The morpho-syntax of Hawaiian valency morphologymedeiros/images/afla23.pdf · syntax of Hawaiian...

The morpho-syntax ofHawaiianvalency

morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis

MorphologicalInteractions

Proposal

The morpho-syntax of Hawaiian valencymorphology

David J. Medeiros

Cal State University, [email protected]

AFLA 23slides available at umich.edu/∼medeiros/


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Outline

1 Preliminaries

2 Description

3 Prior Analysis

4 Morphological Interactions

5 Proposal


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Goals

• Describe valency increasing morphemes ho‘o, ha‘a

• Compare the distribution of these with other valencyrelated morphology

• Argue that ho‘o and ha‘a are syntactically conditionedallomorphs

• Within Distributed Morphology framework


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Data Sources

• Elbert & Pukui (EP henceforth):• Hawaiian Grammar, 1979• Hawaiian Dictionary, 1986 (primary source)

• E. Hawkins, Hawaiian Sentence Structure, 1979 (UHDissertation)


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Corpus

• 836 entries headed by ho‘o & ha‘a

• Coding for morphology, phonological alternation,interaction with reduplication, meaning, etc.

• Note that ho‘o & ha‘a have several uses not related tovalency change, which I do not focus on here


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Outline

1 Preliminaries

2 Description

3 Prior Analysis


5 Proposal


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

ho‘o and ha‘a increase valency

• ho‘o & ha‘a are typically characterized as causative prefixes

• However, these have a wider range of applicability thantypical causatives

• In particular, both ho‘o & ha‘a can be prefixes to nouns aswell as adjectives and verbs with different levels oftransitivity

• ho‘o & ha‘a are best characterized as general valencyincreasing prefixes: they increase the number of argumentsassociated with their root


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

ho‘o

• EP describe ho‘o as a causative-simulative prefix

• EP’s causative function is exemplified here

(1) a. heleto go

b. ho‘oheleto set in motion

(2) a. ‘aito eat

b. ho‘aito feed

(3) a. olaalive

b. ho‘olato save

(4) a. halehouse

b. ho‘ohaleto house

• Ho‘o has phonologically conditioned allomorphs ho‘, ho, ho, and ho‘

• The vowel lengthening of the root in (3) is a phonological processrelated to stress domains (Alderete & MacMillan 2014).


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

ha‘a

• EP describe an additional prefix ha‘a ascausative-simulative

• EP’s causative function is exemplified here

(5) a. ‘apukato cheat

b. ha‘apukato cause to cheat

(6) a. kianail, spike

b. hakiato nail, fasten

• Ha‘a has phonologically conditioned allomorphs ha and ha


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Simulative uses

• For EP, the simulative refers to examples where ho‘o orha‘a derive an intransitive from a noun, meaning ‘toact/feign like:’

(7) a. haolewhite person

b. ho‘ohaoleto act like a whiteperson

(8) a. koa‘etropicbird

b. ha‘akoa‘eto act like thetropicbird


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

More simulative uses

(9) a. wahinewoman

b. ho‘owahineto behave like a woman, to grow into womanhood

(10) a. kulideaf

b. ho‘okulito act deaf or to feign deafness

• Similar construction in English:

(11) What happened was you Anderson Silva-ed the guy. [JimRome Show, 5/23/16]

(12) I’m gonna monster over this table. (= climb over the tablelike a monster truck)


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Descriptive summary

• ho‘o & ha‘a both increase valency very generally

• Prefixation of these morphemes to nominals (both forEP’s causatives and simulatives) does not necessarilyencode causation

• EP’s ‘causative’ and ‘simulative’ describe special cases ofvalency increase


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Outline

1 Preliminaries

2 Description

3 Prior Analysis


5 Proposal


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

EP’s Analysis

• Despite similarity, EP analyze ho‘o & ha‘a as(synchronically) unrelated

• First, both morphemes may attach to the same root,deriving the same meaning:

(13) a. ko‘obrace, prop, pole

b. ho‘oko‘oto prop with a pole

c. ha‘ako‘o(same as ho‘oko‘o)

(14) a. ‘awepack, knapsack

b. ho‘aweto carry on the back

c. ha‘awe(same as ho‘awe)


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

EP’s Analysis

• Further, ho‘o may attach to ha‘a, but not the converse:

(15) a. nuilarge

b. ha‘anuito brag, exaggerate

c. ho‘oha‘anuito cause to brag

(16) a. ninito pour

b. haninito overflow

c. ho‘ohaninito cause an overflow

• Within EP’s structuralist framework, each morpheme has aunique slot: they are not allomorphs


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Outline

1 Preliminaries

2 Description

3 Prior Analysis


5 Proposal


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Morphological Competition

• Corpus analysis suggests an additional distribution pattern

• ho‘o, but not ha‘a, co-occurs with other valency relatedmorphology, such as passive and nominalization

• ha‘a competes with other valency related morphology

• This distribution, combined with the similarity of meaning,indicates that these morphemes are syntacticallyconditioned allomorphs


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Interaction with Nominalization

• ho‘o (but not ha‘a) freely co-occurs with nominalizing -na:

(17) a. kahuto pray in chant

b. kahunapriest

c. ho‘okahunato ordain a kahuna

(18) a. ‘iketo see [transitive]

b. ‘ikenaview, seeing, knowing

c. ho‘ikenato see, know[intransitive]


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Interaction with Passive

• ho‘o (but not ha‘a) freely co-occurs with passive -Cia/-a:

(19) a. ‘iketo see

b. ho‘iketo show

c. ho‘ikeato be shown

(20) a. wa‘acanoe, trench

b. ho‘owa‘aliato be dug out


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Outline

1 Preliminaries

2 Description

3 Prior Analysis


5 Proposal


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Cyclic Effects in Morphology

• I adopt the DM framework for cyclic effects in morphology(Embick & Marantz 2008, Embick 2010)

• Embick’s (2010) example with nominalizing n:

(21) n root-conditioned allomorphs: marri-age, refus-al, confus-ion

(22) n elsewhere allomorph -ing: marry-ing, refus-ing, confus-ing

(23)

• 2-way distinction: n in ‘inner domain’ has unpredictableallomorph, n in ‘outer domain’ has predictable allomorph

• The specific realization of inner-n is an independent,morpho-phonological process


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Morphological Analysis

• For Hawaiian, where n & v are cyclic:• vincr is a general valency-increasing morpheme• for vincr : ha‘a is the root conditioned allomorph, ho‘o

elsewhere• for nominalizing n: ∅ is the root conditioned allomorph,

-na elsewhere• vbe and vagent are always spelled out ∅


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Sample Derivations

• intransitive → transitive

(24) a. heleto go

b. ho‘oheleto set in motion

(25) a. [ hele vbe ] = heleto go

b. [ vincr [ hele vbe ] ] = ho‘oheleto set in motion


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Sample Derivations

• noun/root → simulative

(26) a. haolewhite person

b. ho‘ohaoleto act like a whiteperson

(27) a. koa‘etropicbird

b. ha‘akoa‘eto act like thetropicbird

(28) a. [ vincr [ haole n ] ] = ho‘ohaoleto act like a white person

b. [ vincr koa‘e ] = ha‘akoa‘eto act like the tropicbird

• The optionality of n with a root derives EP’s observationthat both ho‘o and ha‘a can superficially attach to roots


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Cyclic Interactions

• Presence of passive or nominalizing morphemes forces vincrinto outer domain:

(29) a. [ ‘ike vagent ] = ‘iketo see [transitive]

b. [ [ ‘ike vagent ] n ]= ‘ikenaview, seeing, knowing

c. [ vincr [ [ ‘ike vagent ] n ] ]= ho‘ikenato see [intransitive]

(30) [ vincr [ [ ‘ike vagent ] vpass ] ] = ho‘ikeato be shown


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Co-occurence Restrictions

• The same analysis derives the ungrammaticality of*ha‘aho‘o- prefixes:

• The root-attached morpheme must be spelled out as ha‘a• Any additional affixation of vincr is realized as ho‘o

(31) [ vincr [ vincr nui ] ] = ho‘oha‘anuito cause to brag


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Conclusion

• Ha‘a competes with other valency related morphology,including passive, nominalization, and itself (vincr )

• This suggests that ha‘a is the root-conditioned allomorphof the functional morpheme vincr

• ho‘o is the realization of vincr when in an outer domain• ho‘o can prefix to ha‘a, but not the converse• ho‘o & ha‘a can both attach to string-identical roots (ha‘a

to a root directly, ho‘o to a true nominal)• ho‘o is far more frequent in EPs dictionary, because it is

less restricted in its domain of application


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Thank You

Selected References:Elbert, S. & Pukui, M. (1979). Hawaiian Grammar. University of Hawai‘i Press.Elbert, S. & Pukui, M. (1986). Hawaiian Dictionary. University of Hawai‘i Press.Embick, D. (2010). Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. MIT Press.Embick, D. & Marantz A. (2008). Architecture and Blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39:1, 1-53.Hale, K. & Keyser S. J. (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. MIT Press.Harley, H. (2008). On Causative Constructions. In The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, eds. S.Miyagawa and M. Saito. p. 20-53. Oxford U. Press.Hawkins, E. (1979). Hawaiian Sentence Structure. Pacific Linguistics Monographs. Auckland.Marantz, A. (1997). No Escapte from Syntax: Don’t Try a Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of YourOwn Lexicon. In U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, eds. A. Dimitriadis and L. Siegel.Pylkkanen, L. (2008). Introducing Arguments. MIT Press.

• I gratefully acknowledge Maya Wax Cavallaro and Drew Bennett,who assisted in data collection.

• Research funding was provided by the College of Humanities atCalifornia State University, Northridge.


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Additional Material

• Additional material appears below


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Deliberative

• According to Elbert & Pukui (1979) and Hawkins (1979),ho‘o, when prefixed to verb which is normally transitivecan have the function of emphasizing agency, withoutintroducing a new argument:

(32) a. Uaperf

pekukick

‘osubj

KaleKale

iobj

kethe

kinipopo.ball

Kale kicked the ball.

b. Uaperf

ho‘opekucause.kick

‘osubj

KaleKale

iobj

kethe

kinipopo.ball

Kale deliberately kicked the ball.


morphology

David J.Medeiros

Preliminaries

Description

Prior Analysis


Proposal

Deliberative

(33) a. holo - ‘to run or sail’

b. ho‘oholo - ‘to sail something or to sail deliberately’

(34) a. huna - ‘to hide’

b. ho‘ohuna - ‘to hide deliberately’

c. Uapast

ho‘ohunahide

‘oeyou

iobj

kathe

na‘auaounderstanding

maidir

koposs

lakoutheir

na‘aumind

aku.dir

You have closed their minds to understanding.1

• There is also a class in which there is reported to be no change inmeaning (see also Gould et al. (2009) for Niuean)

• It’s unclear at this point if this is a fact that should be addressed inthe morpho-syntax, or whether these cases should be understoodwithin the deliberative class

1Note presence of intrans. variant pe‘e ‘to hide’

The morpho-syntax of Hawaiian valency morphologymedeiros/images/afla23.pdf · syntax of Hawaiian...

Documents

Transcript of The morpho-syntax of Hawaiian valency morphologymedeiros/images/afla23.pdf · syntax of Hawaiian...