Abstract
This chapter proposes analyses for a variety of constructions that resemble noun incorporation in a number of languages using the theory of phrase structure developed in Chapter 3. First, it discusses the general structure of the extended nominal projection. This section also relates linear order in NI constructions to the structure of nominals. This chapters specifically examines NI in Sierra Popoluca, English gerunds, noun+verb compounding in German progressive-beim constructions, a kind noun+of NI in Persian ‘long’ infinitives, a construction in Tamil which has been argued to be noun incorporation, and finally adverb incorporation in Blackfoot. In all cases, incorporation is handled by the dynamic antisymmetric theory proposed in Chapter 3.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Not included in the discussion here is the set of root modifiers as discussed in Wiltschko (2008) or how adjectives fit in to the structure (Cinque 2010). This section is intended to be a brief introduction to some of the nominal projections used here and to relate nominal structure to linear properties of NI.
- 2.
Note that Harley (2007) has argued for the same distinction based on the presence of passive forms with verbalizing morphology (The butter was clarified, The metal was flattened, etc.)
- 3.
It is often assumed that a mass reading results from the absence of Num (Borer 2005), that is, bare nouns are all inherently mass nouns and are made countable by Num. Following previous work (Barrie and Wiltschko 2010), I assume that mass is not the absence of number, but rather is a marked feature. Note also that the structure of the Num head may be more complex than shown here (Cowper 2005; Cowper and Hall 2009; Harley and Ritter 2002; Harbour 2007).
- 4.
Thanks to Jan-Wouter Zwart for pressing this matter.
- 5.
The following abbreviations are used in the Sierra Popoluca data: abs – absolutive; cmp – completive; erg – ergative; inc – incompletive; neg – negative; nzlr – nominalizer (source document uses nom); x – 1st person exclusive. + is used to mark clitic boundaries.
- 6.
de Jong Boudreault notes that agent incorporation is not to be found in any of the texts she has worked with, but has found one example under elicitation, suggesting its rarity.
i.
ʔa+tzaanywás
ʔa+tzaanyi=was-W
x.abs+snake=bit-cmp
‘I was bitten by a snake.’
I leave the implications of this to future research, but I do note that the passive translation (as opposed to ‘A snake bit me.’) suggests that the snake is less agentive and perhaps enters the derivation as an oblique argument within the DP (such as an instrument). It is also reminiscent of English NI-type compounds such as horse-drawn carriag e.
- 7.
As a referee notes, this form is typically restricted to gerunds. Unfortunately, I have no insight to offer here as to why this should be so. Under the current proposal, NI takes place before the entire unit is categorized. That is ‘elk-hunting’ is formed by the merger of the root ‘hunt’ with the nP ‘elk’. This complex form is subsequently built up into a gerund form. While acknowledging that this fact about NI in English gerunds still requires an explanation, the author has heard the following spontaneous utterances from non-linguist native speakers of English.
‘I haven’t cherry-picked in a long time.’ (referring to the act of picking cherries off a tree)
‘We’re going out to Calgary this weekend to house-hunt.’
- 8.
Forms with irregular plurals such as mice-huntin g and people-watchin g are possible in English. We address these in the section on German compounds.
- 9.
See Harley (2008) for additional arguments along these lines dealing with denominal verbs.
- 10.
Pragmatics or semantics may force one interpretation over the other, but crucially, this is not a property of the incorporated noun. For example, in the phrase chicken-sorting a count interpretation is forced because the act of sorting requires discrete entities. Likewise, in the phrase, garlic-mashing, a mass interpretation is strongly preferred because of what is involved in the act of mashing.
- 11.
This is a potential point of confusion. The term ‘bare noun’ is often used to refer to a noun without any overt nominal morphology attached to it (as in they drank water). I am using the term here to refer to an nP without any extended nominal functional projections, either overt or covert. In the phrase they drank water, the noun ‘water’ is ‘bare’ in the sense that is has no overt morphemes; however, it is assumed to project the same set of functional categories as any other non-incorporated object.
- 12.
For some speakers this sentence sounds strange since this construction is used for extended activities where the participant is off busy doing something (Bettina Spreng, pc). Since eating an apple is not typically a time-consuming event, this sentence may sound odd.
- 13.
There are a few exceptions to this generalization. The forms Bären-schiessen (‘bear-shooting’) and Hirsche-jagen (‘deer-hunting’) can appear in the plural only and are underspecified for number. I suggest that these forms are stored as idioms.
- 14.
I represent the plural morpheme as a floating [+front] feature because of the umlaut on the first vowel.
i.
Apfel → Äpfel [apfəl] → [ɛpfəl]
ii.
Mantel → Mäntel [mantəl] → [mɛntəl]
- 15.
An unanswered question here is exactly how the form mice arises in the derivation. Unlike the German plurals, there is not really enough regularity of any kind in English irregular plurals to permit a simple feature such as [+front]. I have represented mice as a root (distinct from mouse) that occurs only in the context of an n with an abstract plural feature. One possibility is that mice is inserted post-syntactically in the label of nP along the lines of Béjar (2004), but I leave the details to future research.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
There is a potential wrinkle here with the view that the forms in 38 consist of a bare root and a nominalizer . Arsalan Khanemuyipour (p.c.) informs me that in 38c, for example, the root is actually the present tense form of the stem (as opposed to the past tense stem). Under the assumption that present tense is the unmarked tense, it is unsurprising that the present tense stem is used in the nominalized constructions. I continue to assume that these forms consist of bare roots plus a nominalizer.
- 19.
In fact, Cowper (1992) has argued that the corresponding English constructions are nominal, too. I also leave aside the issue of word order in Persian . Persian is SOV (though it has prepositions instead of postpositions and post-verbal clausal complements). Given the approach here (specifically Antisymmetry), the underlying order must be SVO. Since this is the observed order in the non-NI forms under consideration here, I simply leave this issue aside. See Karimi (2005) for some discussion on Persian word order and Antisymmetry.
- 20.
Note that the ezafe vowel, ez, is arguably not part of the syntactic structure. See Ghomeshi (1997a) for a detailed discussion of the ezafe vowel in the syntax of Persian nominal constructions.
- 21.
I follow Ghomeshi (1997b) and assume that the ezafe vowel is inserted phonologically. See also footnote 22.
- 22.
- 23.
The presence of two ‘nominative’ DPs is the source of an earlier claim that Tamil violates the putative universal that sentences cannot have more than one subject. Steever argues that these sentences do not have two subjects, but rather that the nominal closer to the verb is actually incorporated and does not bear true nominative Case. In 43b I place the nom designator in brackets to highlight this claim, even though Steever glosses the IN as having nominative Case throughout.
- 24.
This difference between this approach and Progovac’s original approach is that Progovac right-adjoined each ConjP to an empty category of the same type as the conjuncts.
- 25.
English does have some examples of conjoined incorporated nouns such as coin-and-stamp-collectin g. In this case, is would appear we have the following structure, where N represents nP to save space.
i.
In this structure, collecting and coin c-command each other, triggering the NP to raise to SpecVP. Still unexplained here (and in coordinating constructions in general) is the choice of which Conj to pronounce. In the structure given here, the higher conjunction is pronounced at PF (as indicated by the strikethrough of the lower conjunction).
- 26.
Note that although I assume undifferentiated roots here as throughout (Marantz 1997), I use the labels V and A in the schematic trees to avoid confusion.
- 27.
I represent the object as a bare NumP as non-specific nominals fail to trigger transitive agreement on the verb. I assume that a full DP is required for transitive agreement.
References
Abney, Stephen. 1987. “The English Noun Phrase and its Sentential Aspect.” PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Acquaviva, Paolo. 2008. Lexical Plurals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alexiadou, Artemis. 1997. Adverb Placement: A Case Study in Antisymmetric Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Barrie, Michael, and Bettina Spreng. 2009. “Noun Incorporation and the Progressive in German.” Lingua 119 (2):374–88.
Barrie, Michael, and Martina Wiltschko. 2010. “How To Be a Mass and Other Cases of Nominal Aspect.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, May 29–31.
Béjar, Susana. 2004. “Syntactic Projections as Vocabulary Insertions Sites.” Paper presented at the NELS 35, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring Sense, Volume 1: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Caballero, Gabriela, Michael J. Houser, Nicole Marcus, Teresa McFarland, Anne Phycha, Maziar Toosarvandani, Suzanne Wilhite, and Johanna Nichols. 2008. “Nonsyntactic Ordering Effects in Syntactic Noun Incorporation.” Linguistic Typology 12 (3):383–421.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The Syntax of Adjectives: A Comparative Study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clahsen, Harald, Gary Marcus, Susanne Bartke, and Richard Wiese. 1995. “Compounding and Inflection in German Child Language.” In Yearbook of Morphology, edited by Geert Booij, and Jaap van Marle, 115–142. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Cowper, Elizabeth. 1992. “Infinitival Complements of Have.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37 (2):115–36.
Cowper, Elizabeth. 2005. “A Note on Number.” Linguistic Inquiry 36 (3):441–55.
Cowper, Elizabeth, and Daniel Currie Hall. 2003. “The Role of Register in the Syntax-Morphology Interface.” In Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, edited by Sophie Burelle, and Stanca Somesfalean. http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/2003/Cowper-Hall.pdf
Cowper, Elizabeth, and Daniel Currie Hall. 2009. “Where—and What—Is Number?” In The 2009 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, edited by Frédéric Mailhot. http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2009/CLA2009_Cowper_Hall.pdf
de Jong Boudreault, Linda J. 2009. “A Grammar of Sierra Popoluca (Soteapanec, a Mixe-Zoquean Language).” PhD diss., University of Texas, Austin.
Denny, J. Peter. 1989. “The Nature of Polysynthesis in Algonquian and Eskimo.” In Theoretical Perspectives on Native American Languages, edited by Donna Gerdts, and Karin Michelson, 203–58. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Edwin Williams. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frantz, Donald G. 1991. Blackfoot Grammar. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Frantz, Donald G., and Norma Jean Russell. 1995. Blackfoot Dictionary of Stems, Roots, and Affixes. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997a. “Non-Projecting Nouns and the Ezafe Construction in Persian.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15 (4):729–88.
Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997b. “Topics in Persian VPs.” Lingua 102 (2–3):133–67.
Ghomeshi, Jila. 2001. “Control and Thematic Agreement.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 46 (1/2):9–40.
Ghomeshi, Jila. 2003. “Plural Marking, Indefiniteness, and the Noun Phrase.” Studia Linguistica 57 (2):47–74.
Harbour, Daniel. 2007. Morphosemantic Number: From Kiowa Noun Classes to UG Number Features. Amsterdam: Springer.
Harley, Heidi. 2007. External Arguments: On the independence of Voice° and v°. Tromsø, Norway, April 12–14, 2007
Harley, Heidi. 2008. Bare Roots, Conflation and the Canonical Use Constraint. University of Lund, Lund, Sweden, February 5–6, 2008
Harley, Heidi. 2009. “Compounding in Distributed Morphology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, edited by Rochelle Lieber, and Pavol Štekauer, 129–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harley, Heidi, and Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. “Person and Number in Pronouns: A Feature-Geometric Analysis.” Language 78 (3):482–526.
Hirose, Tomio. 2003. Origins of Predicates: Evidence from Plains Cree. London: Routledge.
Hualde, Jose Ignacio. 1992. “Metaphony and Count/Mass Morphology in Asturian and Cantabrian Dialects.” In Theoretical Analyses in Romance Linguistics, edited by Christiane Laeufer, and Terrell A. Morgan, 99–114. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2000. “On the Derivationality of Some Inflectional Affixes in Persian.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistics Society of America, Chicago, IL.
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2001. “On Wh-Questions in Persian.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 46 (1/2):41–61.
Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan, and Karine Megerdoomian. 2002. “The Derivation/Inflection Distinction and Post-Syntactic Merge.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Toronto, ON.
Karimi, Simin. 2005. A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. “Lexical Morphology and Phonology.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, edited by Ik-Hwan Lee, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 2003. The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Larson, Richard K. 2004. “Sentence Final Adverbs and “Scope”.” In Proceedings of NELS 34, edited by Keir Moulton, and Matthew Wolf, 23–43. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
Lin, Vivian. 2000. “Determiner Sharing.” In Proceedings of WCCFL 19, edited by Roger Billerey, and Brook Danielle Lillehaugen, 274–87. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1996. “The Syntax of N-Raising: A Minimalist Theory.” OTS Working Papers, Utrecht, 1–151.
Marantz, Alec. 1997. “No Escape from Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4 (2):201–25.
Marantz, Alec. 2001. “Words.” Paper presented at the 20th West Coast conference on Formal Linguistics, University of Southern California, February 23–25, 2001.
Marvin, Tatjana. 2003. “Topics in the Stress and Syntax of Words.” PhD diss., MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Mathieu, Éric. 2008. “Word Formation as Phrasal Movement: Evidence from Ojibwe.” Paper presented at the NELS 39, Cornell University, November 5–7.
Megerdoomian, Karine. 2008. “Parallel Nominal and Verbal Projections.” In Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, edited by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero, and Maria Luisa Zubizaretta, 73–103. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miner, Kenneth L. 1989. “A Note on Noun Stripping.” International Journal of American Linguistics 55 (4):476–77.
Mithun, Marianne. 2000. “Incorporation.” In Morphology, edited by Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan, 916–28. Berlin: deGruyter.
Modarresi, Fereshteh, and Alexandra Simonenko. 2007. “Quasi Noun Incorporation in Persian.” In The Oxford Postgraduate Linguistics Conference: http://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/events/lingo/proceedings.htm
Mohanan, K. P. 1986. The Theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Newell, Heather. 2008. “Aspects of the Morphology and Phonology of Phases.” PhD diss., McGill University, Montreal, QC.
Penny, Ralph, J. 1970. “Mass-Nouns and Metaphony in the Dialects of North-Western Spain.” Archivum Linguisticum 1:21–30.
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1997. “Slavic and the Structure for Coordination.” In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, 1996, edited by Martina Lindseth, and Steven Franks. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1992. “Cross-Linguistic Evidence for Number Phrase.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37 (2):197–218.
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1993. “Where’s Gender?” Linguistic Inquiry 24 (4):795–803.
Rivero, Maria-Luisa. 1992. “Adverb Incorporation and the Syntax of Adverbs in Modern Greek.” Linguistics and Philosophy 15 (3):289–331.
Schiffman, Harold F. 1999. A Reference Grammar of Spoken Tamil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spencer, Andrew. 1995. “Incorporation in Chukchi.” Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America 71 (3):439–89.
Sportiche, Dominique. 1998. Reconstruction and Constituent Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Steever, Sanford B. 1979. “Noun Incorporation in Tamil, or What’s a Noun Like You Doing in a Verb Like This?” In Papers from the Regional Meetings. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Steever, Sanford B. 1998. The Dravidian Languages. London: Routledge.
Stvan, Laurel Smith. 2009. “Semantic Incorporation as an Account for Some Bare Singular Count Noun Uses in English.” Lingua 119 (2):314–33.
Travis, Lisa de Mena. 1992. “Inner Tense with NPs: The Position of Number.” In Proceedings of the Canadian Linguistics Association Annual Conference, edited by Carrie Dyck, Jila Ghomeshi, and Tom Wilson, 329–46.
Valois, Daniel. 1991. “The Internal Syntax of DP.” PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
van Geenhoven, Veerle. 1998. Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions: Semantic and Syntactic Aspects of Noun Incorporation in West Greenlandic. Dissertations in Linguistics. (DiLi). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Wiltschko, Martina. 2004. “Expletive Categorical Information: A Case Study of Number Marking in Halkomelem Salish.” In Northeast Linguistics Society (NELS). Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.
Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. “The Syntax of Non-inflectional Plural Marking.” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26 (3):639–94.
Wolfart, H. Christopher. 1973. “Plains Cree: A Grammatical Study.” American Philosophical Society Transactions, New Series 63 (5).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barrie, M. (2011). Noun Incorporation and Its Kind in Other Languages. In: Dynamic Antisymmetry and the Syntax of Noun Incorporation. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 84. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1570-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1570-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1569-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1570-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)