THE TYPOLOGY OF APPLICATIVE/CAUSATIVE MARKING IN TAPUS

This paper constitutes an initial examination of the applicative/causative suffix -ge in Tapus, a divergent traditional Minangkabau variety spoken in rural Western Sumatra. Our aim is to show that the similarities and divergences from Standard Indonesian of traditional rural varieties provides insight into the properties of “Indonesian-type” languages in general. The distribution of applicatives/causatives in Tapus is interesting for several reasons. First, applicative/causative suffixes in Indonesian-type languages are well-known for the use of the same morphology for a variety of purposes. The fact that a single form is used for these different functions raises the question of whether the applicative/causative morphemes are two (or more) distinct morphemes or whether the form has a unitary linguistic function. We will show that the unitary analysis for causative and benefactive uses of the applicative/causative suffix cannot account for the data in Tapus. Another area of interest with regard to this suffix relates to constraints on movement. We show that the Extreme Locality Hypothesis cannot account for the Tapus data based on the interaction between the applicative/causative suffix and information question formation/relativization. Finally, we demonstrate that Pylkkänen’s typology of applicatives makes incorrect predictions with respect to the interpretations available for benefactives in Tapus and other Indonesian-type languages, showing the necessity for an expanded taxonomy of applicative forms. Our general conclusion is that the detailed examination of grammatical constructions in divergent Malayic varieties leads to new and surprising insights into the grammatical profile of Indonesian-type languages.

Resuming Reflexives

In this paper, we offer an analysis for the prenominal possessor doubling construction (PPDC) as it occurs in Germanic, paying particular attention to the differences between Norwegian and West Flemish. Our analysis implements recent theoretical proposals concerning locality relations, the Anti-Locality Hypothesis, the idea that movement not only must not target a position too far away, but it cannot be too close either. Anti-Locality is formulated over derivational sub-domains relevant for the operation Spell Out, so-called Prolific Domains, and the ban on Domain-internal movement is PF-driven. In order to yield a well-formed PF-object, anti-local movement may be repaired by spelling out a copy with a different PF-shape; this operation of Copy Spell Out inserts a grammatical formative to save a PF-violation. We take pronominal elements to be grammatical formatives par excellence and develop an application of this approach to the nominal layer, focusing on the PPDC. This framework derives the occurrence of a possessive pronoun doubling the possessor, which we analyse in terms of an anti-local movement dependency in which the moved possessor spells out a lower copy as the doubling possessive pronoun. We further discuss comparisons across Germanic dialects. Our main proposal is that the doubling pronoun is a resumptive element, understood more generally as a spelled out copy of the (moved) possessor DP and as such inserted into the computation derivationally.

On predication, derivation and anti-locality

This paper pursues the question what the implications of the Anti-Locality Hypothesis could be for the syntax of secondary predication. Focus of the discussion will be an investigation of what their internal structure of small clause complements must look like, how these small clause complements connect to their matrix environments, and what the relevance could be for the formulation of anti-locality presented here. Anti-locality is defined over a tripartite clause structure (split into three Prolific Domains) and a PF-condition on the computation (the Condition on Domain-Exclusivity). The investigation revolves around two leading questions: (i) does the syntax of small clauses involve more structure than simply [SC DP XP] and (ii) do small clauses constitute their own Prolific Domain (or maybe even more)? The results, affirmative answers to both questions, are also relevant for other types of secondary predication.