Morphology at the Interfaces: Reduplication and Noun Incorporation in Uto-Aztecan (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

279 Pages·2008·1.46 MB·English

by  Jason D. Haugen

Morphology at the Interfaces
Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA)
Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph
studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical
and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics,
morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust
empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.
General Editors
Werner Abraham Elly van Gelderen
University of Vienna / Rijksuniversiteit Arizona State University
Groningen
Advisory Editorial Board
Cedric Boeckx Christer Platzack
Harvard University University of Lund
Guglielmo Cinque Ian Roberts
University of Venice Cambridge University
Günther Grewendorf Lisa deMena Travis
J.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt McGill University
Liliane Haegeman Sten Vikner
University of Lille, France University of Aarhus
Hubert Haider C. Jan-Wouter Zwart
University of Salzburg University of Groningen
Volume 117
Morphology at the Interfaces. Reduplication and Noun Incorporation
in Uto-Aztecan
Jason D. Haugen
Morphology at the Interfaces
Reduplication and Noun Incorporation
in Uto-Aztecan
Jason D. Haugen
Williams College, Williamstown
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Amsterdam / Philadelphia
TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
8
American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of
Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Morphology at the interfaces. Reduplication and Noun Incorporation in Uto-Aztecan /
Jason D. Haugen.
p. cm. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, issn 0166-0829 ; v. 117)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Uto-Aztecan languages--Morphology. 2. Uto-Aztecan languages--Reduplication.
3. Uto-Aztecan languages--Noun.
PM4479. H38 2008
497.4--dc22 2007038181
isbn 978 90 272 5500 6 (Hb; alk. paper)
© 2008 – John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa
CONTENTS

PREFACE IX
INTRODUCTION XI

PART 1: BACKGROUND

CHAPTER 1
THE UTO-AZTECAN LANGUAGE FAMILY 1
1.1. The Uto-Aztecan languages and their classification 1
1.2. Uto-Aztecan grammar 5
1.2.1. Overview of Uto-Aztecan syntax 7
1.2.2. DPs and case-marking 9
1.2.3. Subject and object clitics and affixes 12
1.2.3.1. Bound subject pronominals 12
1.2.3.2. Bound object pronominals 13
1.3. Uto-Aztecan historical linguistics and cultural prehistory 14
1.4. Conclusion 16

CHAPTER 2
LINGUISTIC THEORY AND HISTORICAL (MORPHO)SYNTAX 17
2.1. Introduction 17
2.2. General assumptions 17
2.3. The Pervasive Syntax Perspective and Distributed Morphology 19
2.4. Comparative syntax and syntactic reconstruction 24
2.4.1. Grammaticalization & Grammaticalization Theory 24
2.4.2. Grammaticalization & Minimalism--Roberts & Rousseau (2003) 26
2.4.3. On syntactic reconstruction--Harris & Campbell (1995) 28
2.5. Summary 32

PART II: PROSODIC MORPHOLOGY

CHAPTER 3
PROSODIC MORPHOLOGY AND CONSTRAINT-RANKING IN UTO-AZTECAN
HISTORICAL PHONOLOGY 33
3.1. Introduction: The Modular-Derivational approach to reduplication 33
3.2. Reduplication in Uto-Aztecan 35
vi CONTENTS

3.2.1. “Marked heavy syllable reduplication” 38
3.2.1.1. Yaqui (SUA) 38
3.2.1.2. Mayo (SUA) 41
3.2.1.3. Guarijío (SUA) 42
3.2.1.4. Nahuatl (SUA) 43
3.2.1.5. Numic (NUA) 44
3.2.2. Mora affixation 45
3.2.2.1. Mora affixation in Yaqui (SUA) 46
3.2.2.2. Mora affixation in Tepecano (SUA) 46
3.2.2.3. Mora affixation in the Numic languages (NUA) 48
3.3. Capturing the Uto-Aztecan generalizations through constraint-ranking 50
3.4. Some complicating data: A three-way distinction in Tohono O’odham 55
3.5. Against the alternative analysis 60
3.5.1. Reduplication and prosodic units 61
3.5.2. Constraint-ranking, or no? 63
3.5.3. On the morphological status of the reduplicant 65
3.6. Conclusion 66

CHAPTER 4
ON REDUPLICATION AND SYNTAX 69
4.1. Introduction 69
4.2. Travis on the syntax of reduplication 69
4.2.1. Travis (1999): “A syntactician’s view of reduplication” 69
4.2.2. Travis (2001): “The syntax of reduplication” 74
4.3. On the syntax of “phonological reduplication” 79
4.4. Conclusion 86

PART III: DERIVATIONAL MORPHOLOGY

CHAPTER 5
NOUN INCORPORATION AND DENOMINAL VERBS 87
5.1. Introduction 87
5.2. Denominal verbs and (or as?) incorporation 90
5.2.1. Mithun (1984) on the typology of noun incorporation 91
5.2.2. Mithun (1984) on the (non-)syntactic status of NI 96
5.2.3. Sadock (1986)—Response to Mithun (1984) 97
5.2.4. Mithun (1986)—Rejoinder to Sadock 99
5.3. Hopi denominal and NI verbs: Evidence for a unified analysis 102
5.3.1. Noun incorporation in Hopi 103
5.3.2. Denominal verbs in Hopi 105
5.3.3. Hopi denominal verbs as incorporating verbs 108
5.4. Against a lexicalist account of noun incorporation: Rosen (1989) 109
5.5. Summary 115
CONTENTS vii

CHAPTER 6
NOUN INCORPORATION IN UTO-AZTECAN 117
6.1. Introduction 117
6.2. Categories of Noun Incorporation in Uto-Aztecan: Overview 117
6.2.1. N-V Compounding 118
6.2.2. Syntactic NI 120
6.2.3. “Object polysynthesis” 123
6.2.4. Classificatory NI 124
6.3. Noun incorporation in Uto-Aztecan I: Results of the survey 126
6.3.1. Getting over the distinction between denominal verbs and NI 126
6.3.2. A typology for Uto-Aztecan noun incorporation 127
6.3.3. Rethinking Mithun’s implicational hierarchy of NI types 128
6.3.4. Further issues in Uto-Aztecan NI 130
6.3.4.1. Instrumental prefixes 130
6.3.4.2. Subject incorporation 133
6.4. Noun incorporation in Uto-Aztecan II: The data 136
6.4.1. Numic: Comanche 136
6.4.2. Takic: Cupeño 143
6.4.3. NUA Isolate: Hopi 147
6.4.4. Tepiman: Tohono O’odham 149
6.4.5. Taracahitic: Yaqui 152
6.4.6. Corachol-Aztecan: Nahuatl 160
6.4.7. Denominal verbs across Uto-Aztecan 161
6.5. Conclusion 161

CHAPTER 7
ON THE SYNTAX OF NOUN INCORPORATION:
INCORPORATION AND CONFLATION, MOVE AND MERGE 163
7.1. Introduction 163
7.2. Theoretical background: Incorporation and conflation 164
7.2.1. Hale and Keyser (1993): Denominal verbs and incorporation 164
7.2.2. Hale and Keyser (2002): Denominal verbs and conflation 169
7.3. Late Insertion as the solution to the hyponymous object problem 172
7.3.1. Classifier Systems 177
7.3.2. Theoretical Issues Raised by the Late Insertion Account 180
7.4. Non-DP complements to v: N-V compounding revisited 183
7.4.1. N as complement to v: A formal account of N/V compounding 184
7.4.2. Other complements to v 185
7.5. Object polysynthesis and pronominal object arguments 186
7.6. Conflation and non-object noun incorporation in Uto-Aztecan 189
7.6.1. Instrumental prefixes and manner conflation 189
7.6.1.1. Instrumental prefixes in Northern Paiute 191
7.6.1.2. A syntactic analysis of instrumental prefix constructions 194
viii CONTENTS

7.6.2. Subject incorporation 198
7.6.2.1. Unaccusative incorporation 198
7.6.2.2. N-V compounding with “agentive” interpretation 201
7.7. Conclusion 204

PART IV: CHANGE IN MORPHOLOGICAL TYPE

CHAPTER 8
DIACHRONY AND POLYSYNTHESIS IN NAHUATL 205
8.1. Introduction 205
8.2. Perspectives on polysynthesis 206
8.3. Subject and object polysynthesis in cross-linguistic perspective 211
8.3.1. Pronominal order in Athabaskan 214
8.3.2. Pronominal order in Takic 215
8.4. The structure of Nahuatl 218
8.5. Nahuatl in Uto-Aztecan context 221
8.5.1. Polypersonalism 221
8.5.1.1. Object pronominals 222
8.5.1.2. Subject pronominals 223
8.5.2. Syntactic noun incorporation 224
8.5.3. Related issues 225
8.5.3.1. Discourse reference for incorporated nouns 225
8.5.3.2. Discontinuous constituents 226
8.5.4. Summary 226
8.6. Conclusion 227

CHAPTER 9
CONCLUSION 229

REFERENCES 231
LANGUAGE INDEX 251
SUBJECT INDEX 255
PREFACE

This monograph is a revision of my doctoral dissertation, which was com-
pleted at the University of Arizona in 2004. Many people supported this work
in various ways throughout its development, and I would like to take this
opportunity to give them thanks. First and foremost, of course, many thanks go
to my fantastic dissertation committee, which included Andrew Carnie and
Terry Langendoen. I would especially like to thank my co-advisors Heidi
Harley and Jane H. Hill, who always provided prompt and insightful comments
on more drafts of this work than they should have been asked to read. They are
all excellent linguists and I learned a tremendous amount from each of them.
Numerous other linguists have also provided helpful feedback on various
aspects of this work, including Luis Barragan, Gabriela Caballero, Dirk
Elzinga, Colleen Fitzgerald, Lilián Guerrero, Larry Hagberg, Sean Hendricks,
Cathy Hicks Kennard, Ken Hill, Bob Kennedy, Constantino Martínez Fabian,
Todd McDaniels, Dave Medeiros, Mizuki Miyashita, Ana Aurora Medina
Murillo, Meghan O’Donnell, David Shaul, Dan Siddiqi, Tim Thornes, and
Ofelia Zepeda. Many of the issues addressed in this work were stimulated by
Eloise Jelinek’s work on Yaqui, and I would like to thank her for her
encouragement, inspiration and useful discussions of some of the ideas pre-
sented here. My own work on Yaqui (Hiaki) has been conducted with the gra-
cious assistance of Maria and Rosario Amarillas, whom I thank for the many
very interesting and informative hours that they spent discussing their language
with me. As always, none of the above are to be blamed for any of my own
conclusions, and any errors or other infelicities that might remain herein are
mine alone.
Portions of this work have been presented at various venues during the
course of its development, and I thank the audiences at these for their helpful
input on this material. These included audiences at the 8th Southwest Work-
shop on Optimality Theory (SWOT) at the University of Arizona (2003); the
SSILA Meeting in Boston (2004); the 8th Diachronic Generative Syntax (DIGS)
Conference at Yale University (2004); the 9th Texas Linguistics Society (TLS)
Meeting at the University of Texas at Austin (2005); and the Conference on
Nominal Incorporation and Its Kind (NIK) at the University of Ottawa (2006).
Earlier versions of parts of this work have or will appear in the proceedings of
TLS and DIGS.