NOUN-ADJECTIVE COMPOUNDS IN
GUNWINYGUAN LANGUAGES
Brett Baker
University of New England, Armidale
Rachel Nordlinger
University of Melbourne
Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference,
Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (Editors)
2008
CSLI Publications
http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/
Abstract: In Gunwinyguan languages (Northern Australia), nouns may
incorporate not only into verbs, but also adjectives. These N-Adj compound
structures have interpretations identical to those of noun phrases modified by
an adjective in English. A consideration of the evidence nevertheless argues
that the morphological head of the N-Adj construction is the adjective. We
show that this paradox can be resolved using inside-out function application
to allow the compound to be headed by the adjective at c-structure, but by the
noun at f-structure. We show further that the same analysis extends to cases
of nominal ‘classification’ where the incorporated nominal is construed as a
generic classifier together with an independent specific noun in apposition.
1.
Introduction
In this paper we examine the incorporation of nominals into adjectives in
Gunwinyguan languages (from Arnhem Land, northern Australia), including
Ngalakgan (Merlan 1983, Baker 2008), Nunggubuyu/Wubuy (Heath 1984),
Ngandi (Heath 1978), and Bininj Gun-wok (Evans 2003), as in (1).†1
(1)
Ngalakgan
a. ceɲ-ŋolkko
fish-big
b. kuɳʈu-joccoŋ
country-clear
c. ɭaŋka-kaɲaʔ
billabong-small
‘big fish’
‘clear (not sacred) country’
‘small waterhole’
These N-Adj compounds involve a subset of nominals with ‘generic’
or classifying functions and exist alongside phrasal N + Adj combinations of
the more familiar type, as in (2):2,3
†
For comments, suggestions and discussion, we are grateful to Aaron Broadwell,
Miriam Butt, Mary Dalrymple, Cliff Goddard, Mark Harvey, Tracy Holloway King,
Ron Kaplan, Ingo Plag, Louisa Sadler, and Jane Simpson. We uphold our right to
take full blame for any infelicities which remain, despite the efforts of the aforementioned scholars.
1
Examples, except where noted, are drawn from Baker’s fieldnotes and Baker
(2008). We have represented language examples throughout with standard IPA,
rather than the orthography of each language. Abbreviations are listed at the end of
the paper. Loanwords in examples are represented in italics.
2
The standard reference work for this language (usually, though incorrectly, referred
to as ‘Nunggubuyu’) is Heath (1984).
3
Note that we use the term ‘compound’ throughout the paper in a neutral sense,
interchangeably with ‘incorporation’, as a combination of two lexical roots or stems.
However, as discussed briefly below, compounds in GN languages have different
(2)
Wubuy
ana-ciici
macii,
NEUT.TOP-sore COND
pa-warna+kana
ana-c iici
2sg-hold+TAKE.PR
NEUT.TOP-sore
4
if yu abum so, bigwan
‘If you have a sore, a big one that is...’
ana- ɻuŋ kal
NEUT.TOP-big
[31/5/04]
The class of nouns which may be compounded with Adjs is restricted to the
same class that may be incorporated into verbs. In Wubuy, Heath (1984:471)
notes that
‘Only certain nouns can occur as [N in both N-Adj or N-Verb compounds], either
unchanged, with phonological changes, or with a suppletive replacement. In general,
specific flora-fauna terms, specific implement terms, and NAdj [‘adjectival nouns’]
(including most human nouns) are not permitted as cpd. initial.’
In all three languages, the nominals that occur in N-Adj compounds
include the special suppletive forms otherwise found only in verb
incorporations. In (3), the Ngalakgan special suppletive compounding form
/piɲi/ ‘water’ is used, rather than the regular form /weʔ/.
(3)
Ngalakgan
ku-ku-po-wan
3NP-NEUT-river-follow.NP
jeʔ-jereʔ
INTENS-downstream
piɲi-ŋ olk ko-kaʔ kuɳmaɳʔ
ceɲ ku-joŋon
water-big-LOC
maybe
fish 3NP-lie.NP [Ngkn; 2/9/97:1B]
‘they (fish) follow the river downstream, maybe the fish are in the big
water’
Suppletive stems such as /piɲi/ cannot be used as independent nouns (see
Baker 2008:88 for discussion).
The interpretations of most N-Adj compounds and many N-V
compounds are ‘phrasal’, rather than lexical. In contrast to English and many
semantics to compounds in English, German and other languages (and see Baker
2008 for more discussion).
4
Translations offered by speakers in Kriol are occasionally used in examples, where
relevant. Kriol is an English-lexifier creole, and is the vernacular language of many
Indigenous people of northern Australia (Harris 1986; Munro 2004).
other languages, for instance, N-Adj compounds in GN languages do not
have interpretations as types or kinds (like ‘blackbird’, ‘brown bear’, etc).
Rather, compounds such as ‘big fish’ only have strictly compositional
interpretations, identical to the phrasal combination of the same adjective and
noun (or their equivalents in English). We therefore do not find Bloomfield’s
(1949:197) famous contrast between ‘blackbird’ and ‘black bird’ in GN
languages. Most of the time, only the ‘black bird’ interpretation is possible.5
Most of the essential properties of this type of incorporation are thus
similar to what we find in nominal incorporation into verbs (as discussed in
Nordlinger & Sadler, this volume), and demand a similar analytical approach.
Different issues also arise however, since in this case, the morphologically
incorporated element (i.e. the nominal), is functionally equivalent to the head
in the phrasal counterpart. In this paper we provide an LFG account of these
N-Adj compounds which exploits the flexibility of the LFG architecture to
provide an explanatory account in which the compound is headed by the
adjective at c-structure level, but by the noun in the f-structure.6
In §2 and §3 we present the core data that we will be concerned with
and argue that these N-Adj combinations are (i) compounds rather than
phrases (§2); and (ii) morphosyntactically headed by the adjective (§3).
Despite being headed by the adjective, these N-Adj compounds have the
same interpretations as Adj + N phrasal combinations (in both these
languages, and in English), which are headed by the noun. In §4 we provide
our analysis which captures both the morphosyntactic facts discussed in §2
and §3 as well as the functional equivalence with Adj + N phrases. In §5 we
extend our analysis to constructions in which the incorporated nominal is in a
generic-specific relationship with an external nominal, building on the
analysis presented by Nordlinger & Sadler (this volume). Finally in §6 we
show how our analysis interacts with the analysis of nominal incorporation
into verbs presented in Nordlinger & Sadler (this volume).
5
Many GN languages have a small class of terms for biological taxa which are
formally compounds. For instance, Wubuy has names such as /ŋuta-l̪art̪ark/ (lit.
‘midriff-rough’) ‘king brown snake (Pseudichis australis)’. However, such terms
always involve a body part and an adjective, and are semantically exocentric.
Crucially, they never involve a biological hypernym on the model of ‘blackbird’.
6
Our analysis is therefore different to that of Broadwell (2007), who provides an
account of similar data from Zapotec which makes use of lexical-sharing. We prefer
our analysis for the Gunwinyguan data since it allows for integration with Nordlinger
and Sadler’s analysis (this volume) of nominal incorporation into verbs in these
languages, thereby providing a unified account for both types of incorporation. It is
also not clear how Broadwell’s approach would extend to the co-occurrence of NAdj compounds with external nominals, as discussed in §5. However a detailed
comparison of the merits of the two different approaches is yet to be undertaken.
2.
Compounds, not phrases
Here we’ll concentrate on the morphological criteria distinguishing
compounds from phrases in this group of languages.7 In GN languages,
compounds take affixation only at the word edges, and not internally. In
example (4), the Ngalakgan compound takes an initial noun class prefix, and
a final case suffix.
(4)
Ngalakgan
jini-munku-ɻa,
ku-colkko-maʔ-kaʔ
2sg/1pl-follow-FUT
NEUT-ground-good-LOC
‘You follow us, to the good [i.e. soft, sandy] ground.’
[5/9/97:1A]
Compounds of this form can therefore be distinguished from phrases,
which would never take a single set of affixes on each edge, since Ngalakgan
does not, in general, allow case-marking on a single constituent of a
(notional) phrase. So examples such as (5), where the noun is prefixed for
noun class but the coreferential adjective is suffixed for case, are not
accepted by speakers.8
(5)
Ngalakgan
*ku-colkko
NEUT-ground
maʔ-kaʔ
good-LOC
jini-munku-ɻa
2sg/1pl-follow-FUT
Secondly, there is morpho-phonological evidence from Wubuy for a
compound analysis. In Wubuy, there is a phonological rule which inserts a
meaningless epenthetic string /-ŋu-/ before stop-initial stems, following
another stem or a consonant-final prefix.9 N-Adj compounds are subject to
the rule, just like verbs. The rule only applies within words, hence the forms
in (6) are ungrammatical.
(6)
Wubuy (Heath 1982:277)
a. ana-jir-ŋu-ʈiku
NEUT.TOP-leaves-EPENTH -raw
b. ana-jir-ŋu-ʈaʈark
NEUT.TOP-leaves-EPENTH -dry
7
‘green leaves, foliage’
‘dried-up leaves’
There are also prosodic criteria distinguishing compounds in GN languages from
phrases; see Baker (2008); Baker & Harvey (2003); Evans (2004).
8
Merlan (1983:81) makes the contrary claim, that only the head of NP need take
overt case marking. In fact, this is only true with respect to demonstratives, which
may omit a case suffix if the case-marked noun immediately follows. It is not true of
sequences of noun and adjective, in Baker’s data.
9
See Heath (1984:35-7) for discussion of this rule.
c. * ŋu-ʈiku, * ŋu-ʈaʈark
In short, the phonological evidence suggests that we are dealing with
domains of phonology that are typically regarded as ‘words’ of some kind.
3.
Compounds as adjectives
In this section, we show that in GN languages, N-Adj compounds are
morphologically headed by the adjective and thereby take the full range of
inflectional possibilities open to other (non-compounded) adjectives. We
propose here that N-Adj compounds are always headed by the adjective, even
where they function as arguments, as in (4).10 If we regard them as words of
adjective category, then their other properties follow, as we now show.
The arguments that N-Adj are of the Adj class morphologically, rather
than the N class, come principally from two sources: noun class assignment,
and potential for TAM inflection. On these criteria, we can distinguish two
classes of ‘nominals’ in the lexicon of GN languages:
Class 1
Class 2
Noun class
Variable/contingent Fixed/inherent
Inflection for TAM Possible
Impossible
Fig 1. Classes of Nominals in the GN lexicon
Class 1 consists of nouns referring to ‘human status’ (the equivalents
of ‘person’, ‘child’, ‘old person’, ‘initiated man’, ‘young girl’, ‘thief’, ‘good
hunter’, etc) and kinship on the one hand, and adjectives on the other.
Adjectives realise properties and attributes of size, colour, quality, age, and
so on as in English. Class 2 consists of, on the one hand, names (personal and
placenames, and names for species and particular kinds of implements), and
on the other ‘generic terms’, such as the equivalent of ‘billabong’, ‘fire’,
‘water’, ‘(any kind of) spear’, ‘(any kind of) kangaroo’, ‘camp’, ‘rock’, ‘(any
kind of) tree’ and so on. N-Adj compounds always consist of a class 2
nominal followed by a class 1 nominal, in that order. Moreover, they must
consist of a ‘generic’ nominal compounded with an ‘adjectival’ nominal.
Inflection for Tense-Aspect-Mood
Nominals in class 1 can be inflected for TAM when functioning as clausal
predicates. Normally, inflection for TAM is made possible by the addition of
a finite auxiliary root (/me-/ in Ngalakgan, /ma-/ in Wubuy):
10
Here we differ from Evans (2003), who takes the nominal element to be the head,
when the compound is functioning referentially. As we show below, this category
indeterminacy arises from the fact that these compounds exhibit a mismatch between
the c-structure head and the f-structure head—a mismatch that is straightforwardly
accounted for on our analysis.
(7)
Ngalakgan (Merlan 1983:58)
ŋajkkaʔ
koʔje
I
here
‘I was a child’
ŋu-m iɻppa ra-m en iɲ
1sg-child-STAT.PC
N-Adj compounds functioning as clausal predicates can also be inflected for
TAM, in the same way as other class 1 nominals. Here, the N-Adj compound
takes a tense-specific negative suffix, which can only be used on verbs, and
class 1 nominals functioning as clausal predicates.
(8)
Ngalakgan
ku-kuɳʈu-cap pur u- ʔm olk
kuɳmaɳʔ
NEUT-country-sacred-PRNEG
maybe
‘it might not be sacred country’ (Ngalakgan)
In contrast, nominals from class 2 (species terms, ‘generic’ terms, specific
implement terms) cannot be inflected for TAM, even when they function as
clausal predicates. Existence or identity can be predicated of (apparently) any
noun, as in the following Wubuy example:
(9)
Wubuy
mata m u
mana-j ir pa ɻa ,
a-ciici-jiɲuŋ
VEG-PROX VEG.TOP-ironwood, NEUT-sore-REL
dijan iya ayinwud tri, im blanga so ‘ironwood here, it’s [used] for
sores.’
Thus, the fact that these N-Adj compounds can be inflected for TAM
shows them to be class 1 nominals, morphologically.
Another piece of evidence that N-Adj compounds are adjectives comes
from verb agreement morphology. As well as TAM marking, adjectives (and
other class 1 nominals) can take verb agreement morphology when
functioning as clausal predicates, as shown in (10). Class 2 nominals, on the
other hand, can never take this type of agreement morphology, as shown in
(10). N-Adj compounds pattern as class 1 nominals in this respect, as shown
by the example in (10). (10) is a compound of a generic noun /jaŋ/ ‘voice’
and an adjective /waʈawaʈaʈ/ ‘strong, firm’ (which is reduplicated in this
case). Since it was used as a predicate in this example it takes a verbal
argument prefix /ni-/ ‘3 masculine singular’ agreeing with the referent, a
man. This prefix cannot occur on common (non-adjectival) nouns, and hence
(10) is ungrammatical.
(10) Wubuy
a. /ni-waʈawaʈaʈ/
3M-strong
‘he is strong’
b. */ni-jaŋ/
c. [nijambaɖawaɖawaɖaɖ]
/ni-jaŋ-waʈa-waʈawaʈaʈ/
3M-voice-INTENS-strong
‘his voice is strong, he is strong voice-wise’
[9/4/07: tk1]
What this demonstrates, as with the other examples, is that (10) cannot
be considered to be a phrase consisting of two morphological words, because
the putative first word is ungrammatical. Rather, it is a morphological word
(in some sense), which takes prefixation appropriate to its head, the adjective.
Agreement for Noun Class
Nominals in class 1 can take variable noun class prefixation, consonant with
the idea that the noun class ‘agrees’ with a referent. In BGW, where ‘noun
class’ on heads and ‘agreement’ on modifiers can be distinguished (Evans
1997, Evans et al. 2002), compounds take agreement, rather than noun class,
where these differ (Evans 2003:177). They therefore take the same
inflectional morphology as adjectives, agreeing with the incorporated noun,
rather than taking the gender prefix that noun takes when it is an independent
word. In example (11), from the Gundjeihmi dialect of BGW, the compound
/an-tulk-ɻajek/ ‘hard wood’ takes VEG agreement with prefix /an-/, because
the noun /tulk/ governs VEG agreement on cooccurring modifiers (adjectives,
demonstratives). However, the noun /tulk/ itself, when independent, takes the
NEUT noun class prefix /kun-/. Similarly with the (b) example (from the
Kunwinjku dialect; both examples from Evans 2003:177):
(11) Bininj Gun-wok
a. /an-tulk-ɻajek/ VEG-tree-hard ‘hard wood’
c.f. /kun-tulk/ NEUT-tree (Dj)
b. /man-piɭi-kimuk/ VEG-flame-big ‘big flame’
c.f. /kun-piɭi/ NEUT-flame (W)
This appears to be solid evidence against the proposal that the noun is
the morphosyntactic head of the compound, even where the compound is
used referentially. If it were, there would be no reason for the compound to
take gender agreement, rather than noun class prefixation.11 On the other
11
See Evans (2004) for an alternative view.
hand, it is also solid evidence that the incorporated noun is the controller for
the purposes of gender agreement, a property that is usually associated with
an f-structure head.
If we allow that compounds are adjectives, then their other properties
follow, since adjectives can be referential in GN languages (as in Australian
languages generally, cf. Hale 1983 on Warlpiri):12
(12) Ngalakgan
ŋol kk o
ŋu-pawunʔ-miɲ
big
1sg-leave-AUX.PP
bigmob ai bin libim
‘I left a lot.’
(13) Ngalakgan
a. jekke
ɳu-ku-ceɲ mokkol ku-ɻapon?
MA-TOP-fish father
3NP-go.PR
‘Dad, any fish [here]?’
INTERR
b. ŋol kk o cecepaɻŋʔ ŋu-ɳaniɲ, ŋol k k o ku-ɻapon
big
yesterday 1sg-see.PC, big
3NP-go.PR
O bigmob fish im wokabaut
‘I saw a lot yesterday, a big mob moving around’
[2/9/97:1B]
12
These examples are not ideal unfortunately, because the interpretation is
quantificational rather than attributive. We find the same shift in BGW examples
presented in Evans (2003:178):
na-peʔɳe
cappilaɳa
ka-po-karme
MA-that
billycan
3-liquid-have.NP
‘That billycan has lots of water.’
an-po-kimuk
VEG-liquid-big
Ngandi too appears to share the same ambiguity, where the Adj /kaɭi/ is translated as
‘big, many’ by Heath (1982). It could be that (some) adjectives allow
quantificational readings as well as attributive ones, and that the reading depends on
the kind of noun involved. There has not been enough research on these languages to
determine this question. What is also unclear, is under what circumstances adjectives
can be referential without some cooccurring nominal. The examples we have so far
been able to find in Ngalakgan suggest that there is always an inferred referent
supplied by discourse. Thanks to Cliff Goddard for alerting us to this important
question.
In sum, N-Adj compounds in Gunwinyguan languages are functionally
equivalent to Adj + N phrasal combinations, but exhibit the following
distinctive morphosyntactic properties:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
they are compounds rather than phrases, as shown by the
morphophonological and prosodic evidence;
they belong to the morphological category of class 1 nominals,
as shown by the fact that they take TAM inflection and verbal
agreement morphology when functioning as clausal predicates,
and gender agreement morphology, rather than noun class
marking;
although the adjective is the morphosyntactic head, the
incorporated nominal shows some head properties, such as
controlling gender agreement.
Thus in these N-Adj compounds we find a mismatch between the
morphosyntactic properties (which show the adjective to be the head), and
the semantic/functional properties (which suggest that the incorporated
nominal is the head, on analogy with equivalent Adj + N phrasal
combinations). This mismatch of properties explains why there is some
debate in the literature as to whether these compounds are indeed adjectives
or nouns (cf. Baker 2008 and Evans 2003; 2004). In the next section we show
how the flexibility of the LFG architecture can be exploited to provide a
straightforward account of these compounds and their properties.
4.
Analysis of N-Adj compounds
Using inside-out function application in LFG, these complex empirical facts
can be given a straightforward and explanatory account, as follows. As noted
above, these N-Adj combinations share many functional similarities with NV incorporations (as discussed by Nordlinger and Sadler (this volume)), and
in fact the same N may be incorporated into both a verb and an adjective in a
single construction, as shown in the Bininj Gun-wok example in footnote 12.
Our formal analysis, then, aims to capture this relationship by generating the
incorporated nouns in the same part of the f-structure irrespective of whether
or not they are incorporated into an adjective or into a verb. Thus, the
analysis presented here interacts seamlessly with the analysis of N-V
incorporations provided by Nordlinger and Sadler (this volume), as we
exemplify in §6.
Firstly, we assume the basic c-structure rules provided in (14):13
13
Heath (1986) argues that sequences of nominals and adjectives do not form
phrases in Wubuy, and his arguments could be extended to Ngalakgan and BGW
also. However, for expository purposes we are assuming a phrasal level for each
constituent type here since it enables us to simplify the f-descriptions in the lexical
(14) NP…A ,
…
↓ !(↑ ADJ)
N …
↓ !↑
↓ IND = ↑ IND
We assume that a regular adjective with attributive function carries the
information provided in (15) (from Wubuy). When combined with an ↓ !
(↑ ADJ) annotation from the c-structure, this projects the f-structure in (16):
(15) /ɻuŋkal/: A
(↑ PRED) = ‘big’
(16)
!" ADJ {[ PRED 'big']} #$
When there is no incorporated nominal, the PRED of the outer fstructure will be provided by an external nominal (as in (2)), or by the
pronominal agreement marking on the verb (as in (13)).
When the adjective is compounded with an incorporated nominal, the
nominal itself constructs the PRED for the superordinate f-structure, using
inside-out function application. The lexical entry for the incorporated
nominal /ŋucica/ ‘fish (generic)’ is given in (17) (this will be revised slightly
in §5).14 This lexical entry is transparently related to the lexical entry of the
unincorporated nominal via a lexical redundancy rule which adds the (ADJ
! ↑) = ↓ specification and associates all other f-descriptions with ↓.
(17) /ŋucica-/:
(ADJ ! ↑) = ↓
(↓ PRED) = ‘fish (generic)’
(↓ INDEX PERS) = 3
(↓ INDEX NUM) = SG
(↓ INDEX GEND) = RESID
entries. This analysis could be converted into a completely flat structure, however, if
required.
14
We have not addressed the semantics of the incorporated noun here. One approach
is that of Wilkins (2000), who argues that the semantics of generic nouns used in
classifier constructions in Arrernte is the same as their semantics in independent use,
what is different is the semantics carried by the classifier construction itself and the
particular intersection of the generic meaning and the specific meaning. We believe
this is a fruitful line of enquiry for GN languages also, but lack the space to fully
develop it here.
The N-Adj compound /ŋucica-ɻuŋkal/ ‘big fish’ then has the lexical
entry provided in (18), which projects the f-structure in (19).
(18) /ŋucica-ɻuŋkal/: A
(↑ PRED) = ‘big’
(ADJ ! ↑) = ↓
(↓ PRED) = ‘fish (generic)’
(↓ INDEX PERS) = 3
(↓ INDEX NUM) = SG
(↓ INDEX GEND) = RESID
(19)
! PERS 3
$$
!
&&
# INDEX # NUM SG
#
&&
#
#" GEND RESID &% &
#
&
#
&
# PRED 'fish (generic)'
&%
#" ADJ {[ PRED 'big' ]}
In this f-structure, the information associated with the incorporated
nominal has been projected into the outer f-structure which the adjective
‘big’ modifies. Thus, despite being a different category at c-structure (i.e.
adjective), this N-Adj compound projects an f-structure analogous to that of
Adj + N phrasal combinations, such as ‘big fish’ in English. Since the
INDEX information associated with the incorporated nominal is also
projected into the outer f-structure we capture the fact that it is the
incorporated nominal that controls verbal agreement and adjectival gender
agreement, despite the fact that it is not the morphological head of the N-Adj
compound.15
15
There are alternative ways to achieve this f-structure formally. For example, one
option would be to use a local name for the f-structure associated with the
incorporated nominal, and therefore avoid the use of the ↓ in the lexical entry in (17)
and (18). Another option would be to use a sub-lexical rule to combine the N and Adj
as follows: (Ron Kaplan, p.c.):
NP
A …
↑=↓
A
N
↑=↓ ↓
A
!(↑ ADJ) (cont. below)
5.
Generic-specific constructions with an external nominal
N-Adj compounds exhibit a type of classifier noun incorporation (Rosen
1989), except that in this case the incorporation is into an adjective (which
may be in an argument position) rather than into a verb. Like other types of
classifier noun incorporation discussed in the literature (and in Nordlinger &
Sadler, this volume), N-Adj compounds can occur in a ‘generic-specific’
construction with an external nominal, as in the following:
(20) Bininj Gun-wok (Manyallaluk Mayali dialect; Evans 2003:17)
an-car ma n
ko-no
k o-ŋermej
VEG-kurrajong
flower-PRT
flower-red
‘Kurrajong (Brachychiton sp.) trees have red flowers.’ (An alternative
translation is: ‘Brachychiton flowers are red ones [flowers].’)
(21) Ngalakgan
paliɲʔ mu-m aj-pinti
plawa
like
VEG-veg.food-real
flour
‘like real flour’ [ ‘flour’ < Kriol]
[DD]
(22) Wubuy (Heath 1980:435)
nirima-l̪alwul̪ii
aɻ-ma-mawuɻaatuc anaa-k u ku
1pl/VEG-soak.PR water-RED-cold
NEUT.TOP-freshwater
‘we soak it [gum of wattle sp.] in cold water’
(23) Wubuy
ŋuc ica-ɻuŋkal
jiŋ k uɭpa n ti
ŋiini-maŋi
fish[RESID]-big
barramundi[NA] 1in.pl/NA-get.PC
‘we got a big barramundi [NA gender]’
We follow Nordlinger & Sadler’s (this volume) analysis of these
constructions, in which both the incorporated and external nominals
contribute to an f-structure set, on a par with their treatment of phrasal
generic-specific counterparts (Sadler & Nordlinger 2006).
To illustrate, consider the following example in which the Wubuy NAdj compound /ŋucica-ɻuŋkal/ ‘big fish’ is combined with the specific
external noun /jiŋkuɭpanti/ ‘barramundi’.16
(24) Wubuy
ŋuc ica-ɻuŋkal jiŋ k uɭ pa n ti
fish-big
barramundi
‘big barramundi’
However, this approach does not allow the adjective to have scope over the entire
generic-specific combination when this N-Adj combination co-occurs with an
external nominal (see §5), and thus we prefer the analysis presented here.
16
This constructed example has been tested with Baker’s primary Wubuy consultant.
However, it is consistent with similar, naturally-occurring examples such as (20).
Recall the NP c-structure rule, repeated below. We assume (following
standard LFG assumptions) that all nodes are optional (which allows for the
two elements to constitute two separate discontiguous phrases).
(25) NP…A ,
…
↓ !(↑ ADJ)
N
…
↓ !↑
↓ IND = ↑ IND
The lexical entry for /jiŋkuɭpanti/ ‘barramundi’ is that given in (26).
When combined with the c-structure rule in (25) (in the N position), this
projects the partial c-structure and f-structure in (27):
(26)
(27)
/jiŋkuɭpanti/: N
(↑ PRED) = ‘barramundi’
(↑ INDEX PERS) = 3
(↑ INDEX NUM) = SG
(↑ INDEX GEND) = NA
$
!
! PERS 3 $
&
# INDEX # NUM SG &
&
#
#
&
&
#
#" GEND NA &%
&
#
# ' ! PRED 'barramundi' $ + &
&)
# )#
PERS 3 $ ) &
!
)
#
& ,&
#(
#
&
#
&
INDEX
NUM
SG
#)
#
& & ) &&
# )#
#" GEND NA &% % )- %
" *"
Turning now to /ŋucica-ɻuŋkal/ ‘big fish’, the lexical entry for the
incorporated nominal provided in (18) needs to be modified to allow for the
fact that the incorporated nominal may contribute information to a set at fstructure. The modified lexical entry is provided below, where we have
added the information that the f-structure to which the nominal contributes
may optionally belong to a set in the outer f-structure to which the ADJ
belongs (((ADJ ! ↑) ( !)) = ↓.
(28) /ŋucica-/:
((ADJ ! ↑) ( !)) = ↓
(↓ PRED) = ‘fish (generic)’
(↓ INDEX PERS) = 3
(↓ INDEX NUM) = SG
(↓ INDEX GEND) = RESID
The c-structure rule ensures that the INDEX of the external nominal
will always be projected to the f-structure of the set. Where there is a
mismatch between the INDEX values of the external nominal and the
incorporated noun (i.e. mismatches in number or gender), it is the values of
the external nominal which are always identified with those of the set (as in
(23)17). We capture this by not projecting the INDEX features of the
incorporated nominal to the outer f-structure so that, when an external
nominal is present, the INDEX of the set will always be that of the external
nominal.
When combined with the adjective /ɻuŋkal/ ‘big’ this results in the
following f-structure for the N-Adj compound:
(29)
! ' ! PRED 'fish (generic)'
$ +$
# )#
& )&
! PERS 3
$ & )&
# )( #
& & ,&
# # INDEX # NUM SG
)
#
& & )&
# #
)
#" GEND RESID &% % )- &
# *"
# ADJ {[ PRED 'big']}
&
"
%
Finally, when combined with the f-structure associated with the
external nominal, we generate the following c- and f-structure for the whole
generic-specific construction.
NP
↓ !(↑ ADJ)
A
|
ŋucica-ɻuŋkal
17
↓ !↑
↓ IND = ↑ IND
N
|
jiŋkuɭpanti
Wubuy is a good language to test this implication with, since (unlike most GN
languages) it religiously distinguishes among 7 genders of objects. In example (23),
we find an argument prefix /ŋiini-/ which agrees with the gender of the external noun
/jiŋkuɭpanti/ (NA gender), rather than the incorporated generic /ŋucica/ (RESID
gender). The corresponding argument prefix for a RESID gender object would be
/ŋuru-/.
(30)
!
$
! PERS 3 $
# INDEX # NUM SG &
&
#
&
&
#
#
&
#" GEND NA &%
#
&
$ +&
# ' ! PRED 'fish (generic)'
& )&
# )#
PERS 3
$
!
)
&)
#
#
& & ) &&
# ) # INDEX ## NUM SG
& & )&
# )#
#
GEND RESID &% % )
"
"
)
#
&
# ( ! PRED 'barramundi' $ , &
)
# )#
& )&
)
PERS
3
!
$&
# #
&
# ) # INDEX # NUM SG & & ) &
#
& & )&
# )#
#" GEND NA &% % )- &
# )* "
#
&
" ADJ {[ PRED 'big']}
%
This f-structure is exactly analogous to those provided by Nordlinger
& Sadler (this volume) to account for incorporated generics in verbal
incorporations, thereby capturing the similarities between the two types of
incorporation structures. The only difference here is that the nominal set is
modified by an adjective.18
6.
Putting it all together
Now, consider an example in which there is both types of generic-specific
incorporation—into a verb and into an adjective—as in the following
(constructed) example:
(31) Wubuy
ŋuc ica-ɻuŋkal
jiŋ k uɭpa n ti
ŋiini-ŋuci ca- maŋi
fish[RESID]-big
barramundi[NA] 1in.pl/NA-fish-get.PC
‘we got a big barramundi [NA gender]’
18
Note that we are assuming that the ADJ function is non-distributive. Here we
deviate from Dalrymple (2001:366) in which grammatical functions (GFs) are
assumed to be distributive features. However, there appear to be independent
reasons for treating GFs as non-distributive, as in the example She ate her breakfast
and put her plate in the dishwasher where we would not want to distribute the PP
across each coordinated VP. We are also assuming that PRED is distributive (as
discussed in Nordlinger & Sadler, this volume) to rule out the possibility that ↓ in
(30) is identified with the f-structure of the set when there is an external nominal. If
PRED is distributive then this identification would result in a PRED clash, rendering
the f-structure invalid.
Following Nordlinger and Sadler (this volume), the verb+incorporated
nominal project the f-structure in (32), and, on our analysis, the N-Adj + external
nominal projects the f-structure in (33):
(32)
(33)
! SUBJ ! PERS 12 $
$
#
&
# NUM PL &
"
%
#
&
# PRED 'get <SUBJ, OBJ>'
&
#
&
# TENSE PST.CONT
&
#
' ! PRED 'fish (generic)'
$ +&
#
)#
& )&
! PERS 3
$ & )&
# OBJ ) #
(
& & ,&
#
# INDEX # NUM SG
)
#
& & )&
#
)* #"
#" GEND RESID &% % )- &%
#"
!
$
! PERS 3 $
# INDEX # NUM SG &
&
#
&
#
&
#
&
#" GEND NA &%
#
&
$ +&
# ' ! PRED 'fish (generic)'
&)
# )#
! PERS 3
$ & ) &&
# )#
& & )&
# ) # INDEX ## NUM SG
& & )&
#
)
#
#
&% % ) &
GEND
RESID
"
# )"
(
# ! PRED 'barramundi' $ , &
)
# )#
& )&
)
PERS
3
!
$
# #
&
&
# ) # INDEX # NUM SG & & ) &
#
& & )&
# )#
)
#" GEND NA &% % )- &
# *"
#
&
" ADJ {[ PRED 'big']}
%
When these two f-structures are combined (assuming the c-structure
provides (↑ GF) = ↓ annotations for the NPs containing both the N-Adj
compound and the external nominal), we end up with the f-structure for the
whole clause shown in (33) (next page).19
19
We assume that the generic/classifying nature of the incorporated nominals is
accounted for in the semantics, and that it is this semantic property which allows for
there to be repeated members in the set.
(35)
!
$
! PERS 12 $
# SUBJ # NUM PL &
&
%
"
#
&
# PRED 'get <SUBJ, OBJ>'
&
# TENSE PST.CONT
&
#
&
#
PERS
3
!
$
$&
!
#
#
&
&&
#
# OBJ # INDEX # NUM SG &
&&
#
#" GEND NA &%
&&
#
#
&&
#
PRED 'fish (generic)'
'
+
!
$
#
&&
#
)
#
&
)
#
&
#
! PERS 3
$ & )& &
#
#
)
#
#
& & )& &
#
# ) # INDEX # NUM SG
& & )& &
#
# ) #"
#" GEND RESID &% % & &
#
)&
#)
#
# ) ! PRED 'fish (generic)'
$ )& &
#
# )#
& )& &
PERS 3
)
!
$
#
# (#
& ), & &
#
&
#
# ) # INDEX NUM SG
& )& &
#
&
#
# )#
& &&
#" GEND RESID &% % ) & &
#
# )"
)
#
# ) ! PRED 'barramundi' $ ) & &
#
&
# )#
& )& &
PERS
3
#
!
$&
&
# )#
#
# # INDEX # NUM SG & & ) & &
#
#
& & )& &
# )#
)
#
#
&% % )- & &
GEND
NA
# *"
"
#
&&
# ADJ {[ PRED 'big' ]}
"
%%
"
7.
Conclusions and further implications
In this paper we have shown how the mixed categoriality of these N-Adj
compounds can be accounted for by providing an analysis in which the
compound is an adjective at morphological structure, and at c-structure, but
headed by the incorporated nominal at f-structure. This allows us to account
for the morphosyntactic facts, while capturing the functional similarities with
Adj + N phrasal combinations in languages like English. Furthermore, we
have shown how our approach can be extended to account for the
combination of these compounds with external nominals in generic-specific
constructions. In doing so we capture similarities between these constructions
and other types of generic-specific constructions including those involving
juxtaposed external nominals (Sadler & Nordlinger 2006) and those
involving incorporation into verbs (Nordlinger & Sadler, this volume).
Abbreviations
1, 12, 2, 3: 1st, 1st incl., 2nd, 3rd person; F feminine noun class; M
masculine noun class; NC noun class; NA non-human masculine noun class;
NEUT neuter noun class; O object; RESID residual noun class (Ngandi and
Wubuy); S subject (that is, Agent of a transitive or Subject of an intransitive
verb); VEG vegetable noun class; DAT dative; DIST distributive; EPENTH
meaningless epenthetic element (Wubuy); ERG ergative; F/FUT future; GEN
genitive; IMMED immediate; IN incorporated noun; INST instrumental; INT
interrogative clitic; INTENS intensive; INTERR interrogative particle; IRR
irrealis; ITER iterative; LAT lative; LOC locative; NP nonpast; PC past
continuous; PNEG/PRNEG/FNEG past/present/future negative suffixes;
POSS possessive; POT potential; PROX proximal; PP past punctual; PR
present; RED (semantically-empty) reduplication; REL relative/subordinator;
RR reflexive/reciprocal; SAP speech act participant (1st and 2nd person
referents); sp species; STAT stative; TOP topic.
Language groups
BGW Bininj Gun-wok; Dj Gundjeihmi (dialect of BGW); GN Gunwinyguan
(language family); MM Manyallaluk Mayali (dialect of BGW); Ngkn
Ngalakgan; Ngdi Ngandi; Wby Wubuy ~ Nunggubuyu; W Kunwinjku dialect
of BGW.
References
Alpher, Barry, Evans, Nicholas, and Harvey, Mark. 2003. ProtoGunwinyguan verbal suffixes. In The non-Pama-Nyungan languages of
northern Australia: comparative studies of the continent’s most
linguistically complex region, Nicholas Evans (ed.), 305-352. Canberra:
Pacific Linguistics.
Baker, Brett J. 2008. Word structure in Ngalakgan. Stanford: CSLI.
Baker, Brett J., and Harvey, Mark. 2003. Word structure in Australian
languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 23: 3-33.
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function
changing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1949. ‘A set of postulates for the science of language.
International Journal of American Linguistics, Vol. 15, No. 4. (Oct.,
1949), pp. 195-202.
Broadwell, George Aaron. 2007. Lexical sharing and non-projecting words:
The case of Zapotec adjectives. In Proceedings of LFG07, Miriam Butt
and Tracy Holloway King (eds), 87-106. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications.
Evans, Nicholas. 1997. Role or cast? Noun incorporation and complex
predicates in Mayali. In Complex predicates, Alex Alsina, Joan Bresnan,
and Peter Sells (eds.), 397-430. [CSLI Lecture Notes, 64.] Stanford, CA:
CSLI.
Evans, Nicholas. 2003. Bininj Gun-wok: A pan-dialectal grammar of Mayali,
Kunwinjku and Kune. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Evans, Nicholas. 2004. ‘Le nom composé en Bininj Gun-wok. In Le nom
composé: Données sur seize langues, Pierre J.L. Arnaud (ed.). Travaux
du C.R.T.T. Lyon : Presses Universitaires de Lyon.
Harris, J.W. 1986. Northern Territory pidgins and the origin of Kriol. [Series
C, vol. 89.] Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Heath, Jeffrey. 1978. Ngandi grammar, texts, and dictionary. Canberra:
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Heath, Jeffrey. 1980. Nunggubuyu myths and ethnographic texts. Canberra:
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Heath, Jeffrey. 1982. Nunggubuyu dictionary. Canberra: Australian Institute
of Aboriginal Studies.
Heath, Jeffrey. 1984. Functional grammar of Nunggubuyu. Canberra:
Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
Heath, Jeffrey. 1986. Syntactic and lexical aspects of nonconfigurationality
in Nunggubuyu (Australia). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4:
375-408.
Merlan, Francesca. 1983. Ngalakan grammar, texts, and vocabulary.
Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. ‘The evolution of noun incorporation.’ Language
60, 4: 847-894.
Mohanan, Tara. 1995. ‘Wordhood and lexicality: noun incorporation in
Hindi.’ Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 75-134.
Rosen, Sara. ‘Two types of noun incorporation: a lexical analysis.’ Language
65, 2: 294-317.
Sadler, Louisa and Rachel Nordlinger. 2006. Apposition as coordination:
evidence from Australian languages. In Proceedings of the LFG06
Conference, Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds), 437-454.
Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Simpson, Jane. 1991. Warlpiri morpho-syntax: a lexicalist approach.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Wilkins, David P. 2000. Ants, ancestors and medicine: A semantic and
pragmatic account of classifier constructions in Arrernte (Central
Australia). In Back to basics in Nominal Classifications, Gunther Senft
(ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 147-216.
Comments welcome. Please address comments to both authors:
<racheln@unimelb.edu.au> and <brett.baker@une.edu.au>