Home Regular and copular fragments in Basaá
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Regular and copular fragments in Basaá

  • Paul Roger Bassong EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: July 3, 2019

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

Published Online: 2019-07-03
Published in Print: 2019-09-25

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 9.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/ling-2019-0024/html
Scroll to top button