{"id":16,"date":"2014-12-12T09:15:45","date_gmt":"2014-12-12T09:15:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/transparency.humanities.uva.nl\/?page_id=16"},"modified":"2015-03-27T11:25:34","modified_gmt":"2015-03-27T11:25:34","slug":"discontinuity","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/transparency.humanities.uva.nl\/discontinuity\/","title":{"rendered":"Discontinuity"},"content":{"rendered":"

Discontinuity<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\t \n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\n\t \t\t\t\n\t \t \t\t\n\t \t \t\t\n\t \t \t\t\n\t \t \t\t\n\t \t \t\t\n\t \t \t\t\n\t \t \t\t\n\t \t \t\t\n\t \t \t\t\n\t \t \t\t
id<\/th>\n\t \t\tLanguage<\/th>\n\t \t\tExtraction and\/or extraposition <\/th>\n\t \t\tRaising<\/th>\n\t \t\tCircumfixes<\/th>\n\t \t\tInfixes<\/th>\n\t \t\t\t<\/tr>\n <\/thead>\n\t
\n\t\t\t4\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tBantawa\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tExtraposition and extraction are not allowed in Bantawa (M. Doornenbal, personal communication, September 18, 2013). \t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tThere is no raising construction in Bantawa. In example (7), it is clear that the first person singular is the subject of the main clause, whereas Syam is the subject of the embedded clause, as Syam has an ergative case marker. However, in (8), Syam is the Undergoer, functioning as the object of the main clause or the embedded clause, but seeing that word order is the same, it is unlikely that Syam belongs to the main clause rather than to the embedded clause. Of course, this is not conclusive evidence, as word order in Bantawa is strongly based on pragmatics. However, word order does not seem to have any pragmatic effects here. Therefore, I will assume that Bantawa has no argument raising. Doornenbal (2009: 202)(1) \u0268\u014bka Syam-\u0294a k\u0259l\u0259m p\u0268-\u00d8-\u0294o kha-\u00d8-\u014b. 1SG S.-ERG pen give-PST-NMLZ see-PST-1SG \u2018I saw that Syam gave a pen.\u2019(2) \u0268\u014bka Syam k\u0259l\u0259m \u0268-pu-\u0294a-\u0294o kha-\u00d8-\u014b. 1SG S. pen 3.A-give-PST-NMLZ see-PST-1SG \u2018I saw someone give Syam a pen.\u2019\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tBantawa has circumfixes, e.g. the predicate markers t\u0268-\u2026-ci \u20182DU.NPST\u2019, t\u0268-\u2026-in \u20182PL.NPST\u2019, and t\u0268-\u2026-aci \u20182DU.PST\u2019 (Doornenbal 2009: 145). \t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tBantawa has what Doornenbal (2009: 70) after Bickel and Nichols (2006) calls interpositions: \u201cformatives placed between the two parts of a bipartite stem\u201d (Doornenbal 2009: 70). An example is given in (9).Doornenbal (2009: 71)(9)\t\u0268\u014b-m\u0268k-m\u0268wa\tmy-eye-hair\t\u2018my eyebrow\u2019Interpositions should be seen as a subtype of infixes, that are special as they are inserted into morphological units rather than phonological ones. The difference between interpositions and infixes is thus analogous to that between prepositions and prefixes, and postpositions and suffixes. To me, the difference between an interposition and an interclitic is unclear, but I will not address this matter further, since it is not relevant for the analysis of transparency.\tThere is also a regular infix in Bantawa. <-sa> ~ <-so> is a pronominal marker that is inserted between certain third person pronouns and ergative or genitive case endings, e.g. o-ci \u2018this-PL\u2019, o-sa-\u0294a \u2018this-PRN-ERG\u2019 (Doornenbal 2009: 101ff.).\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t<\/tr>\n\t \t\t\t
\n\t\t\t5\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tBininj Gun-Wok\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tThere is extraposition in Bininj Gun-Wok, e.g. in example (8). Semantically speaking, the head bininj and the modifying relative clause \u2018belong together\u2019. They are, however, not morphosyntactically adjacent. Note furthermore that the existence of a relativiser is an additional argument for actual subordination in Bininj Gun-Wok.Evans (2003: 643)(8)\tna-mege\tbininj\tga-m-re,\t\t\t\t\t\tna-wu\t\tgogok\t\tbi-yame-ng\tI-DEM\t\t\tman\t\t3-hither-go.NPST\t\tI-REL\t\t\tbrother\t\t3>3.PST-spear-PST.PFV\t\u2018The man is coming, whom your brother speared.\u2019\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tI found no examples of argument raising in Bininj Gun-Wok. Since complementation is highly restricted anyway (cf. Section 3.1.4), I assume that Bininj Gun-Wok does not allow argument raising.\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tThere are no circumfixes in Bininj Gun-Wok (cf. Evans 2003: 1).\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tThere are no infixes in Bininj Gun-Wok (cf. Evans 2003: 1).\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t<\/tr>\n\t \t\t\t
\n\t\t\t6\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tChukchi\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tExtraposition or extraction is not allowed in Chukchi. M. J. Dunn (personal communication, January 25, 2013) points at example (4), which could be argued to contain an extraposed relative clause \u2018which were torn\u2019.Dunn (1999: 268)(4)\t\u2026 \tpuc\u0294e-t \t\t\t\t\tt\u0259ni-tku-jw-\u0259-ninet \t\t\t\t\t\tcimir\u0294et-\u0259-l\u0294-\u0259-t \t\t\tsleeve-ABS.3PL \tmend-ITER-COLL-\u0259-3SG>3PL \ttear-\u0259-PTCP-\u0259-ABS.3PL \t\u2018She mended the sleeves which were torn\u2019However, Dunn (idem) states that this relative clause might as well be seen as an independent nominal constituent functioning as a repeated object. Then, a better translation would be \u2018She mended the sleeves, the torn ones.\u2019 In this scenario, there is no extraposition, since the constituent \u2018the torn ones\u2019 is independent and does not form a whole with \u2018sleeves\u2019. Since there is no pressing argument to assume extraposition in Chukchi, I will take it that it is not allowed.\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tThere is no argument raising in Chukchi. In fact, Chukchi does not have syntactically dependent clauses (cf. Section 4.1.4) so that raising is impossible \u2013 the feature does not apply. M. J. Dunn (personal communication, January 25, 2013) confirms this.\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tChukchi has circumfixes, e.g. the negating circumfixes lu\u014b-\u2026-(t)e and e-\u2026-ke (Dunn 1999: 325).\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tThere are no infixes in Chukchi.\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t<\/tr>\n\t \t\t\t
\n\t\t\t7\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tDutch\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tExtraposition is allowed in Dutch, as illustrated by example (4).(4)\theb \tje\t\tdie \tman\t\tgezien\t\t[die \tdoor \t\t\trood \t\treed]?\thave\tyou\tthat\t\tman\t\tseen\t\tthat\t\tthrough\tred\t\t\tdrove\t\u2018Did you see that man that drove through the red traffic light?\u2019\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tDutch also exhibits argument raising, as illustrated by example (5).(5)\ta.\t\thet\t\t\tlijk-t\t\t\t\tdat\t\t\tde\t\t\t\tpaard-en\t\twit\t\t\tzijn\t\t\t3SG.N\tseem-3SG\tCOMP\t\tthe.PL\t\thorse-PL\t\twhite\t\tbe.PRS.PL\t\t\t\u2018It seems that the horses are white.\u2019\tb.\t\tde\t\t\t\tpaard-en\t\tlijk-en\t\t\twit \t\t(te \t\tzijn)\t\t\tthe.PL\t\thorse-PL\t\tseem-PL\t\twhite\t\tINF\t\tbe.INF\t\t\t\u2018The horses seem (to be) white.\u2019\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tCircumfixation is present in Dutch, e.g. ge-maak-t \u2018PTCP.PST-make-PTCP.PST\u2019. Another circumfix, ge-N-te, turns nouns into collective nouns, e.g. een steen \u2018a stone\u2019 vs. gesteente \u2018stone\u2019.\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tThere are no infixes in Dutch.\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t<\/tr>\n\t \t\t\t
\n\t\t\t8\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tEgyptian Arabic\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tEgyptian Arabic allows for extraposition of a part of a constituent away from its head. An example is given in (5), in which the long relative clause (between square brackets) is placed after the verb, instead of adjacent to its head, \u2018man\u2019.Gary & Gamal-Eldin (1981: 55) \u2013 bracketing mine(5)\t\u0294ir-r\u02e4aagil\tda\t\t\u0294abuu-ja\t\t\t\t\t[l[\u0101]bis\t\t\t\u0294ig-galabijja\t\t\u0294id-dabalaan\tDEF-man\t\tthat\t\tfather-POSS.1SG\twearing\t\tDEF-galabeya\tDEF-linen\t\t\u0294il-mi\u03c7at\u02e4[t\u02e4]a[t\u02e4]a\t\t\u0295ala\t\u0294azra\u0294\t\tbit[\u0101]\u0295it\t\t\t\t\u0294a\u03c7uu-ja\t\t\t\t\t\ts[\u0101]mi]\t\tDEF-striped\t\t\t\t\ton\t\tblue\t\t\tbelonging_to\tbrother-POSS.1SG\tS.\t\u2018That man who is wearing the blue striped linen galabeya belonging to my brother \tS\u0101mi is my father.\u2019\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tThere is no true raising in Egyptian Arabic, as illustrated in example (6). The subject of the embedded clause, \u2018I\u2019, is the subject of the main clause in (6b). However, it is not raised out of the embedded clause, since it is still present at that location; rather, the subject of the embedded clause is copied to the main clause. The embedded clause is not discontinuous, and therefore, I do not count this as argument raising.Wise (1975: 70)(6)\ta.\t\tmi\u0283\t\t\tmumkin\ta-\u0295mil\t\tkida\t\t\tNEG\t\tpossible\t1SG-do\t\tlike_that\t\t\t\u2018It is not possible that I do so.\u2019\tb.\t\tana\t\tmi\u0283\t\tmumkin\ta-\u0295mil\t\tkida\t\t\t1SG\tNEG\tpossible\t1SG-do\t\tlike_that\t\t\t\u2018It is not possible that I do so.\u2019 (Lit.: \u201cMe it is not possible that I do that.\u201d)\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tThere are circumfixes in Egyptian Arabic, e.g. several person and number markers and the negation marker ma-V-\u0283 \u2018NEG\u2019 that attaches to perfective and imperative verb forms.\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tLexical stems in Arabic colloquial varieties consist of three consonants (called roots or radicals), that are integrated in a CV-pattern (e.g. CaCaC \u2018PFV\u2019) that determines the parts-of-speech properties and the exact meaning of the word. For example, KTB \u2018write, book\u2019 combined with the perfective pattern CaCaC gives katab-\u00d8 \u2018write.PST.PFV-3SG, he wrote\u2019 (perhaps a more adequate representation is k< a > t < a >b \u2018write\u2019), but with the imperfective pattern CCiC we get ji-ktib \u20183SG-write.PRS.IPFV, he is writing\u2019 (or: ji-kt< i>b, \u20183SG-write\u2019), and the pattern CiCaaC results in kitaab \u2018write.NMLZ\u2019 or k< i>tb \u2018write\u2019 (Gary & Gamal-Eldin 1981: 115). The described CV-patterns have been analysed in the morphological literature as a type of infixes called transfixes (e.g. Haspelmath 2002: 23), i.e. inflectional affixes that are integrated into the root consonants to form stems. These patterns create discontinuity in their hosts, since they prevent the consonantal roots from being adjacent, which is the reason to count them here under infixation.\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t<\/tr>\n\t \t\t\t
\n\t\t\t9\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tFongbe\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tE. Aboh (personal communication, February 25, 2012) indicates that extraposition is not easily allowed in Fongbe. However, he does give example (5) from Gungbe, which is in this respect again similar to Fongbe.Gungbe \u2013 E. Aboh (personal communication, February 25, 2012)(5)\t\u00f9n\t\u0256\u0254\u0300\t\t\tx\u00f3\t\t\tn\u00e1\t\ts\u00far\u00f9\t[\u0256\u0254\u0300\t\tv\u00ed\t\t\t\u00e9t\u0254\u0300n\t\tn\u00e1\t\tw\u00e1\t\t\t\u00e9gb\u00e8]\tI\t\tspeak\tword\t\tto\t\tS.\t\tthat\t\tchild\t\this\t\t\twill\tcome\t\ttoday\t\u2018I told Suru that his child will return today.\u2019The object x\u00f3 \u2018word\u2019 and the modifying relative clause arguably \u2018belong together\u2019 semantically, but the relative clause is extraposed, possibly because of its weight. I will assume that extraposition is possible in Fongbe.\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tFongbe exhibits argument raising (Lefebvre & Brousseau 2002: 277). In example (6), all argument are in the clause where they semantically belong, while in (7), an Undergoer argument is raised out of the embedded clause to function as the subject of the main clause.Lefebvre & Brousseau (2002: 278)(6)\t\u00e9\t\thw\u025b\u0300\t[j]\u025b\u0300\t\t\u0256\u0254\u0300\t\tn\u00fas\u00fan\u00fb\t\t\u0254\u0301\t\t\tm\u025b\u0300\tit\t\tlack\tsalt\t\tat\t\t\tsoup\t\t\tDET\t\tin\t\u2018It lacks salt in the soup.\u2019(7)\t[j]\u025b\u0300\t\thw\u025b\u0300\t\u0256\u0254\u0300\tn\u00fas\u00fan\u00fb\t\t\u0254\u0301\t\t\t\tm\u025b\u0300\tsalt\t\tlack\tat\t\tsoup\t\t\tDET\t\tin\t\u2018Salt is lacking in the soup.\u2019\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tThere are no circumfixes in Fongbe (Lefebvre & Brousseau 2002: 187).\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tThere are no infixes in Fongbe (Lefebvre & Brousseau 2002: 187).\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t<\/tr>\n\t \t\t\t
\n\t\t\t10\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tGeorgian\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tExtraction or extraposition of a part of a constituent out of that constituent is allowed in Georgian (B. G. Hewitt, personal communication, November 27, 2012).\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tHarris claims that there is argument raising in Georgian, and gives examples like (7). Supposedly, the object of the embedded clause in (7a), \u2018good examples\u2019, is raised to be the subject of the main clause in (7b). Harris (1981: 54)(7)\ta.\t\t\u010dem-tvis\t\u0292nel-i=a,\t\t\t\t\t\t\tk\u2019arg-i\t\t\t\tmagalit-eb-is\t\t\tmo-\u0292ebn-a\t\t\tme-for\t\thard-NOM=COP.3SG\t\tgood-ATTR\t\texample-PL-GEN\t\tPFV-find-NOM\t\t\t\u2018It is hard for me to find good examples.\u2019\tb.\t\tk\u2019arg-i\t\t\t\tmagalit-eb-i\t\t\t\t\t\u0292nel-i=a\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tgood-ATTR\t\texample-PL-NOM\t\thard-NOM=COP.3SG\t\t\t\t\t\tmo-sa-\u0292ebn-ad\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u010dem-tvis\t\t\t\tPFV-FUT.PTCP-find-ADV\t\t\tme-for\t\t\t\u2018Good examples are hard for me to find.\u2019However, I disagree with this analysis: \u2018good examples\u2019 cannot be the subject of the main clause in (7b), as it would trigger plural agreement on the predicate \u2018hard\u2019, which it does not. Rather, I think that \u2018good examples\u2019 is in a non-default position, perhaps for pragmatic reasons, which is perfectly possible in Georgian since word order is relatively flexible. I assume, then, that raising is not allowed in Georgian.\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tGeorgian has circumfixes, e.g. the pronominal verb marker g-\u2026-t \u20182PL\u2019 (Hewitt 1995: 128).\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tThere are no infixes in Georgian.\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t<\/tr>\n\t \t\t\t
\n\t\t\t11\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tHuallaga Quechua\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tAs Weber (1989: 250) explains, phrases may be discontinuous in Quechua, but if they are, each separate part gets a case marker of its own. Therefore, the separate units are in fact independent phrases themselves, and we should speak of nominal apposition rather than discontinuity. This is illustrated by example (5). In (5a), there is an NP with a relative clause containing a nominalisation. In (5b), this relative clause is separate from its head, but since it is marked for accusative case, it can be seen as an independent argument. The translations reflect this difference.Weber (1989: 250)(5)\ta.\t\tmaqa-sha-n\t\t\t\truna-ta\t\t\trika-:\t\t\thit-NMLZ-3.POSS\t\tman-ACC\t\tsee-1\t\t\t\u2018I see the man who hit him.\u2019\tb.\t\truna-ta\t\t\trika-:\t\tmaqa-sha-n-ta\t\t\tman-ACC\t\tsee-1\t\thit-NMLZ-3.POSS-ACC\t\t\t\u2018I see the man, the hitting one.\u2019\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tThere is raising in Huallaga Quechua, as demonstrated by (6). Example (6a) contains a main clause with a subordinated infinitive, marked for a first person Object. In (6b), the main clause is also marked for a first person Object, while this does not belong at that position semantically. Strictly speaking, the object is not raised out of the subordinate clause, since it is still present in the subordinate clause as well. Rather, the object argument is copied to a semantically inappropriate position.Weber (1989: 237)(6)\ta.\t\tmaqa-ma-y-ta\t\t\t\tmuna-n\t\t\thit-1.OBJ-INF-ACC\t\twant-3\t\t\t\u2018He wants to hit me.\u2019\tb.\t\tmaqa-(ma)-y-ta\t\t\tmuna-ma-n\t\t\thit-1.OBJ-INF-ACC\t\twant-1.OBJ-3\t\t\t\u2018He wants to hit me.\u2019 (Lit.: \u201cHe wants me to hit me.\u201d)\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tWeber (1989: 9) states that all affixation is suffixing in Huallaga Quechua. This indicates that there are no circumfixes.\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tWeber (1989: 9) states that all affixation is suffixing in Huallaga Quechua. This indicates that there are no infixes.\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t<\/tr>\n\t \t\t\t
\n\t\t\t12\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tJapanese\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tS. Iwasaki (personal communication, October 17, 2013) states that extraposition and extraction are not allowed in Japanese, and provides example (3).S. Iwasaki (personal communication, October 17, 2013)(3)\ta.\takai\t\tseetaa\t\to\t\t\t\tkita\t\totokonoko\tni\t\tkinoo\t\t\tatta\t\tred\t\t\tsweater\tACC\t\twear\t\tboy\t\t\t\tDAT\tyesterday\tmet\t\t\u2018I met that boy, who was wearing a red sweater, yesterday.\tb.\t*akai\t\tseetaa\t\to\t\t\t\tkita\t\t\tkinoo\t\t\totokonoko\tni\t\tatta\t\tred\t\t\tsweater\tACC\t\twear\t\tyesterday\tboy\t\t\t\tDAT\tmet \t\t\u2018I met that boy yesterday, who was wearing a red sweater.\u2019\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tI have not seen examples of argument raising in Japanese. S. Iwasaki (personal communication, October 17, 2013) confirms that raising does not occur.\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tThere are no circumfixes in Japanese; Iwasaki (2002: 45) states that affixes are either suffixes or prefixes.\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tThere are no infixes in Japanese; Iwasaki (2002: 45) states that affixes are either suffixes or prefixes.\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t<\/tr>\n\t \t\t\t
\n\t\t\t13\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tKayardild\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tEvans (1995: 234) states that a Kayardild NP must be realised as one contiguous element, thus disallowing discontinuous NPs, \u201cexcept under special discourse conditions\u201d. Some modifying elements may be found separated from their heads, as in (7), but since all units are marked for case, they can be seen as independent NPs. Under that analysis, (7) displays apposition rather than extraposition.Evans (1995: 332)(7)\tniya\t\t\t\tdangka-na\t\t\t\t\t\tkaba-tharra\t\tjalji-nurru-na\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNOM.3SG\t\tperson-MODC.ABL\t\tfind-PST\t\t\t\tshade-ASSOC-MODC.ABL\t\t\tyiiwi-n-kina\t\tsleep-NMLZ-MODC.ABL\t\u2018He found the person in the shade, the sleeping one.\u2019I have not found examples of the special discourse conditions that Evans mentions, but I assume that if those conditions cause any dislocation of NP modifiers, they are still cases of apposition rather than extraction or extraposition. Hence, Kayardild is transparent with respect to this feature.\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tThere is argument raising in Kayardild, as shown in example (8). In this sentence, the third person singular pronoun is syntactically an argument of the main clause, which is proven by the fact that it has modal case, as all arguments in the VP (cf. Section 11.1.2), while semantically speaking, it is the Actor argument of the embedded clause. This is a typical case of subject-to-object raising.Evans (1995: 502)(8)\tngada\t\t\tkurri-ja\t\tniwan-ji,\t\t\t\t\tNOM.1SG\tsee-REAL\t\t3SG-MODC.LOC\t\tnatha-wurrka\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tdana-thurrk\tcamp-MODC.LOC.COMPC.OBL\t\tleave-IMMED.COMPC.OBL\t\u2018I saw him leaving the camp.\u2019\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tThe only type of affixes in Kayardild is suffixes (Evans 1995: 1). Hence, there are no circumfixes.\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t \t\t\n\t\t\tThe only type of affixes in Kayardild is suffixes (Evans 1995: 1). Hence, there are no infixes.\t\t<\/td>\n\t \t<\/tr>\n\t \t\t <\/tbody>\n \n<\/table>\n\n\n\n<\/div>