Three subject asymmetries in Limbum Johannes Hein - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Three subject asymmetries in Limbum Johannes Hein johannes.hein@uni-potsdam.de ACAL 50 Vancouver, 22–25 May 2019 Funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaf (DFG), Collaborative Research Centre SFB 1287, Project C05. J. Hein Subject asymmetries in Limbum 22–25 May 2019 1 / 26

Outline Structure of the talk ❖ (Very) short background on Limbum ❖ An apparent Anti-Agreement effect ❖ Pronouns, resumption, and agreement ❖ Focus and movement ❖ Conclusion J. Hein Subject asymmetries in Limbum 22–25 May 2019 2 / 26

Background on Limbum Background on Limbum ❖ Grassfields Bantu (Niger-Congo) language spoken in the North Western region of Cameroon. ❖ About 73 000–90 000 (Fransen 1995: 21) / 130 000 (according to a 2005 census, Eberhard et al. 2019). ❖ There are three level tones: H, M, L (1) H: mí ‘in’, ‘on’ (1) M: t¯ u ‘head’ L: rò ‘stream’ and five contour tones: HL, ML, LL (low falling), HM, LM (Fransen 1995: 73) 1 (2) HL: shwâ ‘weaver’ bz ` ML: ¯ u ‘co-wife’ LL: ŋkf ‚ u ‘bachelor’ HM: kú¯ u ‘funnel’ LM: sò¯ o ‘basket’ 1 HM and LM only occur on syllables with long vowels. J. Hein Subject asymmetries in Limbum 22–25 May 2019 3 / 26

Background on Limbum Limbum syntax ❖ Limbum’s basic word order is S-TAM-V-O-Adv (3) nìŋkòr. 2 b Ÿ o f ¯ (3) Njíŋw ` E f ¯ O à m¯ u y ¯ E O see children yesterday woman det sm pst2 det ‘The woman saw the children yesterday.’ ❖ Adverbs and (question) particles are always clause-final. ❖ DPs are head-final. ❖ The subject is doubled by a subject marker (SM) immediately preceding the TAM-element in some TAMs (e.g. all three past tenses; present progressive). 2 All data stem from one informant from Nkambe, Cameroon, who claims to speak the Central dialect of Limbum. J. Hein Subject asymmetries in Limbum 22–25 May 2019 4 / 26

Background on Limbum Limbum syntax ❖ Limbum’s basic word order is S-TAM-V-O-Adv (3) nìŋkòr. 2 Njíŋw ` f ¯ à m¯ u y ¯ b Ÿ o f ¯ (3) E O E O woman see children yesterday det sm pst2 det ‘The woman saw the children yesterday.’ ❖ Adverbs and (question) particles are always clause-final. ❖ DPs are head-final. ❖ The subject is doubled by a subject marker (SM) immediately preceding the TAM-element in some TAMs (e.g. all three past tenses; present progressive). 2 All data stem from one informant from Nkambe, Cameroon, who claims to speak the Central dialect of Limbum. J. Hein Subject asymmetries in Limbum 22–25 May 2019 4 / 26

Background on Limbum Limbum syntax ❖ Limbum’s basic word order is S-TAM-V-O-Adv (3) nìŋkòr. 2 Njíŋw ` f ¯ à m¯ u y ¯ b Ÿ o f ¯ (3) E O E O woman see children yesterday det sm pst2 det ‘The woman saw the children yesterday.’ ❖ Adverbs and (question) particles are always clause-final. ❖ DPs are head-final. ❖ The subject is doubled by a subject marker (SM) immediately preceding the TAM-element in some TAMs (e.g. all three past tenses; present progressive). 2 All data stem from one informant from Nkambe, Cameroon, who claims to speak the Central dialect of Limbum. J. Hein Subject asymmetries in Limbum 22–25 May 2019 4 / 26

Background on Limbum Limbum syntax ❖ Limbum’s basic word order is S-TAM-V-O-Adv (3) nìŋkòr. 2 Njíŋw ` f ¯ à m¯ u y ¯ b Ÿ o f ¯ (3) E O E O woman see children yesterday det sm pst2 det ‘The woman saw the children yesterday.’ ❖ Adverbs and (question) particles are always clause-final. ❖ DPs are head-final. ❖ The subject is doubled by a subject marker (SM) immediately preceding the TAM-element in some TAMs (e.g. all three past tenses; present progressive). 2 All data stem from one informant from Nkambe, Cameroon, who claims to speak the Central dialect of Limbum. J. Hein Subject asymmetries in Limbum 22–25 May 2019 4 / 26

Three subject asymmetries Apparent Anti-Agreement The Anti-Agreement Effect (AAE) ❖ Regular subject agreement-marking (typically on a verbal element) is lost when the subject is questioned, relativized, or otherwise A-moved (Ouhalla 1993, 2005). The verbal element appears in a special/reduced/bare form. J. Hein Subject asymmetries in Limbum 22–25 May 2019 5 / 26

Three subject asymmetries Apparent Anti-Agreement The Anti-Agreement Effect (AAE) ❖ Regular subject agreement-marking (typically on a verbal element) is lost when the subject is questioned, relativized, or otherwise A-moved (Ouhalla 1993, 2005). The verbal element appears in a special/reduced/bare form. man tamghart ay (*t-zra) Mohand. (4) a. yzrin which woman see. ptcp (*3 fem.sg -saw) Mohand comp ‘Which woman saw Mohand.’ b. tamghart nni (*t-zra) Mohand. yzrin woman see. ptcp (*3 fem.sg -saw) Mohand comp ‘The woman who sw Mohand.’ c. tamghart-a ay (*t-zra) Mohand. yzrin woman-this see. ptcp (*3 fem.sg -saw) Mohand comp ‘It was this woman who saw Mohand.’ ( Berber , Ouhalla 1993: 479) J. Hein Subject asymmetries in Limbum 22–25 May 2019 5 / 26

Three subject asymmetries Apparent Anti-Agreement The Anti-Agreement Effect (AAE) ❖ Regular subject agreement-marking (typically on a verbal element) is lost when the subject is questioned, relativized, or otherwise A-moved (Ouhalla 1993, 2005). The verbal element appears in a special/reduced/bare form. man tamghart ay (*t-zra) Mohand. (4) a. yzrin which woman see. ptcp (*3 fem.sg -saw) Mohand comp ‘Which woman saw Mohand.’ b. tamghart nni (*t-zra) Mohand. yzrin woman see. ptcp (*3 fem.sg -saw) Mohand comp ‘The woman who sw Mohand.’ c. tamghart-a ay (*t-zra) Mohand. yzrin woman-this see. ptcp (*3 fem.sg -saw) Mohand comp ‘It was this woman who saw Mohand.’ ( Berber , Ouhalla 1993: 479) ❖ More recently, this agreement-loss has been shown to be neither related to A-movement nor restricted to subject-marking (see Baier 2018). J. Hein Subject asymmetries in Limbum 22–25 May 2019 5 / 26

Three subject asymmetries Apparent Anti-Agreement Apparent AAE in Limbum ❖ The subject marker à (5a) is dropped in A-movement contexts such as focalization (5b), wh-questions (5c), and relativization (5d), where a resumptive pronoun í occurs. 3 (5) a. Nfór à m¯ u zhé bzhí. Nfor eat food sm pst2 ‘Nfor ate food.’ Á Nfór 1 cí ∅ m¯ u zhé bzhí. b. í 1 Nfor eat food foc comp 3sg.rp pst2 ‘Nfor F ate food.’ (new information focus) Á ndá 1 cí ∅ m¯ u zhé bzhí (à). c. í 1 who eat food foc comp 3sg.rp pst2 q ‘Who ate food?’ M ` rìŋ njíŋw ` [ zhì ∅ cí y ¯ ŋgw¯ e f ¯ ] d. E E 1 í 1 E O know woman see dog 1sg rel 3sg.rp prog def ‘I know the woman who is seeing the dog.’ 3 See Becker et al. (to appear) for arguments that the á construction is not a biclausal clef but rather involves a monoclausal movement structure. J. Hein Subject asymmetries in Limbum 22–25 May 2019 6 / 26

Three subject asymmetries Apparent Anti-Agreement AAE in Bantu languages ❖ AAE in Limbum, a Grassfields Bantu language, would not come as a huge surprise, as quite a few Bantu languages have been reported to exhibit an AAE (e.g. Bemba, Cheng 2006; Kinande, Schneider-Zioga 2007; Dzamba, Henderson 2013, Lubukusu, Diercks 2010). (6) a. Umulumendo a -ka-belenga ibuku. 1boy 1 sm-fut -read 5book ‘The boy will read the book.’ b. Umulumendo ú- u / *a -ka-belenga ibuku 1boy 1 rel - AAE /* 1sm-fut -read 5book ‘the boy who will read the book’ ( Bemba , Cheng 2006: 197) Kambale a -alangira Marya. (7) a. Kambale agr -saw Mary ‘Kambale saw Mary.’ Iyondi yo u / *a -alangira Marya? b. who that AAE /* agr -saw Mary ‘Who saw Mary?’ ( Kinande , Schneider-Zioga 2007: 404) J. Hein Subject asymmetries in Limbum 22–25 May 2019 7 / 26

Three subject asymmetries Apparent Anti-Agreement An immediate problem for Ouhalla’s (1993) analysis ❖ Ouhalla (1993): Agreement identifies a pro in the subject gap. → Pro is bound by subject in SpecCP, violating Aoun and Li’s (1990) A -disjointness requirement 4 → agreement drops to not identify pro. 4 A pronoun must be A-free (cannot be bound by an antecedent in an A-position) in the smallest Complete Functional Complex which contains it. J. Hein Subject asymmetries in Limbum 22–25 May 2019 8 / 26

Three subject asymmetries Apparent Anti-Agreement An immediate problem for Ouhalla’s (1993) analysis ❖ Ouhalla (1993): Agreement identifies a pro in the subject gap. → Pro is bound by subject in SpecCP, violating Aoun and Li’s (1990) A -disjointness requirement 4 → agreement drops to not identify pro. (8) a. [ CP Subj C [ TP pro Agr-T VP ]] violates A-disjointness binds identifies b. [ CP Subj C [ TP t ∅ -T VP ]] no violation of A-disjointness 4 A pronoun must be A-free (cannot be bound by an antecedent in an A-position) in the smallest Complete Functional Complex which contains it. J. Hein Subject asymmetries in Limbum 22–25 May 2019 8 / 26