27.2730, Review: Morphology; Semantics; Syntax: Wondem (2014)

[The LINGUIST List via LINGUIST]

LINGUIST List: Vol-27-2730. Fri Jun 24 2016. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 27.2730, Review: Morphology; Semantics; Syntax: Wondem (2014)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2016
                   25 years of LINGUIST List!
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Michael Czerniakowski <mike at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:25:57
From: Myriam Dali [mdali021 at uottawa.ca]
Subject: The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36118697


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/26/26-3756.html

AUTHOR: Mulusew Asratie Wondem
TITLE: The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Amharic and Geez
SERIES TITLE: LOT dissertation series
PUBLISHER: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT)
YEAR: 2014

REVIEWER: Myriam Dali, University of Ottawa

Reviews Editor: Robert A. Cote

INTRODUCTION

This doctoral dissertation, entitled “The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in
Amharic and Geez”, by Maulusew Asratie Wondem, provides a syntactic analysis
of non-verbal predication in two Ethiopian Semitic languages, namely Amharic
and Geez. Amharic and Geez have copula verbs that differ in terms of their
agreement system, the types of predicates they occur with, and the
case-marking of the predicates. Additionally, Geez can exhibit non-verbal
predication without a copula. Following Bower’s (1993) proposal of a uniform
analysis of the copular system,where the small clause is assumed to be headed
by a functional head known as Pred0,, the author addresses the following
question: If copular constructions have a uniform structure, how is the
morpho-syntactic variation that we see in the non-verbal predication system of
Amharic and Geez explained? The aim of the dissertation is to provide a
syntactic analysis for Amharic and Geez copular analysis to explain: 

- Why the copular elements in Amharic and Geez differ in terms of their
agreement system and type of predicate they show up with.
- What is the status of copulaless clauses in Geez. Why the copular elements
in Geez differ in their category.
- What determines the case-marking patterns of NPs/APs that show up with he
different copulas.

SUMMARY

The dissertation is divided into three parts, each containing two chapters. In
Chapter 1, data from non-verbal predication in Amharic and Geez is presented.
Amharic has three copular verbs that are used to indicate tense: näw, allä,
and näbbär. They differ in terms of their agreement system and the type of
predicate they occur with. Geez has verbal, pronominal, and prepositional
copulas that also vary in terms of their category, agreement system, and type
of predicate they occur with, just like in Amharic. In addition to the use of
verbal copulas, Geez can also exhibit non-verbal predication without a copula.
The theoretical framework (Chomsy’s Minimalist Program) and the review of
related literature are also presented in this chapter.

Chapter 2 discusses the morpho-syntax of aspect, tense, and agreement in
Amharic and Geez. The two canonical verbal forms are perfective and
imperfective. The author observes that phi-features are expressed with
suffixes in imperfective verbs, and that perfective verbs and auxiliaries
never occur together, pointing to the conclusion that they compete for a
single syntactic position. He argues that perfective verbs move up to T0,
while imperfective verbs remain in lower positions. He also shows that subject
agreement is related to aspect or tense, while object agreement is related to
affectedness In addition, genitive agreement is the counterpart of subject and
object agreement with nominal heads. Finally, he proposes, based on Geez, that
the phi-features of agreement must be defined in terms of proximity,
non-speaker, and diminutive/augmentative features, rather than person, number,
and gender features. 

The second part of the dissertation focuses on Amharic. In Chapter 3, the
author discusses the non-verbal predication system of Amharic, with a focus on
the differences between copular verbs with regards to their agreement system
and the type of predicate they occur with. He argues that their differences
result from the fact that the copular verbs are personal (näw) and impersonal
(allä, näbbär) verbs on one hand, but that they involve different types of
raising, namely subject and possessor raising, on the other hand. 

Chapter 4 discusses the variation in case-marking of NPs/DPs and APs that show
up with the copulas in Amharic. The author follows Matushansky (2008) and
Citko (2008) in arguing that predicate Case alternation in Amharic is related
to the eventive vs. non-enventive interpretations. Furthermore, he argues that
the eventive interpretation is introduced by an independent functional head
evP, and that accusative case-marking of predicates is determined by the
presence of this functional head. In the absence of the evP head, it is
claimed that the predicate receives the default nominative Case. 

The third and final part of the dissertation deals with the data from Geez. In
Chapter 5, the author discusses copulaless clauses and the two verbal copulas
in Geez. He argues that copulaless are full clauses, and that the two copular
verbs are subject and possessor raising verbs. This suggests that Geez
exhibits two types of BE’s: one selecting small clause complements and
involving subject raising, and the other selecting NP complements and
involving possessor raising.

Chapter 6 deals with the syntax of Geez copular clauses which contain
pronominal and prepositional copulas. The author shows that these copulas are
used to indicate inherent relationships. He claims that the copulas introduce
a functional projection of duration (DurP) and argues that pronominal copulas
involve subject raising, while prepositional copulas involve possessor
raising. 

Chapter 7 summarizes the major claims made in the dissertation and discusses
some theoretical implications of such claims. First, the analysis that is
provided for Amharic and Geez copular clauses sheds light on theoretical
assumptions on the syntactic structure of copula constructions and the role of
copular elements. The widely accepted analysis of copular constructions is
that they involve a small clause and a copula inserted in order to support T0.
The analysis of copular clauses in Amharic and Geez indicates three
dimensions, where the unified analysis may vary. First, it suggests that
copular clauses do not necessarily involve small clausesbut can also take NP
complements, which can also take a possessor that can undergo raising. Second,
the subject of the small clause does not necessarily raise to spec, TP. It can
also raise to an intermediate functional projection, namely AffP, responsible
for affectedness. Third, the contrast between verbal and non-verbal copulas in
Geez suggest that copular clauses may not be marked for tense, aspect, or
mood. The analysis of non-verbal predication Amharic and Geez also sheds light
on the relation between BE and HAVE. The provided analysis shows that BE and
HAVE have the same underlying structure. Their difference is due to whether
the possessor raising has taken place or not: HAVE is an existential BE, which
involves possessor raising. 

EVALUATION

In his dissertation, Wondem, in addition to providing a good critical review
of related literature, successfully achieved his goal of providing an analysis
to explain the morpho-syntactic variation that we see in the non-verbal
predication system of Amharic and Geez,. Non-verbal predication cannot be
handled without a cross-linguistic perspective, and the data from Amharic and
Geez that is provided raises some important theoretical questions about the
widely accepted claim that copular constructions involve a small clause and a
copula that is inserted to support T0.

This book proves to be an excellent account of non-verbal predication, and it
will be in much interest to linguists interested specifically in this topic
and more generally in the syntax of Semitic languages. It will be a valuable
resource for professors and students, as its subject, clarity, and style are
very well-suited for teaching purposes.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

First-year PHD student in linguistics at the University of Ottawa, interested
in the syntax and semantics of plurals and in how gender interacts with number
in Arabic and Maltese.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
                       Fund Drive 2016
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

This year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $79,000. This money 
will go to help keep the List running by supporting all of our 
Student Editors for the coming year.

Don't forget to check out Fund Drive 2016 site!

http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/

For all information on donating, including information on how to 
donate by check, money order, PayPal or wire transfer, please visit:
http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

The LINGUIST List is under the umbrella of Indiana University and
as such can receive donations through Indiana University Foundation. We
also collect donations via eLinguistics Foundation, a registered 501(c)
Non Profit organization with the federal tax number 45-4211155. Either
way, the donations can be offset against your federal and sometimes your
state tax return (U.S. tax payers only). For more information visit the
IRS Web-Site, or contact your financial advisor.

Many companies also offer a gift matching program, such that
they will match any gift you make to a non-profit organization.
Normally this entails your contacting your human resources department
and sending us a form that the Indiana University Foundation fills in
and returns to your employer. This is generally a simple administrative
procedure that doubles the value of your gift to LINGUIST, without
costing you an extra penny. Please take a moment to check if
your company operates such a program.


Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-27-2730	
----------------------------------------------------------