In this paper, I investigate the unusual order between case and possessive
morphemes in the endangered Mongolic language Dagur. It is observed in many
languages that the case morpheme follows possessive markers, but Dagur uniformly
exhibits the morpheme order where possessive follows case in its nominal domain.
Based on novel data from fieldwork, I propose that such order is due to
postsyntactic Lowering, in which the head of K(ase)P lowers to Poss(essive)
head. The evidence for the Lowering analysis comes from suspended affixation in
this language. In particular, suspended affixation involving
In languages with rich inflection, overt case morphology is often observed at the
periphery of the nominal domain. In terms of hierarchical structures, case has
sometimes been taken to be the maximal extension of the nominal projection (e.g.,
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, I introduce the main
empirical phenomenon. In Section 3, I present detailed fieldwork data on suspended
affixation and argue that it should be analyzed as a base-generated structure rather
than ellipsis. In Section 4, I outline my assumptions for the syntactic structure of
Dagur nominal domain. Given this structure, I present the main proposal in which the
stem-
In Dagur possessive constructions, the suffix following the possessum agrees in person and in number with the possessor. The prenominal possessor is often optional, but the possessive suffix is obligatory.
(1)
a.
(minii)
1
biteɣ
book
-min
-1
‘my book’
b.
*minii biteɣ
When the possessive construction is marked for case, the
(2)
a.
Šii
you
(minii)
1
biteɣ
book
-
-
-
-1
uǰ
look
-sen
-
-ši
-2
‘You read my book.’
b.
*Šii
you
(minii)
1
biteɣ
book
-
-1
-
-
uǰ
look
-sen
-
-ši
-2
The order in (2a) applies regardless of the cases and φ-features of the
possessive element. This contrasts with some languages where similar
Within the Mongolic family, the surface order in which
(3)
Baatar
Baatar
nom
book
-ig
-
miny
1
unsh
read
-san
-
‘Baatar read my book.’
However, I suggest that the type of morpheme order exemplified by the Khalkha
possessive construction (3) is a separate phenomenon from the Dagur
(4)
a.
John
John
minii
1
nom
book
-ig
-
unsh
read
-san.
-
‘John read my book.’
b.
John
John
nom
book
-ig
-
miny
1
unsh
read
-san.
-
c.
*John
John
minii
my
nom
book
-ig
-
miny
miny
unsh
read
-san.
-
In contrast, -
(5)
a.
*John
John
minii
my
biteɣ
book
-ii
-
uǰ
see
-sen.
-
Int. ‘John read my book.’
b.
John
John
biteɣ
book
-ii
-
-min
-1
uǰ
see
-sen.
-
c.
John
John
minii
my
biteɣ
book
-ii
-
-min
-1
uǰ
see
-sen.
-
Since the possessive pronoun in Khalkha can surface postnominally, the fact that in
(3) 1
In this section I introduce the phenomenon of suspended affixation in Dagur, and
present novel data which indicate that it is base-generated from a structure
where the suspended affixes attach to the entire coordinate structure. Suspended
affixation is first defined by Lewis (
(6)
Seb
teacher
boloor
šeb
student
-
-
ir
come
-sen.
-
‘Teachers and students came.’
*‘A teacher and students came.’
(7)
Gungren,
worker,
tareečin,
farmer,
seb,
teacher,
šeb
student
-
-
ir
come
-sen.
-
‘Workers, farmers, teachers, and students came.’
*‘A worker, a farmer, a teacher, and students came.’
In (6), two noun phrases are conjoined by the coordinator
A typical Dagur nominal stem may be followed by three types of markers:
(8)
Engkebatu (
Čaaǰuk
bowl
sarp,
chopstick
d
dish
pan
plate
-
-
gub
all
waa.
wash
‘Wash all of the bowl(s), chopstick(s), dishe(s), and plate(s).’
(9)
Engkebatu (
Xukur
ox
boloor
mor
horse
-
-2
xoo
all
haǰir
return
-sen
-
jee?
‘Have your ox(en) and (your) horse(s) returned?’
*‘Have the ox(en) and your horse(s) returned?
When all three suffixes are present in a nominal phrase, the linear order is
rigidly stem-
(10)
Mergen
Mergen
(minii)
1
friend
-
-
-
-
-
-1
ǰašɣen
letter
ši
write
-sen.
-
‘Mergen wrote a letter/letters to my friends.’
Having introduced the basic structural properties of suspended affixation in this
language, I present further morpheme suspension facts in this section. One of
the key observations is that most instances of suspended affixation in Dagur
obey the right edge constraint observed cross-linguistically. However,
suspension involving
I begin with the illustration of the coordinations of words with only one suffix.
As presented in the previous section, if each conjunct is only followed by one
suffix (
(11)
Seb
teacher
boloor
šeb
student
-
-
ir
come
-sen.
-
‘Teachers and students came.’
(12)
Čaaǰuk
bowl
sarp,
chopstick
d
dish
pan
plate
-
-
gub
all
waa.
wash
‘Wash all of the bowl(s), chopstick(s), dishe(s), and plate(s).’
(13)
Xukur
ox
boloor
mor
horse
-
-2
xoo
all
haǰir
return
-sen
-
jee?
‘Have your ox(en) and (your) horse(s) returned?’
When each conjunct is marked by
(14)
Bi
I
gungren,
worker,
tareečin,
farmer,
seb,
teacher,
šeb
student
-
-
-
-
usɣulj
talk
-sen
-
-bi.
-1
‘I talked with workers, farmers, teachers, and students.’
(15)
Bi
I
seb
teacher
-sul
-
boloor
šeb
student
-sul
-
-
-
usɣulj
talk
-sen
-
-bi.
-1
‘I talked with teachers and students.’
While suspending
(16)
*Bi
I
seb
teacher
-tii
-
boloor
šeb
student
-
-
-tii
-
usɣulj
talk
-sen
-
-bi.
-1
Int. ‘I talked with teachers and students.’
When each conjunct is followed by
(17)
akaa
brother
-sul
-
boloor
ekee
sister
-sul
-
-
-2
‘your brothers and sisters’
(18)
akaa
brother
boloor
ekee
sister
-
-
-
-2
‘your brothers and sisters’
(19)
*akaa
brother
-šin
-2
boloor
ekee
sister
-
-
-šin
-2
Int. ‘your brothers and sisters’
Distribution of suspended affixation involving single suffix,
Conjunction | Example # | ||
---|---|---|---|
a. | ✓ | N- |
(11) |
b. | ✓ | N- |
(13) |
c. | ✓ | N- |
(12) |
d. | ✓ | N- |
(15) |
e. | ✓ | N- |
(14) |
f. | * | N- |
(16) |
g. | ✓ | N- |
(17) |
h. | ✓ | N- |
(18) |
i. | * | N- |
(19) |
As shown in
(20) | |
The elements omitted due to suspended affixation must be at the right edge of the non-final conjuncts. |
However, when the coordination conjoins words marked by both
(21)
*Mergen
Mergen
ger
house
-d
-
boloor
tačku
school
-d
-
-
-1
iči
go
-sen.
-
Int. ‘Mergen went to our home and our school.’
If only
(22)
*Mergen
Mergen
tačku
school
-maan
-1
boloor
ger
house
-
-
-maan
-1
iči
go
-sen.
-
(23)
Mergen
Mergen
tačku
school
boloor
ger
house
-
-
-
-1
iči
go
-sen.
-
Another example illustrating the same point using instrumental case and
1
(24)
*Tereɣ
vehicle
-min
-1
boloor
mor
horse
-
-min
-1
ir
come
-sen
-
-taan
-2
Int. ‘You.
(25)
Tereɣ
vehicle
boloor
mor
horse
-
-
-
-1
ir
come
-sen
-
-taan
-2
‘You.
Suspending the rightmost morpheme -
(26)
*/??Terɣ
vehicle
-eer
-
boloor
mor
horse
-eer
-
-
-1
ir
come
-sen
-
-taan
-2
Int.
‘You.
Thus, the unusual pattern that emerges is that in [stem-
(27)
a.
Tereɣ
vehicle
boloor
mor
horse
-
-
-
-
-
-1
ir
come
-sen
-
-taan
-2
‘You.
b.
Tereɣ
vehicle
-sul
-
boloor
mor
horse
-sul
-
-
-
-
-1
ir
come
-sen
-
-taan
-2
‘You.
c.
*Tereɣ
vehicle
-sul
-
-eer
-
boloor
mor
horse
-sul
-
-eer
-
-
-1
ir
come
-sen
-
-taan
-2
Int. ‘You.
d.
*Tereɣ
vehicle
-eer
-
-min
-1
boloor
mor
horse
-
-
-eer
-
-min
-1
ir
come
-sen
-
-taan
-2
Int. ‘You.
e.
*Tereɣ
vehicle
-sul
-
-min
-1
boloor
mor
horse
-sul
-
-
-
-min
-1
ir
come
-sen
-
-taan
-2
Int. ‘You.
f.
*Tereɣ
vehicle
-min
-1
boloor
mor
horse
-
-
-
-
-min
-1
ir
come
-sen
-
-taan
-2
Int. ‘You.
g.
*Tereɣ
vehicle
-eer
-
boloor
mor
horse
-
-
-eer
-
-
-1
ir
come
-sen
-
-taan
-2
Int. ‘You.
A complete list of suspended affixation patterns in Dagur nominal domain is
presented in
Distribution of suspended affixation in Dagur nominal conjunction.
Conjunction | Example # | ||
---|---|---|---|
a. | ✓ | N- |
(11) |
b. | ✓ | N- |
(13) |
c. | ✓ | N- |
(12) |
d. | ✓ | N- |
(15) |
e. | ✓ | N- |
(14) |
f. | * | N- |
(16) |
g. | ✓ | N- |
(17) |
h. | ✓ | N- |
(18) |
i. | * | N- |
(19) |
j. | ??/* | N(- |
(21) (26) (27c) |
k. | * | N(- |
(22) (24) (27e) |
l. | ✓ | N(- |
(23) (25) (27b) |
m. | * | N- |
(27d) |
n. | * | N- |
(27f) |
o. | * | N- |
(27g) |
p. | ✓ | N- |
(27a) |
As indicated in
Depending on the language, the structure of suspended affixation can be
analyzed in various ways. One of the analyses proposes it to be ellipsis
(e.g.,
(28) | ellipsis analysis |
[[A |
Another approach (e.g.,
(29) | base-generation analysis |
[A & B]-suffixes |
We could first consider how the analysis that utilizes morpheme ellipsis fits
into the Dagur data at hand. This is evaluated through a brief empirical
comparison between Dagur and Mari (Finno-Ugric), reported in Guseva &
Weisser (
(30)
pasu
garden
-vlak
-
-ešte
-
-na
-1
‘in our gardens’
Suspended affixation with
(31)
Mari morpheme suspension with
coordination with suspended affixation
Mari
a.
stem-
✓
b.
stem-
*
(
In G&W’s account, the
(32) | The underlying structure of Mari nominals |
[ |
G&W argue that the facts in (31) are due to the original right edge
suffix (i.e., -
(33)
The key point of this component of their analysis is that morphological
operations (ellipsis and metathesis) apply to the linearized structure,
deriving the suspension patterns that appear to violate the right edge
condition on the surface form. However, such mechanism does not easily
extend to Dagur. Regarding the stem-
(34)
coordination with suspended affixation
Mari
Dagur
a.
stem-
✓
*
(24)
b.
stem-
*
??/*
(26)
Further investigation into the syntax prior to linearization reveals that Dagur suspended affixation involves a syntactic structure that is different from Mari. I suggest that it is this syntactic structure in combination with other postsyntactic operations that generate the Dagur surface pattern in (34).
In contrast with recent analysis of languages with morpheme ellipsis (e.g.,
First, as previously mentioned,
(35)
Bi
I
[pii
[pen
čaas]
paper]
au
buy
-sen
-
-bi.
-1
‘I bought pen
(36)
[Mori(-sul)
[horse-
noɣu
dog
-sul]
-
xaǰir
return
-sen.
-
‘Horses
(37)
[Pii
[pen
(-min
-1
čaas
paper
-min
-1
tend
there
bei.
‘My pen
Second, the coordinator
(38)
a.
NP predicates
Sečin
Sečin
[seb
teacher
tačkui daa].
principal
‘Sečin is a teacher
b
AP predicates
Ene
this
ger
room
[engel
spacious
geɣeeken].
bright
‘This room is spacious
c
VP predicates
(Bi)
I
[pinguee
apple
-ii
-
id
eat
-sen
-
moil
hackberry
-ii
-
(baa)
also
id
eat
-sen]
-
-bi.
-1
‘I ate apple
Two points regarding the usage of these coordinators should be highlighted.
First, while in both (35) and (38a) there appears to be two noun phrases
that are coordinated, the structure of (38a) is clearly distinct from that
of (35). Specifically, (38a) is a predicative sentence in which the
coordinated noun phrases
(39)
cf. (38a)
Sečin
Sečin
[seb
teacher
tačkui daa]
principal
uǰ
see
-sen.
-
‘Sečin saw (a) teacher and (a) principal.’
Further, (38a) could be contrasted with (40), which is an identity sentence
(equivative sentence) where the coordinated nominal phrases
(40)
cf. (38a)
Seb
teacher
-in
-3
Bat
Bat
Sečin.
Sečin
‘The teachers/His teachers are Bat and
Sečin.’
The contrast among (38a), (39), and (40) shows that the choice of
coordinators in Dagur is sensitive to whether the coordinated nominals occur
in argument positions or not. Specifically,
The second point regarding the usage of the coordinators concerns the
interpretation of coordinated adjectives. Generally speaking, adjectives can
appear in two main types of syntactic contexts – as attributive
adjectives directly modifying a noun, or as predicates (see Valois (
(41)
Attributive adjectives
[xiɣ
big
xulaan]
red
pinguee
apple
‘big and red apple’
(42)
Predicative adjectives =(38b)
Ene
this
ger
room
[engel
spacious
geɣeeken].
bright
‘This room is spacious and bright.’
As indicated by the translation, in (41) the only reading available is one in
which both adjectives jointly modify the noun ‘apple’. That is,
the meaning is necessarily ‘(an) apple that is big and red’, not
‘(an) apple that is big and (an) apple that is red’. Using the
argument coordinator
With the distribution of different coordinators in mind, we are now ready to
test whether Dagur suspended affixation involves morpheme ellipsis, or a
base-generated structure without ellipsis. The crucial data involve
suspending the 3
(43)
a.
nek
one
red
pinguee
apple
‘a red apple’
b.
red
-
-3
‘the red one’
c.
red
-ii
-
-3
id
eat
-sen
-
-bi
-1
‘I ate the red one.’
d.
*
red
-ii
-
id
eat
-sen
-
-bi
-1
Int. ‘I ate the red one.’
This “nominalizing” -
(44)
a.
cf. (43b)
(minii)
1
xulaan
red
-min
-1
‘my red one’
b.
*(minii)
1
xulaan
red
-min
-1
-in
-3
Int. ‘my red one’
c.
*(minii)
1
xulaan
red
-in
-3
-min
-1
Int. ‘my red one’
Given the above facts, the coordinate structure (45a) in which two
“nominalized” adjectives like the one in (43b) are conjoined
requires the coordinator
(45)
[context: there are many apples on the table]
a.
(Bi)
(I)
[xiɣ
big
-ii
-
-n
-3
xulaan
red
-ii
-
-n
-3
id
eat
-sen
-
-bi.
-1
‘I ate the big one and the red one.’
b.
(Bi)
(I)
[xiɣ
big
xulaan
red
-ii
-
-n
-3
id
eat
-sen
-
-bi.
-1
‘I ate the one that is big and red.’
*‘I ate the big one and the red one.’
c.
*(Bi)
(I)
[xiɣ
big
xulaan
red
-ii
-
-n
-3
id
eat
-sen
-
-bi.
-1
We know that the choice of coordinators is sensitive towards the
argument/non-argument status of the nominals. If suspended affixation were
ellipsis, the coordinations in (45a) and (45b) would share the same
underlying structure which is schematized in (46), and would require the
coordinator
(46) | [big- |
(47) | [big & red] - |
Before presenting the main analysis, I first examine some additional
characteristics of the Dagur nominal domain that will help us determine its
specific structure in the syntax. Bošković (
(48)
a.
horse
ir
come
-sen.
-
‘The/a horse(s) came.’
b.
horse-
ir
come
-sen.
-
‘Horses came.’
c.
horse
-1
ir
come
-sen.
-
‘My horse(s) came.’
d.
Engkebatu (
…
shortcut
road
-
eri
search
-sen.
-
‘(She/he) searched for the shortcut.’
Second, the location of coordinated APs modifying a noun (e.g., (41),
repeated here as (49)) can be naturally related to the internal structure of
NP. Bošković (
(49)
xiɣ
big
xulaan
red
pinguee
apple
‘(a) big and red apple(s)’
Dagur’s nominal structure has implications for the location of
possessives within the nominal domain as well. It has been argued that in
some NP languages such as SC (
(50)
Mergen
Mergen
-ii
-
en
this
(saikan)
beautiful
g
three
(saikan)
beautiful
ujin
daughter
-in
-3
‘These three beautiful daughters of Mergen’s’
Second, as discussed in Bošković (
(51)
a.
Ova
this
knjiga
book
je
is
moja.
my
b.
*Ene
this
biteɣ
book
minii.
my
Third, the order of prenominal adjective and possessor in SC is relatively free. However, in Dagur only one order is possible. The adjective which modifies the head noun must not precede the possessor.
(52)
a.
Jovanova
John’s
skupa
expensive
slika
picture
/skupa
/expensive
Jovanova
John’s
slika
picture
b.
Mergen-ii
Mergen-
katuu
expensive
biteɣ
book
/*katuu
/*expensive
Mergen-ii
Mergen-
biteɣ
book
Fourth, in SC possessives must follow demonstratives. However, in Dagur overt prenominal possessors must precede demonstratives.
(53)
a.
Ova
this
Jovanova
Jovan’s
slika/?*Jovanova
picture/?*Jovan’s
ova
this
slika
picture
b.
*Ene
*this
Mergen-ii
Mergen-
biteɣ/Mergen-ii
book/Mergen-
ene
this
biteɣ
book
Further, in SC possessors cannot be modified by any type of modifiers. For instance, the possessor cannot be modified by another adjective, or another possessor. Both instances are perfectly acceptable in Dagur.
(54)
a.
*Lepi
Beautiful
čovekov
man’s
pas.
dog
‘Beautiful man’s dog’ (the only possible reading: ‘The man’s beautiful dog’)
b.
*Ivanov
Ivan’s
bratov
brother’s
pas
dog
‘Ivan’s brother’s dog.’
(55)
a.
saikan
beautiful
Sečin
Sečin
-ii
-
ujin
daughter
‘Beautiful Sečin’s daughter’ (the only possible reading: ‘The daughter of beautiful Sečin’s’)
b.
(maanii)
our
ačaa
father
-ii
-
-maan
-1
mori
horse
-in
-3
‘Our father’s horse’
Further details regarding the syntax of the nominal structure of Dagur is
beyond the scope of the current paper. However, the above contrast between
SC and Dagur is sufficient to show that the structural status of Dagur
possessives is different from that of SC. I take these facts to indicate
that there is indeed a functional projection PossP projected above Dagur
NPs, with the Poss head being the possessive agreement suffix. It is
emphasized in much research (e.g.,
The current analysis is couched in the framework of Distributed Morphology,
along the lines of Embick & Marantz (
(56)
guč
friend
-sul
-
-d
-
-min
-1
‘my friends’
(57) | a. | [[[[ |
b. |
Following Embick (
(58) | #[+ |
Similarly, by Vocabulary Insertion
Based on cross-linguistic evidence, research such as Lamontagne & Travis
(
(59) | Lowering of X0 to Y0 ( |
[ |
The Lowering operation explains the unexpected suspended affixation patterns in
constructions with both
Dagur morpheme suspension involving
Conjunction | Example # | ||
---|---|---|---|
j. | ??/* | stem- |
(21) (26) (27c) |
k. | * | stem- |
(22) (24) (27e) |
l. | ✓ | stem- |
(23) (25) (27b) |
In the analysis proposed here, the data which satisfy the right edge condition
(i.e., row
(60)
before K-Lowering
(61)
after K-Lowering
First, the surface form [✓ stem-
(62)
a.
before K-Lowering
b.
after K-Lowering
The surface form in (63) is the result of linearizing the output of K-to-Poss Lowering in the structure (62b).
(63)
tačku
school
boloor
ger
house
-
-
-
-1
‘At our school and (our) house’
Second, consider the ungrammatical form [*stem-
(64)
Therefore, surface forms such as (65) are always ruled out.
(65)
*tačku
school
-maan
-1
boloor
ger
house
-
-
-maan
-1
Int. ‘At our school and our house’
Finally, consider the unacceptable form
[*/??stem-
(66) | */?? stem- |
I suggest that this structure is unacceptable because it is not generated by the syntax. In order to obtain this surface form, the structure must be like the one shown in (67), where two KPs are conjoined under Poss. Since K is base-generated above Poss in the underlying syntactic structure, (67) is ruled out.
(67)
Therefore, surface forms such as (68) are ruled out.
(68)
*ger
house
-d
-
boloor
tačku
school
-d
-
-
-1
Int. ‘At our home and (our) school’
Note that it is not the case that KPs cannot be coordinated in this language.
This is an important point to clarify, because the current analysis suggests
that (66) is unacceptable because of the constraint on the underlying syntactic
structure, which states that KP must dominate PossP. In order to maintain this
analysis, it must be independently shown that the language allows
[stem-
(69)
(Bi)
(I)
seb
teacher
-d,
-
guč
friend
-d
-
ǰašɣen
letter
ši
write
-sen
-
-bi
-1
‘I wrote letter to teacher(s) and friend(s).’
As demonstrated, the analysis based on Lowering accounts for all the possible and
impossible forms of suspended affixation involving
Historically, it seems that the Dagur personal possessive pronouns used to appear
in post-nominal enclitic positions, which has resulted in the grammaticalization
of
(70) | [✓ stem- |
|
a. | Hierarchical structure: [ |
|
b. | Linearization: [[[nP * & * nP] * Poss] * K] | |
c. | Local Dislocation: [[[nP * & * nP] *
[ |
However, such analysis makes incorrect predictions regarding the surface form
(71), which has the hierarchical structure (71a) in syntax, where two PossPs are
coordinated under a single K head. Linearizing (71a) produces the statement in
(71b). In (71b), the boldfaced Poss is the right-peripheral element of the
constituent that is immediately adjacent to K. Since Local Dislocation makes
reference to linear adjacency, not hierarchical structure, it has the capacity
to convert (71b) to (71c), giving rise to the surface string [nP-Poss &
nP-K-Poss] (i.e., [stem-
(71) | *[stem- |
|
a. | Hierarchical structure: [ |
|
b. | Linearization: [[[[nP] * Poss] * & * [[nP] *
|
|
c. | Local Dislocation: [[[nP] * Poss] * & * [nP] *
[ |
The discussion above potentially provides another case study to the literature on
the distinction between hierarchical and linear morphological processes and the
ordering among postsyntactic operations. The reason why Local Dislocation and
Lowering make different predictions with regard to (71) (
To sum up the discussion so far, Dagur uniformly displays unexpected order
between
This section focuses on further operations that take place after Lowering which
derives the surface morphophonological differences between
(72)
a.
čaas
paper
-
-
‘with paper’
b.
tos
oil
-
-
‘with oil’
c.
terɣ
vehicle
-
-
‘with vehicle’
In contrast,
(73) | |||
-min |
-maan |
||
-šin |
-taan |
||
-in |
-in |
(74)
a.
čaas
-
paper -1
‘our paper’
b.
tereɣ
vehicle
-
-1
‘our vehicle’
In nominal phrases that include both
(75)
(maani)
1
t
vehicle
-
-
¦
¦
-m
-1
‘with our vehicle’
Second, in Dagur,
(76) | Tsumagari ( |
|
joo ‘what’ – joo |
(77) | joo ‘what’ – joo
-taan |
In fact,
As previously mentioned, there are diachronic reasons to regard
In the next section, I will argue that the morphophonological differences between
(78) | Order of postsyntactic operations |
Lowering → Linearization → Local Dislocation, rebracketing… |
This component of the analysis utilizes some representations and formalism
proposed in Embick & Noyer (
(79) | Definitions (based on |
|
a. | M-Word: (Potentially complex) head not dominated by a further head-projection. | |
b. | Subword: A terminal node within an M-Word (either a functional morpheme, or a Root). |
Based on these definitions, the complex head
(80)
Before moving on to the analysis, some additional assumptions need to be laid
out. It is assumed in Embick (
(81)
Structure: syntax
(82) | Linearization: Larger | |
a. | [X [Y BP … | |
b. | (X* (Y*BP … | |
c. | (X⌢Y), (Y⌢B1)… |
(83) | Linearization: Smaller | ||
a. | [[a b]y] | ||
b. | ((a*b)*y) | ||
c. | (a⊕b), (b⊕y) | ( |
In addition to the mechanism of linearization, I further assume that a relevant rule applies wherever its structural description is met.
(84) | Rules Apply ( |
A rule applies wherever its structural description is met. |
We are now ready to discuss possible ways to encode the morphophonological
differences between
(85)
M-Word has been suggested to be special for both morphological interactions and
phonological processes. With respect to morphological interaction, Bobaljik
(
What is important for the current discussion is that the morphophonological
closeness between
(86)
a.
[
č
paper
-
-
b.
[
joo
what
-d]
-
I propose that
(87) | ||
a. | Linear order: X Y Z | |
b. | Morphological structure: X⌢Y⌢Z |
(88) | ||
a. | Linear order: X Y Z | |
b. | Morphological structure:
[ |
I suggest that in the derivation of the surface form of a Dagur nominal phrase,
both (87) and complex head creation (either through head movement (88) or
postsyntactically) take place. Within a single noun phrase, head movement, which
creates M-Words, may apply all the way through K, if there is no Poss in the
way. Let us first consider a single KP as in (89b). Head movement can create the
complex head in (90a), which is ultimately linearized as a single M-Word
[
(89)
a.
[
č
paper
-
-
‘with paper’
b.
(90)
a.
b. | Linearization | ||
i. | [[Root n] K] | ||
ii. | ((Root * n) * K) | ||
iii | (Root⊕n), (n⊕K), | ||
or [ |
Next, consider a bare PossP (91b). I suggest that the
(91)
a.
[ekee
sister
-min
-1
‘my sister’
b.
(92)
a.
b.
Linearization:
[
Finally, consider the case where both K and Poss are present (93a). Since head
movement does not take place through Poss, it stops at
(93)
a.
[t
[vehicle
-
-
-m
-1
‘with our vehicle’
b.
(94)
The linearization process of (94) creates the statement in (95a). At this point, I suggest that (95a) undergoes string-vacuous rebracketing, that is, free rebracketing that does not have any impact on the linear order, giving rise to (95b).
(95) | a. | Linearization: [Root * n] * [K * Poss] |
b. | String-vacuous rebracketing: [Root * n * K] * Poss |
There are certain constraints on the structural condition under which two
adjacent elements can be exchanged via linear operations such as Local
Dislocation. For example, if X is an element peripheral in some constituent C, X
will not be able to invert with an element Y that is outside of the constituent
C. However, rebracketing or leaning such as (96b), without disrupting the linear
order, is possible (
(96) | a. | [… Y] * [ |
|
b. | [… Y + X] * [ |
possible leaning |
Since the linear order in (95) is not altered in any way, K, as the
left-peripheral element in the constituent [K*Poss], may be affixed onto the
constituent [Root*n] that is left-adjacent to it, via string-vacuous
rebracketing. The result is that K joins the [Root*n] constituent, while
linearly still follows the originally right-peripheral element
(97) | [ |
In this way, K is sufficiently close to the stem and can trigger allomorphy. The
facts on vowel harmony also naturally follows. Note that the context for
string-vacuous rebracketing is created by Lowering. Suppose Lowering does not
apply to the hierarchical structure, the scenario would be that
(98) | [[Root * n] * Poss] * K] |
To sum up the discussion so far, the morphophological differences between
The current analysis provides a case study of the interactions of postsyntactic
operations that relates syntactic derivation to surface morphological patterns. The
discussion has centered on the Dagur nominal domain, in particular two morphemes
Utilizing the fact that Dagur overt coordinators are sensitive to whether the
conjuncts are arguments or not, I have shown that Dagur suspended affixation is most
adequately analyzed as a base-generated structure, instead of morpheme ellipsis.
Given this, I have proposed that the exceptional morpheme suspension patterns are
due to K lowering to Poss postsyntactically. I have also examined further data on
the morphophonological distinctions between the
Abbreviations in glosses are as follows: 1/2/3 = first/second/third person,
In most cases, coordinate structures with overt coordinators and those without overt coordinators do not have significant interpretative differences.
Dagur lacks a determiner system like the one in English. In Dagur bare singulars are number neutral. In order to express ‘a teacher, and students came’, the following structure can be used:
(i) nek one seb, teacher (boloor) šeb student -sul -
Here “stem” abstractly represents the [[Root n]-
It should be emphasized that this discussion is a significantly oversimplified
illustration of one aspect of G&W’s theory. The morphological
processes in Mari are complex and require the combination of several
postsyntactic operations. For example, there is a separate Lowering operation
that derives the order between
It is well known that predicate nouns are structurally distinct from regular
(referential) NP arguments. For example, Bowers (
When the 3
A form such as (i) can be used to obtain the reading ‘(a) big apple and (a) red apple’.
(i) xiɣ big pinguee apple xulaan red pinguee apple ‘big apple and red apple’
As an anonymous reviewer points out, many authors have argued that the lack of
articles does not always indicate the lack of DP. For arguments made based on
evidence from different languages, see Manlove (
For the general debate on the very existence of DP, see Bruening (
I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this.
The (genitive) personal pronouns have been used as enclitics in Proto-Mongolic,
which has resulted in the grammaticalization of
minii
-min
maanii
-maan
šinii
-šin
taanii
-taan
inii
-in
aanii
-in
Since the
It is assumed that prior to Local Dislocation, there might be
“affixation” of K to its host which involve some sort of
rebracketing or bracket-reduction (along the lines of e.g.,
Using the first person singular pronoun as an example, the nominative form of it
is
1
While previous research suggests that in Khalkha Mongolian, the postnominal
possessive particles are best treated as clitics, based on the fact that those
particles do not participate in vowel harmony (
It should be noted that cross-linguistically there are many cases where vowel harmony domains do not correspond of phonological words (they can be bigger or smaller than a word). The vowel harmony domain is related to the phonological word in the case under discussion, but it should not be taken as a claim that phonological word must always correspond to vowel harmony domain.
Additionally, there are other ways to further encode the harmonizing properties
of
This issue has been discussed in e.g., Harley (
I am grateful to the Dagur speakers I have had the opportunity to work with. The Dagur data was collected during the summers of 2018 and 2019, in Morin Dawa (Hulun Buir), Hailar (Hulun Buir), and Hohhot of Inner Mongolia, China, with 14 native speaker consultants in total. The consultants’ profiles are as follows.
Morin Dawa Dagur Autonomous Banner, central banner (Muoqi): 4 male
speakers, average age 70–80; 1 male speaker, age 50–60; 1
female speaker, age 45–50 Arla, Morin Dawa: 4 female speakers, average age 50 Tengke, Morin Dawa: 2 male speakers, average age 70–80 Hohhot: 1 female speaker, age 45–50 Hailar: 1 male speaker, age 80
Due to the endangered status of the Dagur language, all consultants are bilingual in or have good command of Mandarin Chinese (all educated in Mandarin at school). The female speaker from Hohhot and the male speaker from Hailar are multilingual in Dagur (native), Mongolian (learned from community during childhood), Mandarin Chinese (learned at school). Due to practical concerns such as geographical locations, transportation, speaker’s age, schedule, and willingness to cooperate, the author did not have consistent collaboration with all 14 speakers. Nevertheless, each judgment has been checked with at least 2 speakers within this 14-people group. The initial stages of this work benefited from the support of the Mario Einaudi International Research Travel Grants at Cornell University.
For valuable feedback on this work, I thank Miloje Despić, John Whitman, Sarah Murray, Draga Zec, two anonymous reviewers, and audiences at the 50th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, the 15th Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics, the 2019 LSA Linguistic Institute, and Cornell University. I would especially like to thank Miloje Despić for helpful discussions at various stages of this work. All remaining errors are mine.
The author has no competing interests to declare.