Advertisement

Super-Complexity and the Status of ‘Word’ in Gunwinyguan Languages of Australia

  • Brett Baker
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Morphology book series (SUMO, volume 4)

Abstract

Construction Grammar is a model of grammar which makes a virtue out of treating morphological and syntactic constructions as varieties of essentially the same ontological type, which is also the type of words in general: a lexical entry. I argue that this kind of model is exactly what we need to describe the otherwise troublesome behaviour of polysynthetic languages. In particular, this model enables us to derive the kind of prosodic constituency and semantic interpretation which is otherwise completely unexpected for words.

Keywords

Polysynthesis Incorporation Prosodic juncture Compounding Template morphology 

References

  1. Allen, M. 1978. Morphological investigations. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  2. Alpher, B., N. Evans, and M. Harvey. 2003. Proto-Gunwinyguan verbal suffixes. In The non-Pama-Nyungan languages of northern Australia: Comparative studies of the continent’s most linguistically complex region, ed. N. Evans, 305–352. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, S. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bach, E. 1976. An extension of classical transformational grammar. In Problems in linguistic metatheory, Proceedings of the 1976 conference, 183–224. East Lansing: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, B. 2002. I’m going to where-her-brisket-is: Placenames in the Roper. In The land is a map: Placenames of Indigenous origin in Australia, ed. L. Hercus, F. Hodges, and J. Simpson, 103–130. Canberra: Pandanus Books/Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, B. 2008a. Word structure in Ngalakgan. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2008b. The interpretation of complex nominal expressions in Southeast Arnhem Land languages. In Discourse and grammar in Australian languages, Studies in Language Companion Series, 104, ed. I. Mushin and B. Baker, 135–166. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2009. Two opaque processes in Wubuy: Issues in learnability and the lexicon. Paper presented at OzPhon, UNSW Sydney, 4 December.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2014. Incorporation in Wubuy. In Selected papers from the 44th conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, 2013, ed. L. Gawne and J. Vaughan, 231–260. Melbourne: University of Melbourne. Published electronically: http://bit.ly/ALS2013Proceedings.Google Scholar
  10. Baker, B., and R. Bundgaard-Nielsen. 2016. Pause acceptability is predicted by morphological transparency in Wubuy. In Proceedings of the sixteenth Australasian international conference on speech science and technology, ed. C. Carignan and M.D. Tyler, 197–200. Sydney, Australia, 7–9 December 2016, Australasian Speech Science and Technology Australia (ASSTA), Sydney.Google Scholar
  11. Baker, B., and M. Harvey. 2003. Word structure in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 23: 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baker, B., and R. Nordlinger. 2008. Noun-adjective compounds in Gunwinyguan languages. In Proceedings of the LFG08 conference, ed. M. Butt and T. Holloway King. Stanford: CSLI. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/.Google Scholar
  13. Baker, B., K. Horrack, R. Nordlinger, and S. Sadler. 2010. Putting it all together: Agreement, incorporation, coordination and external possession in Wubuy (Australia). In Proceedings of the LFG10 conference, Carleton, Canada, ed. M. Butt and T. Holloway King. Stanford: CSLI. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/.Google Scholar
  14. Bickel, B., and F. Zúñiga. in press. The word in polysynthetic languages: Phonological and morphological challenges. In The Oxford handbook of polysynthesis, ed. M. Fortescue, M. Mithun, and N. Evans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bickel, B., B. Comrie, and M. Haspelmath. 2008. The Leipzig glossing rules. Conventions for interlinear morpheme by morpheme glosses. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Revised version of February 2008.Google Scholar
  16. Bloomfield, L. 1949. A set of postulates for the science of language. International Journal of American Linguistics 15 (4): 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Booij, G. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Booij, G., and J. Audring. This volume. Partial motivation, multiple motivation: The role of output schemas in morphology. Google Scholar
  19. Borowsky, T.J. 1986. Topics in the lexical phonology of English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  20. Butcher, A. 1981. Aspects of the speech pause: Phonetic correlates and communication functions. PhD thesis, University of Kiel.Google Scholar
  21. Bybee, J.L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cruse, D. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dench, A., and N. Evans. 1988. Multiple case-marking in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 8 (1): 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Evans, N. 2003. Bininj Gun-wok: A pan-dialectal grammar of Mayali, Kunwinjku and Kune. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
  25. Evans, N., J. Fletcher, and B. Ross. 2008. Big words, small phrases. Linguistics 46: 89–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fletcher, J. 2014. Intonation and prosody in Dalabon. In Prosodic typology II, ed. S.-A. Jun, 257–272. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Fletcher, J., N. Evans, and B. Ross. 2004. Pausing strategies and prosodic boundaries in Dalabon. In Proceedings of the tenth speech science & technology conference, Sydney, 436–439. Sydney: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association.Google Scholar
  28. Forshaw, W. 2011. A continuum of incorporation: Noun incorporation in Murrinh-Patha. Honours thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  29. Gazdar, G. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gleitman, L.R., and H. Gleitman. 1970. Phrase and paraphrase: Some innovative uses of language. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  31. Goldberg, A.E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Greenberg, J.H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of language: Report of a conference held at Dobbs Ferry, New York, April 13–15, 1961, ed. J.H. Greenberg, 73–113. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Grosjean, F., L. Grosjean, and H. Lane. 1979. The patterns of silence: Performance structures in sentence production. Cognitive Psychology 11: 58–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haspelmath, M. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45: 31–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. ———. 1984. Functional grammar of Nunggubuyu. Canberra: AIAS.Google Scholar
  36. ———. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. ———. 2009. Compounding in the parallel architecture and conceptual semantics. In The oxford handbook of compounding, ed. Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer, 105–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Joshi, A., and Y. Schabes. 1997. Tree-adjoining grammars. In Handbook of formal languages: Volume 3 beyond words, ed. G. Rozenberg and A. Salomaa, 69–123. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jun, S.A., ed. 2006. Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Ladd, D.R. 2008. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lees, R.D. 1963. The grammar of English nominalizations. Bloomington/The Hague: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  42. Levelt, W.J.M. 1983. Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition 14: 41–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Levi, J.N. 1978. The syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  44. Lieber, R. 2009. A lexical semantic approach to compounding. In The Oxford handbook of compounding, ed. R. Lieber and P. Štekauer, 78–104. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Lieber, R. and P. Štekauer. 2009. Introduction: Status and definition of compounding (Lieber & Štekauer, ed., 1–18).Google Scholar
  46. MacGregor, L.J., M. Corley, and D.I. Donaldson. 2010. Listening to the sound of silence: Disfluent silent pauses in speech have consequences for listeners. Neuropsychologia 48 (14): 3982–3992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Manova, S., and M. Aronoff. 2010. Modeling affix order. Morphology 20: 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McCarthy, J.J., and A. Prince. 1993. Generalized alignment. In Yearbook of morphology 1993, ed. G. Booij and J. van Marle, 79–153. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McKay, G. 1975. Rembarrnga. PhD thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
  50. McNally, L., and C. Kennedy, eds. 2008. Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics, and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Murray, R.W., and T. Vennemann. 1983. Sound change and syllable structure in Germanic phonology. Language 59: 514–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nordlinger, R. 2010. Verbal morphology in Murrinh-Patha: Evidence for templates. Morphology 20 (2): 321–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rice, K. 2000. Morpheme order and semantic scope: Word formation in the Athapaskan verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. MIT PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
  55. Russell, K. 1999. The ‘word’ in two polysynthetic languages. In Studies on the phonological word, ed. T.A. Hall and U. Kleinhenz, 203–221. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Selkirk, E.O. 1980. On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  57. Selkirk, E. 1982. The syntax of words, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, 7. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Selkirk, E. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology 3 (1): 371–405.Google Scholar
  59. Selkirk, E.O., and S.J. Lee. 2015. Constituency in sentence phonology: An introduction. Phonology 32(1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shriberg, E. 2001. To ‘errrr’ is human: Ecology and acoustics of speech disfluencies. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 31 (1): 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Steedman, M., and J. Baldridge. 2011. Combinatory categorial grammar. In Non-transformational syntax: A guide to current models, ed. R. Borsley and K. Börjars, 181–224. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tauberer, J. 2008. Predicting intrasentential pauses: Is syntactic structure useful? In Proceedings of the speech prosody 2008 conference, 405–408Google Scholar
  63. Trouvain, J., C. Fauth, and B. Möbius 2016. Breath and non-breath pauses in fluent and disfluent phases of German and French L1 and L2 read speech. In Proceedings of the speech prosody 2016 conference, 31–35.Google Scholar
  64. Van Gijn, R., and F. Zúñiga. 2014. Word and the Americanist perspective. Morphology 24 (3): 135–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Languages and LinguisticsUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations