Home Linguistics & Semiotics A recursive prefix in Neasu
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

A recursive prefix in Neasu

  • Matthias Gerner ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: March 24, 2022
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

Neasu (Tibeto-Burman: China) exhibits a prefix that derives new coordinators from existing ones by elaborately changing their subcategorial properties. Prefixed and unprefixed coordinators are distinguished by the complement they take (±verbal, ±CoP) and the possibility of being stacked up at least twice (±stackable). A prefixed coordinator has two of these three features switched from “−” to “+”, when compared with its unprefixed counterpart and thus see its ability to occur as the head of recursive coordination structures increased. The prefix ao- is an operator of recursion.


Corresponding author: Matthias Gerner, School of Humanities, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, P. R. of China, E-mail:

References

Abraham, Werner. 1979. But. Studia Linguistica 33. 89–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9582.1979.tb00678.x.Search in Google Scholar

Adger, David & Daniel Harbour. 2008. Why phi? In Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds.), Phi theory: Phi features across modules and interfaces, 1–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199213764.003.0001Search in Google Scholar

Al Khalaf, Eman. 2015. Coordination and linear order. Newark: University of Delaware Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 1. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark & Kirsten Fudeman. 2005. What is morphology? Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Beard, Robert. 1998. Derivation. In Andrew Spencer & Arnold Zwicky (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 44–65. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9781405166348.ch2Search in Google Scholar

Borsley, Robert D. 2005. Against ConjP. Lingua 115. 461–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.011.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. (Republished in 1993 by Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin).10.1515/9783110884166Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam & Howard Lasnik. 1995. The theory of principles and parameters. In Noam Chomsky (ed.), The minimalist program, 13–127. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Clements, George. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. Phonological Yearbook 2. 225–252. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675700000440.Search in Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166119Search in Google Scholar

Curzan, Anne & Michael Adams. 2009. How English works: A linguistic introduction. New York: Pearson Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Dik, Simon C. 1968. Coordination: Its Implications for the Theory of General Linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland publishing company.Search in Google Scholar

Everett, Daniel. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology 46. 621–646. https://doi.org/10.1086/431525.Search in Google Scholar

Everett, Daniel. 2009. Pirahã culture and grammar: A response to some criticisms. Language 85. 405–442. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0104.Search in Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of language, 73–113. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Grootveld, Marjan. 1992. On the representation of of coordination. In Reineke Bok-Bennema & Roeland van Hout (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1992, 61–73. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/avt.9.08groSearch in Google Scholar

Grundy, Peter. 2000. Doing pragmatics. New York: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Halle, Morris. 1973. Prolegomena to a theory of word-formation. Linguistic Inquiry 4. 3–16.Search in Google Scholar

Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth Hale & S. Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from building 20, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In Andrew Carnie & Heidi Harley (eds.), Papers on phonology and morphology, 275–288. Cambridge: MITWPL 21.Search in Google Scholar

Harley, Heidi & Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. Person and number pronouns: A feature geometric analysis. Language 78(3). 482–526. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0158.Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Understanding morphology. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. Coordinating constructions: an overview. In Martin Haspelmath (ed.), Coordinating Constructions, Typological Studies in Language, 58, 3–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.58.03hasSearch in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Nominal and verbal conjunction. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures, 262–265. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://wals.info/chapter/64.Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Coordination. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. II, 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511619434.001Search in Google Scholar

Hauser, Marc, Noam Chomsky & Tecumseh Fitch. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298. 1569–1579. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5598.1569.Search in Google Scholar

Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenossischen Forschung, 487–535. Berlin: de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110126969.7.487Search in Google Scholar

Heim, Irene. 2008. Features of bound pronouns. In Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds.), Phi theory: Phi features across modules and interfaces, 35–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199213764.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X’-Syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Johannessen, Janne B. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198237099.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Klavans, Judith L. 1995. On clitics and cliticization: The interaction of morphology, phonology, and syntax. New York: Garland Pub.Search in Google Scholar

Kruspe, Nicole. 2004. A grammar of Semelai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511550713Search in Google Scholar

Matisoff, James. 1989. Tone, intonation, and sound symbolism in Lahu: Loading the syllable canon. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 12(2). 147–163.10.1017/CBO9780511751806.009Search in Google Scholar

Munn, Alan. 1987. Coordinate structure and X-bar theory. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 4. McGill University.Search in Google Scholar

Munn, Alan. 1993. Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures. College Park: University of Maryland Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Munn, Alan. 1999. First conjunct agreement: Against a clausal analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 643–668. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554246.Search in Google Scholar

Press, Ian. 1986. A grammar of Modern Breton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110884975Search in Google Scholar

Rich, Elaine. 2007. Automata, computability, and complexity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Search in Google Scholar

Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on Variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Sagey, Elisabeth. 1986. The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Sauerland, Uli. 2008. On the semantic markedness of phi-features. In Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds.), Phi theory: Phi features across modules and interfaces, 57–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199213764.003.0003Search in Google Scholar

Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.10.1515/9783110871661-008Search in Google Scholar

Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Toosarvanda, Maziar. 2013. Corrective but coordinates clauses not always but sometimes. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31. 827–863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-013-9198-4.Search in Google Scholar

Van Gelderen, Elly. 2017. Syntax: An introduction to minimalism. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/z.214Search in Google Scholar

Vicente, Luis. 2010. On the syntax of adversative coordination. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28. 381–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9094-0.Search in Google Scholar

Whaley, Lindsay. 1997. Introduction to typology: The unity and diversity of language. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781452233437Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Niina N. 2010. Coordination in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2022-03-24
Published in Print: 2022-06-27

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 7.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/tlr-2022-2086/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button