here - 5th International Conference on Bantu Languages

Recommendations

Info

GS Faaß (2010). G. Faaß. A morphosyntactic description of Northern Sotho as a basis for an automated translation from Northern Sotho into English. PhD thesis, University of Pretoria, http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd- 10092010-134539/ Faaß et al. (2009). G. Faaß & U. Heid & E. Taljard & D.J. Prinsloo. Part-of-Speech tagging in Northern Sotho: disambiguating polysemous function words. Proceedings of the EACL2009 Workshop on Language Technologies for African Languages (AfLaT 2009), 38 - 45 Lombard (1985). D.P. Lombard. 1985. Introduction to the Grammar of Northern Sotho. Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik. Prinsloo (2002). D.J. Prinsloo. The Lemmatization of Copulatives in Northern Sotho. Lexikos 12: 21-43. Prinsloo and Heid (2006). D.J. Prinsloo & U. Heid. Creating Word Class tagged Corpora for Northern Sotho by Linguistically Informed Bootstrapping. Proceedings of the Lesser Used Languages and Computer Linguistics <strong>Conference</strong>. (79-116). Bolzano, Italy 27th-28th October 2005. Taljard (1999). E. Taljard. Die Kopulatief van Noord-Sotho: 'n Nuwe Perspektief. Unpublished D.Litt. Thesis. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.
Nominal licensing and nominal morphology: a Zulu case study It has long been noted that abstract case has a complicated relationship to overt case morphology in many casemarking languages (e.g. Andrews 1982, Sigurdsson 1989, Schütze 1997, Fanselow 2000; Woolford 2006, a.o.). In this talk I address the relationship between abstract case and case morphology in the Bantu language Zulu. While Bantu languages have been argued to lack case altogether (Harford Perez 1985; Ndayiragije 1999; Alsina 2001; Baker 2003; Carstens and Diercks to appear; Diercks to appear), I argue that Zulu has both a system of structural case licensing inside vPand a system of case-marking morphology. Specifically, I propose that we can understand case morphology in Zulu, and more broadly across languages, in terms of two parameters: [+/-intrinsic] (which captures whether structural licensing is required) and [+/-phi-projecting] (which captures whether case-marked nominals are accessible for agreement). These two parameters combine to yield the range of case morphology found in languages with better-studied case systems, like Icelandic, while also giving a fourth possibility—that of a “default” case marker—exemplified in Zulu. Mapping out this system in Zulu affords us a blueprint for future investigations of structural and morphological case in Bantu languages. I further argue that we can use this case system proposed for Zulu to understand the “tonal case” patterns described in Otji<strong>here</strong>ro by Kavari et al. (2012). Evidence for structural case in Zulu comes from the distribution of augmentlessnominals. Unlike nominals marked with an augment (pre-prefix) vowel (AUG), these nominals are restricted to vP-internal positions (Halpert 2012). In particular, augmentlessnominals must be the highest element inside vP, regardless of grammatical function or the way in which a nominal achieves that position, as with raising-to-object in (1b) or base-generated vP-internal subjects in (2). I argue that this distribution reflects structural case licensing in Zulu: augmentlessnominals must be case-licensed by a head that probes vP. Evidence from the conjoint/disjoint verbal alternation (cf. Buell 2005) independently suggests the need for such a probing head. (1) a. *a-ngi-funi [ukuthi muntu a-cule] (2) a. à-kù-phèk-ángà mùntù í-qándà NEG-1sg-want that 1person 1sjc-sing NEG-17s-cook-NEG.PST 1person AUG-5egg b. à-ngí-fúní mùntùi [ùkùthì ti á- cúlè ] “Nobody cooked the/an/any egg.” NEG-1sg-want 1person that 1sjc.sing b. *a-ku-phek-anga (u)-muntu qanda “I don‟t want anyone to sing.” NEG-17s-cook-NEG.PST (AUG)-1person 5egg Evidence for morphological case comes from the nominal prefix system in Zulu. I argue that the augment vowel is an intrinsic case marker that can license any nominal independent of structural configuration. When the augment is absent, as in the constructions above, structural case is required. We find similar distinctions in Zulu's oblique prefix system: certain oblique prefixes are in complementary distribution with the augment and can license any nominal, along the lines of in<strong>here</strong>nt case; others require an external means of licensing, like quirky-cased nominals (e.g. Woolford 2006). As with languages like Icelandic, Zulu exhibits a difference between oblique cases and non-oblique cases: only the non-oblique cases can co-occur with subject agreement. Implications: In this analysis, the augment vowel emerges as a new type of case -- one that can in<strong>here</strong>ntly license nominals in any structural position (while allowing them to serve as targets for agreement). This type of case fills a natural gap in case typology, providing evidence for a „default‟ licenser (contra, e.g., Schutze 2001). At the same time, while structural case in Zulu follows certain familiar cross-linguistic patterns, the structural configuration in which case is licensed is novel. Previous studies that have argued against case in Bantu have largely focused on the position in which nominative case is licensed cross-linguistically. In this talk, I show that while such a position indeed does not display case effects, vP-internal positions do. This research suggests, then, that it is worthwhile to re-examine the issue of case in other Bantu languages in terms of these novel licensing configurations. Recent work by Kavari et al. (2012) suggests that the case signature of Zulu occurs elsew<strong>here</strong> in the Bantu family. They show that in Otji<strong>here</strong>ro, nominalsare marked with one of several “tone cases.” Among these tonal patterns, they identify one (“complement case”) that appears only on the highest element in vP—just like Zulu augmentlessnominals—and another (“default case”) that can appear on nominals in any position—like augmented nominals in Zulu. Though Otji<strong>here</strong>ro, like Zulu, has an active augment morphology system, it appears that unlike Zulu, it does not implicate the augment in its case system and instead depends solely on tonal morphology. Comparing Zulu and Otji<strong>here</strong>ro thus not only provides additional support for the system of case proposed <strong>here</strong>, but gives us a sense of the type of variation that we will find in cases systems across the Bantu family. Selected references: Alsina2001. Is case another name for grammatical function? Evidence from object asymmetries.In Objects and other subjects.Andrews 1982. A note on the constituent structure of adverbials and auxiliaries.LI 13. Carstens&Diercksforthcoming.Parameterizing case and activity: Hyperraising in Bantu. Proceedings of NELS 40.Diercks2012. Parameterizing case: Evidence from Bantu. Syntax 15. Harford Perez 1985.Aspects of complementation in three Bantu languages. PhD thesis. Halpert 2012. Case, agreement, EPP, and information structure: a quadruple dissociation in Zulu. Proceedings of WCCFL29.Kavari, Marten, & van der Wal2012.Tone cases in Otji<strong>here</strong>ro: head-complement relations, linear order, and information structure. Africana Linguistica XVIII. Schu ̈ tze2001.On the nature of default case.Syntax 4. GS
Page 5 and 6:
Remarks on the nasal classes in Mun
Page 7 and 8:
En ce qui concerne le couple 9/10,
Page 9 and 10:
Pourtant, la segmentation morphéma
Page 11:
Nasal Noun Class Prefixes in Bantu:
Page 16 and 17: Toward an understanding of TAM in M
Page 18: Persistence and Remoteness in the B
Page 22 and 23: WS3 Pakendorf, B., K. Bostoen and C
Page 24 and 25: New Bayesian Bantu phylogeny Rebecc
Page 26 and 27: Remarques sur l’introduction du
Page 28 and 29: The origin and genetic affiliation
Page 30: Tracking the Bantu migrations in ti
Page 34 and 35: WS4 Lexical and grammatical tone in
Page 39 and 40: Martine Adda-Decker 1 , Martial Emb
Page 41 and 42: Prosodic Phrasing in Copperbelt Bem
Page 43 and 44: of Bakola. Unpublished Ms. Nurse, D
Page 45 and 46: Lehrer, A. 1985. The Influence of S
Page 47 and 48: Negation and cartography in Tiriki
Page 49 and 50: Khumalo, J.S.M. (1981) Zulu tonolog
Page 51 and 52: Nasal prefix evolution in Kikongo b
Page 53 and 54: Lost, retained or reintroduced:nasa
Page 55 and 56: Reciprocal/antipassive polysemy in
Page 57 and 58: Les consonnes implosives dans les l
Page 59 and 60: On embedded questions in Tumbuka La
Page 61 and 62: Abstract of proposed paper for Bant
Page 63: Automatic detection of copulatives
Page 67 and 68: Bàsàa object left-dislocation, to
Page 69 and 70: The Causative-Instrumental Syncreti
Page 71 and 72: The Mental Representation of Setswa
Page 73 and 74: Tone in Two Elomwe Dialects in Zamb
Page 75 and 76: Ntihirageza, Jeanine. 1993. Kirundi
Page 77 and 78: Domain‐sensitivity in High Tone S
Page 79 and 80: Tonal Processes in the Setswana Ver
Page 81 and 82: Tons lexicaux et tons intonatifs en
Page 83 and 84: LA TRANSITIVITÉ EN ATSI, UN DIALEC
Page 85 and 86: The impact of sociolinguistic facto
Page 87 and 88: Swahili coordinated infinitives Kri
Page 89 and 90: Functions of Rhetorical Questions i
Page 91 and 92: Schadeberg, Thilo C. 1995. Spiranti
Page 93 and 94: Titre : BantU, bantI, bantA : les v
Page 95 and 96: Upstep in Mbugwe (F34) Vera Wilhelm
Page 97 and 98: Asymmetries and Locality in Zulu ri
Page 100 and 101: PS Anatomie et physiologie humaine
Page 102 and 103: High tone spreading in four Sotho-T
Page 104 and 105: Modifications des courbes tonales e
Page 106 and 107: Informational Prominence in Kol Bon
Page 108 and 109: Bantu grammatical description from
Page 110 and 111: Typologie de la réduplication dans
Page 112 and 113: L’applicatif en kikongo véhicula
Page 114 and 115:
Noun Phrase Structure in Shimwela J
Page 116 and 117:
Dialectal Variations in Limbum. Lim
Page 118 and 119:
Labial /f/ can be glotalized in Nor
Page 123:
A typology of Bantu subject inversi
show all

here - 5th International Conference on Bantu Languages

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?