Home Linguistics & Semiotics New types of binominal lexeme in Anindilyakwa (Australia)
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

New types of binominal lexeme in Anindilyakwa (Australia)

  • Marie-Elaine van Egmond
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

This chapter describes four types of binominal lexeme in Anindilyakwa, a polysynthetic language of Northern Australia. In this language, two nouns cannot be simply juxtaposed to create a binominal, because modifiers have to agree in noun class with their heads. Noun class harmony is realised by one of the two components of the binominal taking a derivational prefix that allows it to match the noun class of the independently occurring noun. Depending on the construction, this derivational prefix can occur on either the head or the modifier of the binominal. This noun class harmony presents a challenge for the typology of binominals that is the theme of this book: (i) there are more morphs involved than in Pepper’s typology, some of which are non-consecutive; (ii) when the derivational prefix occurs on the head, this may represent one of the missing, “logically impossible”, types in the typology.

Abstract

This chapter describes four types of binominal lexeme in Anindilyakwa, a polysynthetic language of Northern Australia. In this language, two nouns cannot be simply juxtaposed to create a binominal, because modifiers have to agree in noun class with their heads. Noun class harmony is realised by one of the two components of the binominal taking a derivational prefix that allows it to match the noun class of the independently occurring noun. Depending on the construction, this derivational prefix can occur on either the head or the modifier of the binominal. This noun class harmony presents a challenge for the typology of binominals that is the theme of this book: (i) there are more morphs involved than in Pepper’s typology, some of which are non-consecutive; (ii) when the derivational prefix occurs on the head, this may represent one of the missing, “logically impossible”, types in the typology.

Downloaded on 1.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110673494-005/html
Scroll to top button