The Amharic Definite Marker and the Syntax-Morphology Interface

.  The definite marker in Amharic has an unusually complex pattern of distribution—its position varies depending on whether the DP contains an adjective, a relative clause, multiple adjuncts, a demonstrative, or just a noun. In this paper, a minimalist/Distributed Morphology analysis of the definite...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inSyntax (Oxford, England) Vol. 13; no. 3; pp. 196 - 240
Main Author Kramer, Ruth
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.09.2010
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN1368-0005
1467-9612
DOI10.1111/j.1467-9612.2010.00139.x

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:.  The definite marker in Amharic has an unusually complex pattern of distribution—its position varies depending on whether the DP contains an adjective, a relative clause, multiple adjuncts, a demonstrative, or just a noun. In this paper, a minimalist/Distributed Morphology analysis of the definite marker is developed based on the idea that the definite marker is the realization of D when it is obligatory, and the reflex of a definiteness agreement process when it is optional. Evidence is presented that D undergoes the morphological operation Local Dislocation (Embick & Noyer 2001) in Amharic, and that Local Dislocation is subject to the Phase Impenetrability Condition—the definite marker cannot attach within a phase that has been previously spelled out. Definiteness agreement, however, does not seem to respect phase impenetrability, which leads to the suggestion that phase impenetrability is only relevant after Linearization. From a broader perspective, the paper explores the effect of minimalist assumptions about syntactic cyclicity (cyclic spell‐out by phase, phase impenetrability) on the cyclicity of morphological operations.
Bibliography:ArticleID:SYNT139
istex:24C15D4CB158A4BD480C69975D2590FAFDC76A20
ark:/67375/WNG-2B9FDX9L-B
Endless thanks to Jim McCloskey, Sandy Chung, Jorge Hankamer, Dan Selden, Kyle Rawlins, and the two anonymous reviewers who helped improve this paper immensely. I am particularly grateful to my informants for their tireless patience and insight: Selome Tewoderos, Issayas Tesfamariam, Bezza Ayalew, Harya Tarakegn, Betselot Teklu, Mignote Yilma, and Senayit Ghebrehiywet. Portions of this work were presented at the Syntax Circle at the University of California, Santa Cruz, the Third Workshop on Theoretical Morphology, and at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America 2008. Many thanks to the participants there for useful feedback, especially Andrew Nevins, Paolo Acquaviva, Ricardo Bermúdez‐Otero, Anastasia Giannakidou, Arsalan Kahnemuyipour, and Marcel den Dikken. Any errors remaining are solely my responsibility.
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1368-0005
1467-9612
DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9612.2010.00139.x