Khalaj,
and Basque, ‘Auxiliary Nouns’ in Altaic
languages including Tuvan, Chuvash,
Bashkir, and Tatar. ‘Localizers’ apply to one
word in Mandarin: ‘shang’,
described by Wu (2008) as the head of a
locative phrase, LP.
Chapter 3: Adpositions and Verbs examines words
on the border between
adpositions and verbs, which, given that both
represent a relation, may
sometimes be fuzzy. The first section, ‘Debate
on One Word of Chinese’,
underscores the ongoing discussion as to
whether Mandarin adpositions are
adpositions or verbs. The word bei4 is a
salient example, having been
classified variously as a preposition, a
subject marker, a subordinate verb, a
matrix verb, or part of a compound verb.
Following this, there is an
examination of ‘Prepositional Verbs’ as the
expression applies to South Efate,
Pijin, and Namakir, the term ‘Verbal
Adpositions’ as it applies to several
Oceanic languages and Bunaq, ‘Deverbal
Prepositions’ in Lao and English, and
‘Verb-Like Prepositions’ are examined in
Toqabaqita, Araki, and Chinese.
‘Verpositions’ is a label coined by Matisoff
(1991) for “verb-derived
morphemes that have come to function like
prepositions” (69) and examples are
given from Vietnamese, Thai, Mandarin, and
Hmong. Discussion then moves to
‘Verbids’, employed by Ansre (1966) for Ewe and
Lefebvre (1990) for Fon to
refer to lexical items distinct from verbs and
heading locative and
instrumental phrases. Beermann et al. (2005),
in their work on Ga consider
verbids to be verbs. Sanskrit ‘Prepositional
Gerunds’ are then examined,
followed by ‘Serial Verbs’ in Lao, Northern
Vietnamese, Titan, Tetun Dili, and
some spoken languages in Togo. Discussion then
shifts from languages with
serial verbs (often lacking verbal inflection)
to English ‘Participles’ which,
despite the fact they show inflection, may
still exist in the blurry boundary
between verbs and prepositions. The chapter
finishes with a brief discussion
of ‘Coverbs’ in Mandarin Chinese, Vietnamese,
and Classical Chinese, and
‘Converbs’ with examples from Old Turkic,
Sakha, and Karaim.
Chapter 4: Adpositions and Adjectives is a
shorter chapter, discussing words
existing at the interface of adpositions and
adjectives. Following the an
introduction, which establishes the issue by
drawing on Turkish, and Punjabi,
the section ‘Transitive Adjectives’ focuses on
whether words such as English
‘near’ in ‘near the river’ are prepositions or
adjectives, examining criteria
including absence of PP complement, ability to
appear in prenominal position,
as well as Pullum and Huddleston’s 2002
criterion of functioning as “an
adjunct in clause structure that is not in a
predicative relation to the
subject” (85).
Chapter 5: Adpositions and Adverbs, deals with
the intersection between
adpositions and adverbs, treating Lakhota,
English, and Pali. In the first
section, ‘(In)transitivity’, the ability to
take a complement as a criterion
for distinguishing adverbs from adpositions is
discussed, with examples from
English, Attic Greek, and Hungarian. ‘Improper
Prepositions’ as they apply to
Greek (Ancient and Modern) is then examined,
specifically if they can or
cannot be classed as adverbs. Following this,
‘Adverbial Adpositions’ are
explored in Slovenian, Haitian Creole, Bislama,
and Vedic Sanskrit, as well as
‘Adpositional Adverbs’ as the term applies to
Vedic Sanskrit, English, and
Hungarian. The chapter concludes with a
discussion of Ancient Greek
‘Preposition-Adverbs’, which is described
diachronically as a word which
becomes a preposition in a later form of the
language, but behaves as an
adverb, rather than a preposition.
Chapter 6: Adpositions and Conjunctions begins
with the consideration that
these two word classes may, in fact, be one and
the same. However, Cuyckens’
(1991) argument is that this is because,
semantically, adpositions and
conjunctions behave similarly, and that if
grammatical criteria are used
instead, a distinction between the two can be
maintained. The first section:
‘Words Meaning ‘With’ as Conjunctions’ examines
examples from Uyghur, Kyrgyz,
Turkish, Vaeakau-Taumako, Berbice Dutch Creole,
and Upper Kuskokwim
Athabaskan. The second section, ‘Adpositions
vs. Subordinating Conjunctions’,
discusses this difference with examples from
English, German, and Korya
Chiini. ‘Clausal Postpositions and Other Terms’
concludes the chapter,
examining clausal postpositions in Ket, as well
as sentence-prepositions in
Danish and Middle English, prepositional
conjunctions and postpositional
conjunctions in Japanese.
Chapter 7: Adpositions and Pronouns, treats the
so-called ‘inflected
prepositions’ of the Celtic languages.
Examining Stewart and Joseph’s 2009
position that these words should be viewed as
pronouns, Libert makes the
argument that if they are analyzed as
prepositions 1) there is greater
morphological regularity across forms, and 2)
it avoids the necessity of
positing case marking prefixes (an unlikely
state of affairs).
Chapter 8: Conclusion, remarks on general
themes that have emerged throughout
the work, including the absence of inflection
being a problematic criterion
for determining adpositionhood, as well as
using the word class of items
identical to the item under examination for
adpositionhood: “an analysis which
refers to this property does not seem to allow
for homonymy across word
classes, a phenomenon which clearly occurs […]”
(115). The author closes with
the hopes that the work “will at least make it
clearer what difficulties there
are […] and perhaps point the way towards
possible solutions” (116).
EVALUATION
‘Adpositions and Other Parts of Speech’ is a
wide-ranging examination of
adposition and adposition-like words across a
large number of languages and
families. The slim volume (135 pages) is a good
source for those looking for
interesting morphosyntactic puzzles, especially
if they are familiar with the
debates surrounding the assignment of words to
part of speech categories. The
reader hoping for a basic, accessible
definition of an adposition (either
formal or functional) had best look
elsewhere.
At the root of this work is the proliferation
of terms used to designate
similar, if not identical word classes or
sub-classes, as well as terms which
may have come to mean different things for
different language-specific
literature. Libert focuses specifically on
adpositions or adposition-like
words across the discipline, examining where
two different epithets are in
fact synonymous, as well as the various shades
of meaning one label may have
gained for one language versus another. Drawing
on reference grammars,
pedagogical grammars, and specialist research
articles, Libert examines labels
from a plethora of works which span over 150
years and represent a vast array
of differing terminological traditions. This is
consistent with Libert’s
findings: a trove of approximately 45 different
labels for evaluation.
The choice to examine each term on its own and
compare its uses across time
and contexts has its advantages and
disadvantages. In presenting terms as
stand-alone entities, similarities in their
usage can be brought to the fore.
As is quickly made clear, the meaning of labels
was modified (expanded,
rendered more specific, or innovated) to suit
the needs of the investigating
linguist as well as the language of
examination, thus resulting in some terms
containing several quite different types of
words. ‘Quasi-prepositions,’ for
example, represent either prepositions derived
from other parts of speech, or
prepositions being formed with more than one
word (pp.18-19). In addition,
words with similar functions were spread across
several terms: ‘Unechte and
Uneigentliche adpositions’, for example, can be
classed as ‘words used as
prepositions’. Because of this organizational
decision, it is difficult for
the author to identify any criteria by which to
characterize words as
adpositions versus other parts of speech.
Libert has therefore created what
he refers to as an “anthology” (vii), to
“let[ting] the thoughts of others
dominate, while offering some suggestions or
criticisms” (ibid.).
As with the majority of the literature on parts
of speech (see e.g. Schachter
and Shopen 1985, Trask 1999, and Pullum 1999)
primacy is given to the
distributional (functional) criteria over
morphological (formal) criteria,
though Libert establishes that without a clear
role of the function(s) of
adpositions, applying distributional criteria
will still be problematic.
To justify how part-of-speech categories are
drawn, this work conceives words
as existing in traditional categories with firm
boundaries. Given the current
popularity of the ‘prototypes’ model pioneered
by Rosch (e.g. 1977), this is
somewhat less common than positing categories
as continua upon which words lie
according to their similarities and differences
to cognitively-designated
‘prototypes’. Though this option is identified
in the 3 strategies for
dealing with items that do not fit into clear
categories (p. 3), Libert makes
good use of the more absolute model throughout
the work by pairing it with the
distributional maxim that: in a grammar which
defines parts of speech
distributionally, words ‘used as’ adpositions
must be adpositions. For
example, claims that languages such as Khmer
have few ‘dedicated’
prepositions, but instead possess
‘syntactically polyfunctional’ words, are
countered by positing that “rather than saying
that a word can be e.g. both a
verb and a preposition, stating that a verb has
a homonymous preposition” via
zero-derivation (6-7). That is not to say that
the work disregards nuance:
for example, Libert rejects Palmer’s (1967)
claim that in the Cushitic
language Bilin, postpositions are actually
nouns because they take genitival
complements. Given that “adpositions in
different languages assign different
cases” (40), it is not viewed as a sufficiently
robust criterion.
Throughout, Libert displays a keen eye for
catching inconsistencies in others’
work: for example, it is noted that Crowley
(2003:19) classifies the Bislama
word ‘antap’ as not a preposition, but “’an
adverbial type of constituent’,
but later glosses it as ‘adv.prep.’ i.e. not
‘adv.’ or ‘prep’” (98). This
might make one wonder whether if, for Crowley,
adverbial prepositions are a
class separate from both prepositions and from
adverbs […]” (ibid.). Eckmann
(1966) is observed in his ‘Chagatay Manual’
referring to ‘ara’ and ‘qoyï’ as
true prepositions, but then as
pseudo-prepositions in the following
section
(42). Such attention to detail often helps
evaluate the rigor with which the
various criteria are being applied.
As detailed as this work is, one can be
frustrated by the author’s tendency to
provide untranslated quotations in several
languages throughout. The
placement of long blocks of text in German and
French renders some of Libert’s
arguments inaccessible to some readers. It is
also a shame that a language
index was not included.
On page 65 (paragraph 2), ‘contruction’ should
be ‘construction’.
‘Adpositions and Other Parts of Speech’ is the
first book to treat the
distinction between adpositions and other parts
of speech (nouns, verbs,
adjectives, adverbs, conjunctions, and
pronouns) at length. Its goals are
threefold: raising salient examples of fuzzy
part-of-speech boundaries;
exploring the various criteria used to
determine adpositionhood; and
underscoring the need for a functional notion
of the adposition. These goals
have largely been met in this book, with every
subsection introducing,
elaborating on, and providing key instances of
a ‘blurry’ case of categorial
assignment to a word or set of words: fantastic
theoretical challenges to
syntacticians, lexicographers, and other
specialists interested in
part-of-speech assignment. The various criteria
for adpositionhood are
examined throughout, running as themes along
the way. The necessary brevity
with which each topic is treated (usually
providing data from just a handful
of prudently-selected languages at most)
practically begs comparative
linguists to search for analogs within other
languages and language families.
REFERENCES
Ansre, G. (1966) The Verbid -- A Caveat to
‘Serial Verbs’. “Journal of West
African Languages” 3.1 pp. 29-32.
Beermann, D., J. Brindle, L. Hellan, S. Tedla,
F. Bagiya, J. Furberg, Y. Otoo,
and M.E.K. Dakubu (2005) A Comparison of
Comparisons. In M. Butt and T.H. King
eds., “Proceedings of the LFG 05 Conference”
pp. 42-63. CSLI Publications,
Bergen.
Crowley, T. (2003) “A New Bislama Dictionary”
(2nd Edition). Institute of
Pacific Studies, University of the South
Pacific, Suava, Fiji, and Pacific
Languages Unit, University of the South
Pacific, Vila, Vanuatu.
Cuyckens, H. (1991) Prepositions as a Part of
Speech. “Linguistica
Antverpiensia” 25 pp. 107-127.
Eckmann, J. (1966) “Chagatay Manual”. Indiana
University, Bloomington, IN.
Huddleston, R. and Geoffrey Pullum (2002)
Adjectives and Adverbs. In R.
Huddleston and G. Pullum, “The Cambridge
Grammar of the English Language”, pp.
525-595. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Lefebvre, C. (1990) Establishing a Syntactic
Category of P in Fon. “Journal of
West African Languages” 20.1 pp. 45-63. Summer
Institute of Linguistics.
Matisoff, J.A. (1991) Areal and Universal
Dimensions of Grammaticalization in
Lahu. In E.C. Traugott and B. Heine eds.
“Approaches to Grammaticalizaton” 2
pp. 383-453. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Pullum, G. (1999) Linguistic Categories. In “A
Concise Encyclopedia of Parts
of Speech” (Brown, K. and Miller, J. eds.) pp.
66-70. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Rosch, E. (1977) Human Categorization. In
Cognition and Categorization
(Rosch, E; and Lloyd, B.B. eds.), “Annual
Review of Psychology” 32 pp. 1-72.
Department of Psychology, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA.
Schachter, P. and T. Shopen (1985)
Parts-of-speech systems. In “Language
Typology and Syntactic Description”. (Shopen,
T., ed.) 1 pp. 3-61. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Stewart, T.W., Jr. and B.D. Joseph (2009) How
Big Can Case Systems Get?
Evidence from Scottish Gaelic. In “Word
Structure” 2.1 pp. 108-120. Edinburgh
University Press, Edinburgh.
Suutari, T. (2006) “Body Part Names and
Grammaticalization” in M.-L. Helasvuo
and L. Campbell, eds. “Grammar from the Human
Perspective” pp. 283-299. John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Trask, R.L. (1999) Parts of speech. In “A
Concise Encyclopedia of Parts of
Speech”
(Brown, K. and Miller, J., eds.) pp. 278-284.
Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Vajda, E.J. (2004) “Ket.” Lincom Europa,
Munich.
Wu, H.I. (2008) “Generalized Inversion and the
Theory of Agree.” Ph.D.
dissertation, MIT.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Andrew Harvey (BA (Hons.) French, Linguistics,
Memorial University of
Newfoundland 2011; MA Linguistics, University
of Dar es Salaam 2013) is a
field linguist with interests in field methods,
lexicography and corpus
design, grammar writing, and the minimalist
programme. Principal investigator
of the documentation and description of Gorwaá
(South Cushitic, Afro-Asiatic),
his MA dissertation, titled ‘The Parts of
Speech of Gorwaá: Toward a
Description of the Gorwaá Language” was the
first academic work to treat
Gorwaá. He plans to pursue doctoral studies at
the School of Oriental and
African Studies in 2014, returning to Tanzania
in 2015 to further document
Gorwaá.
Page Updated: 10-Jul-2014