1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Variation
  4. Volume 21, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-6834
  • E-ISSN: 2211-6842
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Circumpositions in Afrikaans present several puzzles: (i) they always encode spatial paths, but spatial paths can also be encoded by prepositional phrases; (ii) they can be doubling or non-doubling, and (iii) they exhibit disharmonic word order of the kind that appears to violate the Final-over-Final Condition (FOFC). In this paper, I argue that circumpositions offer support for the existence of a directional head [] in the fine structure of the Afrikaans , and that this head is lexicalised by adpositional material in circumpositional expressions. I show that Afrikaans grammar distinguishes Route-paths from Goal-/Source-paths, and argue that whereas [] selects a [P] in the structure underlying Goal-/Source-paths (circumpositional expressions), Route-paths (prepositional expressions) are ‘bare’ [P] structures. I argue that since circumpositions identify structural components in different Spellout Domains, double-insertion of adposition-like material is required to exhaustively lexicalise the structure, and the disharmonic word order is understood as a direct consequence of the fact that [] is located in Afrikaans’ head-final verbal, which addresses the concern arising around FOFC. Finally, given that the adpositions in circumpositional expressions are shown to occupy structural positions that are distinct from that of de-adpositional V-particles, the paper also addresses the structural relation between circumpositions and particle verbs in which adposition-like material lexicalises a resultative [] node in the verbal domain.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.00033.pre
2020-09-08
2023-06-06

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lv.00033.pre
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aelbrecht, Lobke & Den Dikken, Marcel
    2013 Preposition doubling in Flemish and its implications for the syntax of Dutch PPs. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics16(1). 33–68. 10.1007/s10828‑013‑9054‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-013-9054-2 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, Mark C.
    2003 Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives, New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615047
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615047 [Google Scholar]
  3. Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders & Roberts, Ian
    2014 A syntactic Universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry42(5). 169–225. 10.1162/LING_a_00153
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00153 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biberauer, Theresa
    2016 Probing the nature of the final-over-final condition: The perspective from adpositions. InLaura Bailey & Michelle Sheehan (eds). Structure and order. Berlin: Language Science Press. 177–216.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 2017a Factors 2 and 3: A principled approach. Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics10. 38–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. 2017b Particles and the final-over-final condition. InMichelle Sheehan, Theresa Biberuaer, Anders Holmberg & Ian Roberts (eds). The final-over-final condition. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. 187–196.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Biberauer, Theresa & Folli, Raffaella
    2004 Goals of Motion in Afrikaans. InO. Courzet, H. Demirdache, & S. Wauquier-Gravelines (eds). Journées d’Etudes Linguistiques. 19–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Biberauer, Theresa & Roberts, Ian
    2010 Subjects, tense and verb-movement. InTheresa Biberauer, Anders Holmberg, Ian Roberts & Michelle Sheehan (eds). Parametric variation: Null subjects in minimalist theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 263–303.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Blake, Barry J.
    1994 Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 1977 Case marking in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Boeckx, Cedric
    2010 What principles and parameters got wrong. Lingbuzz. 1–34. https://lingbuzz.auf.net/001118 (25June 2017).
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Borer, Hagit
    1984 Parametric syntax: Case studies in Semitic and Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110808506
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808506 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2005 Structuring sense: An exo-skeletal trilogy. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263929.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Caha, Pavel
    2007 The superset principle. Tromsø: University of Tromsø CASTL master thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 2009 The nanosyntax of case. Tromsø: University of Tromsø CASTL doctoral dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 2010 The parameters of case marking and spellout driven movement. InJeroen Van Craenenbroeck (ed). Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2010. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 32–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Chomsky, Noam
    1996 Bare Phrase Structure. InHéctor Campos (ed). Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 51–109.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 1970 Remarks on nominalizations. InRoderick Jakobs & Peter Rosenbaum (eds). Readings in english transformational grammar. Waltham, Ma: Ginn & Company. 184–221.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Cole, Peter
    1985 Imbabura Quechua. London: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Cresswell, Maxwell J.
    1978 Prepositions and points of view. Linguistics and Philosophy2. 1–41. 10.1007/BF00365129
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00365129 [Google Scholar]
  21. De Belder, Marijke & Van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen
    2013 How to merge a root. Linguistic Inquiry44(1). 625–655. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684359.003.0012
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684359.003.0012 [Google Scholar]
  22. De Vos, Mark
    2013 Afrikaans mixed adposition orders as a PF-linearization effect. InTheresa Biberauer & Michelle Sheehan (eds). Theoretical approaches to disharmonic word orders conference. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 333–357. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684359.003.0012
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684359.003.0012 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dékány, Eva K.
    2011 A profile of the Hungarian DP: The interaction of lexicalization, agreement and linearization with the functional sequence. Tromsø: University of Tromsø CASTL doctoral dissertation. 10.5565/rev/catjl.93
     https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/catjl.93 [Google Scholar]
  24. Den Dikken, Marcel
    2010a Directions from the GET-GO: On the syntax of manner-of-motion verbs in directional constructions. Catalan Journal of Linguistics9. 23–53. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2010b On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. InGuglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds.). Mapping spatial PPs. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 74–126. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195393675.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  26. Fábregas, Antonio
    2007a An exhaustive lexicalisation account of directional complements. Nordlyd34(2).165–199.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 2007b The exhaustive lexicalization principle. Nordlyd34(2). 165–199. 10.7557/12.110
     https://doi.org/10.7557/12.110 [Google Scholar]
  28. Grimshaw, Jane
    1991 Extended projections. Unpublished manuscript.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Harley, Heidi
    1995 Subjects, events, and licensing. Cambridge, Ma: MIT dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf
    1999 Distributed morphology. GLOT International: State of the Article4(4). 3–9.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Harley, Heidi
    2014 On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics40(3–4): 225–276.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Haselbach, Boris P.
    2017 Revisiting route prepositions: Paths at the interfaces. Talk given at theMorphosyntactic variation in adpositions workshop (8–9 May). Queen’s College, Cambridge.
  33. Jackendoff, Ray
    1977 X’-syntax. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 1983 Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Jake, Janice L.
    1985 Grammatical relationships in Imbabura Quechua, New York: Garland Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Keresztes, László
    1998 Mansi. InDaniel Abondolo (ed.). The Uralic languages. London and New York: Routledge, pp.387–427.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Kiparsky, Paul
    1973 “Elsewhere” in phonology. InStephen Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds). A festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 93–106. 10.4324/9780203171608
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203171608 [Google Scholar]
  38. Koopman, Hilda
    2000 Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions, and particles: The structure of Dutch PPs. InHilda Koopman (ed.). The syntax of specifiers and heads: Collected essays of Hilda J. Koopman. London: Routledge. 204–260. 10.4324/9780203171608
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203171608 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kracht, Marcus
    2002 On the semantics of locatives. Linguistics and Philosophy25(2). 157–232. 10.1075/la.120.03kra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.120.03kra [Google Scholar]
  40. 2008 The fine structure of Spatial Expressions. Syntax and semantics of spatial P. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 35–62. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3969‑4_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_9 [Google Scholar]
  41. Krifka, Manfred
    1998 The origins of telicity. Events and grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 197–235. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3969‑4_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_9 [Google Scholar]
  42. Magomedbekova, Zagidad
    1971 Ã Ö Ø Ò× ÞÝ Ö Ñ Ø× Ò Ð Þ Ø× ØÝ× ÐÓÚ Ö [The Karata language: grammar analysis, texts, glossary]. Tbilisi: Å Ò Ö [Mecniereba].
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Marantz, Alec
    1997 No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphology in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics4(2). 201–225.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 2006 Morphology lectures: Streaming video. Lectures at the DEC of the ENS, Paris, October. www.diffusion.ens.fr/index.php?res=themes&idtheme=18 (25June 2017).
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Seyoum, Mulugeta
    2008 A grammar of Dime. Leiden: Leiden University doctoral dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Nichols, Johanna
    1994 Ingush. InRieks Smeets (ed). North East Caucasian languages. Delmar, New York: Caravan Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Oosthuizen, Johan
    2000 Prepositions left and right in afrikaans. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics33.67–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Panagiotidis, Phoevos E.
    2015 Categorical features: A Generative theory of word class categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1515/ling.2010.034
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.034 [Google Scholar]
  49. Pantcheva, Marina
    2010 The syntactic structure of locations, goals, and sources. Linguistics48(5). 1043–1081. 10.1515/ling.2010.034
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.034 [Google Scholar]
  50. 2011 Decomposing path: The nanosyntax of directional expressions. Tromsø: University of Tromsø CASTL doctoral dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Pantcheva, Marina. & Caha, Pavel
    2011 The functional projections of case and path: Grammatical and spatial cases: A unified fseq. Unpublished manuscript.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Pretorius, Erin
    2015 On the status of postpositions in Afrikaans. Talk given at the4th Southern African microlinguistics workshop (SAMWOP 4). 27–29 December. Grahamstown, RSA.
  53. 2017a Spelling out P: A unified syntax of Afrikaans adpositions and V-particles. Utrecht: Utrecht University doctoral dissertation. 10.5774/48‑0‑277
     https://doi.org/10.5774/48-0-277 [Google Scholar]
  54. 2017b The secret nominal life of afrikaans intransitive adpositions. InAlex Andrason & Theresa Biberauer (eds). Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus48. 9–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Radkevich, Nina. V.
    2010 On location: The structure of case and adpositions. Connecticut: UConn PhD thesis. 10.1017/CBO9780511486319
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486319 [Google Scholar]
  56. Ramchand, Gillian
    2008 Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486319
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486319 [Google Scholar]
  57. Ramchand, Gillian & Svenonius, Peter
    2002 The lexical syntax and lexical semantics of the verb-particle construction. Proceedings of WCCFL21. 387–400. 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.013 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2014 Deriving the functional hierarchy. Language Sciences46. 152–174. 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.013 [Google Scholar]
  59. Rojina, Nina
    2004 English particles, Russian prefixes, and prepositional phrases. Tromsø: University of Tromsø CASTL doctoral dissertation. 10.7551/mitpress/8687.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8687.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  60. Sheehan, Michelle, Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders & Roberts, Ian
    2017 The final-over-final condition. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/8687.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8687.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  61. Starke, Michal
    2009 Nanosyntax: A short primer to a new approach to language. Nordlyd36(1). 1–6.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Svenonius, Peter
    2003 Limits on P: Filling in holes vs. falling in holes. Nordlyd31(2). 431–445.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 2004 Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP. Nordlyd32(2). 205–253. 10.1075/la.108.08sve
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.108.08sve [Google Scholar]
  64. 2007a Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce. InEric Reuland, Tanmoy Bhattacharya, & Giorgos Spathas (eds). Argument structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 71–110. 10.1075/la.108.08sve
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.108.08sve [Google Scholar]
  65. Svenonius, P.
    2007b P: Anatomy of a category. LOT Winterschool course in Amsterdam. February.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Svenonius, Peter
    2012 Spanning. Unpublished manuscript. 1–9.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 2014 Generalized applicatives: Reassessing the lexical-functional divide. Theoretical Linguistics40(3–4). 439–446.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Taraldsen, Knut T.
    2010 The nanosyntax of nguni noun class prefixes and concords. Lingua120(6). 1522–1548. 10.1016/j.lingua.2009.10.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  69. Van Riemsdijk, Henk
    1978 A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. 10.1515/9783110847420.229
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110847420.229 [Google Scholar]
  70. 1990 Functional prepositions. Unity in diversity. Papers presented to Simon C. Dik on his 50th birthday. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 229–241. 10.1515/9783110847420.229
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110847420.229 [Google Scholar]
  71. Van Riemsdijk, Henk & Huybregts, Riny
    2002 Location and locality. Progress in grammar: Articles at the 20th Anniversary of the Comparison of Grammatical Models Group in Tilburg. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut. 1–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Vellard, Jean A.
    1967 Contribución al estudio de la lengua Uru. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Williams, Edwin
    2003 Representation Theory. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Wurmbrand, Susi
    2000 The structure(s) of particle verbs. Unpublished manuscript. 1–36. Available at: https://homepage.univie.ac.at/susanne.wurmbrand/Susi/ewExternalFiles/structure-particles.pdf. 10.1075/la.41
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.41
  75. Zeller, Jochen
    2001 Particle verbs and local domains. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1007/s10988‑005‑2466‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-2466-y [Google Scholar]
  76. Zwarts, Joost
    2005 Prepositional aspect and the algebra of paths. Linguistics and Philosophy28(6).739–779. 10.1075/la.110.05zwa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.110.05zwa [Google Scholar]
  77. 2008 Aspects of a typology of direction. InStephen Rothstein (ed.). Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 79–106. 10.1515/ling.2010.032
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2010.032 [Google Scholar]
  78. 2010 A hierarchy of locations: Evidence from the encoding of direction in adpositions. Linguistics48(5). 983–1009. 10.5117/NEDTAA2014.2.ZWAT
     https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2014.2.ZWAT [Google Scholar]
  79. 2014 Directionele PPs als predikaten (of niet). Nederlandse Taalkunde/Dutch Linguistics19(2). 255–275. 10.5117/NEDTAA2014.2.ZWAT
     https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2014.2.ZWAT [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lv.00033.pre
Loading
Afrikaans circumpositions
Linguistic Variation 21, 46 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.00033.pre
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.00033.pre
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.00033.pre
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): adpositions; Afrikaans; circumpositions; doubling; FOFC; lexicalisation; particles; spatial path; spellout; syntax-interface

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error