1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Linguistic Variation
  4. Volume 25, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 25, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-6834
  • E-ISSN: 2211-6842
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Tshila /tshílà/ is a Kalahari Khoe language spoken in central-southeastern Botswana by approximately 300 people (Schwab & Collins 2024). It is an SOV language. Tshila has a copular predicate nominal construction with the word order [Noun Noun COP]. The nouns in this language can vary in size according to factors such as the projection of phi-feature morphology and the presence of constituent negation and focus. Also possible in Tshila is predicate inversion. The interaction of the size of the DPs along with the presence of inversion shows interesting constraints on nominative Case assignment and phi-agreement. The analysis of this construction supports a universal hierarchy of phi-features (Harley & Ritter 2002; Béjar 2003), not only within nominals but also on phi-probes. This analysis unifies Case assignment and phi-agreement as a single operation (Chomsky 2000; 2001; Platzack 2006; Legate 2008; Georgi 2017), which supports the view that Case assignment is not postsyntactic.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lv.24036.sto
2025-02-24
2026-07-16

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lv.24036.sto
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Akmajian, Adrian
    1979 Aspects of the Grammar of Focus in English. New York, NY: Garland.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Baier, Nicholas Benson
    2018 Anti-Agreement. Doctoral dissertation. UC Berkeley.
  3. Baker, Mark
    2008 The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge studies in linguistics 115. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619830
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619830 [Google Scholar]
  4. Béjar, Susana
    2003 Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement. Doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto.
  5. Béjar, Susana, & Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan
    2017 Non-canonical agreement in copular clauses. Journal of Linguistics531: 463–499. 10.1017/S002222671700010X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222671700010X [Google Scholar]
  6. Béjar, Susana & Rezac, Milan
    2003 Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects. In Romance linguistics: Theory and acquisition, ed. byAna Teresa Pérez-Leroux and Yves Roberge, 49–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.244.07bej
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.244.07bej [Google Scholar]
  7. 2009 Cyclic Agree. Linguistic Inquiry401. 35–73. 10.1162/ling.2009.40.1.35
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2009.40.1.35 [Google Scholar]
  8. Belletti, Adriana & Collins, Chris
    2021 Smuggling in syntax. 10.1093/oso/9780197509869.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197509869.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Benveniste, Emile
    1971 The nature of pronouns. Problems in general linguistics, 217–222. Coral Gables, FL. University of Miami Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Borschev, Vladimir & Paducheva, Elena & Partee, Barbara & Testelets, Yakov & Yanovich, Igor
    2006 Sentential and constituent negation in Russian BE-sentences revisited. InFormal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The princeton meeting 2005 (FASL 14), 50–65. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bowers, John
    1993 The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry24(4). 591–656
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 2001 Predication. The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 299–333. 10.1002/9780470756416.ch10
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756416.ch10 [Google Scholar]
  13. Branan, Kenyon & Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka
    2022 Locality and (minimal) search. Manuscript. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005791
  14. Bruening, Benjamin
    2010 Language-particular syntactic rules and constraints: English locative inversion and do-support. Language86(1). 43–84. 10.1353/lan.0.0201
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0201 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2016 Alignment in Syntax: Quotative Inversion in English. Syntax19(2). 111–155. 10.1111/synt.12121
     https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12121 [Google Scholar]
  16. Chomsky, Noam
    1995 The minimalist program. MIT Press. Cambridge. MA.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 2000 Minimalist inquiries: the framework. InMartin, Rogers & Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.) Step by Step, 89–155. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 2001 Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A Life in Linguistics, 1–52. 10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4056.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  19. Citko, Barbara
    2014 Phase Theory: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139644037
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139644037 [Google Scholar]
  20. Collins, Chris
    2005 A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax8(2) 81–120. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2005.00076.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2005.00076.x [Google Scholar]
  21. 2023a A grammatical sketch of Kuasi (Bostwana). Cologne. Rudiger Köppe Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 2023b Internet Searches as a Tool in Syntactic Research (second version). Blog post. https://ordinaryworkinggrammarian.blogspot.com/2023/01/internet-searches-as-tool-in-syntactic.html
  23. 2024 Principles of Argument Structure: A Merge-Based Approach. MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/15436.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/15436.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Collins, Chris & Fehn, Anne-Maria
    2024 Parameters of morphosyntactic variation in Khoe-Kwadi. Manuscript.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Collins, Chris & Wellstood, Zachary
    2024 A grammatical sketch of Cua. Manuscript. 10.3726/b22557
     https://doi.org/10.3726/b22557 [Google Scholar]
  26. Contreras, Heles
    1968 The structure of the determiner in Spanish. Language. 6(44), 22–28
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Coon, Jessica & Keine, Stefan
    2021 Feature gluttony. Linguistic Inquiry. 10.1162/ling_a_00386
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00386 [Google Scholar]
  28. Coon, Jessica & Keine, Stefan & Wagner, Michael
    2017 Hierarchy effects in copular constructions: The PCC corner of German. InNELS 47, ed. byAndrew Lamont and Katerina Tetzloff, 11:205–214. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistic Student Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Danon, Gabi
    2011 Agreement and DP-internal feature distribution. Syntax141, 297–317. 10.1111/j.1467‑9612.2011.00154.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00154.x [Google Scholar]
  30. Declerck, Renaat
    1988 Studies on Copular Sentences, Clefts and Pseudo-clefts. Leuven: Leuven University Press/Foris. 10.1515/9783110869330
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110869330 [Google Scholar]
  31. Den Dikken, Marcel
    2017 Pseudoclefts and Other Specificational Copular Sentences. InEveraert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.) The Companion to Syntax, Second Edition. Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom001
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom001 [Google Scholar]
  32. Etxepare, Ricardo & Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam
    2017 A new look at constituent negation in Spanish. Grammar of the Verbal Domain of Romanian and Beyond: Issues on Negation and Information Structure II. University of Nantes.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Fernández-Serrano, Irene
    2022 Agreement and optionality: Evidence from Spanish variation. Doctoral dissertation. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
  34. Forchheimer, Paul
    1953 The category of person in language. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783111562704
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111562704 [Google Scholar]
  35. Georgi, Doreen
    2017 Patterns of Movement Reflexes as the Result of the Order of Merge and Agree. Linguistic Inquiry48(4), 585–626. 10.1162/LING_a_00255
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00255 [Google Scholar]
  36. Giusti, Giuliana
    1996 Is there a FocusP and a TopicP in the noun phrase structure?University of Venice working papers in linguistics6:2, 105–128.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Gotah, Selikem
    2024 Deriving Ewe (Tongugbe) nyá-constructions. Linguistic Variation. 10.1075/lv.23061.got
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.23061.got [Google Scholar]
  38. Gravely, Brian, Krapp López, Carlos & Greeson, Daniel
    2024 When agree fails and when it succeeds: evidence from copular agreement. Syntactic Theory & Research (STAR). To appear.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Güdelmann, Tom
    2004 ‘Reconstruction Through “De-Construction”: The Marking of Person, Gender, and Number in the Khoe Family and Kwadi’. Diachronica211. 251–306. 10.1075/dia.21.2.02gul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.21.2.02gul [Google Scholar]
  40. Halpert, Claire
    2019 Raising, unphased. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory37:1, 123–165. 10.1007/s11049‑018‑9407‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9407-2 [Google Scholar]
  41. Harley, Heidi & Ritter, Elizabeth
    2002 Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language78(3), 482–526. 10.1353/lan.2002.0158
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0158 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hartmann, Jutta M. & Caroline Heycock
    2020 (Morpho) syntactic variation in agreement: Specificational copular clauses across Germanic. Frontiers in psychology101. 2994. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02994
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02994 [Google Scholar]
  43. Heycock, Caroline
    2012 Specification, equation, and agreement in copular sentences. Canadian Journal of Linguistics52(2). 209–240. 10.1017/S0008413100004758
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100004758 [Google Scholar]
  44. Higgins, Francis Roger
    1976 The pseudo-cleft construction in English. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.
  45. Hoover, Jacob Lewis
    2021 Accounting for variation in number agreement in Icelandic dative-nominative constructions. InSoo, Rachel (eds.) Proceedings of the 38th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 231–241. Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Somerville, MA.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Hiraiwa, Ken
    2001 Multiple agree and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics401. 67–80.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Horn, Laurence R.
    1989 A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Kalin, Laura
    2020 Opacity in agreement. InSmith, Peter & Mursell, Johannes & Hartmann, Katharina (eds.) Agree to Agree: Agreement in the minimalist programme, 149–177. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Ke, Hezao
    2019 The Syntax, Semantics and Processing of Agreement and Binding Grammatical Illusions. Doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan.
  50. Kim, Jong-Bok, & Sag, Ivan A.
    2002 Negation without head-movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory20(2). 339–412. 10.1023/A:1015045225019
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015045225019 [Google Scholar]
  51. Klima, E.
    1964 Negation in English. In: Fodor, Jerry & Katz, Jerrold (eds.) The structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Krapp López, Carols & Gravely, Brian
    2024 Deriving post-verbal copular agreement in English: an interaction-satisfaction account. CCG33, May 15–17, 2024. Conference presentation
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Kripke, Saul
    1972 Naming and Necessity. InDavidson, Donald & Harman, Gilbert (eds.) Semantics of Natural Language, 253–355. Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑2557‑7_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2557-7_9 [Google Scholar]
  54. Larson, Richard
    2022 Adjectives, case, and concord. InPanagiotidis, Phoevos & Mitrović, Moreno (eds.), A0 — The lexical status of adjectives. Language Faculty and Beyond171, 73–120. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/lfab.17.03lar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.17.03lar [Google Scholar]
  55. Legate, Julie Anne
    2008 Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry39(1), 55–101. 10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.55
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.55 [Google Scholar]
  56. Letsholo, Rose
    2016 Modification and word order in the //Gánà DP. InBernhard Koehler (ed.), Interrogative and syntactic inquiries. Case studies from Africa. Frankfurt African Studies Bulletin231, 97–122. Cologne, Köppe.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Longenbaugh, Nicholas & Polinsky, Maria
    2018 Equidistance returns. The Linguistic Review35(3), 413–461. 10.1515/tlr‑2018‑0002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2018-0002 [Google Scholar]
  58. Matushansky, Ora
    2019 Against the PredP Theory of Small Clauses. Linguistic Inquiry50(1), 63–104. 10.1162/ling_a_00301
     https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00301 [Google Scholar]
  59. Mikkelsen, Line
    2005 Copular Clauses: Specification, Predication and Equation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.85
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.85 [Google Scholar]
  60. Milway, Daniel
    2023 A Formalization of Agree as a Derivational Operation. Biolinguistics171. 10.5964/bioling.9877
     https://doi.org/10.5964/bioling.9877 [Google Scholar]
  61. Miyagawa, Shigeru
    2010 Why Agree? Why Move?Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Moro, Andrea
    1997 The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure, vol.80. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519956
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519956 [Google Scholar]
  63. Otheguy, Ricardo León
    1977 The meaning of Spanish el, la, and lo. Doctoral dissertation. The City University of New York.
  64. Oxford, Will
    2017 The Activity Condition as a Microparameter. Linguistic Inquiry48(4), 711–722. 10.1162/LING_a_00260
     https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00260 [Google Scholar]
  65. 2019 Inverse marking and Multiple Agree in Algonquin: Complementarity and variability. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory371. 955–996. 10.1007/s11049‑018‑9428‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-018-9428-x [Google Scholar]
  66. Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther
    2004 Tense, case and the nature of syntactic categories. InGuerón, Jacqueline & Lecarme, Jacqueline (eds.) The syntax of time, 495–538. MIT Press. Cambridge. 10.7551/mitpress/6598.003.0021
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6598.003.0021 [Google Scholar]
  67. 2007 The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. InSamiian, Vida & Karimi, Simin (eds.) Phrasal and clausal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/la.101.14pes
     https://doi.org/10.1075/la.101.14pes [Google Scholar]
  68. Platzack, Christer
    2006 Case as Agree marker. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax771. 71–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Poole, Ethan
    2024 Dependent-case assignment could be AGREE. Glossa9(1). 10.16995/glossa.9894
     https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.9894 [Google Scholar]
  70. Preminger, Omer
    2011 Asymmetries between person and number in syntax: a commentary on Baker’s SCOPA. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory29(4). 917–937. 10.1007/s11049‑011‑9155‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9155-z [Google Scholar]
  71. 2014 Agreement and its failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262027403.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262027403.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  72. 2019 What the PCC tells us about “abstract” agreement, head movement, and locality. Glossa4(1), 13. 10.5334/gjgl.315
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.315 [Google Scholar]
  73. Roberts, Ian
    2010 Agreement and head movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014304.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  74. 2019 Parameter hierarchies and Universal Grammar. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198804635.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198804635.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  75. 2024 Generalised Dynamic Antisymmetry and Smuggling Derivations. InGreco, Matteo & Mocci, Davide (eds.) A Cartesian Dream: A geometrical account of syntax in honor of Andrea Moro. Creative commons.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Sánchez López, Cristina
    1999 La negación. InBosque, Ignacio & Demonte, Violeta (eds.) Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española21. 2561–2634. Madrid, Spain.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Schwab, André & Collins, Chris
    2024 Classification of Tshila. Conference talk. ACAL 55. Montréal, QC.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Shlonsky, Ur
    2023 A smuggling derivation of Bantu subject-object reversal. Handout.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. 2024 From Bantu subject-object reversal to inverted copular sentences. Rich Descriptions and Simple Explanations in Morphosyntax and Language Acquisition. 4381. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198889472.003.0017
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198889472.003.0017 [Google Scholar]
  80. Stegovec, Adrian
    2024 The third way: object reordering as ambiguous labeling resolution. The Linguistic Review. 10.1515/tlr‑2024‑2007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2024-2007 [Google Scholar]
  81. Storment, John David
    2024 Quotative inversion as smuggling: Evidence from Setswana and English. 55th Annual Conference on African Linguistics. Montréal, QC.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. 2025 Projecting (your) voice: A theory of inversion and defective circumvention. Doctoral dissertation. Stony Brook University. In progress.
  83. Sulemana, Abdul-Razak
    2024 Passive without morphology. Linguistic Variation. 10.1075/lv.23047.sul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.23047.sul [Google Scholar]
  84. Taraldsen, Knut Tarald
    1995 On agreement and nominative objects in Icelandic. InStudies in comparative Germanic syntax, 307–327. Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑8416‑6_14
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8416-6_14 [Google Scholar]
  85. Thoms, Gary
    2024 Reassessing Oehrle effects: Evidence from Scottish Gaelic. Manuscript. New York University.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Ura, Hiroyuki
    1996 Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical function splitting. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.
  87. 2000a Checking theory and grammatical functions in universal grammar. Oxford University Press. New York, NY. 10.1093/oso/9780195118391.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195118391.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  88. 2000b On the definition of closeness in the mechanism of Agree. InThe proceedings of the 2nd international Asian GLOW conference, 425–442
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Visser, Hessel
    2022 Translating Person, Gender and Number into Naro. PGN Markers in Naro and their Impact on Bible Translation. Apeldoorn: Theological University. Doctoral dissertation.
  90. Wurmbrand, Susi
    2016 Formal and semantic agreement in syntax: A dual-feature approach. Manuscript. University of Connecticut.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.24036.sto
Loading
Predicate nominals in Tshila
Linguistic Variation 25, 375 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.24036.sto
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.24036.sto
/content/journals/10.1075/lv.24036.sto
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): constituent negation; DP structure; Kalahari Khoe; Khoisan syntax; nominative Case; PGN markers; predicate inversion

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