Abstract
The aim of this Article is to propose that fragment answers in Basaá (Bantu) derive from two different sources, namely, a regular source and a copular source. Regular fragments are those that are derived by movement of a Negative Polarity Item (NPI) or a CP complement to the left periphery of the clause followed by clausal ellipsis (Merchant 2004 and related work). Conversely, copular fragments involve a biclausal structure whereby the focalized fragment, no matter the syntactic function it fulfills in clause structure, finally ends up being the subject of the null verbal copula of the main clause. The fragment is initially selected as the external argument of the null verbal copula within the matrix VP along the lines of the VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis (Koopman and Sportiche 1991). From Spec-VP it raises to Spec-TP to satisfy the EPP requirements. The internal argument of the null copula is a headless relative in which a relative operator (covert/overt) moves to Spec-CP, a position above FocP the target of ellipsis. This gives rise to a structure whereby the fragment answer in the matrix clause and the relative operator in the embedded clause resist ellipsis. The analysis also provides semantic evidence that copular fragments are not clefts. The ellipsis approach is supported by a range of grammatical properties such as connectivity effects, locality constraints and subcategorization requirements. This paper is not only a contribution to Merchant’s (2004) ellipsis approach but it also provides new evidence for our understanding of the crosslinguistic variation of ellipsis.
Abbreviations
- 1.SG
First person singular
- AgrC
Agreement Complementizer
- AgrCP
Agreement Complementizer Phrase
- Agr-S
Agreement Subject
- AgrSP
Agreement Subject Phrase
- Asp
Aspect
- AspP
Aspect Phrase
- BEN
Benefactive
- BT
Binding Theory
- CAUS
Causative
- CP
Complementizer Phrase
- CONN
Connective
- D
Determiner
- DEF
Definite
- DEM
Demonstrative
- DP
Determiner Phrase
- EPP
Extended Projection Principle
- EPTH
Epenthetic
- FEM
Feminine
- FOC
Focus
- FocP
Focus Phrase
- IMPF
Imperfective aspect
- LOC
Locative
- MASC
Masculine
- NEG
Negation
- NegP
Negative Phrase
- NP
Noun Phrase
- OBL
Oblique
- Op
Operator
- PERF
Perfective aspect
- Pol
Polarity/yes-no question particle
- POSS
Possessive
- PREP
Preposition
- PRN
Pronoun
- PROG
Progressive aspect
- REFL
Reflexive
- REL
Relative operator
- RFM
Reflexive marker
- SM
Subject Marker
- T
Tense
- TP
Tense Phrase
- TAM
Tense, Aspect and Mood
- pro
Null subject in tensed clauses
- PRS
Present
- PST1
Past Tense one
- PST2
Past Tense two
- TOP
Topic
- V
Verb
- VP
Verb Phrase
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to two anonymous reviewers of Linguistics for their valuable and insightful comments and suggestions. Special thanks are due to Ann Kelly for helping throughout the process.
References
Aboh, Enoch O. 2007. Leftward focus versus rightward focus: The Kwa-Bantu conspiracy. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics 15. 81–104.Search in Google Scholar
Aboh, Enoch Oladé. 2010. Information structure begins with the numeration. Iberia 2(1). 12–42.Search in Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian. 1970. Aspects of the grammar of focus in English. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Bassong, Paul Roger. 2010. The structure of the left periphery in Basaá. Yaounde: University of Yaounde I MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Bassong, Paul Roger. 2012. Left peripheral focus and topic and complementizer agreement in Basaá. University of Potsdam. Ms.Search in Google Scholar
Bassong, Paul Roger. 2014. Information structure and the Basaá left peripheral syntax. Yaounde: University of Yaounde I dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2005. Answering with a cleft: The role of the null subject parameter and the VP periphery. In Laura Brugé, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, Walter Schweikert & Giuseppina Turano (eds.), Proceedings of the thirtieth ‘incontro di grammatica generativa’, 63–82. Venice: Cafoscarina.Search in Google Scholar
Brunetti, Lisa. 2003. Information focus movement in Italian and contextual constraints on ellipsis. In Gina Garding & Mimu Tsujimura (eds.), WCCFL 22: Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 95–108. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1982. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74. 245–273.10.1353/lan.1998.0211Search in Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2009. Deriving the properties of structural focus. In Arndt Riester & Edgar Onea (eds.), Focus at the syntax-semantics interface: Working Papers of the SFB 732(3), 19–33. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Search in Google Scholar
Gilligan, Gary. 1987. A cross-linguistic approach to the pro-drop parameter. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Griffiths, James & Anikó Lipták. 2014. Contrast and island sensitivity in clausal ellipsis. Syntax 17(3). 89–234.10.1111/synt.12018Search in Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1991. Extended projection. Brandeis University. Ms.Search in Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, Fatima & Emmanuel-Moselley Makasso. 2011. Bàsàa wh-questions and prosodic structuring. In Laura Downing (eds.), Questions in Bantu languages: Prosodies and positions (ZASPiL 55), 47–63. Berlin: Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.10.21248/zaspil.55.2011.408Search in Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, Fatima & Emmanuel-Moselley Makasso. 2015. Focus marking and the unavailability of inversion structures in the Bantu language Bàsàá (A43). Lingua 154. 35–6410.1016/j.lingua.2014.10.010Search in Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 2003. Bàsàa (A43). In Derek Nurse & Gerard Philippson (eds.), The Bantu languages, 257–282. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (ed.). 1979. Aghem grammatical structure. (Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics (SCOPIL) 7), 137–197. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.Search in Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. & Maria Polinsky. 2010. Focus in Aghem. In Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Fery (eds.), Theoretical, typological and experimental perspectives, 206–233. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199570959.003.0009Search in Google Scholar
Ince, Atakan. 2012. Fragment answers and islands. Syntax 15(2). 181–214.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00162.xSearch in Google Scholar
Jenks, Peter, Emmanuel-Moselley Makasso & Larry Hyman. 2017. Relative clauses in Basaá (A43). In Gratien Gualbert Atindogbé & Rebecca Grollemund (eds.), Relative clauses in some Cameroonian languages: Structure, function and semantism, 17–46. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110469547-002Search in Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda & Dominique Sportiche. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85. 211–258.10.1016/0024-3841(91)90022-WSearch in Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. 2001. A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics 39(3). 463–516.10.1515/ling.2001.021Search in Google Scholar
Lipták, Anikó & Enoch Oladé Aboh. 2013. Sluicing inside relatives: The case of Gungbe. Linguistics in the Netherlands 30(1). 102–118.10.1075/avt.30.08lipSearch in Google Scholar
Makasso, Emmanuel-Moselley. 2008. Intonation et mélismes dans le discours oral spontané en Bàsàá. Marseille: University of Provence (Aix-Marseille) dissertation.10.4000/tipa.394Search in Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 1998. Pseudosluicing: Elliptical clefts in Japanese and English. In Artemis Alexiadou, Nanna Fuhrhop, Paul Law & Ursula Kleinhenz (eds.), ZAS Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 88–112. Berlin: Zentrum fur Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Search in Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. The syntax of silence: Sluicing, islands and the theory of ellipsis. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199243730.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2003. Section excised from submitted version of fragments and ellipsis. University of Chicago. http://home.uchicago.edu/merchant/pubs/stripping.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 661–738.10.1007/s10988-005-7378-3Search in Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2008. Variable island repair under ellipsis. In Johnson Kyle (eds.), Topics in ellipsis, 132–153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511487033.006Search in Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry. 1973. Sentence fragments and the notion “sentence”. In Braj Kachru, Robert Lees, Yakov Malkiel, Angelina Pietrangeli & Sol Saporta (eds.), Issues in linguistics, 719–751. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Search in Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2011. Pro-drop and morphological richness. http://home.uni-leipzig.de/muellerg/prodrop1.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 2006. Short answers as focus. Theoretical and applied linguistics at Kobe Shoi 9, 1–22. Kobe: Kobe Shoin Institute for Linguistic Sciences, Kobe Shoin Women’s University.Search in Google Scholar
Ortega-Santos, Iván. 2016. Focus-related operations at the right Edge in Spanish: Subjects and ellipsis (Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 7). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/ihll.7Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (eds.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7Search in Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Cilene, Andrew Nevins & Luis Vicente. 2009. Cleaving the interactions between sluicing and preposition stranding. In Daniéle Torck & W. Leo Wetzels (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory: Selected papers from ‘going Romance’, Amsterdam 7–9 December 2006, 175–198. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.303.11rodSearch in Google Scholar
Ross, John Roberts. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Temmerman, Tanya. 2013. The syntax of Dutch embedded fragment answers: on the PF-theory of islands and the wh/sluicing correlation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31. 235–285.10.1007/s11049-012-9180-6Search in Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2010. Invisible last resort: A note on clefts as the underlying source for sluicing. Lingua 120. 1714–1726.10.1016/j.lingua.2010.01.002Search in Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Anikó Lipták. 2006. The crosslinguistic syntax of sluicing: Evidence from Hungarian relatives. Syntax 9(3). 248–274.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2006.00091.xSearch in Google Scholar
Watters, John. 1979. Focus in Aghem: A study of its formal correlates and typology. In Larry M. Hyman (ed.), Aghem grammatical structure: With special reference to noun classes, tense-aspect and focus marking, 137–197. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.Search in Google Scholar
Weir, Andrew. 2014. Fragments and clausal ellipsis. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Amherst dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Er hod gegeybm ales far de yi:dn ‘He gave the Jews everything’: On the emergence of prepositional dative marking with far in Transcarpathian Yiddish
- Regular and copular fragments in Basaá
- Sentence-final aspect particles as finite markers in Mandarin Chinese
- Clustering and stranding in Dutch
- The Hebrew dative: Usage patterns as discourse profile constructions
- (Inter)subjective uses of the Dutch progressive constructions
- If everything is syntax, why are words so important? An a-morphous but non-lexicalist approach
- Japanese subject markers in linguistic change: A quantitative analysis of data spanning 90 years and its theoretical implications
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Er hod gegeybm ales far de yi:dn ‘He gave the Jews everything’: On the emergence of prepositional dative marking with far in Transcarpathian Yiddish
- Regular and copular fragments in Basaá
- Sentence-final aspect particles as finite markers in Mandarin Chinese
- Clustering and stranding in Dutch
- The Hebrew dative: Usage patterns as discourse profile constructions
- (Inter)subjective uses of the Dutch progressive constructions
- If everything is syntax, why are words so important? An a-morphous but non-lexicalist approach
- Japanese subject markers in linguistic change: A quantitative analysis of data spanning 90 years and its theoretical implications