1 / 28

Summary and Discussion:

Summary and Discussion:. Intertheoretical Approaches to Complex Verb Constructions. C. Bowern, 18 th March 2006. Abbreviations. SVC = Serial Verb Construction LVC = Light Verb Construction (Won’t be talking about the other types). Issues (= Recurring Themes). Finiteness Lexicality

aquila
Télécharger la présentation

Summary and Discussion:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Summary and Discussion: Intertheoretical Approaches to Complex Verb Constructions C. Bowern, 18th March 2006.

  2. Abbreviations • SVC = Serial Verb Construction • LVC = Light Verb Construction • (Won’t be talking about the other types)

  3. Issues (= Recurring Themes) • Finiteness • Lexicality • Sources of SVCs and LVCs, and what they turn into • Continua

  4. Back to the definition • Complex Predicates have the properties of a single predicational head spread over several items in the predicate. • overlapping arg structure • single event described • monoclausal (monopredicational? ie a single complex predicate, or a set of predicates in a single clause?) • Challenge to the unity of the ‘word’ as an atom of syntax (cf. Woodbury 2003). • However, not all definitions invoked this – some relied on monoclausality.

  5. Aside: Does Bardi have Serialization under this definition? • LVCs (head extensively) • Australian Serialisation (not common) • Pilbara (“Crow is sitting chasing them” – Peter Austin) • Arnhem Land – e.g. Yan-nhangu binmunu ‘do thus’, garama ‘go’, gabatthun ‘run’ and a few others. • Bardi (??)

  6. Bardi serialization? • Multiple verbs under a single intonation contour • No conjunctions or other markers of subordination (although these also exist) • Argument sharing. • (But not conventionalised? Only narrative use)

  7. (Similar difficulty in identifying LVCs in some languages) – e.g. just because something is preverbal, doesn’t mean it’s a preverb • Any solution apart from more native speaker linguists? (these are problems that linguists with nonnative fluency probably can’t solve)

  8. Finiteness • = Inflected for person • = Inflected for tense/aspect • (gradient feature) • Therefore, SVCs are mostly symmetric, LVCs never (?) are – but cf Thepkanjana’s data – several Thai SVCs appear to have similar functions to light verbs.

  9. Finiteness, cont. • Ambient serialisation • Still serialisation, but verb not necessarily marked for tense/aspect. • In process of grammaticalisation of SVCs into (e.g.) PPs, must lose those features at some point.

  10. Loniu and Titan (Admiralty Islands) • deverbal preps agree for tense Ala Yap ala-me sos, ala-sos i-ti Nauna 3pl Yapese 3pl.nfut=come meet, 3pl.nfut=meet nfut-’on’ Nauna. ‘The people from Yap met together on Nauna.’

  11. Lexicality • more or less lexical? based on citeria of • arg structure, • ‘full semantics’ (ie comparable semantics to main verb use) • lexicality in the sense of the phrase undergoing lexical rules (e.g. nominalization - Bodomo) • Thai • Bardi • Farsi

  12. ‘Lexical’ verb implies ‘listed in the mental lexicon with its own entry’ • lexical = heavy verb (vs light verb) • but some LVCs ‘lexical’ in that they’re formed in the lexicon vs in the syntax • If formed in syntax can’t be formed from full verb w. argument structure changes (implies non-monotonic theory)

  13. Therefore, need two verbs • sayfull • saylight • How different is that from common or garden polysemy? • How to tell polysemy from underspecification? [non-rhetorical question]

  14. Diachrony (1): ‘Results’ • The dead-end idea. • Classifiers (Gooniyandi – McGregor 1990) • Classifiers (Udi – Harris) • Not great even for Indic (Pardeshi and Hook) • Non-uniform behaviour synchronically (Shibatani for Atayal and Japanese; cf Bardi)

  15. Diachrony (2) • Sources • Other complex preds (cf Butt and Lahiri) • Parataxis • Generalisation of a rather specific construction; e.g. English go X • go eat • come go eat • went ate • ‘go suck on a neutron star’/’go bang some rocks together four-eyes’ (Zaphod Beeblebrox) • go vituperate

  16. Continua, Clines and the like • What does it mean to say that a particular property is gradient? • What should we do about it?

  17. Identifying a category as gradient isn’t the end of the story • A variable can be gradient for many different reasons. • Different speakers with different internal grammars (multiple different discrete grammars) • Different but related phenomena which are themselves discrete • Other factors which interact and give the appearance of scalarity

  18. Solutions • Give up • Recognize the gradience but recognize too that many aspects of the world are gradient but can still be modelled discretely. • phonemes • taxa • Develop scalar models • Be more specific about the scalarity – what causes it (cf Shibatani on motion serialisation) • Recognise that it’s a fundamental difference in approach to research and the nature of explanation and agree to differ

  19. Areality and borrowability • Tend to cluster areally

  20. Therefore, easily borrowed? (e.g. Schultze-Berndt) • BUT, what gets borrowed and how does it arise? • embedding • coverb borrowing • coverb + light verb borrowing? • calquing? code-switching? • i.e. is this lexical borrowing, or syntactic borrowing, or neither?

  21. E.g. North Australia • Rather different underlying organisation, e.g. in Northern Australia • (Most of the differences in N. Aus. fall out from how ‘eventive’ the coverb is – that is, how well it’s able to act as a full predicate on its own and what licenses the coverb as a predicate) • Bardi coverbs can’t appear without a light verb – not fully lexical themselves? Can’t license the appearance of all their arguments without another part of the predicate?

  22. Similarities • Semantics • function of marking event perspectives

  23. Differences b/w LVCs and SVCs • Sources • Givón: LVCs (e.g. Wagiman) typically arise through embedding (especially where there is asymmetric finiteness) • Argument sharing properties • (not discussed, but different) • Narrative light verbs? (NO?) • LVCs aren’t usually (ever?) event chains

  24. Event chains • Wagiman: ngi-ya-nggi woerrkge-ma maman // garatjjin dorroh-dorroh // denh-na wirin. 1pl.go-past work well // grass pull // cut tree. We worked well, pulling out grass, cutting trees. • Bardi: cf ‘serialisation’ above – NEVER coverb chaining.

  25. Some things we didn’t talk about (much) • Headedness • Argument sharing • Valency and valency determinates • Slave, Koyukon, Warlpiri – Valency is straightforward • Bardi – valency is messy • Semantic roles can arise through the construction • Relationship between grammaticalization and frequency – and between stability and change • Butt and Lahiri – LVCs are stable once they arise. BUT LVCs aren’t uniform in many languages.

  26. Where to? • Have to look at • cognitive underpinnings – cognitive versus grammatical definitions • processing issues • Social/Interactive issue – information gain? • the universals versus the language/culture specific items

  27. Concetration on variation makes identification of universals difficult • OT/LFG • The nature of explanation

More Related