Noun phrase constituency in Australian languages: A typological study
-
Dana Louagie
and
Jean-Christophe Verstraete
Abstract
This article examines whether Australian languages generally lack clear noun phrase structures, as has sometimes been argued in the literature. We break up the notion of NP constituency into a set of concrete typological parameters, and analyse these across a sample of 100 languages, representing a significant portion of diversity on the Australian continent. We show that there is little evidence to support general ideas about the absence of NP structures, and we argue that it makes more sense to typologize languages on the basis of where and how they allow “classic” NP construal, and how this fits into the broader range of construals in the nominal domain.
1 Introduction
It has often been argued that Australian languages show unusual syntactic flexibility in the nominal domain, and may even lack clear noun phrase structures altogether – e. g., in Blake (1983), Heath (1986), Harvey (2001: 112), Evans (2003a: 227–233), Campbell (2006: 57); see also McGregor (1997: 84), Cutfield (2011: 46–50), Nordlinger (2014: 237–241) for overviews and more general discussion of claims to this effect. This idea is based mainly on features like flexibility of word order and the availability of “discontinuous” nominal expressions, as illustrated in (1) through (3).
Bininj Gun-wok (Gunwinyguan)
| "wanjh, | an-dehne | gukku | nga-bo-bawo-n | bedberre | munguihmunguih |
| well | ve-that | water | i-liquid-leave-npst | for.them | for.ever |
‘Yeah, I’ll leave that water for them forever…’ (Evans 2003a: 707)
| gun-barlkbu | an-ege | bi-rrerlme-ng |
| iv-digging.stick | ve-that | 3/3h.p-throw-pst.pfv |
‘She threw that digging stick at him.’ (Evans 2003a: 207)
Warlpiri (Ngumpin-Yapa)
| wawirri | kapirna | panti-rni | yalumpu |
| kangaroo | aux | spear-npst | that |
‘I will spear that kangaroo.’ (Hale 1983: 6)
Kalkatungu (Kalkatungic)
| cipa-yi | ̪tuku-yu | yaun-tu | yaɲi | icayi |
| this-erg | dog-erg | big-erg | white.man | bite |
‘This big dog bit/bites the white man.’ (Blake 1983: 45; cited in Nordlinger 2014: 229)
cipa-yi ̪tuku-yuyaɲi icayiyaun-tu
̪tuku-yu cipa-yiicayi yaɲiyaun-tu
yaun-tu cipa-yi ̪tuku-yuicayi yaɲi
cipa-yiicayi yaɲi̪tuku-yu yaun-tu
yaɲi icayicipa-yi yaun-tu ̪tuku-yu
The two Bininj Gun-wok examples in (1) show that nominal word order is flexible, in that, for instance, the demonstrative can both precede and follow its nominal head. The Warlpiri example in (2) shows how a modifier, again a demonstrative, can be detached from its apparent nominal head in a discontinuous construction. These two properties are taken to their extremes in the oft-cited Kalkatungu example in (3), which allows at least six different orderings for a demonstrative, adjective, [1] and nominal head, with different modifiers separated from their apparent heads. The features of word order flexibility and discontinuity illustrated in (1) through (3) have been regarded as indications that languages like Bininj Gun-wok or Kalkatungu lack phrasal structures in the nominal domain, without obvious internal structure or cohesion to suggest that a noun and its semantic dependents form a constituent in the “classic” sense (e. g., Evans 2003a: 227–234; Blake 1983: 145).
The existing literature about NP constituency in Australian languages is strongly embedded in theoretical debates about non-configurationality (e. g., Hale 1983, Blake 1983, Heath 1986, Austin & Bresnan 1996; see also Nordlinger 2014 for a recent overview), linking the issue of NP constituency with aspects of clause structure like null anaphora and free word order. The same literature often also has a limited empirical basis, with claims that are based on only a handful of languages, typically including the well-known cases of Warlpiri, Nunggubuyu, or Kalkatungu. The aim of this present study is to check how valid general ideas about NP constituency in Australian languages really are, i. e., whether nominal elements that belong together semantically show any evidence for syntactic unithood (following the basic iconicity principle assumed to underlie constituency; see, for instance, Langacker 1997). We try to answer this question by addressing the two main problems in the existing literature. On the one hand, we try to disentangle the issue from the wider theoretical debate on non-configurationality by focusing on the question of NP constituency in its own right (following Nordlinger 2014), breaking it down into a set of concrete parameters that can be checked in a consistent way over a range of languages. On the other hand, we broaden the empirical basis by checking these parameters in a large sample of 100 Australian languages (65 Pama-Nyungan and 35 from the various non-Pama-Nyungan families), which represents a significant portion of diversity on the Australian continent. The results of this study, we argue, show that there is no evidence for any widespread absence of NP constituency across Australia, rather on the contrary. In this sense, our survey confirms earlier grammatical analyses that provide alternative perspectives on NP structure in Australian languages (e. g., McGregor 1990 on Gooniyandi) or that give clear evidence in favour of “classic” NP constituency (e. g., Nordlinger 1998: 131 on Wambaya; Gaby 2006: 277 on Kuuk Thaayorre; Hill (2015) on Umpila). More generally, our results also imply that specific grammatical descriptions may have to be revisited on this point, and that theoretical or typological work (for instance, on non-configurationality) should not take simple generalizations about NP structure in Australian languages for granted.
The rest of this article is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses the make-up of the sample we use in this study. Section 3 presents the set of parameters we use for determining constituency status, discussing the rationale behind each parameter. Section 3.2 discusses external parameters, which define NP constituency in terms of its interface with clause structure, e. g., the locus of case marking or diagnostic slots in clausal morphosyntax, while Section 3.3 discusses NP-internal parameters like word order and contiguity. Section 4 analyses the results, showing that especially the parameters of word order and locus of case marking provide clear evidence against the idea that Australian languages generally lack NP structures. Section 5 zooms in on discontinuous structures, examining the motivations for discontinuity where they are available, and arguing that the existence of discontinuous constructions is not invariably an argument against NP constituency. Section 6 wraps up with some conclusions, including the argument that it makes more sense to typologize languages on the basis of where and when they allow NP construal for elements that belong together semantically, rather than on a yes-no answer to questions of constituency or (dis)continuity.
2 Sample
The sample used for this study consists of 100 languages, which represents about 40 % of all Australian languages (on conservative counts of about 240 languages at first contact; [2] see Dixon 2002: 5–7). About 180 languages of these 240 belong to the Pama-Nyungan family, covering most of the continent, while the other 60 belong to several families commonly known as non-Pama-Nyungan, spoken in the country’s north and northwest. This genetic diversity is represented in the sample: we included 65 Pama-Nyungan languages, covering most subgroups (and geographical areas), as well as 35 non-Pama-Nyungan languages, representing almost all families and isolates.
An overview of the sample can be found in Appendix A, showing the genetic classification and the grammatical descriptions used for each language. For the Pama-Nyungan languages, both the well-established lower-level subgroups and the higher-level subgroups proposed by Bowern & Atkinson (2012) are mentioned. The genetic classification of the non-Pama-Nyungan languages is based on Evans (2003b), except for Enindhilyakwa, which has been re-classified as Gunwinyguan, following van Egmond (2012).
3 Parameters
3.1 Introduction
As mentioned in the introduction, the aim of this article is to study NP constituency in its own right, independently from the more general theoretical question of non-configurationality. In other words, we want to know whether elements that semantically belong together can be construed as one syntactic unit, i. e., an NP. In order to do this, we break down the concept into a number of concrete parameters that define constituency, which can be checked across the sample in a consistent way. Obviously, the sources do not allow us to check these criteria exhaustively for all languages, but there are a number of criteria for which we have good information across the entire sample. We distinguish between external and internal criteria for constituency. External criteria, discussed in Section 3.2, identify a constituent in terms of its interaction with the structure of the clause, e. g., the locus of case marking in the nominal domain, or the position of nominal elements relative to diagnostic slots in clausal morphosyntax. Internal criteria, discussed in Section 3.3, identify a constituent in terms of its internal structure, e. g., the relative order of nominal elements or the contiguity of these elements.
Before we move on to the analysis, a terminological note is in order. Given that constituency is the object of our analysis, we cannot simply use the term “noun phrase” (NP) for the entities we investigate. Henceforth, therefore, we use the general term “nominal expression” (NE) to refer to a group of elements in the nominal domain that belong together semantically, regardless of whether they form a constituent (i. e., a syntactic unit) or not (following the terminological convention used in Himmelmann 1997). Whenever we need to be more specific, we use the classic term NP (“noun phrase”) [3] for NEs that show evidence for syntactic constituency.
3.2 External parameters
External criteria for constituency focus on the interaction of a constituent with the structure of the clause: where case markers are located (Section 3.2.1), where NEs can occur relative to diagnostic slots for constituency (Section 3.2.2), and how prosody suggests unithood (Section 3.2.3). In addition to telling us if NEs are treated as one unit in the clause, in some cases these criteria also provide a clear delimitation of (one of) the edges of the NE.
3.2.1 Locus of case marking
The marking of case in an NE is a first criterion that may tell us something about its status as a syntactic unit. In our sample, we find three basic options (see also Blake 1987: 78–91): marking of one element in the NE, marking of all elements, or no marking at all.
The first option is for case to be marked on only one element of the NE, i. e., phrasal marking (see also Blake 1987: 78–86). The selection of one element for case marking implies that the NE is in fact one syntactic unit, which is marked for its role in the clause through one of its constituent parts. In addition, if case is marked at either the left or the right edge of the NE, then this also serves to mark one of the boundaries of the NP. An example is Yandruwandha, where the ergative case suffix is attached at the right edge of the NE, as in (4), thus showing that the nominal and its modifier can be analysed as a single NP, with the modifier forming its right edge.
Yandruwandha (Karnic)
| ngala | wathi | malkirri-li | nganha | ngarndangarndamaritji |
| then | tree | many-erg | 1sg.acc | block.rdp.caus.unsp.emph |
‘A lot of trees blocked me from getting through.’ (Breen 2004a: 77)
Another option is for case to be marked on each element of the NE, i. e., word marking (see also Blake 1987: 86–91). In itself, this does not tell us anything about constituency, because there can be more than one reason for word marking. One reason may be that the elements are separate NEs in apposition, which have the same case marker because they have the same function in the clause. This is how Blake (1983; see also 1987: 89–90) analyses the structure in (3) above from Kalkatungu (not in our sample, but see Footnote 15), repeated below as (5): the demonstrative, the adjective, and the noun are analysed as three elements in apposition, each of which is a dependent of the verb, and therefore receives its case marker directly from that verb.
Kalkatungu (Kalkatungic)
| cipa-yi | ̪tuku-yu | yaun-tu | yaɲi | icayi |
| this-erg | dog-erg | big-erg | white.man | bite |
‘This big dog bit/bites the white man.’ (Blake 1983: 45)
Another possible motivation for word marking may be that the elements of an NE have the same case marker due to a process of agreement within a single NP. In such cases, there is usually other evidence for constituency, as in Yingkarta, illustrated in (6) below. In this language, word order is quite fixed, with modifiers preceding the nominal head, which constitutes independent evidence for constituency (see also in Section 4.1 below). Moreover, case may also be marked on only one element of the NP in this language, which further confirms that word marking in this structure really is agreement rather than apposition of separate NPs.
Yingkarta (Kartu)
| kutharra-lu | mayu-ngku | pinyarri-nyi |
| two-erg | child-erg | fight-prs |
‘Two children are fighting.’ (Dench 1998: 19)
Next to phrasal marking and word marking, the third option is that case is not marked in NEs all. This is often the case in head-marking languages (most of the non-Pama-Nyungan languages in the sample), where the core argument relations are marked on the verb, and corresponding NEs remain unmarked (especially for core arguments, but possibly also non-core arguments or adjuncts). An example of such a language is Ndjébbana, where case is generally not marked in the NE, as in (7), although case affixes are available for certain roles [4] (e. g., ablative, purposive, or object of hunt; McKay 2000: 155, 191).
Ndjébbana (Maningrida)
| karrddjúnja | njana-bá-la-yángaya |
| stingray | 1min.obj/min.a-bite-rem-3min.f.a |
‘A stingray bit me.’ (McKay 2000: 191)
Obviously, these options are not mutually exclusive. It is common to find languages that allow both phrasal marking and word marking, as already mentioned for Yingkarta above. Relative frequencies and functions of the two alternatives are discussed in more detail in Section 4.2. More generally, the locus of case marking is also one of the criteria for which good information is available across the entire sample, and thus will serve as one of the central criteria in our analysis in Section 4.
3.2.2 “Diagnostic” slots
This criterion concerns the existence of so-called “diagnostic” slots in clausal morphosyntax, which are defined in terms of constituency. The best-known example is when a language has an element that obligatorily comes in the second position of the clause, following the first constituent. Evidently, this criterion is more limited in the sample than the previous one, as only some languages have such slots, but there are some famous cases like Warlpiri, where the verbal auxiliary has a fixed position as the second element in the clause, following the first constituent (e. g., Hale et al. 1995: 1431). This implies that all elements occurring in the first position before the auxiliary have to be analysed as one constituent. Accordingly, in example (8), the nominal wawirri and the demonstrative yalumpu, both preceding the second position auxiliary, must be analysed as forming a syntactic unit.
Warlpiri (Ngumpin-Yapa)
| wawirri | yalumpu | kapirna | panti-rni |
| kangaroo | that | aux | spear-npst |
‘I will spear that kangaroo.’ (Hale 1983: 6)
Obviously, this criterion only allows us to determine the constituency status of NEs occurring in this slot, but not in other positions (see (2) above), so it is slightly less conclusive than the previous criterion. Even so, the existence of slots defined in terms of constituency in a particular language does suggest quite strongly that construal as an NP is at least available in this language.
3.2.3 Prosody
A final “external” criterion concerns prosody, more specifically the expectation that constituents will tend to form one prosodic unit, and will allow less easily for prosodic breaks. This is the external criterion that is least widely applicable in our sample: most of the grammars provide little or no information concerning prosody. Still, as prosody can be crucial in distinguishing several types of constructions (cf., e. g., Schultze-Berndt & Simard 2012, see also in Section 5), we will refer to prosodic information whenever it is available.
3.2.4 Other
There are some other external parameters that have traditionally been used to diagnose constituency, like substitution (“constituents can be replaced by one lexical element”) or coordination (“constituents of the same type can be conjoined”). While such criteria are often part of the basic toolkit of initial fieldwork, they rarely find their way into grammars, [5] which means they are difficult to apply to our sample, and they have not been used in this study.
3.3 Internal parameters
In addition to the external criteria, there are also two criteria that probe the internal structure of NEs to diagnose constituency: contiguity, discussed in Section 3.3.1, and word order, discussed in Section 3.3.2.
3.3.1 Contiguity
The relevant criterion here is whether the elements of an NE are contiguous, i. e., adjacent, or not. When they are, the elements are most likely one unit (though this is not necessarily the case, as they could also be analysed as several single-item NPs in apposition, see also example (5) above, and Sections 4.2 and 5 below). When they are not contiguous, however, as in the Garrwa structure in (9), this has often been interpreted as evidence against NP constituency. Thus, for instance, Mushin (2012: 260) argues on the basis of structures like (9) that “the capacity for discontinuity suggests that nominal groups do not constitute a clearly defined syntactic unit”. [6]
Garrwa (Garrwan)
| nayinda | langi-na | wirringarra | badajba=yi |
| this | north-abl | cyclone | come=pst |
‘This cyclone came from the north.’ (Mushin 2012: 259)
The question is, however, whether this always follows when a language has discontinuous structures. We believe that the presence of discontinuous constructions in a language does not necessarily imply that contiguous constructions in the same language cannot be analysed as genuine NPs (see further in Section 5 on this argument). Therefore, we will investigate discontinuity separately in Section 5 below.
3.3.2 Word order
Word order is the most important internal criterion for constituency in this study, because we have at least some information for almost all languages of the sample.
If NEs have a fixed word order in a language, this is evidence for constituency, in the sense that the existence of a clear internal structure for an NE points towards unithood. This is the case, for example, in Umpithamu, as illustrated in the NP template in (10a) and the structure in (10b).
Umpithamu (Middle Paman)
[N N A Num]-case Pron
| wantya | waarruthu | uutherri | wuna-n=ula | / | weerra |
| old.woman | no.good | two | lie-pst=2du.nom | sleep |
‘Two old ladies were sleeping (there).’ (Verstraete (2010))
Flexible word order, by contrast, has often been regarded as one of the main arguments against NP constituency in Australian languages. If we look at it in more detail, however, word order flexibility is not as straightforward a phenomenon as it might seem to be: it covers a range of different types of flexibility, and conclusions concerning constituency status for the NE differ accordingly. As we will show in Section 4.1, much of the flexibility in NEs in Australian languages is actually constrained, and some of these restrictions even provide evidence for, rather than against, syntactic unithood. An example is Umpila, as illustrated in (11), where the order of the head nominal and the modifier is fixed, while the determiners (personal pronoun, demonstrative, quantifier, or possessive pronoun) can occur at either edge of the NE, but not in between the head nominal and the modifier.
Umpila (Middle Paman; Hill (2015))
| (Det) (N) (Mod) (Det) | with Det: |  | [(Pron) (Dem) (Quant)] or |
| [Poss.Pron] |
This can be called flexibility, but it does not point towards the absence of internal structure, and therefore also the absence of constituency. On the contrary, it preserves the edges of the NE, and therefore shows that the NE is one unit. There are, of course, also languages that show genuine word order flexibility for NEs, i. e., where there are no clear restrictions whatsoever, but at best some tendencies. An example is Warrongo, where demonstrative, noun, and adjective can occur in different orders, as illustrated in (12), and for which Tsunoda (2011: 347) argues that “the relative order of NP constituents is not fixed, and it is difficult to generalize about it”. This is really the only type of language where flexibility provides evidence against constituency.
Warrongo (Maric)
| gaya-na-Ø | ngaygo | / mayga-lgo | yarro-wo | yamba-wo |
| father-kin-acc | 1sg.gen | tell-purp | this-dat | camp-dat |
| jarribara-wo | yani-yal. | |||
| good-dat | come-purp |
‘I will tell my father to come to this good camp.’ (Tsunoda 2011: 688)
| ngaya | bori-Ø | ngona-Ø | gagal-Ø | wajo-n | ngaya |
| 1sg.erg | fire-acc | that-acc | big-acc | cook-nfut | 1sg.erg |
| bori-wo | goyba-lgo | yori-Ø | |||
| fire-dat | throw-purp | kangaroo-acc |
‘I made a big fire so that I could throw a kangaroo to the fire.’ (Tsunoda 2011: 596)
| jarribara-Ø | yarro-Ø | banggo-Ø |
| good-nom | this-nom | hollow-nom |
‘this nice hollow’ (Tsunoda 2011: 348)
3.3.3 Other
Two other criteria that are sometimes mentioned in the literature are gender and number agreement. However, it is not clear what they can tell us about NP constituency, as they mark dependency relations rather than constituency, and are not even limited to the nominal domain.
The only instance where this type of agreement could be interesting is when it is tied to case marking and changes location along with it – in which case it really is an instance of the criterion of locus of marking mentioned in Section 3.2.1. This is found, for instance, in Arabana/Wangkangurru (Hercus 1994: 63) and in Warlpiri (Nash 1980: 174), where number (if marked at all) is marked on the same element(s) as case.
3.4 Overview
Table 1 provides an overview of the parameters we will use in our study. As already mentioned, we have to distinguish between those criteria for which we have good information across a large part of the sample (locus of case marking, word order, and contiguity), and those criteria for which we only have information in some languages.
Parameters for constituency.
| External parameters | Internal parameters | |
| Used for all languages | Locus of case marking | Word order |
| Contiguity | ||
| Used where applicable or where information is available | ProsodyDiagnostic slots | / |
4 Results
In this section, we discuss the results of our analysis for four of the five criteria introduced in the previous section, and we show that there is in fact little evidence against NP constituency across the sample. In Sections 4.1 and 4.2, we discuss word order and case marking, the two criteria for which we have most information. This is followed by a discussion of prosody and occurrence in diagnostic slots in Sections 4.3 and 4.4. In Section 4.5, we investigate how the results cluster on a language-by-language basis and what this can tell us about NP constituency. Tables listing the detailed results of our analysis for each criterion can be found in Appendix B (Tables B-1 through B-4). For a summary view of the results, the reader is referred to Table 2 in Section 4.5. The final criterion, which relates to discontinuity, is discussed separately in Section 5.
Overview of languages in the sample. Underlining marks diagnostic slots, italics marks prosodic evidence. Analyses in terms of functional classes are marked with*.
| Phrasal marking | Phrasal+word marking | Word marking | No marking | Unknown | |||
| main phrasal | minor phrasal | unclear | |||||
| Fixed word order | Anguthimri | Alyawarra | Dyirbal | Gaagudju* | |||
| Arrernte | Gooniyandi* | Kayardild* | Limilngan* | ||||
| Dalabon* | Ngarrindjeri | Lardil | Tiwi* | ||||
| Kuuk Thaayorre | Nyulnyul* | Martuthunira* | |||||
| Marrithiyel | Uradhi | Panyjima* | |||||
| Nyungar* | |||||||
| Umbuygamu | |||||||
| Umpithamu* | |||||||
| Restricted flexible word order | Atynyamathanha | Arabana/Wangkangurru | Djabugay | Guugu Yimidhirr | Alawa | Emmi | Rimanggudinhma |
| Kala Lagaw Ya | Diyari | Duungidjawu | Karajarri | Biri | Matngele | ||
| Kugu Nganhcara | Mathi-Mathi/Letyi-Letyi/Wati-Wati | Kuku Yalanji | Mayi | Bundjalung | Mawng* | ||
| Malakmalak | Oykangand | Ngiyambaa | Muruwari (equal) | Dhuwal | Ndjébbana | ||
| Umpila/Kuuku Ya’u* | Paakantyi | Yindjibarndi | Nhanda | Gathang | Worrorra | ||
| Wadjiginy | Thargari | Yingkarta | Mangarrayi | ||||
| Yankunytjatjara | Wajarri | Pitta-Pitta | |||||
| Yawuru | Warray | Yalarnnga | |||||
| Yandruwandha | Yanyuwa | ||||||
| Yir Yoront | Yidiny | ||||||
| Flexible word order | Bardi | Djinang/Djinba | Bilinarra | Dharrawal/Dharumba/Dhurga/Djirringanj | Gumbaynggirr | Burarra | Miriwung |
| Ngan’gityemerri/Ngan’gikurunggurr | Rembarrnga | Garrwa | Jaminjung | Jaru | Bininj Gun-wok | ||
| Wirangu | Walmajarri | Jingulu | Marra | Enindhilyakwa | |||
| Warumungu | Ritharrngu | Nyangumarta | Giimbiyu | ||||
| Warlpiri | Wambaya | Ungarinyin | |||||
| Wangkajunga | |||||||
| Wardaman | |||||||
| Warrongo | |||||||
| Yuwaalaraay | |||||||
| Word order unknown | Margany & Gunya | Wathawurrung | Bunganditj | ||||
| Yorta Yorta | Dharumbal | ||||||
4.1 Word order
4.1.1 Methodological notes
Before we can get on to the results for this criterion, two methodological notes are in order. One of these concerns the units whose order is analysed. In the large majority of the grammars in our sample, word order for NEs is described in terms of word classes, like demonstrative, noun, adjective, etc. This is not the ideal basis for a description of word order, however, as ordering patterns typically concern slots that can be filled by words of different classes. This has been demonstrated convincingly by McGregor (1990), who shows that NPs in Gooniyandi can be described in terms of a functional template, listed below in (13a) (McGregor 1990: 253). One function can be realized by elements from different word classes, and elements from one word class can have different functions, like the nominal nyamani ‘big’, which functions as a Quantifier in pre-head position, as illustrated in (13b), or a Qualifier in post-head position, as illustrated in (13c).
Gooniyandi (Bunuban)
(Deictic)^(Quantifier)^(Classifier)^Entity^(Qualifier)
| nyamani | gamba |
| big | water |
‘a lot of water’ (McGregor 1990: 260)
| yoowooloo | nyamani |
| man | big |
‘a big man’ (McGregor 1990: 265)
From the perspective of word order, this also implies that in a language like Gooniyandi, apparent flexibility in terms of word classes can actually be resolved in terms of functional classes. Ideally, therefore, checking the criterion of word order across the sample would involve functional classes and not word classes. However, there is very little functional information available overall in our sample: only 13 grammatical descriptions use functional classes in their discussion of word order; the rest use descriptions based on word classes. Whenever we have an analysis in terms of functional classes for a language, we use it, but for the rest we have to rely on analyses that are exclusively based on word classes. It is, of course, not unlikely that in such cases apparent flexibility could be resolved in terms of functional classes, as for Gooniyandi, but we take the more cautious perspective here, and do not go beyond any generalizations allowed by the grammars we use.
Our second methodological note concerns the quality of the data. While all grammars provide basic information about word order in the nominal domain, the information is sometimes quite limited. For instance, some grammars only discuss word order for one modifier at a time (rather than longer NEs), and only focus on adjectives and demonstratives (omitting modifiers such as possessive pronouns, personal pronouns, or numerals). This implies that for such grammars the explicit description of word order found in the text is not sufficient; in those cases, we rely on an analysis of examples throughout the grammar to supplement the basic description. Whenever we have had to do this, this is marked explicitly in Table B-1 in Appendix B.
Overall, we can categorize languages in the sample in terms of three basic types of word order, discussed in Sections 4.1.2 through 4.1.4. At least for the first two types, which together cover 66 languages, patterns of word order provide evidence for NP constituency. [7]
4.1.2 Fixed word order
In the sample, there are 21 languages that have fixed word order, which shows that at least in terms of their internal structure, NEs form a syntactic unit (i. e., an NP). One example is Kuuk Thaayorre, which has fixed word order for NEs, with distinct templates for NPs with nominal heads, illustrated in (14a, b), and pronominal heads, illustrated in (14c, d).
Kuuk Thaayorre (Southwest Paman)
Nominal head (Gaby 2006: 297–298)
((Ngen) (Ngen) (Nspec)) ((Deg) Adj (Deg))* (PosPro) (Quant) (DemPro) (IgnPro) (AdnDem)
| paanth | pinalam | ith | ngamal.katp-rr-Ø | peln |
| woman | three(nom) | dem.dist | hug-recp-npst | 3pl(nom) |
‘The three women hug each other.’ (Gaby 2006: 411)
| nhul | inh | kanpa-tam | inh |
| 3sg(nom) | dem.sp.prox | first-abl | dem.sp.prox |
‘She here’s the first (born).’ (Gaby 2006: 289)
Some of these languages allow a change in word order for emphasis or focus, as in Tiwi, where the head nominal normally occurs in penultimate position, as shown in (15a) (Lee 1987: 22), but can be fronted for focus or for stylistic effect, as in (15b) (Lee 1987: 222, 243, Note 5). Since such changes have a clear functional motivation and are not the default, we do not regard this as counterevidence for NP constituency.
4.1.3 Restricted flexibility
There are 45 languages with some degree of flexibility in word order for NEs, but where the flexibility is such that it cannot be regarded as evidence against NP constituency – rather on the contrary. In this section, we distinguish three subtypes, showing for each how flexible word order is compatible with, or even evidence for, NP constituency.
A first subtype is flexibility that is clearly limited in frequency, i. e., where the language has one dominant general NP template, but where other orderings are also possible to a limited extent. This is the case for 18 languages in the sample. An example is Yingkarta, for which Dench (1998: 50–51) argues that 90 % of the NPs follows the pattern in (16a), while there is also a minor pattern illustrated in (16b).
Yingkarta (Kartu; Dench 1998)
(Determiner) (Modifier) Head
Pronoun (Modifier)
| Wanthawu | yurlu-ja | nyintangu? |
| where | camp-def | 2sg.gen |
‘Where is your camp?’ (Dench 1998: 50)
Given the difference in frequency, it is quite likely that minority patterns correlate with changes in meaning or function, in which case they could be like (15) in the previous category, or could even allow for an analysis in terms of functional classes. We do not have the necessary functional information to support this hypothesis for the languages in this category, but there are hints of meaning changes correlating with minor word order patterns for some. In Yingkarta, for instance, Dench suggests that the minor pattern of a possessive pronoun following a head noun in (16b) has a marked interpretation, glossed as ‘that X of yours’ (Dench 1998: 51).
The other two subtypes both show word order flexibility that is edge-preserving. In the languages in these categories, word order is flexible for some elements, but in such a way that one (or both) of the edges of the NE are preserved and thus clearly delineated, which suggests that the NE is treated as one unit.
One subtype shows flexibility of determining elements (such as demonstratives) [8] at the edges of the NE, while other modifiers have a fixed position closer to the head. There are 17 languages showing this type of flexibility, illustrated for Worrorra in (17a), where the deictic element can either come at the left edge (17b) or the right edge (17c) of the NE. The same applies to Umpila, as illustrated in (11) above.
Worrorra (Worroran; Clendon 2014)
Dem / Poss.Pron – N – A – Dem / Poss.Pron
| inja | eeja | i=raarreya |
| 3sg.m.def | man | 3sg.m=big |
‘the big man’ (Clendon 2014: 144)
| kanbanerri | birdeen-ya | aaya | rlerlewa |
| crab | small-3sg.m | 3sg.m.ref | crawl |
| ka-Ø=murrka-rla-eerri | |||
| 3sg.m-3=go.to-pst-prog | |||
‘A little crab went crawling up to him.’ (Clendon 2014: 428)
The other subtype has flexibility of adjectives with reference to the head, while determining elements [9] have a fixed position at one of the edges. There are 10 languages that show this type of flexibility. An example is Mawng, where modifiers such as adjectives and quantifying nominals occur at either side of the head, while determiners (demonstrative and 3rd person pronoun) have a fixed position at the left edge (Forrester 2015: 45). The flexible position of the adjective is illustrated in (18b).
Mawng (Iwaidjan; Forrester 2015)
(art)^(DETERMINER) (art)^(DETERMINER) (art)^(MODIFIER) (art)^HEAD (art)^(MODIFIER)
| Taka-pa | wurt | wumawurr | anyak | ang-ngurri-ngung |
| dem.dist.ll-emph | tiny | creek | little.bit | 3.ll-flow-pst.cont |
‘The small creek was flowing.’ (Forrester 2015: 46)
Taken together, this implies that there are 45 languages for which apparent flexibility actually supports NP constituency.
4.1.4 Flexibility
29 languages show flexibility that is less restricted or not restricted at all, which does not support an analysis in terms of NP constituency. There is, however, quite a bit of variation here, in that very few of these languages allow the full flexibility that is often posited in general statements about non-configurationality in Australian languages (see, for instance, the structures in (12) above for Warrongo). Most languages in this category show flexibility of more than one type of modifier, not necessarily of the edge-preserving kind (e. g., both adjective-like elements and determiner-like elements can occur on either side of the nominal head). Even here, there appear to be some restrictions, going from general tendencies to very strict rules for some of the modifiers. Some of these languages could perhaps even be re-categorized under the previous type, but we adopt the more cautious approach here and put a language in this category whenever in doubt. The types of restrictions on flexibility in this category are diverse, so rather than giving a list, we illustrate this with some examples from the sample, going from languages that are closest to the previous category to those that are furthest from it.
A first example is Bardi (Bowern 2012a: 331–336). At first sight, word order is quite free: all types of modifiers (demonstrative, adjective, nominal modifier, quantifier, possessive pronoun) can precede or follow the head, and elements preceding the head can come in almost any order (e. g., both Dem-A-N and A-Dem-N are possible). However, there are three important qualifications. First, when a modifier follows the nominal head, it has a non-restrictive or contrastive meaning (Bowern 2012a: 335), which gives us a functional motivation for at least some of the flexibility. Second, the possessive pronoun always occurs in the outer layer of the NP (Bowern 2012a: 332–333), which delineates the boundaries of the NP. And finally, there is a restriction on the number of modifiers in the NP (Bowern 2012a: 329). These features even lead the author to questioning a “flat structure” analysis for NEs in Bardi (Bowern 2012a: 329), although we still decide to put it in the “flexible” category because it does not meet our own criteria for restricted flexibility.
A second example is Garrwa (Mushin 2012: 256–257, examples throughout the grammar), where word order again seems to be quite free, with all types of modifiers preceding or following the head. However, in this language the demonstrative and the possessive pronoun clearly show a preference for the position preceding the head (Mushin 2012: 256–257). In addition, if a demonstrative and an adjective both occur on the left side of the head, the demonstrative occurs at the edge and the adjective closer to the head (Mushin 2012: examples throughout grammar). This shows again that flexibility is not absolute, but unlike with Bardi there is no indication to suggest that the restrictions in Garrwa provide any evidence for NP constituency.
A final example is Bilinarra (Meakins & Nordlinger 2014: 103–104). As can be seen in (19), the template is very general and allows for a high degree of flexibility. However, even in this case, there are certain restrictions, for instance, on the number of modifiers that can precede and follow the head, and the position of the demonstrative and the possessive pronoun, which tend to precede the head rather than follow it.
Bilinarra (Ngumpin-Yapa; Meakins & Nordlinger 2014: 103–104)
(modifier) (modifier) head (modifier) (modifier)
4.2 Locus of case marking
This section discusses the locus of case marking in contiguous NEs (see Section 5 on discontinuous structures). As already mentioned, the basic options here are phrasal marking (case marked once in an NE), word marking (case marked for all elements in an NE), or no case marking at all (at least for core arguments). Languages in the last category sometimes do have some peripheral (e. g., local) case markers. Whenever this is the case, we mention whether they use phrasal or word marking in Table B-2 in Appendix B, but we do not regard this as sufficient evidence to put them in, say, the “phrasal marking” category on a par with languages that use phrasal marking throughout, for both core and peripheral case markers.
In the sample, there are 57 languages for which phrasal marking is an option: 18 that have only phrasal marking, as illustrated for Yawuru in (20), and 39 that have a choice between phrasal marking and word marking, as illustrated for Wirangu in (21).
Yawuru (Nyulnyulan)
| manydya-yi | wamba |
| many-dat | man |
| *manydya-yi | wamba-yi |
| many-dat | man-dat |
‘to/for many people’ (Hosokawa 1991: 81)
Wirangu (Thura-Yura)
| garba | marnaardu-gu | wina-rn |
| house | big-all | go-prs |
| garba-gu | marnaardu-gu | wina-rn |
| house-all | big-all | go-prs |
‘We are going to the big house, the community hall.’ (Hercus 1999: 48)
Phrasal case marking is at least one of the options in 57 languages or more than half of the sample, which is clear evidence for NP constituency. Of these 57 languages, 43 have case marked at the (left or right) edge, [10] marking one of the boundaries of the NP and thus providing additional evidence for constituency. For the other languages, which have only word marking or no marking at all, the location of case marking is a neutral feature with respect to constituency.
Within these results, it is remarkable that two thirds of the languages allow both phrasal marking and word marking for case. There is at least one language in the sample for which we have a detailed analysis of this alternation, viz. Gooniyandi. McGregor (1989) shows that phrasal marking is the default option in Gooniyandi, while word marking has a special functional motivation, viz. to give equal prominence to each constituent of the phrase (e. g., contrastive focus), usually in a phrase consisting of two elements. An example of word marking for contrastive focus can be found in (22).
Gooniyandi (Bunuban)
| thaaddi | nganyi-ngga | gardlooni |
| mistakenly.believed | I-erg | I.hit.him |
| ngooddoo-ngga | yaangya-ngga | gardbini |
| that-erg | other-erg | he.hit.him |
‘It was mistakenly believed that I had hit him, but it was really that other person who hit him.’ (McGregor 1989: 213)
Unfortunately, we have only limited information on this alternation for most other languages of the sample. There are some tendencies, however. For instance, the options do not seem to have an equal status in most languages: phrasal marking is the basic option in 18 languages, while 11 have word marking as the basic option (for the other 10 that have both options, it is unclear which is the basic one). The less frequent option usually seems to occur in specific environments. In Oykangand, for instance, case is normally marked on the right edge of the NE, as in (23a), but when the NE consists of a demonstrative and a noun, it can also be marked on the initial element or on both elements, as in (23b, c) (Hamilton 1996: 19–20).
Oykangand (Southwest Paman)
| aber | unggul-gh | uw |
| woman | dem.dist-purp | give |
‘Give it to that woman there.’ (Hamilton 1996: 20)
| aber-agh | unggul | uw |
| woman-purp | dem.dist | give |
| aber-agh | unggul-gh | uw |
| woman-purp | dem.dist-purp | give |
The grammatical descriptions that give more detailed information on the function of the alternation tend to mention emphasis or contrast as a motivation for word marking in a language that normally marks case once per phrase, as shown for Diyari in (24). On the other hand, the use of phrasal marking in a language that normally marks case on each element is sometimes associated with casual speech (e. g., Patz 1991: 48 for Djabugay).
Diyari (Karnic)
| kanku | kundukundu-nthu-yali | nganha | yakalka-yi |
| boy | cough-prop-erg | 1sg.acc | ask-prs |
‘The boy with a cough is asking me.’ (Austin 2011: 144)
| kinthala-li | nhungkarni-yali | nganha | matha-rna | wara-yi |
| dog-erg | 3sg.nf.dat-erg | 1sg.acc | bite-ptcp | aux-prs |
‘his dog bit me’ (Austin 2011: 97)
4.3 Diagnostic slots
At least 14 languages in the sample have a “diagnostic slot” that can be used for testing NP constituency, in the form of a second position auxiliary or second position clitics that occur after the first constituent, as in Warlpiri (see example (8) above). Usually, the diagnostic elements are pronominal markers, but other types also occur, e. g., discourse clitics in Lardil (Klokeid 1976: 261), as illustrated in (25) for the clitic thada ‘meanwhile’. An overview can be found in Table B-3 in Appendix B.
Lardil (Tangkic)
| yalange | wurtuu | thada | niya | waa |
| other.loc | corner.loc | meanwhile | 3sg.nom | go |
‘Meanwhile, he went over to another corner.’ (Klokeid 1976: 261)
There are two languages in this set, viz. Wangkajunga and Walmajarri, where the diagnostic element shows variation in position, either following the first constituent or the first word (see Table B-3 in Appendix B for more details). [11] Obviously, this implies that the criterion is somewhat weaker here than in the other languages, as it does not invariably identify the first constituent. In fact, although diagnostic slots are much discussed in the literature, they are also inherently one of the less powerful criteria for constituency in a language, as already mentioned, because they can really only tell us something about the constituency status of NEs occurring in the slot. Even so, their presence in a language does show that construal as a constituent is at least available for NEs in that language.
4.4 Prosody
Prosodic information about NEs is only available for 19 languages in the sample, and for most of these it is quite limited. In the sample, we find three types of prosodic features indicative of NP constituency. The first is the absence of pauses in the NE (or conversely, the presence of a pause between nominals as a marker of appositional status), which is mentioned for 11 languages. For instance, in their analysis of Bilinarra, Meakins & Nordlinger (2014: 102–103) use the presence or absence of a pause between nominals as a defining criterion for constituency:
Coreferential nominals which are separated by a pause are not considered to belong to a single NP but are treated as nominals in apposition. […] They do not occur in the same intonational phrase and are therefore considered separate NPs in apposition. If they were not separated by a pause […] the nominals would be considered a single NP.
A second feature, mentioned for 11 languages, is that the NE occurs under a single intonation contour. In Umpila, for example, “the NP is typically produced under a single intonation contour” (Hill (2015)), which is taken as criterion for the identification of NPs (Hill (no date)). The third feature is that the NE has a single stress peak, which is mentioned for one language, Kuuk Thaayorre, together with the two other features described above: “Prosodically, the noun phrase is characterized by: (a) a lack of planned pauses; (b) a single intonation contour; (c) a primary stress peak” (Gaby 2006: 278). An overview can be found in Table B-4 in Appendix B.
4.5 Conclusion
In themselves, the results discussed in the preceding sections are telling: internally, two thirds of the languages show fixed or restricted flexible word order, and externally, more than half of the languages have at least an option for phrasal case marking. On top of this, several languages in the sample show prosodic evidence for NP constituency or allow the use of NEs in diagnostic slots. These findings show quite clearly that it is not the case that Australian languages generally lack NP structures, and that there is some evidence for the availability of classic NP construal in a majority of languages in the sample.
What we have not yet examined, however, is how the different criteria interact on a language-by-language basis, and what this says about the precise role of NP construal in each language. Table 2 provides an overview of the four criteria discussed in the previous sections, organized mainly around word order and locus of case marking, with underlining for presence of diagnostic slots and italics for prosodic evidence.
What this table suggests is that we can distinguish roughly between three major types of languages in the sample (leaving aside the “unknown” categories at the edges). First off, there is a set of 16 languages for which all internal and external evidence points to NP constituency in the classic sense: these are the languages that have fixed or restricted flexible word order, and only phrasal case marking. Secondly, there is a set of 49 languages for which all internal evidence points to NP constituency, with fixed or restricted flexible word order, but externally there is a choice between word and phrase marking, or only word marking (or no marking at all). Given that there is internal evidence for NP constituency, these are languages for which word marking most likely cannot be analysed in terms of apposition, and may have a functional motivation if there is an alternation with phrase marking (see Section 4.2 above). Finally, there is a set of 28 languages with flexible word order, for which the internal structure does not point towards NP constituency. [12] Not surprisingly, there are not many languages in this category which only have phrasal marking: the only two candidates actually have some indications of edge-preserving flexibility, though in a different way than the criteria we used in Section 4.1.3. [13] The rest has only word marking, or an alternation between word and phrasal marking; moreover, this is also the category that has the most “diagnostic slots” in the sample. On the one hand, this suggests that for these languages, word marking could – at least in principle – be analysed as evidence for apposition, unlike the languages in the second category. On the other hand, the availability of phrasal marking and quite a few diagnostic slots also shows that constituency is not completely absent from these languages. Unlike in the first two categories, it is not the dominant way to organize NEs, but NP construal is available at least as an option: through phrasal case marking, via construal in a diagnostic slot, or both. [14] In this sense, NP constituency is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon: some languages have it as the dominant way to organize the nominal domain, while others have it as an option available in a few circumstances. In the next section, we will show that this is also a useful perspective to deal with discontinuity, which can also be analysed as a distinct construction type that is available in a range of options to organize NEs.
5 Discontinuous structures
In the previous section, we applied our criteria to contiguous constructions, and came to the conclusion that there is not much evidence to support the idea that Australian languages generally lack NP structures. We deliberately left out the issue of discontinuous structures, which are often regarded as a typical feature of the nominal domain in Australian languages, and a strong argument against NP constituency. We believe that discontinuous structures should be treated separately, for two reasons. One is theoretical: the existence of discontinuous structures in a particular language does not necessarily imply that contiguous constructions in the same language cannot be analysed as genuine NPs; at best, it shows that a language allows NEs to be construed as NPs or not. The second is empirical: where they are available, discontinuous structures are generally less frequent than contiguous structures, and they have specific functions, often in the domain of information structure, as shown convincingly in McGregor’s (1997) and Schultze-Berndt & Simard’s (2012) detailed discourse-based studies of discontinuity in Gooniyandi and Jaminjung. This suggests that discontinuous structures are not simply variants of contiguous structures, but distinct construction types, with a distinct form encoding a distinct meaning. From this perspective, it makes sense to discuss discontinuous structures in their own right, rather than as variants of the structures discussed in the previous section.
Before we move on to the analysis, a methodological note is in order about the identification of discontinuous constructions. As argued convincingly by Schultze-Berndt & Simard (2012), it is important to distinguish “genuine” discontinuous structures from structures that are really two (or more) separate, though co-referential, NPs. Co-referential NPs can be used, for instance, in dislocation and afterthought constructions, as in the Bilinarra example in (26), where a co-referential NP is added after the clause to further clarify the referent, viz., whose house the speaker is talking about (Meakins & Nordlinger 2014: 352).
Bilinarra (Ngumpin-Yapa)
| ngurra-nggurra=rna=rla | ga-nggu, | ngayiny-jirri, | warrba=ma |
| house-all=1min.s=3obl | take-pot | 1min.dat-all | clothes=top |
‘I’m going to take them to the house, to my (house), the clothes I mean.’ (Meakins & Nordlinger 2014: 352)
Co-referential NPs can also be used to describe multiple characteristics of a referent, especially where there is a restriction on multiple qualifiers in one NP, as has been noted for a range of languages, e. g., Paakantyi (Hercus 1982: 99), Rembarrnga (McKay 1975: 70), Umpila (Hill 2010: 9, 2015, personal communication), and Yuwaalaraay (Williams 1980: 96). This is illustrated in the Umpila example in (27), where it is difficult to have the two qualifiers ‘old’ and ‘big’ in the same NP (as in 27b), and they have to be split over two NPs, as in (27a). While such structures may look like discontinuous constructions at first sight, they fall outside the scope of our argument about constituency, since they can simply be analysed as consisting of more than one NP.
Umpila (Middle Paman)
| kampinu-lu | tha’i-na | pu’ala | yilamu | / | mukana |
| man-erg | hit-nfut | drum | old | big |
‘the man hit the big old drum’ (Hill 2010: 9)
| ?kampinu-lu | tha’i-na | pu’ala | yilamu | mukana |
| man-erg | hit-nfut | drum | old | big |
‘the man hit the big old drum’ (Clair Hill, personal communication)
Leaving aside such structures, discontinuity is distributed as follows in our sample. It is mentioned and/or attested for 49 languages, while it is explicitly said to be impossible for 19 languages. For the other 32 languages, no mention is made in the grammatical descriptions, nor have we found any unambiguous examples. Of course, these are only rough numbers, as much depends on the analytical choices of the fieldworkers, and the detail of the information that is available (for instance, some people analyse constructions as discontinuous even if they look very much like dislocation or afterthought constructions). Even so, the evidence suggests that about half of the languages in our sample allow some kind of discontinuity in the nominal domain, and the other half do not. While not all grammars provide detailed information, there are a number of generalizations we can make about the nature of discontinuity as found in our sample. As we will show, all of these suggest that discontinuous structures are separate construction types rather than variants of contiguous structures, which implies that they cannot be used as evidence against the constituency status of the latter.
A first generalization is that discontinuous patterns are usually far less frequent than contiguous patterns in the languages where they occur. In Jaminjung, for example, discontinuous NPs are only approximately 1 % of all NPs in discourse (Schultze-Berndt & Simard 2012: 1032), in Mawng they represent 1.41 % of all NPs (Forrester 2015: 58), and in Gooniyandi, discontinuous NPs “amount to less than 5 % of all NPs” (McGregor 2004: 276). Other descriptions do not mention percentages, but often simply state that discontinuous structures are “much less common” than contiguous structures (Gaagudju; Harvey 2002: 316), or that co-referential elements occur contiguously “[i]n perhaps the majority of the examples”, though “they may occur separately” (Warrongo; Tsunoda 2011: 348).
Secondly, discontinuity is not unconstrained, but appears to show some formal restrictions. For instance, McGregor (1997, 2004) shows that discontinuity in Gooniyandi is generally restricted to one structure per clause, and that discontinuous structures rarely have more than two words. Our sample can add some other types of restrictions. For one thing, discontinuity seems to be far more frequent for NEs in core argument roles than for adjuncts, as stated explicitly for Dhuwal (Djambarrpuyngu) by Wilkinson (1991: 125): “Discontinuity is particularly a feature of NEs coding core roles. Those coding peripheral roles have a greater tendency to be juxtaposed.” In addition, discontinuity appears to be more typical for some word classes than for others. Thus, for instance, quantifiers, like numerals or elements meaning ‘many’ or ‘some’, appear to be particularly prone to occur discontinuously (as observed by Bowern (2012a: 336–340) for Bardi, Evans (2003a: 242) for Bininj Gun-wok, and Evans (1995: 250) for Kayardild). This seems to be the case especially in contexts where the number of the referent(s) is emphasized, as in the Wambaya example in (28). Other elements that are often split off in instances of discontinuity in the sample are different types of determiners, e. g., demonstratives, as in (29), possessive pronouns, as in (30), and personal pronouns, as in (31).
Wambaya (Mindi)
| garngunya | gin-aji | yabu | garirda-rdarra | garndaugini-ni |
| many.ii(acc) | 3sg.m.a-hab.pst | have | wife.ii-group(acc) | one.i-loc |
‘One (man) used to have many wives.’ (Nordlinger 1998: 133)
Thargari (Mantharta)
| yi̪na | ŋaɗa | muḍuru-ṇi-nʸa | waya |
| that | I | straight-vblzr-pst | wire |
‘I straightened this wire.’ (Klokeid 1969: 37)
Atynyamathanha (Thura-Yura)
| yata | naku-ankat-a̪tu | vanʸtʸuṛu |
| ground | see-pst.iii-1sg.a | his |
‘I have seen his ground.’ (Schebeck 1974: 74, 109)
Yingkarta (Kartu)
| pinya-tha | yanma-nu-nyi | muntungu |
| 3sg.nom-def | go.immpst-aff-nyi | European |
‘Them fellas have all gone (lit., that (group of) Europeans has gone).’ (Dench 1998: 52)
In combination with low frequency, the existence of formal restrictions on discontinuous structures suggests quite strongly that they also have a specific function. This is, in fact, what is shown in the two detailed discourse-based studies we have in our sample, viz. McGregor (1997) on Gooniyandi and Schultze-Berndt & Simard (2012) on Jaminjung, both of which identify specific information-structural functions. For instance, Schultze-Berndt & Simard show convincingly that discontinuity is not semantically neutral, but serves to mark focus. This can be contrastive argument focus, as in (32a), where the discontinuous element gujugujugu ‘big’ is highlighted in contrast with the much smaller size of the tents that were used earlier. Or it can mark sentence focus, which typically involves out-of-the-blue statements that “alert the hearer to the presence or appearance of an entity with a particular property, or in a particular quantity” (Schultze-Berndt & Simard 2012: 1041), as in (32b).
Jaminjung (Mindi)
| bulayi | yirra-ma-na | ^guju~gujugu | na \ |
| fly/tent | 1pl.excl-have-ipfv | pl~big | now |
‘We had big tents then.’ (Schultze-Berndt & Simard 2012: 1038)
| jarndu | ga-ram | luba | mangurn=mij! |
| boat | 3sg-come.prs | big | white.person=com |
‘There comes a big boat with white people!’ (Schultze-Berndt & Simard 2012: 1041)
We do not have such detailed analyses for many languages in our sample, but if authors mention anything about discontinuity, they often suggest information-structural functions. Thus, for instance, Evans (1995: 249–250) links the use of discontinuous structures for qualifiers in Kayardild to functions of contrastive focus and emphasis. Similarly, according to Merlan (1994: 242), discontinuity in Wardaman is associated with a focus-presupposition structure, the first element usually being presupposed and the last one as “more in-focus for one reason or another e. g., because it is contrastive, or otherwise the less presupposable element of the theme as a whole”. Finally, Bowern (2012a: 328–329) associates the use of discontinuous structures with focus in Bardi: in (33), for instance, the contiguous structure in (33b) is pragmatically neutral, while the discontinuous structures in (33a) and (33c) focus on ‘two’ and on ‘fish’, respectively.
Bardi (Nyulnyulan)
| gooyarra | i-na-m-boo-na | aarli |
| two | 3-tr-pst-spear-rempst | fish |
‘He speared two fish.’ (Bowern 2012a: 329)
| gooyarra | aarli | i-na-m-boo-na |
| two | fish | 3-tr-pst-spear-rempst |
| aarli | i-na-m-boo-na | gooyarra |
| fish | 3-tr-pst-spear-rempst | two |
Additionally, examples from grammatical descriptions that do not discuss discontinuity in detail often seem to fit the analyses of contrastive argument focus and of sentence focus made by Schultze-Berndt & Simard (2012) and McGregor (1997), though of course these intuitions would need to be confirmed by detailed discourse studies for individual languages.
Overall, therefore, whenever we have relevant information in our sample, it suggests that discontinuous structures are not simply formal variants of contiguous structures, but distinct constructions with a distinct meaning. They are typically formally constrained and less frequent, which reflects a specific discourse function. Their status as a separate construction type also suggests that they cannot be used as arguments against the constituency status of contiguous NEs. Such an argument could only work if contiguous and discontinuous structures are genuinely free variants, with no formal constraints or meaning differences. [15]
6 Conclusion
To round off this study, we would like to highlight a few points. The main conclusion is that the case for the absence of clear NP structures in Australian languages has been overstated, and probably results from overgeneralization based on a handful of languages. If we look at concrete criteria for NP constituency like word order, locus of case marking, diagnostic slots, or prosody, in a broad sample of Australian languages, there is no strong evidence against NP constituency at all. As shown in the summary in Section 4.5, about two thirds of the languages in our sample show good evidence for NP constituency. In this sense, theoretical or typological work (for instance on non-configurationality) cannot take simple generalizations about NP structure in Australian languages for granted.
Apart from this general conclusion, there are some other more particular points that emerge from our study. Perhaps the most important one is that questions about the presence or absence of NP constituency are not really sensible questions to ask about a whole language system (see also Himmelmann 1997: 136). Even in the about one third of languages in the sample that seem to conform to received ideas about “flexible” NEs, NP constituency is not completely absent. As shown in Section 4.5, most of these allow NP construal of NEs in some form, either in diagnostic slots or with phrasal case marking. What this suggests is that it may be more interesting to typologize languages on the basis of where and how they allow NP construal. Almost all of the languages in the sample seem to allow NP construal in some form, but in some languages it is the dominant way to deal with NEs, while in others it may be more marginal, manifested in specific contexts. This conclusion is compatible with the one reached by Himmelmann (1997), who proposes to couch such differences in terms of differential grammaticization of syntactic structure. [16] The same argument can be made a fortiori for discontinuity, traditionally regarded as one of the strongest arguments against NP constituency. Again, the presence of discontinuity in a particular language cannot serve as evidence against constituency for the language as a whole. Since discontinuous structures are usually quite distinct formally and functionally, it makes more sense to regard them as a separate type of construal in the nominal domain, in addition to NP construal and other types of construals that may be available. In this sense, languages should really be typologized in terms of the range of nominal construals they have available, and the division of labour between them, rather than on the basis of a simple yes-or-no answer to the question of constituency or (dis)continuity. We believe this applies not just to languages for which NP constituency has been questioned, like Australian languages or some South American languages (Krasnoukhova 2012: 177–181), but also to many languages for which NP constituency has been assumed as the default (compare, for instance, work on discontinuity in German, e. g., De Kuthy 2002).
In order to develop such a typology, however, our analysis has also shown quite clearly that we need much more careful discourse-based work on NEs, in the line of studies like McGregor (1989, 1997) or Schultze-Berndt & Simard (2012). It is only when one looks at what types of nominal construal there are, and what their functions are in discourse, that it becomes clear how they divide up the nominal domain, and where a particular language fits in the typology of nominal construal. This type of work is not only needed for Australian languages, of course, but also for better-described languages, where corpus-based work on narrative and interactional data could reveal more variation in nominal construal than has traditionally been assumed. This may also lead to a further reassessment of where Australian languages stand in the typology of nominal construal, and if and how they are really different from other types of languages.
Acknowledgements
Work on this article was supported by project GOA/12/007, funded by the Research Council of the University of Leuven. Authorship is shared equally. Part of this material was presented in seminars in Leuven and Melbourne, and at the SWL and ALT conferences. We thank Hubert Cuyckens, Kristin Davidse, Hendrik De Smet, Holger Diessel, Nikolaus Himmelmann, Bill McGregor, Rachel Nordlinger, and An Van Linden for very useful comments and questions at these and other occasions. We are also grateful to four anonymous reviewers and the editor of Linguistic Typology for very useful comments and suggestions on a previous version of this article. Finally, we would like to thank Barry Blake, Joe Blythe, Margaret Carew, Greg Dickson, Katerina Forrester, Alice Gaby, John Giacon, Clair Hill, Dorothea Hoffmann, Katie Jepson, Bill McGregor, Felicity Meakins, Stephen Morey, Ilana Mushin, Rachel Nordlinger, Erich Round, Ruth Singer, Stef Spronck, and Tasaku Tsunoda for information on their languages of expertise, and Doug Marmion, Adam Saulwick, and Jane Simpson for sharing manuscripts. Needless to say, we are solely responsible for the interpretation, and for any remaining problems or inaccuracies.
Abbreviations
1/2/3=1st/2nd/3rd person; i-iv=noun classes; a=agent-like argument of a canonical transitive verb; abl=ablative; acc=accusative; aff=affective; all=allative; aux=auxiliary; caus=causative; com=comitative; cont=continuative; dat=dative; def=definite; dem=demonstrative; dist=distal; du=dual; emph=emphatic; erg=ergative; excl=exclusive; f=feminine; gen=genitive; h=higher object; hab=habitual; immpst=immediate past; inst=instrumental; ipfv=imperfective; kin=kin suffix; ll=land gender; loc=locative; m=masculine; min=minimal; NE=nominal expression; nf=nonfeminine; nfut=nonfuture; nom=nominative; NP=noun phrase; npst=nonpast; obj=object; obl=oblique; p=patient-like argument of a canonical transitive verb; perl=perlative; pfv=perfective; pl=plural; pot=potential; priv=privative; prog=progressive; prop=proprietive; prs=present; pst=past; ptcp=participle; purp=purposive; rdp=reduplication; recp=reciprocal; ref=contextual deictic; rem=remote; rempst=remote past; s=single argument of a canonical intransitive verb; sg=singular; sp.prox=speaker proximate; top=topic; tr=transitive; unsp=unspecified tense; vblzr=verbalizer; ve=vegetable gender; ^=focal accent; ~ separates reduplicated elements.
Appendix A: Overview of the sample
| Language name | Genetic status | References | |
| Pama-Nyungan (PN) | |||
| Lower-level subgroup | Bowern & Atkinson (2012) | ||
| Kala Lagaw Ya | (unclear) | Northern PN | Ford & Ober (1987, 1991); Stirling (2008) |
| Uradhi | Northern Paman | Northern PN | Crowley (1983) |
| Anguthimri | Northern Paman | Northern PN | Crowley (1981) |
| Umpila/Kuuku Ya’u | Middle Paman | Northern PN | Hill (2010, 2015); Thompson (1988) |
| Kugu Nganhcara | Middle Paman | Northern PN | Smith & Johnson (2000) |
| Umpithamu | Middle Paman | Northern PN | Verstraete (2010) |
| Umbuygamu | Lamalamic | Northern PN | Ogilvie (1994); Sommer (1976, 1998) |
| Rimanggudinhma | Lamalamic | Northern PN | Godman (1993) |
| Kuuk Thaayorre | Southwest Paman | Northern PN | Gaby (2006) |
| Oykangand | Southwest Paman | Northern PN | Hamilton (1996); Sommer (1970, 2006) |
| Yir Yoront | Southwest Paman | Northern PN | Alpher (1973, 1991) |
| Guugu Yimidhirr | Yimidhirr-Yalanji-Yidinic | Northern PN | Haviland (1979) |
| Kuku Yalanji | Yimidhirr-Yalanji-Yidinic | Northern PN | Patz (2002) |
| Yidiny | Yimidhirr-Yalanji-Yidinic | Northern PN | Dixon (1977, 1991) |
| Djabugay | Yimidhirr-Yalanji-Yidinic | Northern PN | Patz (1991) |
| Dyirbal | Herbert River | Northern PN | Dixon (1972) |
| Warrongo | Maric | Northern PN | Tsunoda (2011) |
| Margany & Gunya | Maric | Northern PN | Breen (1981a) |
| Biri | Maric | Northern PN | Terrill (1998) |
| Dharumbal | Dharumbal | Northern PN | Terrill (2002) |
| Yalarnnga | Kalkatungic | Northern PN | Breen & Blake (2007) |
| Mayi | Mayi | Northern PN | Breen (1981b) |
| Duungidjawu | Waka-Kabi | South-Eastern PN | Kite & Wurm (2004) |
| Gumbaynggirr | Gumbaynggirr | South-Eastern PN | Eades (1979) |
| Bundjalung | Bandjalangic | South-Eastern PN | Cunningham (1969); Sharpe (2005) |
| Yuwaalaraay | Central New South Wales | South-Eastern PN | Giacon (2014); Williams (1980) |
| Ngiyambaa | Central New South Wales | South-Eastern PN | Donaldson (1980) |
| Muruwari | Muruwari | South-Eastern PN | Oates (1988) |
| Gathang | Yuin-Kuri | South-Eastern PN | Lissarrague (2010) |
| Dharrawal/Dharumba/Dhurga/Djirringanj | Yuin-Kuri | South-Eastern PN | Besold (2012) |
| Wathawurrung | Kulin | South-Eastern PN | Blake (ed.) (1998) |
| Mathi-Mathi/Letyi-Letyi/Wati-Wati | Kulin | South-Eastern PN | Blake et al. (2011) |
| Yorta Yorta | Eastern Victoria | South-Eastern PN | Bowe & Morey (1999) |
| Bunganditj | Bunganditj | South-Eastern PN | Blake (2003) |
| Ngarrindjeri | Lower Murray | South-Eastern PN | Bannister (2004); Yallop (1975) |
| Arabana/Wangkangurru | Karnic | Central PN | Hercus (1994) |
| Pitta-Pitta | Karnic | Central PN | Blake (1979b, personal communication) |
| Diyari | Karnic | Central PN | Austin (1981, 2011) |
| Yandruwandha (Innamincka) | Karnic | Central PN | Breen (2004a, b) |
| Paakantyi | Paakantyi | Central PN | Hercus (1982) |
| Atynyamathanha | Thura-Yura | Central PN | Schebeck (1974) |
| Wirangu | Thura-Yura | Central PN | Hercus (1999) |
| Alyawarra | Arandic | Central PN | Yallop (1977) |
| Arrernte (Mparntwe) | Arandic | Central PN | Wilkins (1989) |
| Warumungu | Ngumpin-Yapa | Western PN | Simpson (1998, 2002); Simpson & Heath (no date); Capell (1953) |
| Warlpiri | Ngumpin-Yapa | Western PN | Hale (1995); Hale et al. (1995); Nash (1980); Simpson (1983); Swartz (1982) |
| Bilinarra | Ngumpin-Yapa | Western PN | Meakins & Nordlinger (2014) |
| Jaru | Ngumpin-Yapa | Western PN | Tsunoda (1981, personal communication) |
| Walmajarri | Ngumpin-Yapa | Western PN | Hudson (1978); Hudson & Richards (1984); Richards (1979) |
| Nyangumarta | Marrngu | Western PN | Sharp (2004) |
| Karajarri | Marrngu | Western PN | McKelson (1989); Sands (1989) |
| Yankunytjatjara | Wati | Western PN | Goddard (1985) |
| Wangkajunga | Wati | Western PN | Jones (2011) |
| Martuthunira | Ngayarta | Western PN | Dench (1994) |
| Yindjibarndi | Ngayarta | Western PN | Wordick (1982) |
| Panyjima | Ngayarta | Western PN | Dench (1991) |
| Thargari | Mantharta | Western PN | Klokeid (1969) |
| Wajarri | Kartu | Western PN | Douglas (1981); Marmion (1996) |
| Yingkarta | Kartu | Western PN | Dench (1998) |
| Nhanda | Nhanda | Western PN | Blevins (2001) |
| Nyungar | Nyungar | Western PN | Douglas (1976) |
| Ritharrngu | Yolngu | Western PN | Heath (1980) |
| Dhuwal (Djapu/Djamparrpuyngu) | Yolngu | Western PN | Morphy (1983); Wilkinson (1991) |
| Djinang/Djinba | Yolngu | Western PN | Waters (1989) |
| Yanyuwa | Warluwaric | Western PN | Kirton (1971); Kirton & Charlie (1996); Bradley (1992) |
| Non-Pama-Nyungan | |||
| Kayardild | Tangkic | Evans (1995); Round (2013) | |
| Lardil | Tangkic | Klokeid (1976) | |
| Garrwa | Garrwan | Mushin (2012) | |
| Marra | Marran | Heath (1981) | |
| Alawa | Marran | Sharpe (1972) | |
| Mangarrayi | Marran | Merlan (1989) | |
| Wambaya | Mindi | Nordlinger (1998) | |
| Jingulu | Mindi | Pensalfini (2003) | |
| Jaminjung | Mindi | Schultze-Berndt (2000) | |
| Emmi | Western Daly | Ford (1998) | |
| Marrithiyel | Western Daly | I. Green (1989) | |
| Matngele | Eastern Daly | Zandvoort (1999) | |
| Ngan’gityemerri/Ngan’gikurunggurr | Southern Daly | Reid (1990, 1997) | |
| Malakmalak | Northern Daly | Birk (1976); Tryon (1974); Dorothea Hoffmann (personal communication) | |
| Wadjiginy (Bachamal) | Anson Bay | Ford (1990); Tryon (1974) | |
| Wardaman | Wardaman/Wagiman | Merlan (1994) | |
| Gaagudju | Gaagudju | Harvey (2002) | |
| Limilngan | Limilngan | Harvey (2001) | |
| Tiwi | Tiwi | Lee (1987) | |
| Giimbiyu | Giimbiyu | Campbell (2006) | |
| Warray | Gunwinyguan | Harvey (1986, no date) | |
| Rembarrnga | Gunwinyguan | McKay (1975); Saulwick (2003) | |
| Enindhilyakwa | Gunwinyguan | van Egmond (2012) | |
| Bininj Gun-wok | Gunwinyguan | Evans (2003a) | |
| Dalabon | Guwinyguan | Cutfield (2011) | |
| Burarra | Maningrida | R. Green (1987); Glasgow (1994); Margaret Carew (personal communication) | |
| Ndjébbana | Maningrida | McKay (2000) | |
| Mawng | Iwaidjan | Singer (2006); Forrester (2015) | |
| Gooniyandi | Bunuban | McGregor (1990) | |
| Nyulnyul | Nyulnyulan | McGregor (2011) | |
| Bardi | Nyulnyulan | Bowern (2012a) | |
| Yawuru | Nyulnyulan | Hosokawa (1991) | |
| Worrorra | Worrorran | Clendon (2000, 2014) | |
| Ungarinyin | Worrorran | Rumsey (1982); Spronck (2016, personal communication) | |
| Miriwung | Jarrakan | Kofod (1978) | |
Appendix B: Detailed results by criterion
Word order (based on word classes); languages analysed in terms of functional classes in the grammatical descriptions are marked with *.
| (i) Fixed order (21 languages) | |
| Alyawarra | Yallop (1977: 116–117); no information about longer NEs (reverse order of demonstrative possible (Yallop 1977: 112), but no examples found in grammar) |
| Anguthimri | Crowley (1981: 162, 178); no information about longer NEs |
| Arrernte (Mparntwe) | Wilkins (1989: Sections 102–103); some modifiers “more fluid” w.r.t. each other, but no examples found in grammar |
| Dalabon* | Cutfield (2011: 51–56, 122–123) |
| Dyirbal | Dixon (1972: 60–61) |
| Gaagudju* | Harvey (2002: 315–320) |
| Gooniyandi* | McGregor (1990: 253) |
| Kayardild* | Evans (1995: 235); Round (2013: 133–135) |
| Kuuk Thaayorre | Gaby (2006: 297–298) |
| Lardil | Klokeid (1976: 11, examples) |
| Limilngan* | Harvey (2001: 112) |
| Marrithiyel | I. Green (1989: 48, 1997: 246); numeral and demonstrative/pronoun flexible w.r.t. each other |
| Martuthunira* | Dench (1994: 189–198) |
| Ngarrindjeri | Yallop (1975: 28); Bannister (2004: 66); no information about longer NEs |
| Nyulnyul* | McGregor (2011: 400–405) |
| Nyungar* | Douglas (1976: 44–45) |
| Panyjima* | Dench (1991: 186) |
| Tiwi* | Lee (1987: 221–230) |
| Umbuygamu | Sommer (1998: 22, 28); Ogilvie (1994: 39); examples throughout both sources; no information about longer NEs or about the position of adnominal demonstratives |
| Umpithamu* | Verstraete (no date) |
| Uradhi | Crowley (1983: 371) |
| (ii) Restricted flexibility (45 languages) (ii. a) Limited in frequency (18 languages) | |
| Atynyamathanha | Schebeck (1974: 61, examples); no information about longer NEs or about the position of adnominal demonstratives |
| Biri | Terrill (1998: 29, 45–47); no information about longer NEs |
| Dhuwal (at least Djapu) | Morphy (1983: 83–87 for Djapu); Wilkinson (1991: 124) only mentions a “lack of strict ordering conventions” for Djambarrpuyngu and further refers to Morphy (1983). |
| Kala Lagaw Ya | Ford & Ober (1987: 10; 1991: 124–126, 130); Stirling (2008: 177); examples throughout all sources |
| Karajarri | Sands (1989: 65–66); no information about longer NEs or about the position of adnominal demonstratives |
| Kugu Nganhcara | Smith & Johnson (2000: 419–420) |
| Malakmalak | Birk (1976: 146–148); Dorothea Hoffmann, personal communication; limited information about longer NEs |
| Mathi-Mathi/Letyi-Letyi/Wati-Wati | Blake et al. (2011: 79, examples); no information about longer NEs |
| Ndjébbana | McKay (2000: 293–294) |
| Ngiyambaa | Donaldson (1980: examples) |
| Oykangand | Hamilton (1996: 2, 6); Sommer (1970: examples) |
| Pitta-Pitta | Blake (1979b: 214); limited information about longer NEs |
| Rimanggudinhma | Godman (1993: 78); no information about longer NEs |
| Warray | Harvey (1986: 59, 246) |
| Yanyuwa | Kirton (1971: 10, examples); Kirton & Charlie (1996: examples) |
| Yawuru | Hosokawa (1991: 80–81, 443, 472, 491, 740) |
| Yidiny | Dixon (1977: 247–249) |
| Yingkarta | Dench (1998: 50–51) |
| (ii. b) Flexibility of determining elements at the edges (17 languages) | |
| Alawa | Sharpe (1972: 2, examples); variable order, partly based on emphasis and length of NE according to Sharpe (1972: 2), but clear tendencies from examples |
| Arabana/Wangkangurru | Hercus (1994: 184, examples) |
| Diyari | Austin (2011: 100, examples) |
| Djabugay | Patz (1991: examples) |
| Duungidjawu | Kite & Wurm (2004: 95–96, examples); limited information about longer NEs |
| Emmi | Ford (1998: 103, 138, 148, examples); no information about longer NEs |
| Guugu Yimidhirr | Haviland (1979: 104, examples) |
| Kuku Yalanji | Patz (2002: 119–121, 202, examples) |
| Matngele | Zandvoort (1999: examples) |
| Paakantyi | Hercus (1982: 98–101, examples) |
| Thargari | Klokeid (1969: examples); no information about longer NEs |
| Umpila/Kuuku Ya’u* | Hill (2015) |
| Worrorra | Clendon (2000, 2014: examples) |
| Yalarnnga | Breen & Blake (2007: 57–58, examples); no information about longer NEs |
| Yandruwandha (Innamincka) | Breen (2004a: 47, examples) |
| Yankunytjatjara | Goddard (1985: 47, 49, 55–56, 60) |
| Yir Yoront | Alpher (1973: 281–289) |
| (ii. c) Flexibility of adjective-like modifiers; determining elements fixed at one edge (10 languages) | |
| Bundjalung | Sharpe (2005: 98) |
| Gathang | Lissarrague (2010: 48, 103–104, examples); no information about longer NEs |
| Mangarrayi | Merlan (1989: 29, 51, examples); limited information about longer NEs |
| Mawng* | Forrester (2015: 45) |
| Mayi | Breen (1981b: 63) |
| Muruwari | Oates (1988: 51, 55, 82, 87–88, examples); limited information on longer NEs |
| Nhanda | Blevins (2001: examples); no information about longer NEs |
| Wadjiginy (Bachamal) | Ford (1990: 88, examples); Tryon (1974: 209); no information about longer NEs; according to Tryon (1974: 208), adjectival modifiers have a fixed position, but we rely on the most recent source for our categorization |
| Wajarri | Douglas (1981: 240–244); only the quantifying adjective is flexible, the rest of the modifiers has a fixed order; also, younger speakers often switch to A-N order instead of the regular N-A |
| Yindjibarndi | Wordick (1982: 160, examples); Wordick (1982: 160) claims that the adnominal demonstrative is flexible but tends to come in initial position, but we have found only one example in final position |
| (iii) Flexibility (29 languages) | |
| Bardi | Bowern (2012a: 331–336) |
| Bilinarra | Meakins & Nordlinger (2014: 103–104) |
| Bininj Gun-wok | Evans (2003a: 243–244, examples) |
| Burarra | R. Green (1987: (few) examples) Margaret Carew, personal communication |
| Dharrawal/Dharumba/Dhurga/Djirringanj | Besold (2012: 287–288); no information about longer NEs |
| Djinang/Djinba | Waters (1989: 195–196) |
| Enindhilyakwa | van Egmond (2012: 303) |
| Garrwa | Mushin (2012: 103–104, 256–257, examples) |
| Giimbiyu | Campbell (2006: examples); no information about longer NEs |
| Gumbaynggirr | Eades (1979: 313, examples) |
| Jaminjung | Schultze-Berndt (2000: 44–45); Schultze-Berndt & Simard (2012: 7) |
| Jaru | Tsunoda (1981: 95, personal comunication) |
| Jingulu | Pensalfini (2003: examples) |
| Marra | Heath (1981: 64, 290) |
| Miriwung | Kofod (1978: 52, examples) |
| Ngan’gityemerri/Ngan’gikurunggurr | Reid (1997: 267); fixed head first, which could also be seen as an edge-preserving type of flexibility |
| Nyangumarta | Sharp (2004: 301–313) |
| Rembarrnga | Saulwick (2003: 81); McKay 1975: 67–70) |
| Ritharrngu | Heath (1980: examples); no information about longer NEs or about the position of adjectival modifiers |
| Ungarinyin | Rumsey (1982: 58, 138); Spronck (2016: 37–38, 166, personal communication) |
| Walmajarri | Richards (1979: 99, examples); Hudson (1978: examples); no information about longer NEs |
| Wambaya | Nordlinger (1998: 130–136) |
| Wangkajunga | Jones (2011: 232, 235–240); no information about longer NEs |
| Wardaman | Merlan (1994: 228–235) |
| Warlpiri | Hale et al. (1995: 1435) |
| Warrongo | Tsunoda (2011: 347–352) |
| Warumungu | Simpson (2002: 42, examples); no information about longer NEs |
| Wirangu | Hercus (1999: 81, examples); no information about longer NEs |
| Yuwaalaraay | Williams (1980: 96–97); Giacon (2014: 428–434) |
| (iv) Unknown (5 languages), i. e., grammar does not allow us to make generalizations concerning word order | |
| Bunganditj | Blake (2003: 52, examples) |
| Dharumbal | Terrill (2002: 48, examples) |
| Margany & Gunya | Breen (1981a: 335, examples) |
| Wathawurrung | Blake (ed.) (1998: 84, examples) |
| Yorta Yorta | Bowe & Morey (1999: 106, examples) |
Locus of case marking (in simple nominal expressions; core case markers).
| (i) Only phrasal case marking (18 languages) | ||
| Anguthimri | Crowley (1981: 178) | head (= left edge) |
| Arrernte (Mparntwe) | Wilkins (1989: Section 3.1) | right edge |
| Atynyamathanha | Schebeck (1974: examples) | right edge |
| Bardi | Bowern (2012a: 169–170) | left edge |
| Dalabon | Cutfield (2011: 42, 84) | head |
| Kala Lagaw Ya | Ford & Ober (1987: examples; 1991: examples); Stirling (2008: examples) | right edge (unclear if word marking is also possible) |
| Kugu Nganhcara | Smith & Johnson (2000: 385) | right edge |
| Kuuk Thaayorre | Gaby (2006: 277) | right edge |
| Malakmalak | Birk (1976: 147–148) | right edge |
| Marrithiyel | I. Green (1989: 2, 48) | right edge |
| Ngan’gityemerri/Ngan’gikurunggurr | Reid (1990: 326, examples) | right edge (unclear if word marking is also possible) |
| Nyungar | Douglas (1976: 44) | right edge |
| Umbuygamu | Ogilvie (1994: 63; Sommer 1998: 22) | right edge; sometimes head (initial) |
| Umpila/Kuuku Ya’u | Hill (2015) | right edge |
| Umpithamu | Verstraete (2010) | right edge |
| Wadjiginy (Bachamal) | Ford (1990: 90, 91) | right edge |
| Yankunytjatjara | Goddard (1985: 47) | right edge |
| Yawuru | Hosokawa (1991: 81) | left edge |
| (ii) Phrasal and word marking (39 languages) (ii. a) Phrasal marking as main option (18 languages) | ||
| Alyawarra | Yallop (1977: 116–118) |
|
| Arabana/Wangkangurru | Hercus (1994: 114, 282–284) |
|
| Diyari | Austin (2011: 97–99) |
|
| Djinang/Djinba | Waters (1989: 196) |
|
| Gooniyandi | McGregor (1990: 173–174, 276–284; 1989) |
|
| Mathi-Mathi/Letyi-Letyi/Wati-Wati | Blake et al. (2011: 112) |
|
| Ngarrindjeri | Yallop (1975: 29) |
|
| Nyulnyul | McGregor (2011: 398, 419) |
|
| Oykangand | Hamilton (1996: 19–20); Sommer (1970: 17) |
|
| Paakantyi | Hercus (1982: 100) |
|
| Rembarrnga | McKay (1975: 71) |
|
| Thargari | Klokeid (1969: 13) |
|
| Uradhi | Crowley (1983: 334, 371–372) |
|
| Wajarri | Douglas (1981: 241); Marmion (1996: 33) |
|
| Warray | Harvey (1986: 252–253) |
|
| Wirangu | Hercus (1999: 48) |
|
| Yandruwandha (Innamincka) | Breen (2004a: 101) |
|
| Yir Yoront | Alpher (1973: 291–292; 1991: 67–69) |
|
| (ii. b) Phrasal marking as minor option (11 languages) | ||
| Bilinarra | Meakins & Nordlinger (2014: 106) |
|
| Djabugay | Patz (1991: 48) |
|
| Duungidjawu | Kite & Wurm (2004: 27–28, 37, 96, examples) |
|
| Garrwa | Mushin (2012: 55) |
|
| Kuku Yalanji | Patz (2002: 119) |
|
| Margany & Gunya | Breen (1981a: 337) |
|
| Ngiyambaa | Donaldson (1980: 232) |
|
| Walmajarri | Hudson (1978: 17); Richards (1979: 95) |
|
| Warumungu | Simpson (2002: 87–88); Simpson & Heath (no date: Section 4.3) |
|
| Yindjibarndi | Wordick (1982: 142) |
|
| Yingkarta | Dench (1998: 52) |
|
| (ii. c) Phrasal marking as one of the options (unclear or strictly depending on word class) (10 languages) | ||
| Dharrawal/Dharumba/Dhurga/Djirringanj | Besold (2012: 157) |
|
| Guugu Yimidhirr | Haviland (1979: 102–104) |
|
| Jaminjung | Schultze-Berndt (2000: 43) |
|
| Jingulu | Pensalfini (2003: 176) |
|
| Karajarri | Sands (1989: 69) |
|
| Mayi | Breen (1981b: 63–64) |
|
| Muruwari | Oates (1988: 7, 55, 62, 67, 68, 82) |
|
| Nhanda | Blevins (2001: 129) |
|
| Ritharrngu | Heath (1980: examples) |
|
| Warlpiri | Hale et al. (1995: 1434); Nash (1980: 159–160) |
|
| (iii) Only word marking (26 languages) | ||
| Alawa | Sharpe (1972: 70) | |
| Biri | Terrill (1998: 14) | adjective remaining unmarked |
| Bundjalung | Sharpe (2005: examples) | |
| Dhuwal | Morphy (1983: 47, 85–86; Wilkinson (1991: 124) | optional marking of quantifying nominals (often unmarked), hypothetical and indefinite determiners (usually marked), dual and plural pronoun number markers |
| Dyirbal | Dixon (1972: 106, examples) | |
| Gathang | Lissarrague (2010: 102) | |
| Gumbaynggirr | Eades (1979: examples) | |
| Jaru | Tsunoda (1981: 94–95, personal communication) | ergative marking on demonstratives yala/yalu and murla/murlu omittable |
| Kayardild | Evans (1995: 233) | |
| Lardil | Klokeid (1976: 11) | |
| Mangarrayi | Merlan (1989: 51) | |
| Marra | Heath (1981: 64) | |
| Martuthunira | Dench (1994: 60, 189) | complementizing case showing head marking |
| Nyangumarta | Sharp (2004: 302–303) | |
| Panyjima | Dench (1991: 125) | |
| Pitta-Pitta | Blake (1979b: examples, personal communication) | |
| Wambaya | Nordlinger (1998: 131–132) | possessive phrase unmarked |
| Wangkajunga | Jones (2011: 10) | |
| Wardaman | Merlan (1994: 105) | |
| Warrongo | Tsunoda (2011: 342, 361) | exception: possessive pronoun unmarked |
| Wathawurrung | Blake (ed.) (1998: 84) | |
| Yalarnnga | Breen & Blake (2007: examples) | |
| Yanyuwa | Kirton & Charlie (1996: 10); Kirton (1971: 10) | |
| Yidiny | Dixon (1977: 247) | |
| Yorta Yorta | Bowe & Morey (1999: 82) | |
| Yuwaalaraay | Giacon (2014: 429, personal communication) | |
| (iv) No case marking for core cases (phrasal or word for other cases; options discussed in third column) (13 languages) | ||
| Bininj Gun-wok | Evans (2003a: 230) | optionally on any one element for “non-core cases” (some dialects use abl or inst as an optional ergative marker) |
| Burarra | R. Green (1987: 16–18, examples) | loc/inst prefix (R. Green 1987: 17–18), marked on all elements of the NE |
| Emmi | Ford (1998: 103) | right edge for inst, dat/all, abl/caus, com, loc |
| Enindhilyakwa | van Egmond (2012: 1, 302–304) | for loc, abl, all, inst:
|
| Gaagudju | Harvey (2002: 263) | unknown for dat/loc clitics |
| Giimbiyu | Campbell (2006: 36, 58) | right edge for loc and inst |
| Limilngan | Harvey (2001: 71, 113) | optionally on right edge for obl, loc, source, com, and priv (unclear if word marking is also possible; based on very limited data (Harvey 2001: 113)) |
| Matngele | Zandvoort (1999: 42) | unknown (inst (rarely) used as an agentive marker) |
| Mawng | Singer (2006: 3, 83, 128) | left edge for loc (preposition) |
| Ndjébbana | McKay (2000: 155) | unknown for abl, purp, object of hunt |
| Tiwi | Lee (1987: 100, 235–236) | left edge for loc (preposition) |
| Ungarinyin | Rumsey (1982: 58, 61); Stef Spronck, personal communication | right edge for “non-grammatical cases”; sometimes other element |
| Worrorra | Clendon (2014: 18, 256–272, examples) | unknown for loc |
| (v) Unknown/other (4 languages) | ||
| Bunganditj | ||
| Dharumbal | only one example of multi-word NE; it shows right edge marking | |
| Miriwung | ||
| Rimanggudinhma | ||
“Diagnostic” slots.
| Bilinarra | Meakins & Nordlinger (2014: 102) | bound pronouns following the first constituent (bound pronouns can also have other positions, but only in marked cases (Meakins & Nordlinger 2014: 4)). |
| Garrwa | Mushin (2012: 6–7, 36–37, personal communication); Simpson & Mushin (2008) | pronominal cluster in second position, but usually verb-initial basic word order |
| Jaru | Tsunoda (1981: 107) | catalyst nga- plus enclitic pronouns in second position |
| Lardil | Klokeid (1976: 261) | clitics following the first constituent, e. g., thada ‘meanwhile’, tha ‘now, then, after that’ |
| Ngarrindjeri | Bannister (2004: 64) | reduced pronominals attached to first element of clause (no examples following a multiple-word NE) |
| Ngiyambaa | Donaldson (1980: 130, 236, 237) | pronominal or particle enclitics attached to topic of sentence, which is always at the left of the clause |
| Ritharrngu | Heath (1980: 43, 90) | pronominal enclitics, attached to first constituent of clause |
| Walmajarri | Hudson (1978: 18) | verbal auxiliary “as second word”; both examples where it follows the first word of a multiple-word NE (e. g., Hudson 1978: 89, sentence 44) and where it follows the whole multiple-word NE (e. g., Richards 1979: 97, example 4) |
| Wambaya | Nordlinger (1998: 131) | auxiliary following first constituent |
| Wangkajunga | Jones (2011: 9, 233–235, 245–246) | pronominal clitics following first word or first constituent |
| Warlpiri | Hale et al. (1995: 1431) | auxiliary following first constituent (if the initial element of the auxiliary complex is a complementizer, the auxiliary can appear either in first or in second position (Hale et al. 1995: 1431)) |
| Warumungu | Simpson (1998: 725, 2002: 80) | pronominal cluster following first constituent |
| Yingkarta | Dench (1998: 5) | optional bound pronouns following the first constituent |
| Yir Yoront | Alpher (1991: 38) | pronouns enclitic to first constituent of clause (no examples following a multiple-word NE) |
Prosody.
| Atynyamathanha | Schebeck (1974: 61) | intonation distinguishes between one or more NPs (no further comment) |
| Bilinarra | Meakins & Nordlinger (2014: 102–103) |
|
| Dalabon | Cutfield (2011: 56, 133) | pause for apposition |
| Dhuwal (only Djapu) | Morphy (1983: 140) | pause for apposition |
| Djinang/Djinba | Waters (1989: 196) | pause for apposition |
| Gaagudju | Harvey (2002: 316, 319) | same intonation phrase |
| Garrwa | Mushin (2012: 255) | prosodic unithood (members of a nominal group may also occur across intonation boundaries) |
| Gooniyandi | McGregor (1990: 284) | same intonation or tone unit |
| Jaminjung | Schultze-Berndt & Simard (2012: 1021–1025) | NP coincides with prosodic phrase |
| Kuuk Thaayorre | Gaby (2006: 278) |
|
| Limilngan | Harvey (2001: 112) | single intonation unit |
| Marra | Heath (1981: 64) | pause for apposition |
| Martuthunira | Dench (1994: 189) | single intonation contour |
| Paakantyi | Hercus (1982: 99) | pause for apposition |
| Umpila/Kuuku Ya’u | Hill (2015) |
|
| Wajarri | Douglas (1981: 243) | apposition: “after a non-final intonational juncture (rising pitch)” |
| Wangkajunga | Jones (2011: 233) |
|
| Wardaman | Merlan (1994: 225–226) | single tone unit |
| Warray | Harvey (1986: 252) | same intonation unit |
References
Alpher, Barry. 1973. Son of ergative: The Yir Yoront language of northeast Australia. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Alpher, Barry. 1991. Yir-Yoront lexicon: Sketch and dictionary of an Australian language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110872651Search in Google Scholar
Austin, Peter. 1981. A grammar of Diyari, South Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Austin, Peter. 2011. A grammar of Diyari, South Australia, 2nd edn. http://www.academia.edu/2491078/A_Grammar_of_Diyari_South_AustraliaSearch in Google Scholar
Austin, Peter & Joan Bresnan. 1996. Non-configurationality in Australian Aboriginal languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14. 215–268.10.1007/BF00133684Search in Google Scholar
Bannister, Corinne. 2004. A longitudinal study of Ngarrindjeri. Sydney: University of Sydney BA Hons thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Besold, Jutta. 2012. Language recovery of the New South Wales South Coast Aboriginal languages. Canberra: Australian National University doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Birk, David. 1976. The Malakmalak language, Daly River (Western Arnhem Land) (Pacific Linguistics B-45). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Blake, Barry. 1979a. A Kalkatungu grammar (Pacific Linguistics B-57). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Blake, Barry. 1979b. Pitta-Pitta. In Dixon & Blake (eds.) 1979, 182–242.10.1075/z.hal1.07blaSearch in Google Scholar
Blake, Barry. 1983. Structure and word order in Kalkatungu: The anatomy of a flat language. Australian Journal of Linguistics 3. 143–175.10.1080/07268608308599307Search in Google Scholar
Blake, Barry. 1987. Australian Aboriginal grammar. London: Croom Helm.Search in Google Scholar
Blake, Barry. 2003. The Bunganditj (Buwandik) language of the Mount Gambier Region (Pacific Linguistics 549). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J., Luise Hercus, Stephen Morey & Edward Ryan. 2011. The Mathi group of languages (Pacific Linguistics 628). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Blake, Barry (ed.). 1998. Wathawurrung and the Colac language of southern Victoria (Pacific Linguistics C-147). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2001. Nhanda: An Aboriginal language of Western Australia. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bowe, Heather & Stephen Morey. 1999. The Yorta Yorta (Bangerang) language of the Murray Goulburn including Yabula Yabula (Pacific Linguistics C-154). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2011. How many languages were spoken in Australia? http://anggarrgoon.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/how-many-languages-were-spoken-in-australia/Search in Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2012a. A grammar of Bardi. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110278187Search in Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2012b. Master list of Australian languages v1.2. Database. http://pamanyungan.sites.yale.edu/master-list-australian-languages-v1210.1093/obo/9780199772810-0005Search in Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire & Quentin Atkinson. 2012. Computational phylogenetics and the internal structure of Pama-Nyungan. Language 88. 817–845.10.1353/lan.2012.0081Search in Google Scholar
Bradley, John. 1992. Yanyuwa Wuka: Language from Yanyuwa country. http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00000072/01/yanyuwatotal.pdfSearch in Google Scholar
Breen, Gavan. 1981a. Margany and Gunya. In Dixon & Blake (eds.) 1981, 274–393.10.1075/z.hal2.08breSearch in Google Scholar
Breen, Gavan. 1981b. The Mayi languages of the Queensland Gulf Country. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Search in Google Scholar
Breen, Gavan. 2004a. Innamincka talk: A grammar of the Innamincka dialect of Yandruwandha with notes on other dialects (Pacific Linguistics 558). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Breen, Gavan. 2004b. Innamincka words: Yandruwandha dictionary and stories (Pacific Linguistics 559). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Breen, Gavan & Barry J. Blake. 2007. The grammar of Yalarnnga: A language of western Queensland (Pacific Linguistics 584). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Campbell, Lauren. 2006. A sketch grammar of Urningangk, Erre and Mengerrdji: The Giimbiyu languages of Western Arnhem Land. Melbourne: University of Melbourne BA Hons thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Capell, Arthur. 1953. Notes on the Waramunga language of western Australia. Oceania 23. 297–311.10.1002/j.1834-4461.1953.tb00199.xSearch in Google Scholar
Clendon, Mark. 2000. Topics in Worora grammar. Adelaide: University of Adelaide doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Clendon, Mark. 2014. Worrorra: A language of the north-west Kimberley coast. Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press.10.20851/worrorraSearch in Google Scholar
Crowley, Terry. 1981. Mpakwithi dialect of Anguthimri. In Dixon & Blake (eds.) 1981, 146–194.10.1075/z.hal2.07croSearch in Google Scholar
Crowley, Terry. 1983. Uradhi. In Dixon & Blake (eds.) 1983, 306–428.Search in Google Scholar
Cunningham, M. C. 1969. A description of the Yugumbir dialect of Bandjalang. University of Queensland Papers 1(8). 69–122.10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a041112Search in Google Scholar
Cutfield, Sarah. 2011. Demonstratives in Dalabon: A language of southwestern Arnhem Land. Melbourne: Monash University doctoral dissertation. http://arrow.monash.edu.au/hdl/1959.1/732149Search in Google Scholar
De Kuthy, Kordula. 2002. Discontinuous NPs in German: A case study of the interaction of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Dench, Alan. 1991. Panyjima. In Dixon & Blake (eds.) 1991, 124–243.Search in Google Scholar
Dench, Alan. 1994. Martuthunira: A language of the Pilbara region of Western Australia (Pacific Linguistics C-125). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Dench, Alan. 1998. Yingkarta. München: Lincom Europa.Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of north Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139084987Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1977. A grammar of Yidiny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139085045Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1991. Words of our country. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2002. Australian languages: Their nature and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486869Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. & Barry Blake (eds.). 1979. Handbook of Australian languages, Volume 1. Canberra: Australian National University Press.10.1075/z.hal1Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. & Barry Blake (eds.). 1981. Handbook of Australian languages, Volume 2. Canberra: Australian National University Press.10.1075/z.hal2Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. & Barry Blake (eds.). 1983. Handbook of Australian languages, Volume 3. Canberra: Australian National University Press.10.1075/z.hal3Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. & Barry Blake (eds.). 1991. Handbook of Australian languages, Volume 4. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. & Barry Blake (eds.). 2000. Handbook of Australian languages, Volume 5. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Donaldson, Tamsin. 1980. Ngiyambaa: The language of the Wangaaybuwan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Douglas, Wilfrid. 1976. The Aboriginal languages of the South-West of Australia, 2nd edn. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Search in Google Scholar
Douglas, Wilfrid. 1981. Watjarri. In Dixon & Blake (eds.) 1981, 197–272.Search in Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2007. Word order. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (2nd edn.), Vol. 1: Clause structure, 61–131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511619427.002Search in Google Scholar
Eades, Diana. 1979. Gumbaynggir. In Dixon & Blake (eds.) 1979, 244–361.10.1075/z.hal1.08eadSearch in Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 1995. A grammar of Kayardild with historical-comparative notes on Tangkic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110873733Search in Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2003a. Bininj Gun-wok: A pan-dialectal grammar of Mayali, Kunwinjku and Kune (Pacific Linguistics 541). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2003b. Introduction: Comparative non-Pama-Nyungan and Australian historical linguistics. In Nicholas Evans (ed.), The non-Pama-Nyungan languages of northern Australia: Comparative studies of the continent’s most linguistically complex region (Pacific Linguistics 552), 3–25. Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Ford, Kevin & Dana Ober. 1987. Kalaw Kawaw Ya. Darwin: School of Australian Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Ford, Kevin & Dana Ober. 1991. A sketch of Kalaw Kawaw Ya. In Suzanne Romaine (ed.), Language in Australia, 118–142. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620881.009Search in Google Scholar
Ford, Lysbeth. 1990. The phonology and morphology of Bachamal (Wogait). Canberra: Australian National University MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Ford, Lysbeth. 1998. A description of the Emmi language of the Northern Territory of Australia. Canberra: Australian National University doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Forrester, Katerina. 2015. The internal structure of the Mawng noun phrase. Melbourne: University of Melbourne BA Hons thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Gaby, Alice Rose. 2006. A grammar of Kuuk Thaayorre. Melbourne: University of Melbourne doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Giacon, John. 2014. A grammar of Yuwaalaraay and Gamilaraay: A description of two New South Wales languages based on 160 years of records. Canberra: Australian National University doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Glasgow, Kathy. 1994. Appendix 2: Parts of speech (or major word classes) in Burarra – Gun-nartpa. In Burarra – Gun-nartpa dictionary: With English finder list, 893–924. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff. 1985. A grammar of Yankunytjatjara. Alice Springs: Institute for Aboriginal Development.Search in Google Scholar
Godman, Irene. 1993. A sketch grammar of Rimanggudinhma: A language of the Princess Charlotte Bay region of Cape York Peninsula. Brisbane: University of Queensland BA Hons thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Green, Ian. 1989. Marrithiyel: A language of the Daly River region of Australia’s Northern Territory. Canberra: Australian National University doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Green, Ian. 1997. Nominal classification in Marrithiyel. In Harvey & Reid (eds.) 1997, 229–254.10.1075/slcs.37.11greSearch in Google Scholar
Green, Rebecca. 1987. A sketch grammar of Burarra. Canberra: Australian National University BA Hons thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hale, Ken. 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 1. 5–74.10.1007/BF00210374Search in Google Scholar
Hale, Ken. 1995. An elementary Warlpiri dictionary. Revised edn. Alice Springs: IAD Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hale, Ken, Mary Laughren & Jane Simpson. 1995. Warlpiri. In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, Vol. 2, 1430–1451. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110142631.2.21.1430Search in Google Scholar
Hamilton, Philip. 1996. Oykangand sketch grammar. Manuscript.Search in Google Scholar
Harvey, Mark. No date. Warray grammar. Manuscript.Search in Google Scholar
Harvey, Mark. 1986. Ngoni Waray Amungal-yang: The Waray language from Adelaide River. Canberra: Australian National University MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Harvey, Mark. 2001. A grammar of Limilngan: A language of the Mary River Region, Northern Territory, Australia (Pacific Linguistics 516). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Harvey, Mark. 2002. A grammar of Gaagudju. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110871289Search in Google Scholar
Harvey, Mark & Nick Reid (eds.). 1997. Nominal classification in Aboriginal Australia. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.37Search in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86. 663–687.10.1353/lan.2010.0021Search in Google Scholar
Haviland, John. 1979. Guugu Yimidhirr. In Dixon & Blake (eds.) 1979, 27–180.10.1075/z.hal1.06havSearch in Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1980. Basic materials in Ritharngu : Grammar, texts and dictionary (Pacific Linguistics B-62). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1981. Basic materials in Mara: Grammar, texts and dictionary (Pacific Linguistics C-60). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1986. Syntactic and lexical aspects of nonconfigurationality in Nunggubuyu (Australia). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4. 375–408.10.1007/BF00133375Search in Google Scholar
Hercus, Luise. 1982. The Baagandji language (Pacific Linguistics B-67). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Hercus, Luise. 1994. A grammar of the Arabana-Wangkangurru language, Lake Eyre basin, South Australia (Pacific Linguistics C-128). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Hercus, Luise. 1999. A grammar of the Wirangu language from the west coast of South Australia (Pacific Linguistics C-150). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Hill, Clair. 2010. Noun phrases in Umpila and Kuuku Ya’u. Presentation at workshop on noun phrase structure, Aarhus University.Search in Google Scholar
Hill, Clair. 2015. The noun phrase in Umpila. Manuscript.Search in Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 1997. Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase: Zur Emergenz syntaktischer Struktur. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110929621Search in Google Scholar
Hosokawa, Komei. 1991. The Yawuru language of West Kimberley: A meaning-based description. Canberra: Australian National University doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Hudson, Joyce. 1978. The core of Walmatjari grammar. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Search in Google Scholar
Hudson, Joyce & Eirlys Richards. 1984. The Walmatjari: An introduction to the language and culture. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Jones, Barbara. 2011. A grammar of Wangkajunga (Pacific Linguistics 636). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Kirton, Jean. 1971. Papers in Australian linguistics no. 5 (Pacific Linguistics A-27). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Kirton, Jean & Bella Charlie. 1996. Further aspects of the grammar of Yanyuwa, northern Australia (Pacific Linguistics C-131). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Kite, Suzanne & Stephen Wurm. 2004. The Duungidjawu language of southeast Queensland: Grammar, texts and vocabulary (Pacific Linguistics 553). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Klokeid, Terry. 1969. Thargari phonology and morphology (Pacific Linguistics B-12). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Klokeid, Terry. 1976. Topics in Lardil grammar. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Kofod, Frances. 1978. The Miriwung language (East Kimberley): A phonological and morphological study. Armidale: University of New England MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Krasnoukhova, Olga. 2012. The noun phrase in the languages of South America. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1997. Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics 8. 1–32.10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.1Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Jennifer. 1987. Tiwi today: A study of language change in a contact situation (Pacific Linguistics C-96). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Lissarrague, Amanda. 2010. A grammar and dictionary of Gathang. Nambucca Heads: Muurrbay Aboriginal Language & Culture Co-operative.Search in Google Scholar
Marmion, Douglas. 1996. A description of the morphology of Wajarri. Armidale: University of New England BA Hons thesis.Search in Google Scholar
McGregor, William. 1989. Phrase fracturing in Gooniyandi. In László Marácz & Pieter Muysken (eds.), Configurationality: The typology of asymmetries, 207–222. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110884883-011Search in Google Scholar
McGregor, William. 1990. A functional grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.22Search in Google Scholar
McGregor, William. 1997. Functions of noun phrase discontinuity in Gooniyandi. Functions of Language 4. 83–114.Search in Google Scholar
McGregor, William. 2004. The languages of the Kimberley, Western Australia. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Search in Google Scholar
McGregor, William. 2011. The Nyulnyul language of Dampier land, Western Australia (Pacific Linguistics 632), 2 vols. Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
McKay, Graham. 1975. Rembarnga: A language of central Arnhem Land. Canberra: Australian National University doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
McKay, Graham. 2000. Ndjébbana. In Dixon & Blake (eds.) 2000, 155–356.Search in Google Scholar
McKelson, Kevin. 1989. Studies in Karajarri. Manuscript.Search in Google Scholar
Meakins, Felicity & Rachel Nordlinger. 2014. A grammar of Bilinarra. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781614512745Search in Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca. 1989. Mangarayi. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Merlan, Francesca. 1994. A grammar of Wardaman. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110871371Search in Google Scholar
Morphy, Frances. 1983. Djapu, a Yolngu dialect. In Dixon & Blake (eds.) 1983, 1–304.Search in Google Scholar
Mushin, Ilana. 2012. A grammar of (Western) Garrwa (Pacific Linguistics 637). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781614512417Search in Google Scholar
Mushin, Ilana & Brett Baker (eds.). 2008. Discourse and grammar in Australian languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.104Search in Google Scholar
Nash, David. 1980. Topics in Warlpiri grammar. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. 1998. A grammar of Wambaya, Northern Territory (Australia) (Pacific Linguistics C-140). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. 2014. Constituency and grammatical relations. In Harold Koch & Rachel Nordlinger (eds.), The languages and linguistics of Australia: A comprehensive guide, 215–262. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110279771.215Search in Google Scholar
Oates, Lynette. 1988. The Muruwari language. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Ogilvie, Sarah. 1994. The Morrobalama (Umbuygamu) language of Cape York Peninsula, Australia. Canberra: Australian National University MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Patz, Elisabeth. 1991. Djabugay. In Dixon & Blake (eds.) 1991, 244–347.Search in Google Scholar
Patz, Elisabeth. 2002. A grammar of the Kuku Yalanji language of north Queensland (Pacific Linguistics 527). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Pensalfini, Robert. 2003. A grammar of Jingulu (Pacific Linguistics 536). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Reid, Nick. 1990. Ngan’gityemerri: A language of the Daly River region, Northern Territory of Australia. Canberra: Australian National University doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Reid, Nick. 1997. Class and classifier in Ngan’gityemerri. In Harvey & Reid (eds.) 1997, 165–228.10.1075/slcs.37.10reiSearch in Google Scholar
Richards, Eirlys. 1979. The Walmatjari noun phrase. In Christine A. Kilham (ed.), Four grammatical sketches: From phrase to paragraph, 93–128. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics - Australian Aborigines Branch.Search in Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2002. The noun phrase. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237822.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Round, Erich. 2013. Kayardild morphology and syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654871.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Rumsey, Alan. 1982. An intra-sentence grammar of Ungarinjin (north-western Australia) (Pacific Linguistics B-86). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Sands, Anna Kristina. 1989. A grammar of Garadjari, Western Australia. Canberra: Australian National University BA Hons thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Saulwick, Adam. 2003. Aspects of the verb in Rembarrnga: A polysynthetic language of northern Australia: Grammatical description, texts and dictionary. Melbourne: University of Melbourne doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Schebeck, Bernard. 1974. Texts on the social system of the Atynyamathanha people with grammatical notes (Pacific Linguistics D-21). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2000. Simple and complex verbs in Jaminjung: A study of event categorisation in an Australian language. Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva & Candide Simard. 2012. Constraints on noun phrase discontinuity in an Australian language: The role of prosody and information structure. Linguistics 50. 1015–1058.10.1515/ling-2012-0032Search in Google Scholar
Sharp, Janet. 2004. Nyangumarta: A language of the Pilbara region of Western Australia (Pacific Linguistics 556). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Sharpe, Margaret C. 1972. Alawa phonology and grammar. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Search in Google Scholar
Sharpe, Margaret C. 2005. Grammar and texts of the Yugambeh-Bundjalung dialect chain in Eastern Australia. München: Lincom Europa.Search in Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 1983. Aspects of Warlpiri morphology and syntax. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 1998. Warumungu (Australian – Pama-Nyungan). In Andrew Spencer & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 707–736. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9781405166348.ch32Search in Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 2002. A learner’s guide to Warumungu. Alice Springs: IAD Press.Search in Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane & Jeffrey Heath. No date. Warumungu sketch grammar. Manuscript.Search in Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane & Ilana Mushin. 2008. Clause-initial position in four Australian languages. In Mushin & Baker (eds.) 2008, 25–57.10.1075/slcs.104.05simSearch in Google Scholar
Singer, Ruth. 2006. Agreement in Mawng: Productive and lexicalised uses of agreement in an Australian language. Melbourne: University of Melbourne doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Ian & Steve Johnson. 2000. Kugu Nganhcara. In Dixon & Blake (eds.), 357–507.Search in Google Scholar
Sommer, Bruce. 1970. Kunjen syntax: A generative view. Honolulu: University of Hawaii doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Sommer, Bruce. 1976. Umbuygamu: The classification of a Cape York Peninsular language. Papers in Australian Linguistics No. 10, 13–29. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Sommer, Bruce. 1998. Umbuygamu. Townsville: Ethnografix Australia.Search in Google Scholar
Sommer, Bruce A. 2006. Speaking Kunjen: An ethnography of Oykangand kinship and communication (Pacific Linguistics 582). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Spronck, Stef. 2016. Reported speech in Ungarinyin: Grammar and social cognition in a language of the Kimberley region, Western Australia. Canberra: Australian National University doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Stirling, Lesley. 2008. ‘Double reference’ in Kala Lagaw Ya narratives. In Mushin & Baker (eds.) 2008, 167–202.10.1075/slcs.104.10stiSearch in Google Scholar
Swartz, Stephen. 1982. Syntactic structure of Warlpiri clauses. In Stephen Swartz (ed.), Papers in Warlpiri grammar: In memory of Lothar Jagst, 69–127. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Terrill, Angela. 1998. Biri. München: Lincom Europa.Search in Google Scholar
Terrill, Angela. 2002. Dharumbal (Pacific Linguistics 525). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, David. 1988. Lockhart River “sand beach” language: An outline of Kuuku Ya’U and Umpila. Darwin: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Tryon, D. T. 1974. Daly family languages, Australia (Pacific Linguistics C-32). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 1981. The Djaru language of Kimberley, Western Australia (Pacific Linguistics B-78). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Tsunoda, Tasaku. 2011. A grammar of Warrongo. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110238778Search in Google Scholar
van Egmond, Marie-Elaine. 2012. Enindhilyakwa phonology, morphosyntax and genetic position. Sydney: University of Sydney doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2010. The noun phrase in Umpithamu. Presentation at workshop on noun phrase structure, Aarhus Universitet.Search in Google Scholar
Waters, Bruce. 1989. Djinang and Djinba: A grammatical and historical perspective (Pacific Linguistics C-114). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Wilkins, David. 1989. Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): Studies in the structure and semantics of grammar. Canberra: Australian National University doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Melanie. 1991. Djambarrpuyngu: A Yolngu variety of Northern Australia. Sydney: University of Sydney doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Williams, Corinne. 1980. A grammar of Yuwaalaraay (Pacific Linguistics B-74). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Wordick, Frank. 1982. The Yindjibarndi language (Pacific Linguistics C-71). Canberra: Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar
Yallop, Colin. 1975. The Narinjari language 1864–1964. In A. P. Elkin (ed.), Narinjari: An outline of the language studied by George Taplin, with Taplin’s notes and comparative table. Sydney: University of Sydney.Search in Google Scholar
Yallop, Colin. 1977. Alyawarra: An Aboriginal language of central Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Search in Google Scholar
Zandvoort, Frank. 1999. A grammar of Matngele. Armidale: University of New England MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- From rarum to rarissimum: An unexpected zero person marker
- Noun phrase constituency in Australian languages: A typological study
- Associated motion in South America: Typological and areal perspectives
- Review Article
- Linguistic typology: The Oxford handbook
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- From rarum to rarissimum: An unexpected zero person marker
- Noun phrase constituency in Australian languages: A typological study
- Associated motion in South America: Typological and areal perspectives
- Review Article
- Linguistic typology: The Oxford handbook
