Agreement in thetic VS sentences in Bantu and Romance
-
Jenneke van der Wal
Abstract
Both Bantu and Romance languages use a V(erb) S(ubject) construction to express thetic (“out-of-the-blue”) sentences. Two types of languages can be distinguished within these language families, with respect to the verbal agreement in a thetic VS sentence: in type 1 the verb has default agreement, whereas in type 2 the verb agrees with the postverbal subject. In the Bantu languages these two types also display a difference in the use of conjoint and disjoint verb forms. Collins (2004), Carstens (2005), and Baker (2008) have previously analyzed such agreement and word order phenomena. These accounts, attributing the differences between types 1 and 2 to parameter settings of the Agree system, do not offer a satisfactory explanation. This paper proposes that the difference is due to the status of the agreement of the verb, which is pronominal in type 1 languages and purely grammatical in type 2. Arguments for this analysis are found in Case, Binding Theory and information structure. The focus in this paper is on the Romance languages French and Italian, and on the Bantu languages Sesotho and Makhuwa.
Abstract
Both Bantu and Romance languages use a V(erb) S(ubject) construction to express thetic (“out-of-the-blue”) sentences. Two types of languages can be distinguished within these language families, with respect to the verbal agreement in a thetic VS sentence: in type 1 the verb has default agreement, whereas in type 2 the verb agrees with the postverbal subject. In the Bantu languages these two types also display a difference in the use of conjoint and disjoint verb forms. Collins (2004), Carstens (2005), and Baker (2008) have previously analyzed such agreement and word order phenomena. These accounts, attributing the differences between types 1 and 2 to parameter settings of the Agree system, do not offer a satisfactory explanation. This paper proposes that the difference is due to the status of the agreement of the verb, which is pronominal in type 1 languages and purely grammatical in type 2. Arguments for this analysis are found in Case, Binding Theory and information structure. The focus in this paper is on the Romance languages French and Italian, and on the Bantu languages Sesotho and Makhuwa.
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Acknowledgments vii
- List of contributors ix
- Introduction xi
-
Part 1. Clitics and agreement
- Concepts of structural underspecification in Bantu and Romance 3
- On different types of clitic clusters 41
- Pronominal object markers in Romance and Bantu 83
- The Bantu-Romance connection in verb movement and verbal inflectional morphology 111
-
Part 2. The structure of DPs
- DP in Bantu and Romance 131
- On the interpretability of φ-features 167
- Agreement and concord in nominal expressions 201
- A unified syntactic analysis of Italian and Luganda nouns 239
-
Part 3. Information structure
- The fine structure of the Topic field 261
- Focus at the interface: Evidence from Romance and Bantu 293
- Agreement in thetic VS sentences in Bantu and Romance 323
- Index of languages 351
- General index 353
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Acknowledgments vii
- List of contributors ix
- Introduction xi
-
Part 1. Clitics and agreement
- Concepts of structural underspecification in Bantu and Romance 3
- On different types of clitic clusters 41
- Pronominal object markers in Romance and Bantu 83
- The Bantu-Romance connection in verb movement and verbal inflectional morphology 111
-
Part 2. The structure of DPs
- DP in Bantu and Romance 131
- On the interpretability of φ-features 167
- Agreement and concord in nominal expressions 201
- A unified syntactic analysis of Italian and Luganda nouns 239
-
Part 3. Information structure
- The fine structure of the Topic field 261
- Focus at the interface: Evidence from Romance and Bantu 293
- Agreement in thetic VS sentences in Bantu and Romance 323
- Index of languages 351
- General index 353
