Dogon noncompositional constructional tonosyntax

Jeffrey Heath

doi:10.1515/jall-2015-0010

Article

Dogon noncompositional constructional tonosyntax

Jeffrey Heath

Published/Copyright: December 8, 2015

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Journal of African Languages and Linguistics Volume 36 Issue 2

Abstract

Dogon DP tonosyntax can often be reduced to simple schemata of the type [T^O C] or [C ^OT] where a reference-restricting C[ontroller] imposes a tonal O[verlay] on an adjacent T[arget] word or string. If two or more potential controllers are present in a DP, usually the outermost (highest) one controls the entire inner string, as when Poss-N-Adj-Num is realized as [Poss ^O[N Adj Num]], which is simply an instance of the formula [C ^OT]. But several Dogon languages also have tonal patterns for certain DP configurations that cannot be generated by binary [T^O C] or [C ^OT] patterns or any combination thereof. These call for an explicitly noncompositional constructional tonosyntactic model. Numerals, which in simple N-Num or N-Adj-Num sequences are tonosyntactically inert, play an interesting catalysing role in constructional tonosyntax, activating latent control potential in definites and (originally appositional) postposed possessors.

Keywords: Dogon; tonosyntax; noun phrase; construction morphology; Donno So; Togo Kan; catalyst

Acknowledgements

Fieldwork on Dogon languages has been supported by the National Science Foundation, Documenting Endangered Languages program, grants BCS-0537435 (2006–2009), BCS-0853364 (2009–2013), and BCS-1263150 (2013–2016). I thank two anonymous referees for comments.

References

Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00213.xSearch in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4). 711–733.10.1353/lan.2006.0186Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam, with Gary Olsen & Lester Faigley. 1991. Language, politics, and composition. In Gary Olsen & Irene Gales (eds.), (Inter)views: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on rhetoric and literacy, 61–95. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2002. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele. 1992. The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics 3(1). 401–437.10.1515/cogl.1992.3.1.37Search in Google Scholar

Harry, Otelemate & Larry Hyman. 2014. Phrasal construction tonology: The case of Kalabari. Studies in Language 38(4). 649–689.10.1075/sl.38.4.01hymSearch in Google Scholar

Heath, Jeffrey. in press. Dogon adjective-numeral inversion. Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Heath, Jeffrey & Laura McPherson. 2013. Tonosyntax and reference restriction in Dogon NPs. Language 89(2). 265–296.10.1353/lan.2013.0020Search in Google Scholar

Kervran, Marcel. 1993. Dictionnaire dogon français, Donno Sɔ, Région de Bandiagara. 2nd ed. Brussels: R. Deleu.Search in Google Scholar

Kervran, Marcel & André Prost. 1969. Les parlers dogon, 1: Donno so. Dakar: Publications du Département de Linguistique Générale et Linguistique Africaine de la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de l’Université de Dakar.Search in Google Scholar

Kervran, Marcel & André Prost. 1986. Un parler dogon, le Donno Sɔ: Notes de grammaire. Bandiagara: Paroisse catholique.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

McCarthy, John & Alan Prince. 1993. Prosodic morphology: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar

McPherson, Laura. 2014a. Replacive grammatical tone in the Dogon languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Linguistics Dept., UCLA.Search in Google Scholar

McPherson, Laura. 2014b. A grammar of Tommo So. (Mouton Grammar Library, 62.) Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110301076Search in Google Scholar

McPherson, Laura & Jeffrey Heath. in press. Phrasal grammatical tone in the Dogon languages: The role of constraint interaction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.Search in Google Scholar

Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Search in Google Scholar

Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 2004 [1993]. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell. http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/537-0802/537-0802-PRINCE-0-0.PDF10.1002/9780470759400Search in Google Scholar

Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1978. On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2015-12-8

Published in Print: 2015-12-1

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/jall-2015-0010

Keywords for this article

Dogon; tonosyntax; noun phrase; construction morphology; Donno So; Togo Kan; catalyst