Noun Phrases in Australian Languages

A Typological Study

Dana Louagie

• Publisher: De Gruyter Mouton
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN:
  9781501525704
• eBook ISBN:
  9781501512872
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Languages
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This book presents a first comprehensive typological analysis of noun phrases in Australian languages, covering the domains of classification, qualification, quantification, determination and constituency. The analysis is based on a representative sample of 100 languages. Among other points, the results call into question the classic idea that Australian languages tend to lack phrasal structures in the nominal domain, with over two thirds of the languages showing evidence for phrasehood. Moreover, it is argued that it may be more interesting to typologise languages on the basis of where and how they allow phrasal structure, rather than on the basis of a yes-no answer to the question of constituency. The analysis also shows that a determiner slot can be identified in about half of the languages, even though they generally lack 'classic' determiner features like obligatory use in particular contexts or a restriction to one determiner per NP. Special attention is given to elements, which can be used both inside and beyond determiner slots, demonstrating how part of speech and functional structure do not always align. The book is of interest to researchers documenting Australian languages, as well as to typologists and theorists.

1 Introduction

1 Aims and overview

The aim of this book is to study noun phrase (NP) structures in Australian languages from a typological perspective, using data from a sample of 100 languages. In the domain of NP structure, Australian languages are probably best known in the typological literature for two characteristics: extensive systems of nominal classification, and noun phrase flexibility. The classic reference on nominal classification in Australia is Dixon (1982), who proposed a basic morphosyntactic distinction between two types of classification, viz. noun class systems and classifier systems. Both types mark nominals as belonging to (largely) semantically based classes, but they differ in their morphosyntactic implementation, as well as their degree of semantic motivation. The first type, noun classes or gender systems, was quite well-known from the study of Indo-European and African languages, but the second type, noun classifiers, had not previously been established as a separate category (Dixon 1982: 159–160, 211–212).¹ The two types are illustrated below in examples from Dyirbal and Yidiny, demonstrating some of the features in which the two systems differ. Example (1) from Dyirbal shows that noun classes are marked by bound forms in agreement patterns, in this case on the demonstratives modifying the nouns, which are marked for one of the four classes in the language (glossed with Roman numerals I-IV). Example (2) from Yidiny shows how classifiers are not marked in agreement patterns, but by free forms juxtaposed to nouns, in this case generic nouns like ‘vegetable food’ and ‘person’ classifying the following specific nominals ‘yam’ and ‘girl’.

(1)

Dyirbal (Dixon 1982: 161)

bala	diban	ya-ŋgu-n	yibi-ŋgu	buran
there.abs.iv	stone.abs	here-erg-ii	woman-erg	look.at

‘The woman here is looking at the stone there.’

(2)

Yidiny (Dixon 1982: 185)

mayi	jimirr	bama-al	yaburu-ŋgu	julaal
vegetable.abs	yam.abs	person-erg	girl-erg	dig.pst

‘The person girl dug up the vegetable yam.’

Dixon (1982) was followed by a whole range of studies on nominal classification in Australian languages (e.g. Dixon 1986; Blake 1987: 94; Johnson 1988; Sands 1995; Harvey & Reid 1997; Wilkins 2000; Singer 2016). Questions addressed in these studies include the degree of grammaticalisation in the system, the semantics of noun classes, and the syntactic analysis of noun classifiers. Aspects of ‘Australian-style’ classification, including Dixon’s basic distinction, have been picked up in the wider typological literature (e.g. Grinevald 2000; Aikhenvald 2003; Corbett 2007: 253–258; Seifart 2010), and are now part of the standard analysis of classification systems (although the basic distinction has obviously not remained unquestioned, see for instance Singer [2016], Corbett & Fedden [2016], Fedden & Corbett [2017]).

The other aspect of NP structure for which Australian languages are renowned is syntactic flexibility, with free word order and the availability of discontinuous NPs; the classic references here are Blake (1983), Hale (1983) and Heath (1986). This is illustrated in an often-quoted set of examples from Kalkatungu in (3), which shows how different word orders are allowed in the NP (3a, d, f) and how different elements can be ‘split off’ from the rest of the NP (3b, c, e).

(3)

Kalkatungu (Blake 1983: 145; cited in Nordlinger 2014: 229)

a.

cipa-yi	t̪uku-yu	yaun-tu	yaɲi	icayi
this-erg	dog-e...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• Part I: Survey of NP features
• 3 Qualification
• 4 Quantification
• 5 Determination and NP constituency
• Part II: NP constituency and determination
• 7 The status of determining elements
• 8 Conclusion
• Appendix
• References
• Language Index
• Subject Index