The Syntax of Jamaican Creole
Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.
General Editors Werner Abraham
University of Vienna / Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Elly van Gelderen
Arizona State University
Advisory Editorial Board Cedric Boeckx
Christer Platzack
Guglielmo Cinque
Ian Roberts
Günther Grewendorf
Lisa deMena Travis
Liliane Haegeman
Sten Vikner
Hubert Haider
C. Jan-Wouter Zwart
Harvard University University of Venice
J.W. Goethe-University, Frankfurt University of Lille, France University of Salzburg
University of Lund
Cambridge University McGill University
University of Aarhus University of Groningen
Volume 127 The Syntax of Jamaican Creole. A cartographic perspective by Stephanie Durrleman-Tame
The Syntax of Jamaican Creole A cartographic perspective
Stephanie Durrleman-Tame University of Geneva
John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia
8
TM
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The syntax of Jamaican Creole : a cartographic perspective / Stephanie Durrleman-Tame. p. cm. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, issn 0166-0829 ; v. 127) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Creole dialects, English--Jamaica--Syntax. 2. Creole dialects, English--Jamaica-Variation. I. Durrleman, Stephanie. PM7874.J3S96 2008 427'.97292--dc22 isbn 978 90 272 5510 5 (Hb; alk. paper)
2008010649
© 2008 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa
Table of contents
Acknowledgements Preface 0.1 A Tribute to Miss Lou (1919–2006)
chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 The Jamaican continuum 1 1.2 Motivation for the present study 6 1.3 Orthography 10 1.4 Pidgin versus Creole 10 1.5 Theoretical framework 13 1.6 Organization of the book 14 chapter 2 IP – The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole 2.1 Introduction 19 2.2 The architecture of the clause 19 2.2.1 The split-infl hypothesis 19 2.2.2 Cinque (1999) 20 2.2.2.1 A hierarchy of adverbial classes 20 2.2.2.2 Bound functional morphemes 22 2.2.2.3 Free functional morphemes 23 2.3 The articulation of inflection in JC 24 2.3.1 The preverbal markers 25 2.3.2 Modals 26 2.3.2.1 Mod(al) 1 26 2.3.2.2 Mod(al)s 2 & 3 27 2.3.3 Tense 28 2.3.3.1 Past tense 28 2.3.3.2 Future tense 29 2.3.4 Modals, tense and aspect 30 2.3.4.1 Mod1, T and Asp 30 2.3.4.2 Mod 2 & 3 and T 30
ix xi
1
19
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
Asp(ect) markers 32 2.3.5.1 Progressive aspect 33 2.3.5.2 Prospective aspect 33 2.3.5.3 Retrospective aspect 34 2.3.5.4 Completive aspect and anterior 34 2.3.5.5 Continuative and frequentative aspects 39 Overall order for TMA markers in JC 41 Theoretical issues 41 2.5.1 Completive aspect in JC and Fongbè: An SVC approach 41 2.5.2 Completive aspect in JC and Fongbè: VP-movement 44 2.5.2.1 Problem for the VP-movement analysis 53 2.5.3 Multiple base generation of Anterior tense 54 2.5.4 Movement of (extensions of) VP across anterior 55 Overt functional structure of JC: Evidence for the framework in Cinque (1999) 58 Conclusion 59 2.3.5
2.4 2.5
2.6 2.7
chapter 3 CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole 3.1 Introduction 61 3.1.1 Theoretical background: Split-CP (Rizzi 1997) 61 3.2 JC topicalization 66 3.2.1 Topicalization in main clauses 66 3.2.2 Topicalization in embedded clauses 67 3.2.3 The Nature of TopP 68 3.2.4 De 70 3.3 JC focus 74 3.3.1 Focussing in main clauses 74 3.3.2 Focussing in embedded clauses 77 3.3.3 The nature of [Spec, FocP] in JC 77 3.4 JC wh-questions 83 3.5 Identifying Force° and Fin° in JC 89 3.5.1 Force° 90 3.5.1.1 se 90 3.5.1.2 Additonal evidence for ForceP 98 3.5.2 Fin° 99 3.6 The relative orders of topic, focus and wh-constituents in JC 100 3.7 The status of a 101 3.7.1 Progressive a 102 3.7.2 Prepositional a 102
61
3.8
Table of contents
3.7.3 Determiner a 103 3.7.4 Equative a 104 3.7.4.1 Focus/Interrogative a as equative a 104 3.7.4.2 Why focus/interrogative a cannot be analysed as equative a 106 3.7.5 A structural analysis of Foc/Wh a in JC 114 Conclusion 120
chapter 4 DP – JC nominals and their extended projection 4.0 Introduction 123 4.1 The framework: Functional structure in the DP 123 4.2 The extended projection of nominals in JC 127 4.2.1 D(eterminer) P(rojection) 127 4.2.1.1 [+ Def] 127 4.2.1.2 [−Def] 127 4.2.2 K(Case) P(rojection) 128 4.2.3 N(ume)ral P(rojection) 131 4.2.3.1 Wan 131 4.2.4 Num(ber)P: Som 133 4.2.5 Q(uantifier) P(hrase) 136 4.2.5.1 Reduplication of numerals: Distributive 136 4.2.5.2 Evri 138 4.2.5.2.1 Distributive evri 138 4.2.5.2.2 Collective evri 138 4.2.5.3 Reduplication of adjectives: Adjectival Focus 141 4.2.6 Dem(onstrative) P(hrase) 144 4.2.6.1 Demonstratives and articles 144 4.2.6.2 Demonstratives and deictics 146 4.2.6.3 Demonstratives and accompanying deictics in JC – an analysis 149 4.2.7 Plurality and inclusiveness: Cl(assifier) P(hrase) 154 4.2.8 Adj(ectival) P(hrase) 159 4.2.8.1 A cartography of AdjPs 159 4.2.8.2 JC adjectives 161 4.3 Nominal structure and telicity 162 4.3.1 Nominal marking and temporal interpretations 163 4.3.1.1 Direct objects and tense 163 4.3.2 Previous accounts 166
123
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
enny (1987): Grammaticalizing aspect T and affectedness 166 4.3.2.2 Fitzpatrick (2005): The factative effect 170 4.3.3 Nominal structure and telicity effects in JC: An account 174 Conclusion 176 4.3.2.1
4.4
chapter 5 Conclusion
179
References
181
Index of names Index of subjects
187 189
Acknowledgements My first word of thanks goes to Luigi Rizzi, for his continued interest in my research over the years. I am also indebted to Liliane Haegeman, Eric Haeberli, Enoch Aboh, Genoveva Puskas, Ur Shlonsky and Luigi Rizzi for giving me inspirational classes in linguistics at various stages of my studies at the University of Geneva – the stimulating environment which they created planted the seed in me that ultimately resulted in this book. Thanks are also due to Eric Haeberli, Christopher Laenzlinger, Kleanthes Grohmann, Greg Ellison, and Genoveva Puskas for useful comments and criticisms on different parts of the draft, and to Ur Shlonsky for being an office-mate always ready to discuss new ideas. Sections of this work were presented at the conferences of the Society of Pidgin and Creole Linguistics, held in Honolulu (2003) and Boston (2004), as well as at the meeting of the Groupe de Recherche sur les Grammaires Créoles in Paris (2006), and this research has therefore benefited from the fruitful discussions provided by the audiences. This book is a revised version of my dissertation, submitted at the University of Geneva in 2007. I am therefore grateful to the members of my committee: Luigi Rizzi, Enoch Aboh, Guglielmo Cinque, Eric Haeberli, Ur Shlonsky and Eric Wehrli. Many thanks to Christine Phillips, Evelyn Miller, Maureen Heron, Joseph Farquharson, Leah DePass, and Deborah DePass for providing meticulous feedback on the data here considered. Of course all remaining inadequacies are my own. Finally, I would like to express gratitude to my parents, Jennifer and Tony Tame, for encouragement and emotional support, and in particular to my husband, Mathieu Durrleman, for making it all possible. This work is dedicated to my sons, Raphaël, Ezéchiel and Samuel.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
“The most striking differences between the folk speech of Jamaica and the educated speech are not in the sounds, still less in the vocabulary – they are in the grammar, the functional patterns into which the words fall. It is also in this respect that the most fundamental influence from African backgrounds is to be seen, and that is why Jamaican folk speech is not a dialect in the same sense that the rural speech of Devonshire or Lancachire, say, are dialects of English. Those who would hold that Jamaican folk speech is not to be considered a type of English at all, but a new and different language, will find their strongest arguments here (…)” Jamaica Talk Frederic G. Cassidy (1961: 49)
Preface 0.1 A Tribute to Miss Lou (1919–2006) On the occasion of the completion of this book, I would like to pay tribute to Louise Bennett – our “Queen of Patois”, who recently passed away (July 2006). Louise Bennett-Coverly was, in my view, the pioneer when it came to recognition of our Jamaican Creole as a respectable medium for performance, literature and communication. She widened the spheres for our language through her choice to almost exclusively use the Jamaican vernacular for performing and writing all of her work ever since she commenced in the 1940s. Such an approach had an immeasurable impact on Jamaica’s cultural development and independence, which included broadening the application of our language. As Grange (2006) writes: Miss Lou laid the foundation for our young dancehall and reggae stars because she gave them the courage to take on the world on our own terms and in our own language. For example, she challenged the American television media when she created Ring Ding as our answer to Sesame Street. She threw out a challenge to writers like Shakespeare, in terms of her use of our dialect in her literature, and she threw out a challenge to Broadway in terms of our local theatrical productions. Among her skills was the ability to promote our dialect (…) we always knew what she meant because it was a Jamaican thing, a West Indian thing, which we from the islands could understand, whether we were black or white, rich or poor, Christian or Muslim. (…) I liken Miss Lou to icons like Rosa Parks, and I am sure that there are many Jamaicans here today who will readily agree with me on this. Rosa Parks, by refusing to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama to a white man over 50 years ago, convinced generations of American blacks that they didn’t have to give up anything because they had a right to everything. Miss Lou, by refusing to give up her Jamaican dialect – our patois – our language, for the Queen’s English, convinced generations of Jamaicans that we didn’t have to give up anything we created, including our dialect, because it was something that we had created and therefore something we should cherish.
The Jamaican folk poet and performer remembered above has clearly been instrumental in giving “voice” to our cultural identity as Jamaicans, and has paved the
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
way for works such as this. Indeed, in order for a detailed syntactic research of our Creole to see the light, we needed a revolutionary of this caliber to bring respect and recognition to our idiom, empowering us to preserve our “Jamaica Talk”, and recognize it as a valid system of its own, worthy of analysis, a system distinct from Standard English and not merely a corruption of it. To use Bennett’s own words:1 My aunty Roachy seh dat it bwile her temper an really bex her fi true anytime she hear anybody a style we Jamaican dialec as “corruption of the English language”. For if dat be de case, den dem shoulda call English language corruption of Norman French an Latin an all dem tarra language what dem seh dat English is derived from. Oonoo dear de wud? “Derived.” English is a derivation but Jamaica Dialec is corruption! What a unfairity! (…) So fi-we Jamaica Language is not no English Language corruption at all, a oh! An we no haffi shame a it (…)”. (Bennett 1993: 1–3) My aunty Raochy says she loses her temper and becomes really angry whenever she hears anyone speaking of our Jamaican dialect as a “corruption of the English language”. For if that were the case, then they should call the English language a corruption of Norman French and Latin and all those other languages that they say that English is derived from. Do you hear the word? “Derived.” English is a derivation but the Jamaican Dialect is a corruption! How unfair! (…) So our Jamaican Language is not any corruption of the English Language at all! And we don’t have to be ashamed of it (…)”.
Her passing away just prior to the completion of this research is a reminder to me to express gratitude to this First Lady of Jamaican Creole. And so, I feel it highly appropriate to pay tribute here to her life’s efforts for our native language. In short, for giving us pride in “Jamaica Labrish”: Thank you, Miss Lou.
.
Translation is mine.
chapter 1
Introduction 1.1 The Jamaican continuum Any study of Jamaican Creole has to take into account what is referred to as the Creole “Continuum.” This term was first used by DeCamp (1971b) to describe a situation often arising in Creole societies, where a number of “lects” tend to exist. The coexisting speech-forms of such societies oscillate between two extremes. One of these extremes is the acrolect, which enjoys social prestige. One could classify this variety as the local Standard, as it is that variety which shows the most “superstrate” influence. Superstrate refers to the language spoken by the dominant group at the moment of language contact which in the case of Jamaica is English, the lexifier language. At the other extreme of the continuum is the basilect or “deep Creole.” The latter variety lacks prestige, and manifests most substratum influence. In the case of Jamaican Creole, substratum influence refers to influence from West African languages,1 the native tongues of the slaves. Situated in between the two poles of the continuum are numerous varieties known as mesolectal, which share features with both the basilect and the acrolect in several combinations. Speakers of opposite extremes (without access to the mesolect) may be mutually unintelligible – however this is very rare as most people can adjust their variety upward or downward on the continuum. In this work I concentrate primarily on a variety of the Creole found closer to the basilectal extreme as it is the speech-form most removed from Standard English, and therefore contains most syntactic novelties. In some instances, however, it becomes insightful to take a more mesolectal variety into consideration. Various factors contribute to the birth of a linguistic continuum. One is extended contact between languages, although “a (…) contact situation is not in itself a guarantee for a set of non-discrete varieties to emerge. In Haiti, for instance, creole and lexifier are rather separate. (…) The same was argued for Martinique in Lefebvre (1974). Social and political conditions may prevent a continuum from emerging” (Arends, Muysken & Smith 1995). Therefore a contact
. Among these were languages of the Kwa, Kru and Mandingo families.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
situation may remain a “diglossia”, i.e., where the official standard language and the creole are kept separate, such as that argued for Haiti and Martinique. In order for a contact situation to give rise to a linguistic continuum, certain social and political factors are supposedly necessary. DeCamp (1971b) explains these factors as “sufficient social mobility to motivate large numbers of creole speakers to modify their speech in the direction of the standard, and (…) a sufficient program of education and other acculturative activities to exert effective pressures from the standard language on the creole.” In the Caribbean context under consideration here the factors at the basis of the creation of a continuum are present. Therefore in Jamaica one finds a linguistic continuum, with at one end of the pole the acrolect, or local variety which is most influenced by the language of the ex-colonial power. Recall that the influence from this language is known as “superstrate”, a term evoking the social and economic power of British English, the “lexifier” language. At the other end of the pole lies that variety which may be said to be the farthest removed from the standard variety. It is the language form referred to as the basilectal variety or “deep creole”. As specified earlier, it bears the most “substratum” influence2 which is the impact from the native tongues of the slaves imported mostly from West Africa during the seventeenth, eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In between the acrolect and the basilect exist those numerous intermediate varieties known as “mesolectal” which combine characteristics of the acrolect and basilect in varying degrees.3 The Jamaican continuum is taken into consideration by the linguist David Decamp (1971a) who highlights that: In Jamaica, (…) there is geographical dialect variation, especially in vocabulary, with many localisms totally unknown even in adjacent villages. (T)here is also a socio-economically-oriented linguistic continuum (…) whose extremes are mutually unintelligible but which also includes all possible intermediate varieties. (…) At one end of this continuum is the speech of highly educated Jamaican leaders, many of whom claim to be speaking standard British English (…). At the other extreme is the so-called “broad creole” or “broken language”, the variety which so far has received the most attention from linguists. (…) A housewife may make a limited adjustment downward on the continuum in order to communicate with a market woman, and the market woman may adjust upward when she
. It must be rendered precise that “substratum” does not only refer to African languages in their relation to Creoles. In fact, as Arends, Kouwenberg & Smith (1995) note: “Gaulish, the former Celtic language of France (…) was assumed to be the substrate for Latin that developed there during Roman rule”. . These varieties are studied by Patrick (1999).
Chapter 1. Introduction
talks to the housewife. Each of them may then believe that she is speaking the other’s language for the myth persists in Jamaica that there are only two varieties of language- Standard English and “the dialect” – but the fact is that the housewife’s broadest dialect may be closer to the standard end of the spectrum than is the market woman’s “standard”.
A study of Creole languages may concentrate on describing this linguistic variation (c.f. De Camp 1971b) thereby attempting to take the entire spectrum of varieties into consideration. Another approach would be to focus on an extreme “ideal” Creole (Bailey 1966; Cassidy & Le Page 1967) situated at the basilectal end of the spectrum. Bailey (1971) justifies this procedure by pointing out that: In our zeal for linguistic truth and our search for better methodology for representing these truths we must not lose sight of some very practical problems, such as the very mundane one of teaching the standard to speakers of some nonstandard variant. If, therefore, I have preferred to operate with two distinctly divergent poles, and to regard all performances which occur within this continuum as belonging to one or the other of these poles, it is because contrastive analysis remains the single most valuable tool with which linguistics has provided the pedagogue. (…) Jamaican Creole (JC) is, therefore, in my frame of reference, that form of language used in Jamaica which is syntactically, phonologically, and lexically farthest removed from the Jamaican standard. (…) The speakers of unadulterated JC are rare indeed, but the pedagogue or the text-book writer must deal with maximal situations, and it would seem that optimal effects will be achieved only when all possible divergences are taken into consideration.
As previously underlined, in the present research, I basically opt for Bailey’s method by concentrating on a variety of Creole found closer to the basilectal extreme of the continuum than to the acrolectal one. This choice for the analysis of clausal and nominal architecture in JC is partly based on the practical reasons Bailey highlights in the above extract, as well as on the fact that this variety provides the most instances of “purer” JC, with less English influence, and therefore offering most syntactic novelty. It is worth emphasizing, however, that the lines of demarcation between the lects along the continuum are frightfully difficult to draw, implying that the variety here under examination, while somewhat close to the basilect, may not have all the traits of this ideal, unadulterated basilect because, in the final analysis, not even I can claim to have ample intuitions on the latter’s system. Instead, it is a variety situated in between mesolect and basilect. To illustrate the sort of variation found, consider the data in (1) through (3) below, drawn from Bailey (1971: 342–346). This author relates the same story in three different forms: first in English (1), then in a variety near to the acrolect (2) and then in a variety one could classify as basilectal (3):
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
1. Once upon a time, there was a gentleman who had an only daughter. Her name was Peony. She was a gay and dandy girl. She didn’t like to talk to just any man. 2. Wans opan a taim die woz a jengklman huu had wan uondli daata. Har niem woz Pini. Shi woz a gie an dandi gorl. Shi didn laik tu taak tu eni an eni man. 3. Wantaim, wan man en ha wan gyal-pikni nomo. Im en niem Pini. Im en a wan priti gyal fi-truu. Im neba laik fi taak tu eni an eni man. The variety in (2) makes use of a similar formula to that used in Sandard English (1) for the beginning of a story Wans opan a taim vs the form wantaim in (3). Similarly, existential phrases that imply the use of expletives are retained in the acrolect: die woz + copula, vs the basilect which distinguishes itself with: wan man en ha – i.e., there is no existential phrase, no expletive, and the copula is replaced by a lexical verb ha(ve) modified by a preverbal, past tense marker en (woz vs en ha). Indeed a major difference between these versions is linked to the presence of verbal conjugation in the high mesolect vs the absence of such bound inflectional morphology in the basilect. Instead the basilect makes use of separate preverbal markers which will be analysed in detail in Chapter 1. Note also that variety (2) includes do-support, showing merging of do with negation yielding didn. Variety (3), on the other hand, has neba laik which shows no do-support, and that negation is kept separate from the verb. In terms of vocabulary we have daata in (2), similar to English “daughter”, as opposed to gyal-pikni (lit: “girl-child”) in (3). The divergence in vocabulary between mesolect and basilect has to do with the former more closely resembling Standard English while the latter is more analytic in character. By analytic I mean that this variety tends towards a clearer decomposition of semantic notions4 than the lexifier: For example, in order to refer to “daughter” we find the Creole word divided into the semantic atoms “girl” + “child”: gyal-pikni; and for “once” we have “one” + “time”: wantaim. Elsewhere in the baslilect we find: “palm” being called “hand” + “middle”: hanmigl, “where” yielding “which” + “part”: wichpaat, etc.5 Regarding nominals, these extracts show that mesolectal har reflects genitive case while im of the basilect evinces no overt manifestation of this case. Moreover, shi in (2) is overtly marked for Nominative vs. again im in (3) which shows an . See Seuren & Wekker (1986) and McWhorter (1998, 2000) on the issue of semantically transparent morphology in Creole languages. . Pollard (2003: 5) gives various examples to further illustrate this tendency in JC. Amongst these are belly-button which is used for English “navel”, nose-hole for nostril, throat-hole for “gullet”, foot-bottom for “sole”, head-top for “crown”, hard-ears for “stubborn”, force-ripe for “precocious”, big-eye for “greedy”, red-eye for “envious”, and sweet-mouth for “given to flattery”.
Chapter 1. Introduction
absence of all case morphology. In fact no specification of gender is realized on the pronoun either: im is used for both “he” or “she” or “it”. We turn to nominals in detail in Chapter 4. The fluid linguistic situation described here has often been used to argue that JC is not a clearly identifiable language in its own right. As the renowned journalist Morris Cargill (2000) puts it: Some people are prone to take the view that Creole or Patois is not a proper language. This is nonsense. All communication is language. My faithful companion Peanuts chats constantly, though people who are misinformed call it barking. He is in fact speaking Poodlese, which is his form of Patois. Patois or Creole takes many forms (…) there is Regional Creole, Urban Creole, Uptown Creole, and Downtown Creole, and I would like to add, Poodle Creole, all of which are changing rapidly. The range varies, from mild Creole to Creole which is so limited in vocabulary that it can only be described as primitive jabbering. (…) (T)he main trouble with Creole is its variability although it all comes under the heading of “speaking badly.” I find this variability sometimes irritating. Every now and again I find myself having to say to someone, “speak properly if you expect me to understand what you are saying.” Upon which the speaker ninety-nine times out of a hundred immediately starts to speak to me in quite passable English, which makes me think that a lot of Creole is just plain laziness. (…) Speech, like everything else, is an important discipline and I therefore cannot help feeling that a good deal of Creole speech is mere slackness. (…) I have also found over the years that Jamaicans have a natural aptitude for speaking excellent English when they want to. I cannot therefore imagine why so many seem to feel the urge to debase their own currency.
At first, it appears that the above extract is going to offer a different view to the generally accepted idea that Creole is not a proper language. However the stance that it is “nonesense” to consider Creole an improper language is in fact merely sarcastic, as indeed it only becomes acceptable if the term “language” can be applied to any communicative system, “animal” language included. In fact Cargill (2000) states that dog communication or “poodelese” is a form of “patois” or “creole”. Cargill mainly evokes the issue of variability in Creole, or what we have technically referred to as the linguistic continuum, and suggests that the closer we get to the deep Creole or “basilect”, i.e., the farther away we get from Standard English, the more we slip into what he calls “primitive jabbering”. Basilectal JC is portrayed as a primitive, animalistic/sub-human form of communication. All varieties of Creole are, according to this well respected journalist, classified as “speaking badly”. Creole is perceived of as a “laziness/slackness”, as if good language were a conscious effort and Creole language would arise out of one’s not making this effort. In fact things are surely quite different: i.e., it is not speaking one’s own language which
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
demands an effort as such, but speaking a second language: If Creole is the mother tongue, then this would explain why, although the Creole speaker can indeed speak “quite passable English”, this calls on an effort on his/her part. In conclusion, this reflects a general opinion pervasive in Jamaican society that Creolized speech “debases one’s currency”, in that its use is interpreted as an indicator of absence of education, which in fact can bring about difficulties in finding good employment. It is this situation of socio-economic pressure which is thought by some linguists such as DeCamp (1971a: 30, 1971b: 351) to be at the very basis of a linguistic continuum: i.e., such pressures make the Creole-speaking masses strive to modify their speech towards the Standard, creating a fluid linguistic situa tion and ultimately yielding decreolization – i.e., the progressive merging of the Creole and lexifier, implying the ultimate possibility of extinction of the former. 1.2 Motivation for the present study The Creole studied in this work is spoken by just under three million people in my native country: Jamaica.6 This island was an English colony from 1655 until 1962, and schooling and administration are still conducted in Standard English today. It is the largest English-speaking island in the Caribbean. Jamaican Creole (JC) remains mainly an oral language, and it is often referred to as an “English-based” Creole because its vocabulary or “lexicon” largely resembles that of Standard (Jamaican) English (SE) which co-exists with it in Jamaican society. As mentioned in the previous section, SE benefits from social prestige, while, to this day, JC continues to be considered by the majority of its own speakers as a degraded form of English. The linguist Bailey already points out in (1966) that: (I)n Jamaica, good breeding and a sound education invariably result in the renunciation of creolized speech, language tends to extend its domain and to become the indicator of the level of one’s intelligence as well, and the retention of Creole speech or admission of one’s ability to speak it (…) is condemned, and may well spell disaster for the adherent.
As a further illustration of the tension existing between SE and JC, consider the following extract from a local newspaper article by Robert Delfosse (1997): As a child growing up in Jamaica in the 1960’s, my parents were quite strict on how I expressed myself and tried to ensure that I spoke what they considered
. There are also speakers in Costa Rica and Panama: 55, 100 and 268, 435 respectively.
Chapter 1. Introduction
to be “good English”. (…) On one occasion I thought my mother was going to throttle me as I let rip with a string of patois. I was about seven years old and my parents had taken me to my grandparents’ home for the day. Whilst we were there an aunt and uncle arrived with my cousins. (…) One of my girl cousins noticed that a chicken had jumped onto a window ledge and emptied its bowels onto it. In her very best Oxford English she announced “Mother, the chicken has done an action on the window.” Well, I was not going to let her have the last say so I blurted out at the top of my voice, “De fowl dee-dee pan de winda.” Well, my aunt was so angry that she ushered her children into the house grumbling that she would not let her children play with me until I learnt to speak the Queen’s English.
The tone of the above extract draws a clear contrast between British English which one must strive for (see above “the Queen’s English”, “her very best Oxford English”), and Jamaican “patois”. The latter is understood as “bad” or “broken” English which the author does not simply “speak” but rather “blurts out” or “lets rip with”. This common perspective of the Jamaican Creole variety of speech is shared by even the most educated: The well respected columnist Morris Cargill (quoted by Robert Delfosse in the Gleaner – June 1997) is said to have “made it quite clear that he did not support the use of patois because he felt that it would impede our young people in the world of work and indeed our progress as a country in the international world”. He feels, therefore, that in order for Jamaica to be recognised as an independent nation in the international perspective, Jamaicans must actually favour the language of the ex-colonial power. Although no one denies the importance of mastering Standard English in the modern world, it is nonetheless certain that a positive self-image is itself of primary value. The latter is achievable through full psychological independence which is at least partially attainable through the recognition of one’s own language. Interestingly, the subjective notion that Jamaican Creole is a corruption of Standard English is to this day passionately upheld by most of the very speakers of the language. Objectively, this position has no foundation: there is no presentation of sound arguments, no factual observations offered to uphold this view. The proponents of this perspective make no attempt to examine the Creole internally. In a nutshell, the reasoning is not: “let us look at the Creole closely, and see if it is really NOT an independent, coherent system”, but rather “the Creole is surely NOT a valid system, so there is no point in taking it seriously enough to study it”. This position is nonetheless currently widespread in Jamaica and simply serves to perpetuate inherited prejudices against JC. In contradiction to the persisting perspective of a majority of the Jamaican population, a close look at the grammar of the Creole reveals that it has systematic differences from English that suggest its status as a separate language. The extract
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
below taken from Russell (1868) already mentions this observation in what was to be the first description of JC: This little work was never intended originally to meet the eye of the Public; the writer merely prepared it as a source of social amusement to such of his friends as are of a literary turn (…) Although it is evident that this, as every other corrupted form of language, is spoken by no previously well planned system, yet, as in the course of time, every corruption resolves itself into certain fixed rules, so shall we find that this has settled into certain very plain and distinct tones, which are, in not a few instances, in direct opposition to those of the pure parent language.
Russell’s work, dating from the 19th century, was the first attempt to describe JC, and the author takes on this task with a prejudice: Creole is a “corruption” of the “pure” parent language, and is worthy of mockery and the providing of “social amusement”. However once he actually undergoes the endeavor of describing this new variety, he ends up having to admit that this so-called corruption has “settled” into “fixed rules” which make it not just a bad version of the “parent language”. Instead these are identified as the Creole’s own patterns, sometimes completely different to English ones, or, to use his words: “in direct opposition to the pure parent language”. Since this rather brief description of the language, there have been only few attempts to give an overview of the grammar of basilectal Creole,7 and, save Bailey’s (1966) work, there is no meticulous syntactic analysis of the entire language. The aim of the present work is precisely to identify and analyse the grammatical properties of Jamaican Creole from a cartographic perspective – i.e., drawing a syntactic map of the system in the process. An overall examination of JC, like that of any other natural language, should provide valuable insights into the nature of our innate, Universal Grammar.8 Indeed human languages, socially prestigious or not, turn out to share universally striking similarities at a certain level of abstraction. The work of descriptive linguists then entails describing and explaining this abstract grammar which “generates” all possible linguistic structures. It follows that generativists consider all languages worthy of equal attention, since each and every one is the result of our internal linguistic ability. Their approach, therefore, equips one in the endeavor of uncovering the linguistic virtues and complexities of a language such as Jamaican Creole. If the generativist’s aim is to render the underlying structured principles of Universal Grammar (UG) explicit, then creoles may even prove to be a particularly useful tool in his task: it has been argued that these languages offer an especially . Patrick (2004) gives a general overview of mesolectal Creole. Adams (1995) provides a brief, non technical description of some JC patterns.
. According to the cognitivist framework initiated and refined by Chomsky (see e.g., 1957, 1965, 1981, 1995).
Chapter 1. Introduction
deep insight into the nature of linguistic universals due to the drastic conditions under which they arise (Bickerton 1981). Bickerton’s ideas are controversial, and are mainly the result of his studies of Hawaiian Creole in particular, however certain studies on the emergence of sign languages9 corroborate his main hypothesis on Creole genesis: namely that such linguistic creation reveals the child’s ability to turn a “make-shift jargon called a pidgin10 (…) into a full complex language in one fell swoop” (Pinker 1994) through urgent recourse to the building blocks of UG. Under this perspective, the first generation of speakers make use of their innate linguistic competence to integrate a degree of grammatical complexity which was previously absent from the linguistic community of the pidgin.11, 12 The appeal to UG’s unmarked principles at a creole’s birth may to some extent account for the fact that creoles issued from different languages share remarkable structural similarities particularly characteristic of them.13 Furthermore, certain grammatical basics found in these languages show up in first and second language acquisition contexts, other instances where we see unadulterated innate universals at work.14 To exclude languages like creoles from a generative linguistic study is therefore unmotivated and detrimental. Indeed, this would mean missing out on the opportunity of attaining a greater understanding of the unconscious linguistic constraints apparent in all languages, and perhaps in their more bare state in creoles.15 Our theory must ultimately yield a structural architecture that is applicable to any natural language, socially prestigious or not. Such a framework is, considering my Caribbean background, a refreshing and enlightening approach to Jamaican Creole. For this reason I embrace it in the present research.
. See Kegl et al. (1999), Newport (1999). . See section 2.4. for a definition of the term pidgin. . According to the definition of “pidgin” as adopted in section 1.4. . Veenstra (2006) offers interesting evidence in favour of attributing grammatical innovation in creolization to the child population in his discussion of synthetic compounding in Saramaccan. . Roberts (2007: 408) further discusses the observation that “creoles occupy only a small sub-area of the general space of parametric variation made available by UG” and explains how unmarked parameter settings in creole languages are the result of the particular circumstances under which they emerge. See also Roberts (1999). . See Bickerton (1984) who proposes that where children’s language evinces properties different to those of the target language, these properties strike a parallelism with Creoles. See also studies of sign language emergence (Kegle & Iwata 1989). . As already noted, this idea is much debated, as pointed out e.g., by Degraff (1999). However see studies that confirm certain predictions that this approach makes, for example with respect to errorless acquisition of certain creole properties (see Adone on wh-constructions, in DeGraff 1999).
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
1.3 Orthography There is a recurrent problem in the study of JC, one that stems from its involving dialectal diversity as well as its being mainly an oral language, namely: how does one transcribe the data at hand? Much of JC’s lexicon is English-based, but there is a clash between words resembling the lexicon of Standard English if written as such because their actual pronunciation in Creole is (often) quite different. The question of phonetic spelling is discussed by Adams (1995), who remarks that: The problem does not lie in the phonetic spelling of peculiarly Jamaican words or pronunciation. These can be spelled fairly easily with simply non-technical spellings … The problem lies in the spelling of Standard English words which are pronounced approximately the same way in Afro-Jamaican as in standard. If such words are spelled in their standard form, the effect is a glaring (and sometimes confusing) contrast between the phonetic values used to spell the Jamaican words and those of the English words, with their often absurd, archaic spellings.
In the presentation of the data, when examples are drawn from sources other than my own, I respect the orthography of the original authors. For the rest, I have adopted the system currently applied by the Jamaican Language Unit (JLU). This is essentially the system initially proposed by Cassidy (1961) with some modifications proposed by JLU (2003). This orthographic convention yields a unique symbol-sound correspondence, rendering it particularly functional for our purposes. In this way this work situates itself within a larger movement for standardizing of the Creole, which should contribute to better recognition of the value of the language, and ultimately to its officialization. 1.4 Pidgin versus Creole The language under examination in the present work is generally referred to as a creole, and not as a pidgin. Indeed the phenomena evoked by the terms “pidgin” and “creole” differ and a clarification of the meaning of these terms is desirable at this point. However to distinguish between the two is a difficult task because languages are not static entities, but rather “are developing systems which may overlap in terms of the structural complexity reached at any point in their life-cycle depending on their functions” (Romaine 1998: 47). In this way, the formal definitions that follow are not always easily applicable. Both “pidgin” and “creole” are terms used to refer to varieties of speech which emerge in situations where there is language contact. A pidgin, unlike a creole, has no native speakers. It is spoken by people of different mother tongues who need to communicate with each other in situations of, for example, trade, migration or
Chapter 1. Introduction
enslavement. It is then a conscious linguistic creation on the part of these adults resulting from a combination of elements from their different native languages. In this way pidgins are “artificial” languages and indeed remain simpler than natural languages in that they generally have less vocabulary, less morphology, and fewer syntactic options (Koopman & Lefebvre 1981). It is claimed by DeCamp (1971a) that “a pidgin (…) is so limited, both lexically and structurally, that it is suitable only for specialized and limited communication”. When DeCamp (1971a) considers the case of creoles, however, he writes “A creole is inferior to its corresponding standard language only in social status”. A creole comes into existence when a pidgin has acquired native speakers (Hall 1966), and in this way the process of nativization is crucial in the birth of a creole, unlike that of a pidgin. As De Camp (1971a: 16) puts it, a creole language is: “(t)he native language of most of its speakers. Therefore its vocabulary and syntactic devices are, like those of any native language, large enough to meet all the communicative needs of its speakers.” The descendants of the speakers of a pidgin somehow “transform” the latter when they adopt it as their mother tongue. It is as if this new generation unconsciously “reanalyses” certain parts of the grammar of the pidgin to turn it into a language possessing its own grammatical rules (Seuren & Wekker 1986). The creole is fuller than the previous pidgin not only with respect to its lexical repertoire but also in its selection of grammatical operations. Such a vast creative accomplishment on the part of the younger generations of pidgin speakers argues for a certain linguistic predisposition, thus supporting the nativist approach. Despite the debate as to whether a certain variety of speech is definable as a pidgin or rather as a creole, none will deny that the variety spoken in Jamaica which is under analysis here is classifiable as a creole. Indeed it has been for centuries and remains today the mother tongue of a large portion of the population of the island of Jamaica and as a result exploits those options and constraints provided by UG. In the light of the formal terminological clarification above, it is not surprising that this language exhibits those structural characteristics typical of a creole: Bakker (1995) lists some of these and opposes them to those found in pidgins:
(1) a. Whereas all creole languages have SVO word order, pidgins can have any conceivable word order, including variable order.
(2) a. TMA16 is expressed by adverbs, if at all, in pidgins but mostly by preverbal elements in creoles.
(3) a. reduplication is a common, almost universal process in creole languages, but it is rare in pidgins, though common in extended pidgins.
. Where TMA stands for Tense, Mood & Aspect.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
With respect to the structural properties typical of creoles, Jamaican Creole (henceforth JC) is no exception: All three characteristics evoked in (1a), (2a), and (3a) are typical of this language, and I give an example of each of these in (1b), (2b) and (3b) below: (1) b.
S V O Kieti waan wan neda buk Katie want one another book “Katie wants another book.”
(2) b.
S Tense Verb O Particle ‘im ehn/did17 nyam i’ aaf s/he [+past] eat it off “s/he ate it up.”
(3) b.
S Particle Verb Verb reduplicated O Da gyal de a chat-chat wi bizniz18 Dem girl deictic [equative] chat-chat 1st pl business “That girl is incessantly spreading our personal affairs.”
Bailey (1966)
On the basis of all these observations Jamaican is accurately referred to as a Creole. It is then by definition a natural language. Under the nativist hypothesis, a study of this language, like that of any other natural language, should uncover a complex linguistic system regulated by the Principles and Parameters of UG. Under this hypothesis, therefore, the articulation of JC’s functional structure is expected to show compatibility with the very elaborate clausal architecture provided by UG and exploited by all natural human languages (Pollock 1989; Belletti 1990; Cinque 1999; Rizzi 1997; Abney 1987). We will see that this prediction is borne out.
. Ehn and did express past tense in rural and urban Creole respectively. Some of the data drawn from the literature on JC use ehn, so I familiarise the reader with this marker here. Although this marker is not unfamiliar to me, I will not always give it in my examples as I am not personally a user of it. . I argue in Chapter 2 that this form of reduplication is an expression of frequentative aspect. Other instances of reduplication concern verb focalisation (the two parts of the verb are separate in these instances):
[+foc] verb S Asp verb reduplicated a wok im a wok [+foc] work s/he [+prog] work “what s/he is doing is working.”
Focalisation as well as other left peripheral processes are discussed in Chapter 3.
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.5 Theorectical framework The approach guiding the present research is known as The Cartographic Framework. Linguists working within this framework aim to draw structural maps capable of accounting for the syntactic complexity as well as the fundamental uniformity observed in natural languages. At the core of their investigation is the notion that all morphemes, lexical and functional, project their own phrasal category and, as a result, each one is indicative of a part of the clausal architecture. This view sprang from the observation that if affixes are taken to play a syntactic role, then we can elegantly account for certain language-internal distributional variations of the English inflectional system (Chomsky 1957). Comparative work further illustrated that cross-linguistic variation could also be captured once the section of the clause responsible for hosting inflectional affixes was increasingly developed so as to include different positions hosting distinct affixal heads (Pollock 1989). This continued to fuel research on the nature of the functional domain of the clause from a cross-linguistic point of view, yielding ultimately pivotal works by Rizzi (1997) for the Complementizer Phrase (CP), Cinque (1999) for the Inflectional Phrase (IP), and Abney (1987) for the Determiner Phrase. These works all point to the need to split each of the three sections into a considerably more articulate zone. On the one hand, their combined efforts therefore result in a syntactic apparatus that is composed of a very rich array of functional projections. On the other hand, this highly articulate structure nevertheless maintains simplicity and uniformity given that all projections follow one format, that of X-bar theory, and all these projections are universal in both their nature and relative hierarchy. Variations in word order are then captured by parameters triggering movement operations. Movement operations are subject to a constraint called Relativized Minimality (Rizzi 1990). This constraint essentially captures the structural locality that must be respected by linguistic elements, namely that an element Z cannot intervene in between two elements X and Y if Z has features of the same type as X and Y. X… Z… Y…
(Rizzi 1990: 1)
As such, the minimal domain permitted for structural configurations is relativized to the features encoded by the elements involved. This simple principle applies to elements of the same structural type and accounts for intervention effects that arise. This basic outline provides the essential components of the cartographic app roach which guides my analysis of the clause in Jamaican Creole. Crucially, the map of functional projections proposed by previous endeavors in this framework has served to provide new possibilities for accounting for the presence of various grammatical phenomena in Jamaican. The organization of the work is sketched in the following section.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
1.6 Organization of the book An overview of the content of this book is as follows: In Chapter 2, we aim to identify the heads of the JC inflectional system, i.e., those of Tense, Mood and Aspect. Although these markers have been previously described in works such as Bailey (1966) and Patrick (1999), their relative hierarchy deserves closer analysis. Literature on Creoles has generally claimed that the ordering of functional particles is Tense > Mood/modal > Aspect (e.g., Bickerton 1981; Muysken 1980), hence they are referred to as TMA markers. In the present work, I propose a more fine-grained articulation of inflection in JC. I begin by observing that modals can co-occur in this language, so their relative order needs to be determined: (1) Im wuda mos kyahn elp uno 3rd sg Modal Modal Modal help 2nd pl “S/he would necessarily be able to help you all.”
I consider various data revealing that when modals co-occur, this combination must respect a certain ordering constraint. Then I discuss the distribution of modals in relation to tense, drawing on data from JC to exemplify that both Tense > Modal (2), and Modal > Tense (3) are attested orders: (2) Im did mos hafi dwi i’ 3rd sg past Modal Modal do it “S/he had to do it.” (3) Im (*did) wuda did se dat 3rd sg ([+past]) Modal [+past] say that “S/he would have said that.”
I show that these distributional differences are linked to an epistemic/root interpretational distinction. Finally, I examine the distribution of aspectual particles, which like modals, can co-occur in a specific order. In working out the structure for these markers, I also attempt to account for the distribution of completive don, which has the particularity of occasionally occurring in a post-VP configuration. When don precedes [-stative] verbs, it can yield two different interpretations (4), unlike when it follows them (5): (4)
Im don nyam i’ 3rd sg done eat it a. “S/he already ate it.” b. “S/he finished eating it.”
Chapter 1. Introduction
(5)
Im nyam i’ don 3rd sg eat it done a. *“S/he already ate it.” b. *“She finished eating it.”
I take this to suggest the presence of two different don markers in JC: one corresponding to the meaning [+ Completive] as given by the verb “to finish” in English, and the other corresponding to the meaning [+ Anterior] as given by the adverb “already” in English. I propose an analysis for the instances of post-VP don in terms of VP-movement to [Spec, CompletiveP]. A wide range of data suggests that VPmovement is limited in JC, explaining why the VP cannot target [Spec, AnteriorP] (see 5a), as movement as high as AnteriorP would violate Relativized Minimality (Rizzi 1990). The following overall ordering for preverbal markers in JC is shown to be as follows:
(6) Mod(al) epistemic > T(ense)> Mod necessity > Mod root obligation > Mod root ability/permission > T [+anterior] > Asp(ect) [+retrospective] > Asp [+progressive] > Asp [+prospective] > Asp [+completive] > Asp [+frequentative]
This structure proves compatible with the framework adopted in Cinque (1999), and therefore provides new evidence in favour of a universal clausal architecture. Chapter 3 concentrates on studying the the left periphery. We examine to what extent morphological evidence is provided by JC for projections of the type ForceP, TopicP, FocusP and FiniteP and determine to what extent this language gives evidence for an articulate left-periphery along the lines of the hierarchy proposed by Rizzi (1997). We observe that in this language, argument topicalization differs syntactically from fronted scene-setter modifiers by targetting a higher position than the latter: (7) Yeside, da bwaai (-de), im nyam aaf di uol a di bami-dem Yesterday, that boy ([Top]), 3rd sg eat off the whole of the bammy [pl] “Yesterday, that very boy, he ate up all of the bammies.”
Moreover, the data illustrate that argument topicalization can occur with a marker de and a resumptive clitic, while adjunct topicalization cannot. Scene-setters and topics are then shown to precede wh-elements (8a) as well as focussed elements (8b): (8) a.
Yeside, da bwaai (-de), (a) wa im nyam ? Yesterday, that boy ([Top]), (a) what 3rd sg eat “Yesterday, that very boy, what did he eat?”
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
b. Yeside, da bwaai (-de), (a) dat im nyam Yesterday, that boy ([Top]), (a) that 1st sg eat “Yesterday, that very boy, THAT’s what he ate.”
We point out that Wh-movement and Focus-Movement differ in many respects from topicalization: neither of the former involve resumptive pronouns, both yield Weak-Crossover Effects, and both occur with the marker a. Moreover Focus and Wh-movement are in complementary distribution. We argue therefore that these movements are subcases of an A’ movement operation targeting [Spec, Focus/ WhP], situated lower in the clausal architecture than Scene-Setter ModifierP and TopicP. We observe that constituents hosted by [Spec, FocP] are nominal constituents, including focussed predicates. This analysis is proposed on the basis of the observation that fronted focussed predicates cannot be modified by Tense, Mood or Aspect markers, do not readily appear with their complements, can occur with a determiner and can be modified by adjectives. The hierarchy yielded by this examination of the JC complementizer system is as follows:
(9) ForceP > ModifierP > TopicP > Focus/WhP > FinP.
Chapter 4 turns to the extended projection of nominals and aims to uncover the inventory of structural positions related to this domain. A fine-grained syntactic map is developed drawing on work by Abney (1987); Cinque (1994); Aboh (2002); and Scott (2002), among others. This enriched structure is seen to accommodate patterns observed for JC determiners, numerals, quantifiers, demonstratives and their associated deictics, the plural/inclusiveness marker as well as adjectives. It is proposed that movement of lower chunks of the DP occurs in nominals that are discourse-linked, which accounts for the appearance of post-nominal morphological material in these instances: (10) Dem [tuu priiti-priit ]i gyal]i de ti 3rd sg two preety-preety girl deictic reinforcer “Those two (aforementioned) PRETTY girls.”
All these distributional and interpretational characteristics of overtly realized JC nominal morphology testify to the presence of various functional projections in the DP. We then observe that the presence of functional projections higher than the adjectival layer has an impact on the interpretation of tense and aspect when the latter are morphologically null:
(11) a.
Chapter 1. Introduction
Im nyam (raip) aki 3rd sg eat (ripe) ackee “S/he eats (ripe) ackees.”19
b. Im nyam chrii (raip) aki 3rd sg eat three (ripe) ackee “S/he ate three (ripe) ackees.”
We argue that these default telicity effects are encoded by delimiting an eventive VP with a “quantized” direct object, as opposed to a non-quantized one – this “quantized” trait stems from the presence or absence of structure (higher than attributive AdjPs) in the nominal domain. Such an object can be completely affected at some point in time, and therefore qualifies the VP that contains it for movement to [Spec, CompletiveAspP]. Recall that VP-movement to [Spec, CompletiveAspP] will have been independently argued for in Chapter 2. It is this movement which would render the Completive-head position potentially null, given that its specifier is realized. Given that morphological marking then becomes omissible here as the result of structural movement, we conclude that such an absence of morphology also testifies to the presence of functional structure. Chapter 5 is the conclusion.
. “Ackee” is the national fruit of Jamaica.
chapter 2
IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole 2.1 Introduction This chapter explores the syntax of declarative clauses in Jamaican Creole (JC). The investigation situates itself within the Principles and Parameters framework, which upholds that the study of any natural human language reveals a complex linguistic system regulated by the Principles and Parameters of Universal Grammar (UG). Under this perspective, the examination of the architecture of the clause in JC is expected to show compatibility with the very elaborate functional clause-structure provided by UG (Pollock 1989; Belletti 1990; Cinque 1999). This research verifies the validity of such a prediction. The work is organized as follows: section 2.2 presents the universal clausestructure in question; section 2.3 turns to the articulation of inflection in JC; section 2.4 recapitulates the overall ordering of Tense, Mood and Aspect markers in this language in terms of a global hierarchy; Section 2.5 addresses theoretical issues that are raised by the hierarchy adopted; section 2.6 highlights the evidence from JC for the framework provided by Cinque (1999); and section 2.7 concludes the discussion. 2.2 The architecture of the clause 2.2.1 The split-infl hypothesis The structure in (1) illustrates a first application of X’-schema to both lexical and functional categories of sentential structure:
(1)
CP Spec
C’ C°
IP DP
I’ Iº
VP DP
V’ V°
XP
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
Although this analysis is essentially on the right track, it has had to be modified into a more articulate structure on the basis of both conceptual and empirical shortcomings: a. Conceptually, it is undesirable to associate a single X° with independent sets of features such as tense and agreement. b. Empirically, the splitting of this projection is forced so as to accommodate word order variations such as those found between French and English.1
(2)
AGRP AGR’
NP AGR
TP T’ T
VP...
(Pollock 1989; Belletti 1990)
A recent development of clause structure has led to the postulation of additional functional projections to those in (2). Much of the evidence for this stems from a meticulous observation of the behaviour of adverbs as discussed in Cinque (1999), as well as that of bound and free functional heads expressing Tense, Modality and Aspect. The present chapter situates itself within the framework provided by Cinque (1999). More specifically, it aims at testing its validity on new evidence of the third sort: i.e., free functional morphemes as found in the grammar of JC. 2.2.2 Cinque (1999) 2.2.2.1 A hierarchy of adverbial classes Adverbial hierarchy is established on the observation that certain adverbs (each representative of a class) necessarily precede others. For example, consider the data in (3) and (4) from French which examines the position of déjà in relation to pas and plus: (3) a. b.
Si tu n’as pas déjà mangé, tu peux le prendre “If you have not already eaten, you can take it.” *Si tu n’as déjà pas mangé, tu peux le prendre “If you have already not eaten, you can take it.”
. C.f. Pollock (1989).
Chapter 2. IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole
(4) a. b.
A l’époque, il ne possédait déjà plus rien “At the time, he did not possess already any longer anything.” *A l’époque, il ne possédait plus déjà rien “At the time, he did not possess any longer already anything.”
These examples yield the relative orders: pas > déjà and déjà > plus. Through transitivity, it is expected that plus be more structurally embedded than pas. At first sight, this may appear difficult to prove since the two cannot co-occur: (5) a. b.
*Ils n’ont pas plus téléphoné They haven’t not any longer telephoned *Ils n’ont plus pas téléphoné They haven’t any longer not telephoned
Despite the impossible co-occurrence of pas and plus, evidence with respect to lexical infinitives (Pollock 1989) upholds that, as expected from the data above, pas is higher than plus in the structure: (6) a. Ne dormir plus b. Ne plus dormir (7) a. *Ne dormir pas b. Ne pas dormir
The data above can be accounted for in terms of the syntactic analysis in (8):
(8)
[_ [pas _ [plus … dormir]]]
X
This argumentation upholds both a hierarchical organisation of adverbs, the latter’s status as XPs,2 as well as the presence of intervening X° positions where, for example, a lexical verb [-fin] can occur. The hierarchy of AdvPs proposed in Cinque (1999) on the basis of evidence from Romance (Italian and French), is shown to hold cross-linguistically: English, Norwegian, Bosnian/Serbo-croatian, Hebrew, Chinese, and Albanian, to name a few languages, reveal a striking consistency in the ordering of adverb classes. Indeed, despite the occasional surface variations of adverbial orders from one language to the next, it is illustrated in Cinque (1999) that, upon closer examination, these variations remain consistent with a single overall order. An example of
. Note that if adverbs were X°s, they should block X° movement (e.g., of the infinitive) under Relativized Minimality (Rizzi 1990).
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
apparent cross-linguistic variation in the ordering of adverbs may be found between English and Romance always/sempre and any longer/più:
(9) John doesn’t always win his games any longer
(10) a. Gianni non vince più sempre le sue partite G. [neg] win any longer always his games b. *Gianni non vince sempre più le sue partite
However, “when both always and (not…) any longer appear before the verb, their order is just like that found in Italian (Romance)” (Cinque (1999: 33): (11) a. John doesn’t any longer always win his games b. *John doesn’t always any longer win his games
The apparent subversion of the order of adverbs in (9) can therefore be analysed as XP movement of [always win his games] across any longer as shown in (12). Movement across any longer gives rise to a slight focus on this adverb: (12) John doesn’t [always win his games]i any longer ti
Through this type of meticulous consideration of the syntactic behaviour of adverbs, the single, universal order of AdvPs is identified: (13) Frankly > fortunately > allegedly > probably > once > then > perhaps > necessarily > possibly > willingly > inevitably > cleverly > usually > again > often > quickly > already > no longer > still > always > just > soon > briefly > characteristically > almost > completely > tutto > well > fast/early > completely > again > often
Independently of AdvPs, Cinque (1999) determines the order of clausal functional heads based on evidence from bound and free morphological inflection. Once again, he examines a wide variety of languages, and the overt relative orders evinced in these support his claim that, as found to obtain for AdvPs, functional heads are universally organised in a single overall order. 2.2.2.2 Bound functional morphemes If a universal hierarchy of functional heads indeed exists, then head-initial languages such as English should reflect the mirror image to that observed in “head-final” languages such as German: (14) English: These books have been being read all year Tense > Aspectperfect > Aspectprogressive (15) German: …daβ er von der Bank angestellt worden sein muss …that he by the bank employed been have must “…that he must have been employed by the bank.” Aspectperfect > Tense > Modal
Chapter 2. IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole
The data above confirms that, as a consequence of the headedness parameter, German virtually duplicates the evidence from English for the order of functional heads 2.2.2.3 Free functional morphemes Free functional morphemes behave differently to bound functional morphemes in that they disallow the head immediately below them to adjoin onto them. Consequently, in instances of head-initial languages evincing particles, the latter “allow us to directly observe the order of functional heads. One such case is provided by creole languages” (Cinque 1999: 58). Literature on Creoles has generally claimed that the ordering of functional particles is Tense – Mood/modal – Aspect, wherefore the reference to these as TMA markers. Cinque (1999: 59) underlines that “(t)hough in essence correct, this ordering is somewhat gross, and must be qualified. For one thing, various aspectual particles can co-occur, so that their relative order needs to be determined”. Cinque’s careful analysis of data from head-initial Guyanese Creole, Haitian Creole, and Sranan leads to a refinement of this claim. For example, Guyanese Creole provides evidence for co-occurring aspectual particles: (16) Shi a aalweez/neva de a sing(Guyanese Creole; Gibson 1986: 852f) She HAB always/never DUR PROG sing “She usually always/never keeps singing.”
Therefore different positions for Asp head positions must be provided in the structure. Secondly, Cinque (1999: 59) notes that “there are occasional claims in the literature for the order Modal > Tense rather than Tense > Modal”. Guyanese Creole also gives insight for the postulation of various positions for modals: (17) Jaan shuda
bin
kyaan get
fu
gu
J. MODepistemic PAST MODr MODr COMP go “J. should not have been able to be allowed to go.”
(Guyanese Creole; Gibson 1986: 585)
The data in (17) shows different positions for epistemic versus root modals (ability > permission) with respect to tense: indeed whereas the former precedes T°, the latter follows it. Therefore Cinque (1999) refines the traditional analysis of TMA markers so as to derive a more articulate structure with different positions for accommodating different modal types. The more intricate structure of functional particles established on the basis of head-initial languages is further supported by evidence from “head-final” languages which also make use of functional particles (e.g., Kachin of the TibetoBurman area, or Sanio-Hiowe of New Guinea): The latter in fact display their particles sentence finally, in a mirror image order to that which is established on the basis of direct evidence from “head-initial” languages with particles.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
Putting the attested relative orders together, Cinque (1999) arrives at the single overall order in (18): (18) Moodspeech act > Moodevaluative > Moodevidential > Modepistemic > T(past) > T (Future) > Moodirrealis > Modnecessity > Modpossibility > Modvolition > Modobligation > Modability/permission > Asphabitual > T(Anterior) > Aspperfect/imperfect > Aspretrospective > Aspdurative > Aspgeneric/progressive > Aspprospective > AspCompletive > Voice > Aspcelerative > Aspcompletive > Asp(semel)repetitive > Aspiterative
At this stage one can observe the two independently established hierarchies, namely that of AdvPs and that of functional heads, and see that they generally match semantically from left to right: (19) [Frankly Moodspeech act [fortunately Moodevaluative [allegedly Moodevidential [probably Modepistemic [once T(past) [then T(Future) [perhaps Moodirrealis [necessarily Modnecessity [possibly Modpossibility [willingly Modvolition [inevitably Modobligation [cleverly Modability/permission [usually Asphabitual [again Asprepetitive (I) [often Aspfrequentative (I) [quickly Aspcelerative(I) [already T (Anterior) [no longer Aspterminative [still Aspcontinuative [always Aspperfect (?) [just Aspretrospective [soon Aspproximative [briefly Aspdurative [characteristically (?) [? Aspgeneric/progressive [almost Aspprospective [completely Aspcompletive (I) [tutto AspPlCompletive [well Voice [fast/early Aspcelerative (II) [completely AspSgCompletive (II) [again Asprepetitive (II) [often Aspfrequentative (II) …
Cinque (1999: 77) writes that “(i)n many cases a transparent specifier/head relation between a certain adverb class and the right-adjacent functional head is immediately recognizable”. He concludes that the essential compatibility of individual languages attested with this comprehensive order cannot be accidental. Rather, it follows as a consequence of the fact that the structure in (19) above is a fixed order determined by UG. Therefore Cinque (1999) predicts that no human language should prove incompatible with the hierarchy expressed in (19) or refinements of it. JC is a new territory on which to test Cinque’s (1999) clause structure. 2.3 The articulation of inflection in JC Inflectional markers are the overt manifestation of clausal functional heads, and their corresponding adverbs are the overt realisation of the specifiers of their projections. The investigation undertaken in this chapter verifies if a rigid order exists amongst the functional material of the clause in JC, as predicted by the
Chapter 2. IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole
framework, and if such a hierarchy is compatible with that established in Cinque (1999).3 2.3.1 The preverbal markers JC exhibits SVO surface order: (20)
Dem ehn/did4 nuo dat S V O Them [+past] know that “They knew that.”
Verbs are not conjugated via inflectional morphology in this language. In (20), an independent inflectional element, ehn (rural) or did (urban) depending on the variety of Creole, precedes the verb stem and gives rise to a past interpretation. These markers do not agree in tense or number with the subject: (21) Mi/yu/Im/Wi/Unu /Dem ehn/did nuo beta I/you/S/he/We/You[+plural]/They [+past] know better “I/you/S/he/We/You[+plural]/They knew better.”
JC makes use of markers to express not only tense, but also mood and aspect (TMA). All of these markers, when used, must intervene between the subject and the invariant verb form, as seen for past tense markers in (20) and (21). An example of a modal is given in (22), and an aspectual marker in (23): (22) Im shuda nyam di bami lang taim S/he [+modal] eat the bammy long time “S/he should’ve eaten the bammy a long time ago.” (23) Im a nyam di bami S/he [+progressive] eat the bammy “S/he is eating the bammy.”
Long sequences of these middle-field inflectional markers seldom occur in JC, but nevertheless they can potentially be used combinatorily, and occasionally are, as long as they fall in a fixed order: (24) a. b. c.
Jan shuda ehn a ron S/he [+modal] [+past] [+prog] run “S/he should have been running.” *Jan shuda a ehn ron *Jan ehn shuda a ron
Bailey (1966)
. See also Durrleman (2000, 2001). . Recall that ehn and did express past tense in rural and urban Creole respectively (Section 1.4, footnote 17).
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
d. *Jan ehn a shuda ron e. *Jan a shuda ehn ron f. *Jan a ehn shuda ron
2.3.2 Modals 2.3.2.1 Mod(al) 1 The examples in (24a–f) suggest that in JC the structural hierarchy of inflectional markers gives rise to certain modals, here shuda, dominating tense and aspect markers. An inventory of these initial modals is given in (25):5 (25) shuda, wuda, maita, mosa, kuda
A particularity of modals belonging to this class is that they tend to all end in a: (26) Im shuda neva tiif di manggo-dem S/he [+modal] never thief the mango-[plural] “S/he never should’ve stolen the mangoes.”
Modal-associated a is not a marker encoding past time (such as perfective have in the Standard), contrary to what the translation for (26) may imply. Notice that stative verbs may follow these sequences and give rise to a present interpretation (27): (27) Beta Jan no tel im dat, caw im wuda tingk se im Better John [neg] tell him that, ’cause him [+modal] think that him a di bes! [equative] the best “(It’s) better that John doesn’t tell him that, because he would think that he’s the best!”
The past interpretation is therefore not forced by the presence of this modal-associated a element at all.6 Modals from different sets can be combined in JC. The first set of modals in the hierarchy of modal markers is Mod(al)1. Modals of the same set cannot be combined amongst themselves: (28) a. *Im shuda wuda … b. *Im wuda shuda …
. Note that one also finds the form mosi instead of mosa: Jan mosi en du it: “John must have done it” (Winford 1993: 111). . The interpretations of (26) and (27) vary due to properties of the VPs involved. We discuss default temporal readings of stative and non-stative verbs first in section 2.3.3 of this chapter and then in more depth in Chapter 4 section 4.3.
Chapter 2. IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole
c. d. e. f. g. h.
*Im shuda maita … *Im maita shuda … *Im shuda mosa … *Im mosa shuda … *Im shuda kuda … *Im kuda shuda … etc.
2.3.2.2 Mod(al)s 2 & 3 In the event that the combination of modals takes place (29a, 30a), this combination must respect a certain ordering constraint, otherwise the result is ungrammatical (29 b–f, 30 b–f): (29) a. Im shooda muss kyan get tru “He must surely be able to succeed” / “It surely must be possible for him to succeed.” (30) a. dat-de biebi wuda mos hafi priti “That baby would have to be pretty” / “That baby would (necessarily) inevitably be pretty”7 (29)
b. c. d. e. f.
*Im muss shooda kyan get tru *Im kyan muss shooda get tru *Im muss kyan shooda get tru *Im shooda kyan muss get tru *Im kyan shooda muss kyan get tru
(30)
b. c. d. e. f.
*Dat-de biebi mos wuda hafi priti *Dat-de biebi hafi mos wuda priti *Dat-de biebi mos hafi wuda priti *Dat-de biebi wuda hafi mos priti *Dat-de biebi hafi wuda mos priti
Adams (1995)
Bailey (1966)
As a result the first set of modals, Mod1, whose members always end in a, can be opposed to mos, hafi and kyan which occur deeper in the structure. Mos can in turn be opposed to hafi and kyan in that the former precedes the latter. On the basis of these observations, the positions of modals in the structure of JC seem to fall in the fixed order given in (31):8 (31) [Mod1 kuda/wuda/shuda/mosa/maita] > [Mod2 mos] > [Mod3 hafi, kyahn] … . Glosses for (29a) and (30a) are rendered more precise by me. . It is not immediately obvious why sequences such as …*kuda kyahn…, and …*mosa mos… are banned, as the mutual exclusion of these elements can neither be accounted for in terms of competition for the same position, nor in terms of semantics alone. Notice that in French, a similar constraint on modals exists: *pouvait pouvoir, *devrait devoir.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
As already attested for Mod1, modals belonging to the same set compete for the same position and consequently cannot be combined amongst each other: (32) a. *Im kyahn hafi … b. *Im hafi kyahn …
2.3.3 Tense 2.3.3.1 Past tense In the sequence of inflectional markers in JC, just after the modals ending in a comes the past tense marker e(h)n9 in basilectal varieties, did in mesolectal ones: (33) Im wooda en say (Adams 1995) Im wuda did say S/he would [+past] say S/he would [+past] say “S/he would have said(…)” “S/he would have said(…)”
This tense marker is optional in sentences such as those given in (33): even in the event that en and did were done away with, the interpretation yielded could still correspond to the conditional past: (34) Im wuda se dat “S/he would have said that.”
This is because null tense specification is the default mechanism for expressing past with non-stative verbs in JC: (35) Im se dat siem ting de S/he say that same thing there “S/he said that very thing.”
Since [–stative] verbs have a default interpretation corresponding to a past-time reading, in the case of these verbs the insertion of a [+past] tense marker did generally yields an anterior past interpretation. (36) Jan did nyam di bami John [+past] eat the bammy “John had eaten the bammy.”
The potential temporal specifications for a non-stative verb such as ron are given in (37): (37) a. Mi ron I run (habitually); I ran b. Mi en ron I have run; I had run
Sebba (1993)10
. JLU now inserts h in ehn to represent the fact that e bears a nasal feature: [ẽ] according to IPA transcription. . Sebba (1993) draws on Bailey (1966).
Chapter 2. IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole
The [+/– stative] nature of the verb plays a crucial role in determining tense in the absence of markers: we have seen that a non-stative verb without markers has a default interpretation corresponding to past-time. With respect to stative verbs, however, the absence of particles results in a non-past interpretation: (38) Jan tingk se im ø a di bes John think that he [equative] the best “John thinks/*thought that he is/*was the best.”
Therefore the [+/–stative] nature of a verb plays an important role in the temporal specifications assigned to this verb. On the one hand, the default time specification for non-stative verbs is past, so that when ehn/did combine with [–stative] verbs the result is an anterior past interpretation. On the other hand, the default time specification for stative verbs is present, so the insertion of the pre-verbal markers ehn/did are necessary in order to obtain a past interpretation for [+stative] verbs. 2.3.3.2 Future tense The markers ehn/did considered above are tense indicators of past, in contrast to wi which is an indicator of futurity: (39) Jan wi nyam dat “John will eat that.”
Futurity may also be expressed by aspectual a+go, which often becomes ao in rapid speech: (40) Im a (g)o nyam dat S/he [prog] [prosp] eat that “S/he is going to eat that.”
Wi and a+(g)o behave differently with respect to ehn/did. The former, though not the latter, is in complementary distribution with the past tense markers. Indeed, the sense of imminence given by the Asp markers a+(g)o may very well serve in the description of some past event: (41) a. *Im ehn/did wi nyam dat b. *Im wi ehn/did nyam dat (42) Im ehn/did a (g)o nyam dat aaf, bot mi stap im 3rd sg [past] [prog] [prosp] eat that off, but 1st sg stop 3rd sg “S/he was going to eat it all up, but I stopped her/him.”
Given the complementary distribution between wi and en/did, wi is analysed here as a T marker expressing the opposite value (future) to en/did (past). The mutual exclusion of these elements could then be accounted for in terms of their targeting
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
the same T head. This analysis does not extend to a(g)o in light of the compatibility of a(g)o with en/did. A(g)o is therefore considered an aspectual marker of futurity. 2.3.4 Modals, tense and aspect 2.3.4.1 Mod1, T and Asp We have already observed in example (33) repeated here as (43) that certain modals (Mod1) must precede tense. (43) Im wooda en say (Adams 1995) Im wuda did say S/he would [+past] say S/he would [+past] say “S/he would have said(…)” “S/he would have said(…)”
We can see now that the various tense markers must in turn precede aspectual ones: (44)
a. b. c. d. e. f.
Im did a (g)o nyam… *Im a did/ehn (g)o nyam… *Im (g)o did/ehn a nyam… *Im a (g)o did/ehn nyam… *Im (g)o a did/ehn nyam… *Im did (g)o a nyam
Examples (44a–f) confirm that tense must precede aspect. (45) gives the order established so far: (45) Mod1 > T > Asp
2.3.4.2 Mod 2 & 3 and T Mod2 and 3, unlike Mod1, cannot precede a tense particle. Instead, Mod2 and 3 must follow did/wi: (46) *Im did shuda laaf 3rd sg [past] [Mod1] laugh (47) Im did (h)afi laaf “She had to laugh.” (48) Mi fiil se wen di taim kom, im wi kyahn dwiit “I feel that when the time comes, s/he will be able to do it.” (49) Im wi mos (h)afi tek dat 11 “S/he will be obliged to take that.”
. See also Bailey (1966: 44) for more examples.
Chapter 2. IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole
This means that Mod 2 and 3 are to be situated lower down in the structure than T. In the event that they behave like other lexical verbs, one could situate them under V. However this is unlikely: note that unlike lexical verbs, they cannot be situated below aspect because of the ungrammaticality of the following sequences:12 (50) *(Wen di taim kom,) im a (o) (h)afi laaf
vs. Im wi (h)afi laaf
(51) *(Wen di taim kom,) miebi im a (o) kyahn dwiit vs. Miebi im wi kyahn dwiit
The ordering of TMA markers thus seems to be as follows: (52) [Mod1 wuda/shuda/mosa/maita] > [T ehn/did/wi] > [Mod2 mos] > [Mod3 hafi, kyahn] > [Asp1 a [Asp2 (g)o] [V…]
Therefore tense intervenes between epistemic and root modals. Recall that Guyanese Creole exhibits a similar phenomenon: (53) Jaan shuda bin kyaan get fu gu J. MODepistemic past MODr MODr go “J. should not have been able to be allowed to go”.
(Gibson 1986: 585)
Cinque (1999) highlights that the distributional variation between different modal types in relation to T is linked to their correspondingly different interpretational values: Epistemic (pre-T° modals) are analysed as being “concerned with the speaker’s deductions or opinions” versus root modals (post-T° markers) which, “in contrast to epistemic (…) are strictly subject oriented”. In JC, an epistemic and a root version of the same modal exist:13 mosa and mos. The semantic contrasts between these two offers new ground where one can test this epistemic/root distinction: (54) Jan mosa did (h)afi tel dem “John most probably/more than likely was obliged to tell them” / “*John was obliged to tell them.”
. As will be seen in section 3.3.3., these modals also differ from lexical verbs in their inability to undergo focussing: *A kyahn im kyhan dw i vs A nyam im wuda nyam i A can 3rd sg can do it A eat 3rd sg Mod1 eat it “What s/he would have done is eat it” . Kuda has alethic particularities which render it difficult to strike a clear contrast with kyahn. C.f. Cinque (1999: 78, 79 & 198n3).
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
(55) Jan did mos (h)afi tel dem “John was necessarily obliged to tell them” / “14% John probably had to tell them.”
Whereas the preferred interpretation for mos yields the notion of necessary obligation with respect to the subject Jan, this is not accessible to mosa, which does not emphasise Jan’s obligation, but rather invokes the speaker’s opinion with respect to Jan’s plausible obligation.15 Another clear difference between the two has to do with their use in questions: mosa though not mos, gives rise to a distinct awkwardness in a question: (56) ??Jan mosa did hafi tel dem? (57) Jan did mos hafi tel dem?
Jackendoff (1972: 103) writes that “(i)f epistemic modals are treated like speakeroriented adverbs by the semantic component, this restriction will follow automatically”. Indeed both speaker-oriented adverbs as well as epistemic modals refer to the speaker’s deductions or opinions and therefore it is absurd for the speaker to question anyone else on these. Root modals, however, being related to properties of the subject, pose no problems in questions since a speaker may well be unaware of these properties and wish to request such information. The observations above give evidence for the structure below: (58) Mod epistemic (Mod 1) > T > Mod root obligation (Mod 2) > Mod root ability/ permission (Mod3)
2.3.5 Asp(ect) markers This section turns to aspectual markers in JC. Markers of aspect in this language, and seemingly in all languages, form the group of inflectional particles located closest to the VP (see Bybee 1985).
. It would be inaccurate to conclude that sentences including mos cannot give rise to an interpretation where the speaker’s opinion is involved. This ambiguous nature is also attested with dwe for some speakers of Haitian Creole (see Leblanc 1989: 51). Note, however, that this is not necessarily problematic for the hierarchy proposed here. Indeed this epistemic reading is possibly not due to the presence of mos and may instead follow from the fact that for any given sentence, it can be understood that the speaker is implying that s/he upholds the plausibility of his/her proposition (which in turn includes the reading of root obligation when mos is used). . Magloire-Holly (1982: 107) observes a similar phenomenon at work in Haitian Creole between the past tense marker te and the modal dwe: “te dwe a toujours le sens déontique et dwe te, toujours le sens épistémique”:
Žã te dwe maže J. past must eat ‘J. has had to (obligation) eat’
Žã dwe te maže J. must past eat ‘J. must (probability) have eaten’.
Chapter 2. IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole
2.3.5.1 Progressive aspect This marker a precedes the [–stative] verb so as to give the action or event evoked by this verb an “on-going” interpretation: (59) Jan a nyam i’ John [+prog] eat it “John is eating it.”
We observed that [-stative] VPs such as [nyam i’] are generally interpreted in the past in the absence of markers.16 In (60), the sole use of the particle a with this same VP implies that the event described is going on at the time of the utterance. In the presence of a, even with projections of [-stative] verbs, a past interpretation has to be specified: (60) Jan did a nyam unu bami (… gud ting mi tel im fi stap) John[+past] [+prog] eat your[plur] bammy (… good thing I tell him Prep stop) “John was eating your bammy” (… good thing I told him to stop)
Therefore the use of the progressive suggests that the verb evokes something in progress, by default at the time of utterance. Recall that [+stative] verbs are, by definition, inherently on-going at the time of utterance: (61) Jan nuo dat John know that “John knows that.”
It is not surprising then that the redundant combination of stative verbs with the progressive is banned: (62) *Jan a nuo dat
A combines with (g)o to yield a reading of futurity referred to as prospective aspect. 2.3.5.2 Prospective aspect Cinque (1999: 99) explains that: “the term “prospective aspect” has come to be used for those grammatical forms (…) which mark “a point just prior to the beginning of an event” (Frawley 1992: 322). This is for example the case with the English construction “to be going to”/ “to be about to”. (Comrie 1976: 64ff)”. Comrie (1976: 64) points out an important difference between “prospective meaning” as in Bill is going to/is about to throw himself off the cliff and expressions of future time reference as in Bill will throw himself off the cliff, since Bill’s eventually not throwing himself off the cliff makes the speaker wrong in the second case, but not in the first. . We propose an account for this in Chapter 4, section 4.3.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
As already underlined, a reinforcement of the idea that wi warrants an analysis as the tense marker for future while a(g)o is aspectual is founded on the observation that wi is in complementary distribution with did, although this is not the case with a(g)o: (63) a. *Im ehn/did wi nyam i’ aaf b. *Im wi ehn/did nyam i’ aaf (64) Im ehn/did a (g)o nyam i’ aaf, bot mi (ehn/did) stap im “S/he was going to eat it all up, but I stopped her/him.”
Prospective go must be used in combination with the progressive (even though in rapid speech the latter may become somewhat shortened). That any other occurrence of go is not the aspectual marker but rather a lexical verb can be seen by the fact that a minimal pair can be formed between preverbal go used without the progressive (lexical) and one used with the progressive (aspectual):17 (65) (Afta w(e)a im se…) yu go pik i’ op? Vs. y(u) a go pik i’ op? (After what s/he say) you go pick it up you [+prog] [+prosp] pick it up “(After what s/he said) you went and picked it up? /you’re going to pick it up?”
2.3.5.3 Retrospective aspect In this work, the marker jos designating “immediate past” is referred to along the lines of Cinque (1999) as retrospective aspect (66) Im did jos a go dw i’ S/he [past] [retrospective] [progressive] [prospective] do it “S/he was just about to do it.”
As seen from example (66), jos precedes the aspectual markers a and go considered in the previous sections. 2.3.5.4 Completive aspect and anterior The inflectional particle don may precede the VP as do other aspect markers of JC but it also has the particularity of occasionally occurring in a post-VP configuration: (67) Jiemz no riid di buk don yet James [Neg] read the book don yet “James has not finished reading the book yet.”
(Bailey 1966: 42)
This characteristic was already noticed by Cassidy (1961: 65) who gives the following description for don: “The participle done enters into a peculiar adverbial
. In “yu o pik i op” the only possible interpretation of o is as prospective since only this functional element undergoes phonetic erosion, unlike the lexical verb go.
Chapter 2. IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole
idiom. Placed after verbs it shows completion of the action. (…) “Me feed him dun dis long time” (…) done loses verbal force and becomes a modifier of the other verb.” In the event that don occurs in a pre-VP configuration with [-stative] verbs, it can yield two different interpretations. A sentence such as that in (67) is therefore ambiguous, giving rise to the interpretations in (67a) and (67b): (67)
Im don nyam i’ S/he done eat it a. “S/he already ate it.” b. “S/he finished eating it.”
The additional interpretation in (67a) is erased in a post-VP configuration, so the ambiguity observed for (67) no longer obtains in (68) where don follows the VP it modifies: (68)
Im nyam i’ don S/he eat it done a. “*S/he already ate it.” b. “She finished eating it (up).”
I take this to suggest the presence of two different don markers in JC, one corresponding to the meaning [+completion] as given by the verb “to finish” in English, and the other corresponding to the meaning [+anterior], as given by the adverb “already” in English. These two don markers behave differently syntactically: With respect to completive don, VP-movement18 optionally takes place to its specifier position: [Spec,CompletiveAspP]. It is this movement which gives rise to a post-VP don. Regarding Anterior don however, the data in (68) indicates that Spec of AnteriorP is not accessible to VP-movement. In other words, if one were to translate the sentence in (69) into JC, one could not say (69a), only (69b): (69) S/he already ate it a. *im nyam i’ don b. im don nyam i’
A possible hypothesis to account for the fact that a VP cannot move to the Spec of [+anterior] don, is that the VP in JC cannot move as high as the [+anterior] projection. Movement of the VP in JC is limited as examples (70–2) illustrate: a VP . I assume leftward movement of a VP to be possible, in line with Cinque (1999: 190n26) who also makes use of this device to derive sentence final don for Guyanese Creole. I return to the discussion of VP movement in section 2.5.2.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
cannot be found in the specifier of projections for retrospective aspect jos (70a,b), progressive aspect a (71a,b), or prospective aspect go (72a,b): (70) a. b.
Im jos nyam i’ S/he just eat it “S/he just ate it.” *Im nyam i’ jos
(71) a. b.
Im a nyam i’ S/he [+prog] eat it “S/he is eating it.” *Im nyam i’ a
(72) a. b.
Im a (g)o nyam i’ S/he [+prog] [+prosp] eat it “S/he is going to eat it.” *Im a nyam i’ (g)o
If movement of [–stative] VPs in JC cannot go as high as the specifiers of aspectual particles such as jos, a and (g)o, yet the specifier of the particle don [+completive] may host the [–stative] VP in JC, then it can be reasonably hypothesised that the projection of don [+completive] be situated quite low in the structure: lower than the aspectual markers considered here. If this were not the case, then movement to the specifer of completive aspect would be excluded since it would violate Relativized Minimality through having to skip intermediate specifier positions. This predicts a structure along the lines of (73): (73)
[Intermediate Asp] >
^
[don [+completive]] > VP ^
X
^ ←
Indeed, this is confirmed by the examples in (74, 75) which overtly illustrate the distribution of this particle [+completive] as used in JC in relation to other inflectional markers: (74) Wentaim mi riich, im did jos don nyam i’ When I reach, s/he [+past] [+retrospective] [+completive] eat it “When I arrived, s/he’d just finished eating it.” (75) Main! Im a go don19 nyam di uol a i’! Mind! S/he [+prog] [+prosp] [+completive] eat the whole of it “Careful! S/he is going to finish eating all of it!” . Note that while don [completive] may potentially occur with prospective a (g)o, it does not occur easily with progressive a alone: ??im a don nyam i.
Chapter 2. IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole
In this way, don can be seen to follow the lowest of the other overtly expressed aspectual heads in JC: (76) Asp [+retrospective] > Asp [+prog] > Asp [+prosp] > Asp [+completive]
As expected, this occurrence of don, i.e., deeply embedded structurally, cannot correspond to an interpretation meaning [+anterior], but is reserved only for an interpretation implying that the action expressed is completed. It follows that [+completive] aspect is, as hypothesised, situated low down in the clausal hierarchy: lower than the other aspectual heads already considered, and lower than T [+anterior]. Given the observations above, JC gives evidence for two different types of inflectional particles don: one [+anterior], the other [+completive]. Completive may occur either in a pre- or post-VP configuration, and is only compatible with [– stative] verbs, Anterior can only occur in a pre-VP configuration, and may occur with both [+stative] and [–stative] verbs. Don when used in combination with [+stative] verbs in a pre-VP configuration, unlike that observed with respect to [–stative] verbs, does not give rise to ambiguity in JC. Consider example (77) with the verb nuo, and the fact that the interpretation in (77a) can be derived, whereas the one in (77b) cannot: (77) Im don nuo se mi laik im a. “S/he already knows that I like her/him.” b. “*S/he finished knowing that I like her/him.”
This amounts to saying that the only marker don which can occur with [+stative] verbs is the one which gives rise to the meaning [+anterior], as expressed by the adverb “already” in English. Lamiroy (1987: 284)20 accounts for this by suggesting that: “since all the phases in a state are identical (…) (states) lack an internal dynamic structure. Aspect, however, crucially deals with the internal structure of situations. Therefore states and the expression of aspect are naturally incompatible”. It follows then that stative verbs may be specified for T [anterior] don, but not for Asp [completive] don. The hypothesis that there exist two different don markers in the clause structure makes a prediction as to the potential syntactic distribution of the projections of [+stative] verbs with respect to the particle don: If don [+anterior] cannot host VPs in its Spec because it is too far away, and only this don can occur with [+stative] verbs, then [+stative] VPs should never be able to occur in a pre-don . In Da Cruz (1995: 368).
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
configuration, as the latter configuration is derived by movement to the specifier of don [+completive] only. This prediction is borne out as the contrast between (78a) and (78b) illustrates: (78) a. b.
Im don nuo dat S/he done know that “S/he already knows that.” *Im [[nuo dat]i don] ti S/he know that done
Don [+anterior] does not easily combine with other markers in JC, so although we have reason to believe it is relatively high in the hierarchy of markers, it would be difficult, maybe impossible, to locate its exact position in the structure if we did not have recourse to its corresponding adverb aredi, an overt manifestation of its specifier position along the lines of Cinque (1999: 94): Aredi, like don[anterior], has as “its core meaning (…) one of temporal priority (…), in fact, one of precedence with respect to a reference time. (…) This makes it plausible to locate it in the specifier position of the lowest TP (TP anterior)”. Although aredi is, more often than not, placed at the end of a sentence (79a-c),21 it can occasionally be inserted amongst certain of the other markers, as examples (79d-f) illustrate: (79) a. Im mosa gi im di gasip aredi “S/he must have given her/him the gossip already.” b. Im did nuo dat aredi “S/he knew that already.” c.
Im a gwaan bad aredi “S/he is behaving badly already.”
d. Im (*aredi) mosa (aredi) gi im di gassip S/he (*already) must [epistemic] (already) give her/him the gossip “S/he must have already given her/him the gossip.” e.
Im (*aredi) did (aredi) nuo dat S/he (*already) did (already) know that “S/he already knew that.”
f.
Im (aredi) a (*aredi) gwaan bad S/he (already) [prog] (*already) go +on bad “S/he’s already behaving badly.”
. Sentence final aredi may possibly be derived through XP movement past this adverb, along the lines of Cinque (1999). I return to this hypothesis in Section 2.5.4.
Chapter 2. IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole
The data in (79d–f) gives evidence for the structure in (80): (80) Mod (epistemic) T (past/future) > aredi (anterior) > Asp prog
Given the respective distributions of don [+completive] (76 repeated as 81) and aredi [+anterior] with respect to Asp [+prog] (80), the projection corresponding to [+anterior] is by transitivity higher in the structure than the one corresponding to [+completive] (82): (81) Asp [+retrospective] > Asp [+prog] > Asp [+prosp] > Asp [+completive] (82) T [anterior] > Asp [+prog] > Asp [+completive]
2.3.5.5 Continuative and frequentative aspects Cinque (1999) situates the adverb “still” in the specifier position of the continuative aspect projection. In JC, the position of this adverb indeed coincides with the Asp [continuative] projection in his structure: i.e., JC stil can be shown to follow the root modal [ability/permission] kyahn, and therefore all markers dominating this modal, and it can also be shown to precede those markers dominated by continuative aspect in Cinque’s structure:22 (83) Jan wuda / did/ mos / kyahn > stil > a / go chat John [Mod1] / T / [Mod2] [Mod3] > still > Asp [prog] Asp [prosp] talk
Cinque (1999: 207n51) observes that “(c)ontinuative aspect is found expressed by particles, (…) or (apparently, more often) by reduplication of the verb stem”. In JC, reduplication of the verb stem is also a productive process: (84) Yu no nuo im? Im a di siem wan we You [neg] know her/him? 3rd sg[equative] the same one which chat- chat wi bizniz? chat [V reduplicated] 1st pl business “Don’t you know her/him? S/he’s the very one who’s incessantly spreading our personal affairs!”
. Stil is compatible neither with retrospective aspect jos, nor with anterior or completive don. Indeed if jos occurs with stil, jos cannot mean “a short while ago”, but rather is automatically interpreted to mean “nevertheless”: im stil jos do wa im waan fi du: “s/he kept on nevertheless doing what s/he wanted to do” vs. “*s/he kept on a short while ago doing what s/he wanted to do”. Anterior° don, as well as its specifier aredi, are in complementary distribution with stil: *im don stil nyam; *im aredi stil nyam. Similarly, completive don shows incompatibility with stil: *im stil don nyam.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
Whether or not reduplication of the verb in JC directly corresponds to continuative aspect, however, is not so clear-cut: Bailey (1966: 16) takes repetition of a verb to “refer to repetitive or habitual action”, while giving the examples taak-taak, and biit-biit which she translates as “talk continuously” and “whip constantly” respectively.23 It seems therefore that what is stressed by the reduplication of a verb is not specifically the continuity of the action expressed, but rather more generally the frequency at which this action takes place. If reduplication were an expression of frequency in JC, then the fact that stative verbs do not reduplicate would follow: these verbs cannot be qualified frequentatively either. Recall that the adverb “still” and its analogues in different languages is taken by the framework here adopted, to be the overt realisation of the specifier position of the projection of continuative aspect. Notice in the example below that stil can be separated from the reduplicated verb by the progressive particle: (85) im stil a chat-chat di piipl- dem bizniz bout di plies S/he still [prog] Verb-Verb the people [+plur] business around the place “She’s still incessantly spreading those people’s private affairs all over town.”
If stil sits in the Specifier of AspContinuativeP, and a is the overt realisation of Prog°, then the preverbal copy cannot sit in AspContinuative°. As suggested earlier, a possible analysis to account for verbal reduplication in JC is one which situates the preverbal copy in AspFrequentative°, i.e., the lowest functional head of the clausal system. This would explain why it can even follow don, the marker of completive aspect: (86) Aal now im no don chat chat di piipl- dem bizniz? Even now s/he [neg] [completive] [frequentative] chat the people [plur] business? “S/he hasn’t yet finished incessantly spreading those persons’ private affairs?”
The interpretation and distribution of aspectual heads in JC considered here and, where possible, their corresponding specifiers, is compatible with the hierarchy in (87): (87) Anterior24 > Asp continuative > Asp retrospective > Asp progressive > Asp prospective > Asp completive > Asp frequentative
. Bold letters are mine. . Note, however, that the incompatibility of Anterior with AspContinuative and AspRetrospective makes it difficult to determine the precise hierarchy between these projections in JC.
Chapter 2. IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole
2.4 Overall order for TMA markers in JC The examination of JC TMA markers in the previous sections yields the following overall order: (88) Mod epistemic (Mod 1) > T > Mod root obligation (Mod 2) > Mod root ability/ permission (Mod3) > Anterior > Asp continuative > Asp retrospective > Asp progressive > Asp prospective > Asp completive > Asp frequentative
2.5 Theoretical issues This section returns to the case of the marker don in JC (section 2.3.5.4). The aim is to examine the validity of an IP-internal-movement analysis for sentence-final material, as compared to a Serial Verb Construction (SVC) approach for Completive. We will also consider different approaches for analysing sentence-medial and sentence-final realizations of Anterior. 2.5.1 Completive aspect in JC and Fongbè: An SVC approach It has been pointed out that the marker encoding Asp [completive] behaves differently syntactically with respect to the other markers in JC: don [completive] has the distributional particularity of optionally following the VP over which it takes scope:25, 26 (89) Unu jos nyam di bami don ? Subj [retrospective] VP [completive] “You all have just finished eating the bammy?”
Analogous patterns related to the completive marker are found cross-linguistically. Da Cruz (1995) observes that Fongbè places completive markers fó and vò in a VP-final configuration: (90) Kòkú wà àzo ó fó Kòkú do work DET finish “Kòkú finished doing the work.”
. It is worth noting that this option is less exploited by the younger generations than pre-verbal don. . Restrictions on the type of VP which can precede don are discussed in Chapter 4, section 4.3.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
(91) Kòkú kló katake le vò Kòkú wash high stool pl finish “Kòkú finished washing the high stools.”
Da Cruz (1995: 364) defines fó/vò as aspectual verbs, and distinguishes them from aspectual morphemes of Fòn as the word order of sentences containing the former is different to that of sentences containing the latter: “The word order (…) distinguishes the verbs fó and vò from the aspectual morphemes of Fòn” (da Cruz 1995: 364). Whereas irrealis ná, and habitual nó precede the VP over which they take scope, fó and vò follow it. Consequently, da Cruz (1995) quotes Avolonto’s (1992) structure for aspect markers ná and nó as given in (92), and considers this an impossible underlying structure for fó and vò (93): (92)
AspP Asp’ Asp°
VP
ná/nó V’ Vº
NP
*...Asp’
(93) Asp°
VP
f�/v�
To account for the particularities of fó/vò sentences, da Cruz argues that they are serial verb constructions involving obligatory control. Therefore under his approach, a sentence such as (91), repeated as (94a), is assigned the structure (94b) below: (94) a.
Kòkú kló katake le vò Kòkú wash high stool pl finish “Kòkú finished washing the high stools.”
Chapter 2. IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole IP
b. NP k�kúi
I’ I
VPI V’ V’j
VP2
V1
NP
kló
katakè lé
OPj
VP2 PROi
V’ V2
V’
vò
ej
Da Cruz (1995: 374) explains his approach as follows: “In order to express the fact that fó and vò semantically select an event, I propose that (…) the complement of fó,vò is an empty verbal projection (minimally a V’). I argue that the empty category which occupies this position is a variable bound by a null operator (Op) which is adjoined to the VP headed by fó,vò. The first VP and Op have the same reference. Op and the variable form a chain; thus, by co-indexation, there could be transfer to the chain of the semantic properties of VP1.” He argues (p. 377) that “The analysis of sentences with aspectual verbs fó and vò as obligatory control constructions has many advantages. The structure in (94b) accounts for the S-structure word order in Fongbè, and offers a mechanism for understanding the selectional restrictions on the verbs which combine with fó and vò. As a matter of fact, indicating that the subject of the construction finished realizing the event expressed by the preceding VP, fó and vò can only combine with verbs which are compatible with this property”. Da Cruz (1995) bases his analysis of sentences containing fó and vò as serial verb constructions on the observation that they have four characteristics of serial verb constructions as listed under (95a) through (95d) below. In both fó/vò sentences and serial verb constructions:
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
(95) a.
“there is only one lexical subject and more than one verb.”
b. “there is only one expression of time and aspect.” c.
one can see that they “only contain one expression of negation” and,
d. “just as there are semantic restrictions on serial verb constructions (…) there are semantic restrictions in the context of the aspectual use of fó and vò”.
On the other hand, da Cruz (1995: 370) recognises that “there is not object sharing with aspectual verbs fó and vò” although it has been argued in Baker (1989) that “the Projection Principle predicts that object sharing is not only possible in serial verb constructions, but obligatory”. Da Cruz then takes fó/vò constructions to be evidence for the conclusion that argument sharing is not a necessity in serial verb constructions.27 I do not adopt the analysis of da Cruz (1995) in this work, and instead tentatively propose an analysis along the lines of Cinque (1999) which involves movement.28 The VP-movement analysis is seen to account for the ungrammaticality of certain fó/vò constructions as discussed in da Cruz (1995) independently of a consideration of such sentences as serial verb constructions involving obligatory control. The fact that fó/vò sentences do not involve argument sharing follows from this approach: The lack of argument sharing would then not in itself constitute an argument for abandoning Baker’s (1989) hypothesis that serial verb constructions obligatorily involve argument sharing, but rather could be a consequence of the fact that fó/vò sentences are not serial verb constructions. 2.5.2 Completive aspect in JC and Fongbè: VP-movement The observation in (95a) that fó/vò, like serial verb constructions, involve “only one lexical subject and more than one verb” is used by da Cruz (1995) to account for the ungrammaticality of (96): (96) *Kòkú wà àzo ó Kòkú fó Kòkú do work DET Kòkú finish “Kòkú finished doing the work.”
. The fact that I do not treat fó/vò (Fongbè) and don (JC) constructions as serial verb constructions is inspired by the approach in Cinque (1999). The IP-internal VP-movement hypothsis applied here has implications for a serial verb approach. These implications deserve careful examination which is beyond the scope of this work. . In this work, I follow Kayne (1994) and Cinque (1999) in assuming a head-initial X’schema. Notice that an alternative approch which would allow for head-final structure would imply that the constructions here considered could be derived independently of movement.
Chapter 2. IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole
However, the fact that there is “only one lexical subject and more than one verb” is a characteristic of any sentence containing a lexical verb augmented with an aspectual marker, once this marker is simply labelled as an aspectual “verb”, which I take to be the case of fó in (96). Consider, for example, the contrast between the data in (97a) and (97b,c): (97) a. b. c.
Jan a go J. [aspectul verb 1 (progressive)] [aspectual verb 2 (prospective)] nyam di bami VP *Jan a go Jan/Jiemz nyam di bami *Jan a Jan/Jiemz go nyam di bami
The contrast in (97) stems from the fact that aspect markers are functional material and consequently do not project an argument structure. To insert an additional external argument into a sentence with only one lexical verb would mean that this argument would be without a theta role and therefore entail a violation of the Theta Criterion. The second parallelism drawn by da Cruz (1995) between serial verb constructions and sentences containing fó/vò, is that “there is only one expression of time and aspect” in both. He illustrates the relevance of this hypothesis by means of the contrast between (98a) and (98b): (98) a. Asíbá ná sá sèn dó hòn ó fó Asíbá IRR pass on paint put door DET finish “Asíbá will finish painting the door.” b. *Asíbá ná sá sèn dó hòn ó ná fó Asíbá IRR pass on paint put door DET IRR finish
However, if (98b) were not treated as a serial verb construction but rather as a run-of-the-mill sentence with multiple Asp markers, it would be ruled out anyway since this sentence makes use of the same marker twice: In (98b), the marker encoding irrealis is repeated within one single sentence. Notice that a double use of an aspectual marker in one sentence such as that encoding progressive from JC below also yields ungrammaticality (99b,c): (99) a. b. c.
Im a go nyam i’ S/he [prog] [prosp] eat it “S/he is going to eat it.” *Im a go a nyam i’ *Im a a go nyam i’
The third parallelism between serial verb constructions and fó/vò sentences has to do with the two “constructions only contain(ing) one expression of negation”.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
The ungrammaticality of (100) is assumed to stem from the fact that it is a serial verb construction: (100) *Asíbá má sá sèn dó hòn ó má fó Asiba NEG pass on paint put door DET NEG finish
However, once again, the ungrammaticality of (100) could also be linked to another factor: Multiple negation can give rise to ungrammaticality in almost any sentence involving an Asp marker if this marker as well as the VP it modifies are both negated (101b): (101) a. b.
Jan no jos pient di duor de ? John neg [retrosp] paint the door there “Isn’t it just a while ago that John painted that door?” *Jan no jos no pient di duor de? John NEG just NEG paint that door there
Finally, da Cruz (1995: 366) remarks that “just as there are semantic restrictions on serial verb constructions in Fongbè in general (…), there are semantic restrictions in the context of the aspectual use of fó and vò”. He takes the ungrammaticality of (102) to be a consequence of its being a serial verb construction which violates a semantic selectional restriction: (102) *Kòkú mò Báyì fó Kòkú see Báyì finish “Kòkú finished seeing Báyì.”
Notice, however, that not only lexical verbs, but also markers of aspect commonly show semantic restrictions on the VP they select: recall, for example, that the progressive aspect marker cannot combine with a [+stative] VP: (103) *Jan a nuo dat John [prog] know that
Therefore the semantic restriction on selection typical of fó/vò sentences does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that fo/vo are verbs in serial verb constructions. Indeed fó/vò are likely to be aspect markers with selectional restrictions like those already observed with other aspectual markers. In conclusion, I do not believe that the characteristics sketched in da Cruz (1995) imply necessarily that fó/vò sentences involve serial verb constructions with obligatory control. Moreover, I believe this analysis has undesirable theoretical shortcomings. Serial verb constructions are typically constructions involving a sequence of verbs which share logical arguments. To illustrate this with an example from JC, consider the data in (104):
Chapter 2. IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole
(104) (Yu nuo we/wa dat ginal do?) Im tek mi aki (go) sel a maakit! (You know what that ginal do?) 3rd sg take my ackee (go) sell at market “(Do you know what that trickster did?) S/he actually (went and) sold my ackee at the market!”
Both tek and sel are transitive verbs. The object mi aki is “shared” by the verbs tek and sel: i.e., what is both “taken” and “sold” is “my ackee”. Indeed according to the Projection Principle, this sharing of an object is considered by Baker (1989) to be obligatory in serial verb constructions. Da Cruz (1995) illustrates that fó/vò constructions do not involve object sharing: (105) Ajòtó lé xò kãnlìn lé fó Thief pl hit animal pl finish “The thieves finished hitting the animals.”
Da Cruz (1995) explains that the data from Fongbè in (105) above “mean(s) that the action of hitting (…) is finished. (…) The interpretation of (this) sentence() does not imply that (…) the animals are “finished”.” This reading extends to don in JC as the example (106) taken from Bailey (1966: 42) nicely illustrates: (106) Jiemz no riid di buk don yet James [neg] read the book [completive] yet “James has not finished reading the book yet.”
It is indeed the act of reading the book, and not the book itself, which is qualified by the marker don. The data above confirms therefore that object sharing, argued for initially by Baker (1989), and subsequently by Collins (1997), as well as Baker & Stewart (2002), to be a characteristic of serial verb constructions, is not typical of fó/vò and don sentences. This suggests, according to the hypothesis in Baker (1989), that fó/vò and don sentences are not serial verb constructions. It’s worth emphasizing at this point that variation in word order attested in JC completive constructions (107a, b) is not typical of SVC structures (108a,b) (107) a. Jan nyam mi aki don b. Jan don nyam mi aki John eat my ackee done John done eat my ackee “John ate (up) my ackee.” vs: (108) a. Jan tek mi aki sel
b. *Jan sel tek mi aki
This observation further suggests the necessity to explore another account to an SVC analysis for these don sentences. Notice that the SVC analysis proposed in da Cruz (1995) for fó/vò sentences is moreover unable to capture similarities between fó and vò and markers of completive aspect in other languages such as English which do not at first sight exploit (serial verb) constructions with obligatory control. One such similarity is noted by
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
da Cruz (1995: 372) himself: “(f)ó and vò present the same selectional restrictions as the aspectual verb “finish”. They only combine with accomplishment verbs or with activity verbs which are interpreted as quasi-accomplishments”. The choice of a different syntactic apparatus for fó/vò on the one hand, and “finish” or “finir” on the other is based on the observation that “contrary to what is observed in English and French (…) the verbs fó and vò appear after the VP complement (da Cruz 1995: 369).” Postulating an entirely new analysis for constructions which share many points in common apart from surface word order is intuitively unattractive. What would be preferable is an approach which would reflect the underlying cross-linguistic parallelism between linguistic elements such as those considered here, while allowing for a derivation which could be responsible for their Surface-Structure difference. On a language specific level, this analysis also fails to reflect underlying similarities between heads encoding aspect in Fongbè. It is shown in da Cruz (1995) that other aspectual morphemes of Fòn occur in a pre-VP configuration. Example (109) taken from da Cruz (1995) illustrates that markers encoding irrealis or habitual aspect select a VP complement which must surface to their right: (109) Kòkú ná/ nó wà àzo Kòkú IRR HAB do work “Kòkú will work/ usually works.”
To postulate that markers encoding irrealis and habitual aspect select a phonetically realised VP complement, whereas what appears to be the marker encoding completive aspect selects a control construction strikes an undesirable inconsistency in the underlying grammar of Fongbè: the obligatory control construction postulated by da Cruz (1995) would be a structural particularity of the complement of the element encoding completive aspect as opposed to those encoding irrealis and habitual. It would be favourable to account for the respective Surface-Structure differences between the markers of this language with an analysis which retains an underlying similarity between them. It is also noteworthy that when fó and vò function as lexical verbs they must select a nominal complement which surfaces to their right (110a,b) just as JC don does (111): (110) a. Fongbé: Kòkú fó àzo ó Kòkú finish work DET “Kòkú finished the work.” b. Kòkú vò mólìnkún ò Kòkú finish rice DET “Kòkú finished the (plate of) rice.”
Chapter 2. IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole
(111) JC: Im don di bami S/he finish the bammy “S/he finished the bammy.”
If other aspectual verbs in Fongbè generate their verbal complement to their right (109) without recourse to control, and lexical verbs in this language also generate their nominal complements to their right (110), then the underlying structural tendency is for a X°, lexical or functional, to generate its complement to its right. It is therefore plausible that the VP which precedes fó and vò is the complement which has simply been generated to the right and has undergone leftward movement. Da Cruz (1995) himself touches upon this possible analysis: “In Fongbè, the NP complement of the verbs fó/vò is always on the right (…). If the VP (…) is generated in the same position, we would then have to explain the word order at S-structure by a movement of this VP (…). Thus, one could suppose that there is movement to the left of the VP complement.” Indeed this is what I argue to be the case. The VP-movement hypothesis is rejected by da Cruz (1995) for Fongbè for two main reasons: One reason is that “(i)t is impossible to have S-structure sentences like those in (112a,b) in which a VP with a phonological content is on the right of fó and vò. (112) a. *Kòkú fó wà àzo ó Kòkú finish do work DET “Kòkú finished doing the work.” b. *Kòkú vò kló katake le Kòkú finish wash high stool DET “Kòkú finished washing the high stools.”
Another reason he gives for rejecting a VP-movement hypothesis is that “this hypothesis is difficult to defend, given that there is no independent motivation for such a movement of VP in Fongbè” (da Cruz 1995: 373). I believe that these reasons can be countered on the basis of the following observations: Firstly, other languages influenced by such African languages such as Gbe, namely Atlantic creoles, do allow S-structure sentences where the completive marker may surface to the left of a phonetically realised VP complement. This can be seen in data from JC (113) and Guyanese Creole (GC) (114), taken from from Edwards 1991): (113) JC: Jan don nyam i’? Subj [completive] V O “John finished eating it?”
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
(114) GC: Somtaim wen you don wok yu go an bai a dringk29 Subj [completive] V “Sometimes when you are finished working you go and buy a drink.”
The fact that Gbe languages constitute part of the substratum of JC, and that JC allows the completive marker to optionally precede its VP complement reinforces the idea that when the VP surfaces to the left of completive markers fó/vò in Fongbè or don in JC, it has in fact originated in a post-VP configuration and undergone leftward movement: (115)
AspCompletive
Spec
Asp’
Asp°
VP
fó/vò, don
Secondly, observe that this type of movement is plausibly exploited by Fongbè since another Kwa language of the Gbe group, namely Gungbe, exploits such movement of the VP and extended projections of VP. This is illustrated for purpose-clauses, and imperfective/prospective constructions in Aboh (2004). It is therefore not implausible that this analysis be extended to Fongbè. One instance of the application of leftward movement of an extended projection of V in Gungbe is applied by Aboh (2004: 220) to “purpose”-clauses in Gungbe known as gbé-constructions (116): (116) Hwĕnenu Asíbá nò yì hwèví jrá gbé At that time Asiba Hab go fish sell Purpose “At that time Asiba habitually went out to sell fish.”
The analysis given to account for the structure of the purpose-clause in (116) is (117): . In light of the discussion in Chapter 4 section 4.3 I believe that wok here has an implicit internal argument, such as yu wok fi di dei “your day’s work”, such that this sentence means: “sometimes when you are finished working (your day’s work) you go and buy a drink”.
Chapter 2. IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole
(117)
AspP2 Spec
AspP2’ Asp°2
NomP
yì spec
Nom’ Nomº
AspP3
gbé spec
Asp3’
hwèvíj Asp°3
AgroP
jrái Agr’
spec tj Agr°
VP
t’i V
DP
ti
tj
Under the approach in Aboh (2004), aspect verbs like yì “go” select a syntactic unit NomP30 whose head may be realised by the purpose-marker gbé. The internal argument of this marker is a reduced clause: the aspectual projection AspP3. This entire aspectual projection must move to the specifier position of the projection to the immediate left of the small clause: [Spec,NomP] for nominalization purposes. This analysis is shown in Aboh (2004) to capture not only the syntactic particularities of purpose-clauses, but also those of imperfective/prospective clauses. Imperfective/prospective sentences in Gungbe always end in a low tone: `. This can be explained under the analysis that the imperfective marker tò, is situated under AspP2 in a structure like that given in (117). Tò is then logically in complementary distribution with aspectual verbs such as yì. Imperfective tò selects a NomP which is headed by a Nom° realised as `. When AspP3 moves to [Spec,NomP] for
. For “Nominalization Phrase”.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
nominalization purposes in imperfective constructions, a logical consequence of this movement is that a low tone ` always floats at the end of the sentence:31 (118) … tò [Spec NomP [AspP3 nà imperf prosp
O V]i [Nom° `] ti OV
Therefore, if movement of extended projections of VP arguably takes place in languages of the Gbe group, it is not implausible that VP-movement occurs in Fongbè, and ultimately in JC. Moreover, the scope properties of completive constructions follow from a VP-movement analysis: the marker encoding completive aspect c-commands the trace of its VP complement. No additional structure is needed to account for the scope properties of completive constructions under the analysis adopted here: That the completive marker takes scope over the VP which precedes it is a natural consequence of the movement hypothesis since according to the structure in (115), the marker encoding completive aspect c-commands the trace of its VP complement. Recall that the ungrammaticality of sentences (96), (98b), (100) and (102) was argued by da Cruz (1995) to stem from these sentences being serial verb constructions. Recall also that postulating this analogy is not the only option available. Notice now that the ungrammaticality of examples (96), (98b), (100) and (102), repeated here as (119), (120), (121) and (122), follows from the structural analysis in (115): Structure (115) leaves no space for an element to intervene between the VP in [Spec,CompletiveAspP] and fó/vò in CompletiveAsp°, which gives a syntactic account for (119) through (121): (119) *Kòkú [Spec AspCompletive wà àzo ó] [? Kòkú] [AspCompletive° fó] Kòkú do work DET Kòkú finish “Kòkú finished doing the work.” (120) *Asíbá ná [Spec AspCompletive sá sèn dó hòn ó] [?ná] [AspCompletive° fó] Asíbá IRR pass on paint put door DET IRR finish (121) *Asíbá má [Spec AspCompletive sá sèn dó hòn ó][? má] [AspCompletive° fó] Asíbá NEG pass on paint put door det NEG finish
The ungrammaticality of sentence (102) repeated as (122) follows from feature incompatibility: the VP mò Báyì: “see Báyì” does not bear the feature [+completive] and therefore cannot occupy the specifier position of the Completive Projection:
. I refer the reader to Aboh (2004) for details.
Chapter 2. IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole
(122) *Kòkú [SpecCompletiveAsp [mò Báyì [–completive]] [CompletiveAsp° fó]32 Kòkú see Báyì finish “Kòkú finished seeing Báyì.”
The very motivation for movement of a VP to [Spec, CompletiveAspP] is explainable in terms of the presence of the completive aspect marker in CompletiveAsp° endowing this projection with a [+completive] feature. This feature is strong in Fongbè since the specifier of the CompletiveAsp projection in this language must be morphologically realised at S-structure. The [+completive] feature is optionally strong in JC, so that the filling of [Spec,CompletiveAsp] may optionally occur at the level of Logical Form. In short, leftward movement of the VP to [Spec,CompletiveAspP] has the theoretical advantage of accounting for the particularities of completive aspect constructions, while retaining an underlying structural consistency between markers of aspect both cross-linguistically, as well as within the internal grammars of languages such as Fongbè and JC. 2.5.2.1 Problem for the VP-movement analysis The analysis proposed here still faces the problem of accounting for the optionality of VP-movement to [Spec,CompletiveAspP] in JC. However, this would be a problem for the alternative analysis in da Cruz (1995) also: indeed if the surface order were to be the determining factor in the development of a syntactic apparatus for linguistic elements, then one would have to postulate completely different underlying structures for pre- and post- verbal completive don, although the two are semantically equivalent. The fact that younger speakers of JC use VP-final don more rarely than pre-verbal don, and more rarely than the older generations, may be an important point for the IP-internal VP-movement hypothesis: Possibly, the originally strong [+completive] feature emerging from substratum influence has entered into competition with a weak [+completive] feature resulting from superstratum influence. The optionality attested between pre- and post-verbal don in JC would be the result of the availability
. Recall that preverbal don cannot express completive with all VPs in JC either: for instance, completive don is banned with stative VPs Im don nuo dat: S/he already knows that *S/he finished knowing that. Further restrictions on the type of VP compatible with such don constructions also hold for JC: Im don sii mi: S/he has already seen me ; *S/he has finished seeing me. A parallelism between these constructions may have to do with the fact that the object is not “affected” in either instance. Put differently, this object is not able to measure out the event by becoming “completely affected” at some point. This seems to be a crucial ingredient for completive aspect. We return to this issue in Chapter 4 section 4.3.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
of both of these options of the completive feature. What seems to be happening at present is that the use of the strong option of the feature has become less common than the weak one. More specifically, the weak [+completive] feature is now more predominant than the strong one in the grammar of JC, implying that VP movement to [Spec,CompletiveAspP] is no longer forced at Surface-Structure. This analysis makes the prediction, therefore, that in future generations, VP-movement to [Spec,CompletiveAspP] may eventually cease to exist, as the weak option of the completive feature takes over entirely.33 Indeed this is already the case in JC varieties which oscillate between the mesolect and the acrolect. 2.5.3 Multiple base generation of Anterior tense The fact that the adverb aredi can occur in a sentence medial as well as a sentence final position can be accounted for in two ways: either it is directly generated in these two positions, or movement has taken place past it. This section briefly sketches these two analyses and argues that the movement hypothesis is the more favourable of the two. If aredi is the specifier of a functional projection as argued in Cinque (1999), then to generate it in two different positions implies that its corresponding functional projection can be generated in two different positions. However, as Cinque (1999: 22) notes: “it would make little sense to generate functional projections twice, once to the left, and once to the right of the verb (and its complements) (…) (T)he same rigid order of the AdvPs in post-complement position would have to be enforced through a specific principle duplicating the ordering principle for the functional heads in the pre-VP “space” .” The uneconomical factor of an analysis generating aredi in two different positions renders this approach conceptually unsatisfactory.
. As seen from the discussion of the Fongbè data, there is evidence that substrate influence included a strong completive feature. We also know that the superstrate language, English, does not have a strong feature of this sort. There is reason therefore to believe that these features would enter into precisely such a competition as that being described here, especially since it has been argued to occur in other instances of language contact. Consider, for example, the loss of V2 in the history of English, as discussed in the work of Lightfoot (1999): The movement of V to C was plausibly initially triggered by a strong V feature on C, which would have entered into competition with a weak V feature on C. This gave rise to a situation where both options co-existed during a certain period, so in a sense there was a “mixed” grammar in this precise respect. Finally, the weaker feature won out due to there not being enough of a cue for children to acquire the strong feature. There was therefore variability between V2 and non-V2 that gradually gave way to the non-V2 order by around the Middle English period (mid 14th century). This can be understood in terms of “competing grammars” in the minds of the speakers during a period, and is reminiscent of the Creole case for pre and post-don.
Chapter 2. IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole
On an empirical level, this approach would fall short of accounting for the fact that the two independently generated adverbs cannot occur simultaneously: (123) *Im aredi nyam di uol a i’ aredi S/he already eat the whole of it already “S/he already ate the whole of it already.”
Indeed where adverbs are generated in two different positions this is indicated by the fact that their simultaneous presence does not render the sentence unacceptable: (124) John twice knocked on the door twice
(Cinque 1999: 27)
2.5.4 Movement of (extensions of) VP across anterior The fact that adverbs like “already” and its analogues in other languages can occur either sentence-medially or sentence-finally without yielding any perceptible change in interpretation seems best captured by the analysis whereby movement of the VP or of its extensions can occur across this adverb. This type of movement is demonstrated in Cinque (1999: 22) for Italian: (125) a. A Natale, credo che avesse completamente perso la testa di GIA “At Christmas, I think he had completely lost his mind already.” b. A Natale, credo che avesse
di già [completatmente perso la testa]
Cinque (1999: 22) explains that “(u)nder this alternative, we can account for the “scope under reconstruction” property typical of movement (whereby completamente is under the scope of di già to its right), and at the same time derive the apparent subversion of the relative order of the AdvPs, otherwise unexpected in a non wh-type movement because of the ensuing Relativized Minimality violation. Given that the AdvP di già is crossed over not by the AdvP completamente directly, but by a larger phrase containing completamente, no Relativized Minimality violation takes place.” Notice that the relative order between aredi [anterior] and don [completive] was established as illustrated in (126): (126) T [anterior] > Asp [+completive]
This accounts for the grammaticality of (127a) and the ungrammaticality of (127b):
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
(127) a. Im aredi don nyam di uol a i’ S/he [anterior] [completive] eat the whole of it “S/he already finished eating it all.” b. *Im don aredi nyam di uol a i’ S/he [completive] [anterior] eat the whole of it
Notice that although this fixed order cannot be subverted when both aredi and don precede the verb and its complements, it can be once aredi occurs in a post-VP configuration, as expected under the movement hypothesis illustrated in (128): (128) a.
Im
aredi [don nyam di uol a i’]
b. Im [don nyam di uol a i’]i aredi ti S/he [completive] eat the whole of it already “S/he finished eating it all already.”
Now consider the data in (129) which at first sight presents counter-evidence for Cinque (1999) where it is argued that functional projections respect the same fixed order in both pre- and post-VP configurations respectively: in (129) both don and aredi follow the VP yet the order established between the two in a pre-VP configuration (127) is subverted: (129) Im nyam di uol a i don aredi S/he eat the whole of it [completive] [anterior] “S/he finished eating it all already.”
Under the VP-movement hypothesis established for completive don, however, this can be accounted for: in (129) movement has occurred in two steps: firstly, the VP has moved to [Spec, Completive], then the entire AspPCompletive has moved on to the specifier of a functional projection preceding TPAnterior:34
34. Notice that VP-movement past AspCompletive° could also potentially take place to the specifier of a functional projection FP situated to the left of AspCompletiveP. However if movement of the complement of CompletiveAsp° is triggered by the need to check a strong completive feature, then it is most plausible that this movement takes place to [Spec,AspCompletiveP] where the completive feature is located. Movement to the specifier of a FP such as that located
Chapter 2. IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole
(130)
FP
Spec
F’
F°
TPAnterior
Spec
T’
aredi T°
AspCompletive
Spec
Asp’
Asp°
VP
don nyan di uol a i’
Notice also that the successive movement illustrated in (130) accurately accounts for the scope facts of this sentence: Firstly the VP is interpreted as being in the scope of completive aspect although it is situated on its left at S-structure: what is completed is the act of eating something. Since don is generated in CompletiveAsp°, it c-commands the trace of the VP so that its taking scope over this VP is to be expected. Secondly, the entire CompletiveAspP is in the scope of [Spec,TPAnterior] realised by aredi, although this projection also surfaces to the left of [SpecTP Anterior]: what has already taken place is the completion of the act of eating something. Again, since aredi c-commands the trace of CompletiveAspP, it follows that the scope properties evoked here are derived under reconstruction.
to the left of Anterior Tense, which gives rise to a particular focus on the adverb crossed, could then be reserved for the purpose of focussing clause internal adverbs.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
2.6 O vert functional structure of JC: Evidence for the framework in Cinque (1999) Cinque’s (1999) structure given in (19) is repeated in (131) with bold letters applied to the evidence drawn from JC: (131) [Frankly Moodspeech act [fortunately Moodevaluative [allegedly Moodevidential [probably Modepistemic: shuda, wuda, maita, mosa, kuda [once T(Past):did [then T(Future):wi [perhaps Moodirrealis [necessarily Modnecessity:mos [possibly Modpossibility [willingly Modvolition [inevitably Modobligation:hafi [cleverly Modability/permission:kyahn [usually Asphabitual [again Asprepetitive (I) [often Aspfrequentative (I) [quickly Aspcelerative (I) [aredi T(Anterior) don1 [no longer Aspterminative [stil Aspcontinuative [always Aspperfect(?) [jos Aspretrospective [soon Aspproximative [briefly Aspdurative [characteristically (?) [? Aspgeneric/progressive: a [almost Aspprospective: go [completely Aspcompletive (I): don2 [tutto AspPlCompletive [well Voice [fast/early Aspcelerative (II) [completely AspSgCompletive (II) [again Asprepetitive (II) [often Aspfrequentative (II): reduplicated verb …
JC fits harmoniously into Cinque’s (1999) structure: one does not contradict the other. It must be noted, however, that this language does not at first sight provide direct evidence for separating T past from T future,35 nor for separating Mod obligation from Mod ability/permission. If each of the members of these pairs of markers in JC were to be inserted under different heads such as that implied by (131), then their mutual exclusion could not be explained in terms of competition for the same position. In light of (131), therefore, the impossible co-occurrence of did/wi and hafi/kyahn in JC remains to be explained.36
35. It is not entirely clear that the data given in (Cinque 1999) from Guyanese Creole can really be taken as evidence for the structure T past > T future either: Jaan bin gu riid: J. PAST FUT read “J. would have read” (Cinque 1999: 59, taken from Gibson 1986: 585). Indeed gu here looks like JC go, the Asp [prosp] marker. Consider that wuda and [past] + [prosp] may be found to yield a similar interpretation in JC also: Jan did (g)o riid/ Jan wuda riid … bot mi stap im: “John was going to read/ would have read … but I stopped him”. 36. Markedness theory may, once developed, provide a means for accounting for these facts.
Chapter 2. IP – The articulation of inflection in jamaican creole
2.7 Conclusion This chapter has concentrated on exploring the clausal structure of a basilectal variety of JC. In such varieties, there is an absence of morphological verbal inflection. Inflection is articulated by means of independent inflectional particles, or TMA markers. Manifestations of TMA markers, like that of morphological inflection and adverbs, may serve the generative linguist as a key source of evidence in identifying clausal functional projections (Pollock 1989; Belletti 1990; Cinque 1999). A recent framework (Cinque 1999) postulates a good 30 functional projections in the clausal domain. The data from JC discussed in this work give direct overt evidence for over a third of these projections. Future research of the notion of markedness may prove insightful in determining if the functional structure here attested for JC is entirely present in all clauses of the language through marked or default values. Pursuing this line of reasoning, it becomes conceivable that JC exploit the entire array of functional structure postulated by the framework (Cinque 1999). If this rich functional structure is ultimately proven present in every clause through default values, the articulation of clausal inflection in this language, and all languages, would prove to be much richer than that which is overtly manifested. The framework here adopted (Cinque 1999) is highly restrictive in that the numerous functional projections postulated are argued to universally respect a rigidly fixed order. The overt evidence for functional clause structure provided by JC proves directly hierarchically compatible with this rigid order: There is a transparent systematic match between markers in JC and the fixed hierarchy of functional projections postulated by the framework. Surface differences in the structures can be accounted for in terms of IP-internal movement. This work therefore upholds the universality of the architecture of the clause as provided by Cinque (1999).
chapter 3
CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole 3.1 Introduction The aim of this chapter is to determine some basic properties of the left periphery of the clause in JC. More specifically, I will examine syntactic aspects of topic, focus and interrogative constructions and propose a structural map accounting for these. I begin by outlining certain crucial observations that argue in favour of an articulate Complementizer Phrase (CP) along the lines of Rizzi (1997) in section 3.1.1. The investigation then commences in section 3.2 which outlines characteristics of topicalization in this language. Section 3.3 highlights syntactic particularities of JC sentences involving focus, and section 3.4 compares these properties with those observed for interrogatives. It will be seen that the element a has an important role to play in both focus and interrogative constructions, and for this reason section 3.6 concentrates on analysing the structural and interpretative status of this element. Section 3.7 concludes the discussion by proposing an articulation of topic, focus and interrogative constructions in JC largely along the lines of the Split-CP framework initially proposed by Rizzi (1997).
3.1.1 Theoretical background: Split-CP (Rizzi 1997) A close examination of the CP layer (Rizzi 1997) indicates the necessity to develop the left periphery along the lines of that seen in Chapter 2 for IP (Pollock 1989; Belletti 1990; Cinque 1999). It is this development of the CP into discrete functional projections which constitutes the theoretical background for the present work. As a starting point, consider the data in (1) below: (1) a. Bob was born in Jamaica b. Bob was born where? c. Where was Bob born?
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
The declarative in (1a) undergoes certain transformations in order to yield the interrogative in (1c). The derivations involved in the formation of interrogatives were initially integrated into X’ theory in the following way: Wh-movement of an XP such as where was analysed as targeting [Spec,CP], and X° movement of an auxiliary such as was was interpreted as undergoing X°-movement to C°. These transformations may be motivated on the grounds that there is a wellformedness condition on question-formation referred to as the wh-criterion (Rizzi 1990, 1996):
(2) a.
Each wh-operator must be in a Spec-Head relation with a + wh X°
b. Each + wh X° must be in a Spec-Head relation with a wh-operator
This criterion explains the ungrammaticality of a sentence like (3) below:
(3) *Where Bob was born?
In English declaratives, the inflection is endowed with the feature [+Wh]. The criterion is violated in sentence (3) above due to the fact that the wh-operator in [Spec,CP] where is not in a Spec-Head configuration with the wh-X° was, and vice-versa. At LF at the latest, the conditions of the wh-criterion are to be met universally. In a language like English, these conditions are satisfied differently in main and embedded clauses:
(4) a.
I wonder [who C° [John saw t]]
b. *I wonder [C° [John saw who]] c. *I wonder [who did [John see t]]
In subordinate clauses selected by a verb such as wonder, wh-movement of a whphrase must take place (4a vs 4b), as seen for main-clause interrogatives. Unlike main-clause interrogatives, however, inflection does not carry the wh-feature in embedded interrogatives (4c), so subject-auxiliary inversion (SAI) does not occur. Instead, C° is directly endowed with the feature [+wh] by the matrix verb wonder. In this way, the asymmetry between main and embedded interrogatives stems from the different manners in which these constructions satisfy the wh-criterion. It is worth noting that SAI in English is triggered not only by (main-clause) wh-elements, but also by certain focussed negative constituents:
(5) a.
Bob will leave this island on no account
b. [CP On no account k [C° will i [Bob ti leave this island tk]]]
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
For this reason, the Wh-Criterion alone cannot suffice to account for such left peripheral movement. Parallel to the Wh-Criterion, the Focus-Criterion specifies that a Spec-X° configuration must be established between an Operator [+Foc] and a X° [+Foc]:
(6) Brody (1990); Tsimpli (1995):
a.
A [+Focus] Operator must be in a Spec-head agreement with a [+Focus] X°;
b. A [+Focus] X° must be in a Spec-head agreement with a [+Focus] Operator.
One can abstract away from the specific contexts of both Wh and FOC criterions by referring to the generalization found in the AFFECT Criterion below:
(7) AFFECT Criterion (Haegeman 1995):
a. A [+AFFECT] Operator must be in a Spec-head configuration with a [+AFFECT] X°; b. A [+AFFECT] X° must be in a Spec-head configuration with a [+AFFECT] Operator.
In this way, WH and Focus criterions are instantiations of the AFFECT Criterion. At first sight, based on the data examined thus far, a single projection CP appears to suffice. However a consideration of a sentence such as that in (8) illustrates the necessity for more structure in the left-periphery:
(8) He claims [that] [on no account] [will] [IP he ever leave Jamaica]
Here we see that there must be more than one head position in the CP domain since the presence of the complementizer that does not block head movement of the auxiliary will. The satisfaction of the AFFECT-criterion must take place in a projection which is separate from the projection headed by the complementizer that. Analogous to the Split-Infl hypothesis which was based on the observation that IP must include more positions to host VP-external constituents, the Split-CP hypothesis is founded on the reasoning that CP must expand in order to host IPexternal constituents. Along these lines, Rizzi (1997) argues that the fine structure of the pre-IP domain involves more than a single X-bar projection. More precisely, Rizzi (1997) upholds that the complementizer-system consists of an array of projections articulated along the lines of (9) below:
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
(9)
ForceP Force’
Spec Force°
TopP* Top’
Spec
FocP
Topº
Foc’
Spec Foc°
TopP* Top’
Spec
FinP
Topº
Fin’
Spec Fin°
AgrP
The abbreviations above can be summarized as follows: ForceP is the projection encoding illocutionary force, e.g., the declarative or interrogative force of the sentence, while FinP is responsible for the finite or non-finite nature of IP. TopP and FocP host topicalized and focalized material respectively. The asterisk following TopP indicates that this projection is recursive. Rizzi uses this structure to account for various ordering possibilities and constraints found to obtain for elements situated in the Complementizer system of some Romance and Gemanic languages. For example, consider the following sentences from Italian: (10) a. Credo che ieri QUESTO a Gianni avreste dovuto dirgli Force Top Foc Top Fin IP “I believe that yesterday THIS to Gianni you should have said.” b. Credo, il tuo libro, di apprezzarlo molto Top Fin IP “I believe, your book, “of ” to appreciate it a lot.”
The data in (10) illustrates that Italian overtly exploits many of the positions provided by the structure in (9). Moreover, the different left-peripheral elements are
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
subject to various constraints imposed by (9): For instance, it follows from the analysis proposed in (9) that there is only one position for preposed focussed material, a restriction which does not extend to topics. Notice also that material which sits in ForceP cannot be preceded by material which moves to TopP or FocP. Indeed if ieri, QUESTO, or a Gianni were to precede the complementizer che in example (10a), the result would be an ungrammatical sentence. On the other hand, elements such as these, i.e., topicalized and focalized elements, must precede material which sits in FinP. In other words, if il tuo libro were to follow di in (10b), the sentence yielded would be ungrammatical. The English complementizer that, like Italian che, is situated in Force°: Its presence signals that the matrix verb has selected a clause, or a sentential-complement with an illocutionary “force” which is declarative. That can therefore be followed by a topic: (11) …that, tomorrow, John will leave
(Rizzi 1997)
An element which may sit in Fin° in English is for, which, like Italian di, selects a non-finite clause: (12) For John to leave would be the best solution
The structure in (9) predicts that elements in Fin° must be directly adjacent to the subject of the non-finite clause it selects. This reinforces the analysis of peripheral for as an overt realization of Fin°, explaining why for cannot be followed by a topic: (13) *…for, tomorrow, John to leave
Although Italian and English do not visibly exploit all the positions postulated, cross-linguistic investigation gives overt evidence for the various positions in (9) which remain covert in these languages. For example, consider the data in (14) taken from Puskas (1997) which illustrates that Hungarian overtly fills the head position of the focus projection FocP. This language therefore renders Foc° visible in a way that Italian does not: (14) AMARCORDOT làtta Jànos tegnap este Amarcord saw John last night “John saw AMARCORD last night.”
In this language, the inflected verb, here làtta, must establish a specifier-head relation with the focussed XP, here AMARCORDOT. If this is not the case, ungrammaticality results: (15) *AMARCORDOT Amarcord
[Jànos làtta tegnap este] John saw yesterday evening
Now consider example (16) from Gungbe: (16) Kòfí yà gànkpá mè wè kpònòn lé sú ì do (Aboh 2004: 299) Kofi Top prison in Foc policemen Num shut-perf-3sg LOC “As for Kofi, the policement put him IN PRISON.”
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
Gungbe, unlike Italian and Hungarian, fills both specifier and head positions of both Top and Foc projections. In this way, the cross-linguistic data in (10) through (16) give immediate evidence for all of the positions in (9), except the lower Top°. The presence of this head position can be justified by a consideration of the examples in (17): (17) a. *An amendment [CP which [IP they said [CP t that [t will be law next year]]]] b. An amendment [CP which [IP they said [CP t that next year [IP t will be law]]]]
The ungrammaticality of (17a) is an example of what is generally referred to as the “that-trace” effect: i.e., the ban on extraction of a subject which is immediately preceeded by the complementizer that.1 Notice that the mere presence of the topic next year in (17b) improves things. If this topicalized constituent were not associated with an X°, one of a different nature to the declarative complementizer, it would be difficult to explain the difference in grammaticality between (17a) and (17b). All of these observations uphold the left-peripheral structure postulated in Rizzi (1997). The present work aims at exploring to what extent relevant evidence from Jamaican Creole upholds and complies with this enriched articulation of CP. 3.2 JC topicalization 3.2.1 Topicalization in main clauses This section briefly sketches topicalization in JC. The sentence in (1) exemplifies adjunct topicalization: (1) Tumaro mi wi ramp wid di pikni-dem Tomorrow 1st sg [Fut] play with the child -3rd pl “Tomorrow I will play with the children.”
Unlike topicalization of an adjunct, topicalization of an argument in a variety of languages entails the presence of a pronominal element in the comment to refer back to it. Rizzi (1997) draws on Cinque (1990) to point out this property of topicalization in Italian: (2) a.
Il tuo libro, lo ho comprato “Your book, I bought it.”
b. *Il tuo libro, ho comprato t “Your book, I bought.”
. This was initially accounted for in terms of ECP (Empty Category Principle): i.e., the subject trace of the embedded IP was considered to violate ECP due to its not being properly governed since the complementizer that was taken to not qualify as a proper governor (Chomsky 1986: 17). A more recent analysis for this phenomenon is provided by Rizzi (2004a).
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
This structural property of argument topicalization attested in Italian extends to JC as illustrated by the sentence below: (3) a.
da bwaai de, mi laik im that boy [loc] 1st sg like him “As for that boy, I like him.”
b. ??? da bwaai de, mi laik
The data in (3) further illustrates that a topicalized argument may be associated with the locative de, in which case de is generated to the right of the XP[+Top]. We will return to the status of de in section 3.2.4. The grammaticality of sentence (4) below testifies to the fact that multiple topicalization is unproblematic in JC: (4) Yeside, da bwaai-de, mi cos im kyaahn Yesterday, that boy-de, 1st sg curse 3rd sg Mod+neg “Yesterday, that boy, I scolded him severely.”
don finish
The Split-CP proposed by Rizzi (1997) situates topics in the specifier of a recursive projection TopP, which explains the grammaticality of sentences such as that given in (4) above. We will also see that a more fine-grained analysis of the type of TopPs involved has to be provided to account for the difference between argument and adjunt topicalization (section 3.2.4). 3.2.2 Topicalization in embedded clauses Topicalization is not restricted to main clauses. The sentence below illustrates topicalization in an embedded clause introduced by se: (5) Mi nuo se [yeside [Jan did waahn dash i’ we]] 1st sg know se yesterday John [past] want throw it away “I know that yesterday John wanted to throw it away.”
It is tempting to analyse se as an overt manifestation of Force° in JC, as this element tends to appear in many cases where we would find complementizers introducing a finite clause in other languages. Hopper & Traugott (2003: 13–15) draw on Lord’s (1976: 179–82) work on West African languages to illustrate that it is not uncommon for “a locutionary verb meaning ‘say’ (…) to function as a complementizer”. Hopper & Traugott uphold that in these languages, there is a “process leading to grammaticalization of a ‘say’ verb into a complementizer”. Under this perspective the fact that topics cannot precede se would follow from the Split-CP structure (Rizzi 1997).
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
(6) *Mi nuo [yeside se [Jan did waahn dash i’ we]] 1st sg know yesterday se John [past] want throw it away
I will return to a more detailed discussion of se in section 3.5.1.1.2 3.2.3 The Nature of TopP Up to this point, we have seen that topicalization involves preposing of an XP [+Top] from the clause where it is base generated to a position situated in between what may be analysed as the morphological realization of Force°, and [Spec,IP]. These structural properties of topicalization in JC follow from the articulate “Split CP” structure proposed by Rizzi (1997), already given in section 3.1.1. example (9) and repeated here for convenience:
(7)
ForceP Force’
Spec Force°
TopP* Top’
Spec
FocP
Topº
Foc’
Spec Foc°
TopP* Top’
Spec
FinP
Topº
Fin’
Spec Fin°
AgrP
. A closer consideration of se in section 3.5.1.1. will reveal that se and ‘that’, despite sharing various properties, are not syntactic equivalents. This will lead us to propose another account account for se to that of occupying Forceº.
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
We have also seen that topicalization in this language leaves a resumptive pronoun in its base position. This property does not follow from the structure in (7) alone. Indeed, something more has to be said regarding the nature of TopP. This is why Rizzi (1997: 292) proposes that the projection hosting topics is non-quantificational, which is why “an empty category in object position has no legitimate status: it cannot be a variable, as there is no quantifier to bind it, nor can it fulfill the conditions of any other type of ec (PRO, pro or DP-trace)”. This approach not only explains why topicalization in JC may bring about the filling of its base position with a resumptive pronoun, but it also makes certain predictions as to the nature of the XPs which may occupy [Spec,TopP], as well as to the effects yielded by the resulting chain. More specifically, the hypothesis that TopP is universally a non-quantificational projection implies that quantificational Operators do not have the option of sitting in the Specifier of this projection. Since XPs that occupy this position cannot be Operators [+Q], and only these Operators are sensitive to Weak Crossover (WCO),3 there should be no WCO effects brought about by the chain headed by XPs in [Spec,TopP]. The example in (8) confirms that these predictions hold in JC: (8) Da bwaa -de i , imi muma lov imi Det boy -de 3rd sg mother love 3rd sg “As for that boy, his mother loves him a lot.”
bad bad
The sentence in (8) is perfectly legitimate: no WCO effects result from the coindexing of the resumptive pronoun im with the possessive contained within the subject. Topic-constructions do not involve quantificational Operators in JC, as predicted by the approach in Rizzi (1997). The framework therefore correctly accounts for the characteristics of JC topicalization observed up to present: i.e., an XP [+Top] targets a recursive left peripheral projection following ForceP and preceding IP. The fact that this projection is [-Q] accounts for the fact that Operators [+Q] cannot be topicalized, that this language exploits a mechanism whereby topicalization entails the use of a resumptive pronoun, and that this chain does not give rise to WCO effects. JC itself does not clearly illustrate that a topicalized constituent targets the Specifier of an entire XP, rather than an adjoined position, as we have not identified an element which fills Top° in this language. However, in the next section, we will consider the case of de, since this element may possibly be an optional morphological realization of the head of the Topic projection.
. Following Lasnik & Stowell (1991).
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
3.2.4 De Topicalization in JC was seen (section 3.2.1.) to optionally involve the presence of a locative-like element de to the right of the XP [+Top]. We return to a discussion of de in this section. In the extract given below, Christie (1997: 39) touches on some structural properties of argument topicalization in JC, which in her terminology falls under ‘non-contrasive emphasis’ of a ‘thematic expression’. Notice that amongst these syntactic properties, she mentions the frequent appearance of de: Where non-contrastive emphasis, unlike contrastive emphasis, is concerned, one important identifying feature for Jamaican is a phonological cue, that is, a pause which separates the thematic expression from the following unit(s). There are nonphonological characteristics as well. For example, word-order manipulation applies here too, but there is no specific focalizing morpheme, unlike the situation with contrastive emphasis. However an anaphoric proform or a noun, coreferential with the thematic expression, links this to the ‘remainder’ of the utterance. The thematic expression itself often includes a deictic which further singles it out from the rest of the sentence.4
The question now arises as to how to analyse de in these instances. As a starting point, it is important to observe that the use of de in the middle field may suggest that this element serves two different functions, one being adverbial and the other verbal: (9) a.
Di pikni -dem no waahn go skuul The child -[3rd pl] [neg] want go school “The children do not want to go to school.”
b. Di pikni- dem no waahn go de The child- [3rd pl] [neg] want go there “The children do not want to go there.”
In (9b) de is an adverb equivalent to Standard English “there”, and therefore its status is one of an XP. However de may be used differently, as shown by the sentence below: (10) Di pikni- dem de a skuul The child- [3rd pl] [copula+loc] at school “The children are at school.” (11) wan trii de batamsaid mi hous one tree [copula+loc] under 1st sg house “There is a tree below my house.”
. Bold lettering is mine.
(Bailey 1966: 33)
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
Bailey (1966: 33) classifies this use of de as the “locating verb ‘be’”. I will generally refer to de(h) in these instances as the locative copula de, and gloss it as cop [+loc]. Notice that these two uses of de may co-occur, reinforcing the idea that they are two different elements: (12) a.
Dem de de 3rd pl cop [+loc] there “They are there.”
Pronounced more commonly as: b. Dem di de
Phonetic alternation also takes place when de occurs with the adverb ya meaning ‘here’, so that (13a) becomes (13b) (13) a.
Dem no deh ya 3rd pl [neg] cop [+loc] here “They are not here.”
(Adams 1995: 36)
b. Dem no da ya
Adams (1995: 36) observes that this preferred alternation in pronunciation “may be relics of ancient African patterns of vowel harmony, whereby the quality of a vowel is influenced by the succeeding vowel”. Cassidy (1961: 60) also points out the potential link between the JC locative copula de/di/da and the substrate when he notes that “there is in Twi, for example, an extremely common verb da meaning to lie, be situated, live, remain, rest, and so on. Obviously these all involve the idea of being in a place; thus da could easily have been converted to uses equivalent to those of English be.” It is not uncommon for a language to use the same element to fulfil more than one syntactic function: Standard English exploits a similar mechanism with that, one use corresponding to a left-peripheral head-position: Force°, and two others being DP-related XPs: pronominal that and demonstrative that. The sentence below exemplifies these three instances of that: (14) That that boy should do that is a shame Force° Demonstrative Pronominal
It is worth noting that the literal locative reading is lost when de occurs in topic constructions: its purpose in such sentences is rather to signal that the XP it is associated with is old information. Consequently, in the example given below, de does not refer to the boy’s physical presence, but simply singles this boy out as the one which has already been introduced in the discourse: (15) Da bwaai-de, im tel tu moch lai That boy de, 3rd sg tell too much lie “As for that boy, he tells too many lies.”
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
Bearing this observation in mind, the analysis accorded to topic de must show that it is neither the locative adverb nor the locative copula. Not only is the split between the former and the latter de elements interpretationally founded, but it also holds on a structural level: left-peripheral de is unlikely to be an IP-internal de which has undergone leftward movement since quantifiers can occur with both the locative adverb and the copula, but not with topic de: (16) Evribadi de a skuul Everybody cop[+loc] at school “Everybody is at school.” (17) Mi laik evribadi de 1st sg like everybody Adv[+ loc] “I like everybody there.” (18) *Evribadi de, mi laik dem Everybody [Top], 1st sg like them
Therefore Top de can be analysed as separate to adverbial and copula de. Yet as de was seen IP-internally to have both the status of an XP (adverb) and that of an X° (copula), the use of this element in topicalized constructions brings to mind two structural options accesible: either de [Top] is a deictic XP selected by the XP in [Spec,TopP], or it is an optional realization of Top°. Recall that de is optional in JC topic constructions. It is worth underlining at this point that the optional nature of Top° is cross-linguistically attested: For Gungbe, Aboh (1996: 87) writes that “Top° is optionally realized in the language as ‘ya’, a morpheme that typically occurs to the right of the topic elements”. (19) Kofi ya, gankpa me we kponon le su-i do (Aboh 1996: 87) Kofi Top prison in FM policeman the-pl shut-PERF-him LOC “As for Kofi, the policemen put him IN PRISON.”
Another particularity of de is that when it occurs more than once, the sentence is degraded: (20) ?Da pikni de, dem buk de, im naa get dem! Dem child Top, Dem book Top, 3rd sg prog + Neg get them “As for that child, those books, he’s not going to get them!”
Under the approach whereby TopP is recursive, this is somewhat surprising. But, once again, this would not be a first for a morphological realization of Top°: the Gungbe topic-marker ya is also limited to one occurrence. We come back to this issue shortly. In sum, the optional, non-recursive nature of de therefore largely resembles Gungbe ya, analysed as Top° (Aboh 1996, 2004). I will therefore propose that it
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
is also plausible to situate JC de [+Top] in Top°.5 Moreover this approach has another advantage which I will turn to now. It is important to underline that topic-associated de only potentially occurs with topicalized arguments: (21) a.
Yeside, da bwaai (-de), im nyam aaf di uol a di bami-dem Yesterday, that boy ([Top]), 3rd sg eat off the whole of the bammy [pl] “Yesterday, that very boy, he ate up all of the bammies.”
b. *Yeside- de, da bwaai (-de), im nyam aaf di uol a di bami-dem
De cannot appear with the temporal adverb yeside, nor with any adverb for that matter. Recall that a characteristic of topics is that they represent old information. At this point it is worth pointing out that the only element which necessarily encodes old information in sentence (21a) is the argument da bwaai-de, and not the temporal adverb yeside. Indeed, it appears that only topicalized arguments have to have been previously introduced in the discourse, while preposed ‘scene-setters’ (e.g., temporal or locative specifications) may represent new information (although the latter are not contrastive like focal information). It seems then that only arguments function as ‘genuine’ topics, and this would explain why only these exhibit certain structural characteristics of topics in JC (and other languages) such as being linked to a resumptive pronoun in the comment (Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.). Recall that this was not found to obtain for the ‘scene-setters’. The observation that only thematic material can qualify for authentic topicalization allows us to account for the structural particularities of Topic de by a single structural constraint: the topicprojection is non-recursive. If, as it has been proposed here, de is the potential overt realization of Top°, then it follows that de [+Top] only occurs with arguments (the only elements which can target [Spec,TopP]). It follows that fronted scene-setters/modifiers target a separate position, and that this projection is generated structurally higher than that reserved for geuine topics. (22) ??da bwaai-de, yeside, im nyam aaf di uol a di bami-dem
The structure thus far for a sentence such as (21a) seems to be as follows: (23) [SceneSetterP* yeside [Top(ic)P da-bwaai [Top° de [IP im nyam aaf di uol a di bami-dem]]]] . We return to a discussion of de in Chapter 4 section 4.2.6.3. and propose another account: indeed, as argued here, de is still analysed as encoding topic, however the approach is fine-tuned in light of a closer consideration of the nominal group. As a result, de is seen to be situated in the TopP of the nominal left periphery. The reader is referred to the relevant section for an in-depth discussion of the arguments in favour of this analysis.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
It appears that the projection hosting modifiers is recursive, unlike the one hosting genuine (thematic) topicalized material. Upon closer inspection, however, it may be inaccurate to propose that argument topics must be unique in occurence: note that when some kind of conjunction is implied and the Topics are all fulfilling the same participant roles, multiple topics are permitted: (24) Da pikni de, da buk de, dem piipl de, mi no wahn ha notn muo fi du wid dem! Dem child Top, Dem book Top, Dem people Tp, 1st sg [Neg] want to have nothing more to do with 3rd pl. “As for that child, that book, those people, I don’t want to have anything more to do with them!”
In this case there seems to be a covert conjunction and as such no restriction on the number of Topics realized. This observation implies that these topics are situated in the same specifier position, and as such what is unique is indeed the Topic Projection, but nothing prevents conjoined topics from occupying the specifier of this unique projection. Note also that the data in (24) reveals that a different analysis of de to that given in (23) must be explored: if left-peripheral TopP is unique, yet conjoined topics occupying [Spec,TopP] occur with de, then de cannot be the morphological realization of left-peripheral Topº. Moreover, further considerations of this marker suggest its status as the head of a dp-internal TopP, as we will see in Chapter 4, section 4.2.6.3. when we turn to a discussion of the extended nominal projection. 3.3 jc focus The previous section outlined characteristics of topicalization, a process involving the left periphery. Another process associated with this structural layer is that of focussing. This section turns to properties of focus in main and embedded clauses of JC. 3.3.1 Focussing in main clauses JC sentences involving focalisation generally place the focussed XP at the front of the sentence. This XP is necessarily immediately preceded by an a-element: (25) a. Piita nyam di bami Peter eat the bammy “Peter ate the bammy.” b. A di bami Piita nyam (… nutn muor) a the bammy Peter eat (… nothing more) “What Peter ate was the bammy (… nothing else).”
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
c.
*Di bami Piita nyam
(…nutn muor)
Multiple focussing is excluded in this language:
(26) a. *A di bami a di pikni [im gi A the bammy a the child [3sg give b. *A di pikni a di bami [im gi A the child a the bammy [3sg give
Recall that the analysis put forth by Rizzi (1997) postulates that leftward movement of an XP [+Foc] targets a non-recursive projection in the left periphery. In this way, the framework sketched in Rizzi (1997) gives a syntactic account for the ungrammaticality of (26). Note that as opposed to Topics, even multiple XPs [+Foc] fulfilling the same participiant roles are excluded: (27) *A di pikni, a di buk, a di piipl mi no wahn ha notn muo fi du wid! A Det child, a Det book, a Det people, 1st sg [Neg] want to have nothing more to do with 3rd pl. “It’s the child, it’s the book, it’s the people I don’t want to have anything more to do with!”
In contrast to that seen for Topic-associated de (example 24), focus associated a cannot be analysed as a DP-internal element. Resumptive pronouns do not constitute a characteristic of sentences involving focus: Notice that the sentences below, introduced by an a-XP, cannot involve resumptive pronouns: (28) *A di bami Piita nyam i (… notn muor) A the bammy Peter eat it (… nothing more) “THE bammy Peter ate it.” (29) *A Jan mi laik im A John 1st sg like him “JOHN I like him.” (30) A Jan mi laik A John 1st sg like “JOHN I like.”
This implies that a syntactically focussed element obligatorily leaves a gap in its base position in JC. The lack of resumptive clitics in focus constructions is crosslinguistically attested: (31) *IL TUO LIBRO lo ho comprato (non il suo) “YOUR BOOK I bought (not his).” (32) *JANOSSAL beszélt Mari vele a könyvéröl john-instr spoke Mary-nom he-instr the book-poss-delat “Mary spoke WITH JOHN about her book.”
(Italian) (Hungarian)
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
(33) *Keke wè Koku xo-e bicycle foc koku buy 3sg “Koku bought A BICYCLE.”
(Gungbe)
Recall that topics do not leave gaps in their base positions. This was analysed by Rizzi (1997) as stemming from Topic not being quantificational. Rizzi (1997: 292), however, proposes that “Focus is quantificational (…) the focalized element must bind a syntactic variable (a non-pronominal empty X-max category in an A-position).” This approach therefore predicts that, unlike that observed for topicalization, focalization of quantifiers should be possible and focus movement should yield WCO effects. The examples below confirm that this is so in JC: (34) (A no yu wan im tiif) A evribadi im tiif! (A [Neg] just 2nd sg 3rd sg thief) A everybody 3rd sg thief “(It’s not just you who he stole from) He stole from EVERYBODY!” (35)
(A wa yu tingk im swiit yu op fa?) A sinting im (Why 2nd sg think 3rd sg sweet 2nd sg up for?) A something 3rd sg waahn fram yu! want from you “Why do you think that he flattered you? He wanted SOMETHING from you!”
(36) A Jiemz i im *i/k muma lov bad, (no, Piita) A James 3rd sg mother love bad, ([neg] Peter) “It’s James his mother loves a lot, (not Peter).”
Focussing in JC does not entail the overt realisation of a head position to the right of the XP[+focus]. Indeed, unlike that seen for the focus marker wè in Gungbe (example 33), for instance, the syntactic distribution of the JC a-marker which serves to signal focus is sentence-initial: (37) a. A wok mi a wok A work 1st sg [prog] work “What I’m doing is working.” b. *Wok a mi a wok
Furthermore, fronting of a focussed constituent in JC does not trigger/allow subject-auxiliary inversion (SAI), unlike the subject-verb[+fin] phenomena observed in Hungarian (example 32): (38) a.
A di rokstuon [im wuda fling ef mi neva stap im A the rock-stone 3rd sg [modal] throw if 1st sg never stop 3rd sg “He would’ve thrown the rock if I hadn’t stopped him.”
b. *A di rokstuon wuda [im fling ef mi neva stap im A the rock-stone [modal] 3rd sg throw if 1st sg never stop 3rd sg
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
SAI is generally banned in JC.
3.3.2 Focussing in embedded clauses We already noted in section 3.2.2 that finite embedded clauses in JC may be introduced by se. Some examples drawn from (Bailey 1966) are given below: (39) Mi en nuo se im wudn 1sg [past] know se 3rd sg [+Mod+neg] “I knew that she wouldn’t come.”
kom come
(Bailey 1966: 37)
(40) Mi hier se fait brok out op a shap 1sg hear se fight broke out up at shop “I hear that there is a fight up at the shop.”
(Bailey 1966: 37)
(41) Mi sari se unu neba kom 1sg sorry se you [pl] never come “I am sorry that you (pl.) did not come.”
(Bailey 1966: 44)
As pointed out in section 3.2.2. corresponding uses of a clause-introducing say-verb have been analysed as an instance of grammaticalization of this verb into a C° (see Hopper & Traugott 2003 and Lord 1993). Notice now that leftward movement of an XP [+Foc] is not restricted to main clauses and, as can be seen by (42b), when preposing of a focalised XP occurs it follows se. As seen for main clauses, the focussed constituent is immediately preceded by the element a: (42) a.
Mi tingk se [Piita nyam di bami] 1sg think se Peter eat the bammy “I think that Peter ate the bammy.”
b. Mi tingk se a di bami [Piita nyam] 1sg think se a the bammy Peter eat “I think that what Peter ate was the bammy.”
In fact, the focussed XP cannot prepose higher than se: (43) *Mi tingk a di bami se Piita nyam
If se is analysed as a complementizer in Force°, then this constraint would be a consequence of the structure in (7). We come back to se in section 3.5.1.1. 3.3.3 The nature of [Spec,FocP] in JC It was pointed out in section 3.3.1 that FocP is [+Q]. This section examines other properties which the Focus projection in JC evinces.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
Focus preposing in JC can involve a variety of categories, as the data in (44) through (46) confirm: (44) A di bami mi lov A the bammy 1sg love “What I love is the bammy.”
→ DP
(45) A sik mi did sik mek mi gwaan so A sick 1sg [past] sick make me go+on so “It is because I was SICK that I behaved that way.”
→ A°
(46) A wok mi a wok A work 1sg [prog] work “What I’m doing is working.”
→ V°
Notice that in cases of what appears to be X° movement (45–46), the X° reduplicates, while in cases of XP movement (examples 44, 47), reduplication of the XP is banned: (47) *A di bami mi lov di bami A the bammy 1sg love “What I love is the bammy.”
→ DP
Standard English also marks a clear distinction between focussing of XPs and focussing of X°s: whereas the former appear freely in cleft-constructions, the latter do not: (48) It’s John who is here (not Mary) (49) a. *It’s sing that I did (the song) b. What I did is SING (not shout)/I SANG (50) a. *It is tired that I was b. I was TIRED
In some instances, the verb seems to be able to undergo syntactic focussing in English: (51) He said he would work, and worki he did ti
However on closer examination, we see that in Standard English what undergoes focussing is the entire VP, not just the V°: (52) He announced that he would sing the song, and a.
[sing the song]i [he did ti]
b. *[sing]i
[he did ti the song]
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
Compare the contrast in grammaticality of the sentences (52 a/b) above, with JC (53a/b) below: (53) Yu no tingk se im tiif, bot … 2nd sg [neg] think seh 3rd sg steal, but… “You don’t think that he steals, but… a.
A tiif im tiif di manggo-dem ! A steal 3rd sg steal the mango-pl steal the mangoes he did!”
b. ???A tiif di manggo-dem im (did) (tiif) (di manggo-dem) ! A steal the mango-pl 3rd sg (past) (steal) (the mango-pl)
The data above implies that the focussed verb in JC cannot occur with its object. Therefore it appears that JC allows for X° focussing, and that the distinction made between X° focussing and XP focussing in JC is that the former, unlike the latter, have to reduplicate in the base position. It would appear that reduplication is the only process which can license X°-movement in these instances. The different syntactic effects of X° and XP focussing in JC may stem from well-formedness of the latter chain but not of the former, given that intervening heads in (45) and (46) may violate Relativized Minimality, as illustrated in (54) and (55): (54) *A sik mi did ti mek mi gwaan so A sick 1sg [past] tired make me go+on so “It is because I was SICK that I behaved that way.” (55) *A woki mi a ti A work 1sg [prog] work “What I’m doing is working.”
In both cases there is an intervening X° position which renders visible the fact that X°-focussing in this language does not undergo cyclic-movement. In this way Relativized Minimality (Rizzi 1990) is violated by the derivation. This reasoning predicts that any language without a process such as reduplication to save long X°-movement would obligatorily ban wh-movement of such elements.6 Example (56) from English, a language which does not allow verb reduplication, confirms this prediction: (56) I told him to sing the song and a. *sing he did the song b. sing the song he did
. X° movement referred to here does not include cases of remnant movement, i.e., where a head such as V° may surface although what has moved is the VP which contains traces of previously moved constituents, e.g., German (see den Besten & Webelhuth (1987) for a discussion of scrambling resulting in only the head of the VP being filled when the VP is fronted).
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
On the other hand, languages with a strategy such as verb reduplication should allow for movement of X°s such as verbs across other X°s. The examples from Gungbe (57), Vatà (58), and Haitian Creole (59) suggest that this hypothesis may be on the right track: (57) Gbá wè Séná gbá xwé ló Build FM Sena build-perf house the “Sena BUILT the house.”
(Aboh 1998)
(58) NgonU n wà na n ka ngónú à? (Koopman 1984: 154) sleep-nom 2sg want Comp 2sg FUT-aux sleep Q? “Do you want to sleep?” (59) Se depale u ap depale is stray you PRES stray “You are straying.”
(Lefebvre et al. 1982: 154)
The fact that predicative X°s appear to be able to undergo syntactic focussing is interesting because focus constructions involving these elements have properties which may give us insight into the nature of FocP in JC. Indeed on closer examination, the very X° status of the predicative elements becomes less clear, although for different reasons to those observed for Standard English. In fact both verbal and adjectival elements [+Foc] in JC appear to bear what can be analyzed as nominal traits, and can occur with a determiner when in the left periphery as we will soon see. If even verbal elements, when [+Foc], must be [+N], it is as if [Spec,FocP] only hosts nominalized XPs. That focussed verbs are nominal in nature was intuitively felt by Cassidy (1961: 63) 7 who writes: “In the song ‘Sammy Dead Oh’ we find, ‘A no lie Sammy lie meck im dead oh A no tief Sammy tief meck dem kill him.” (…) Standard English would simply have, ‘It’s not that Sammy lied that made him die; it’s not that Sammy thieved that made them kill him,’ and so on. To call this anticipating word simply a ‘verb’, however, is not to tell the whole story; for in some instances it looks very much like a noun. The nearest thing to it in Standard is perhaps the present participle, which is clearly verbal while approaching a noun in function.” This intuition is empirically confirmed: Notice that, once syntactically focussed, verbs (and adjectives) take on various properties which are identifiably nominal. For instance, while in this fronted position:
i. Verbs can appear with a determiner
(60) A di ron [shi ron mek shi fiil so taiad A the run 3rd sg run make 1st sg feel so tired “It’s the running she did that makes her feel so tired.” . Italics his, bold letters mine.
(Christie 1997)
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
Notice that this observation extends to adjectival focussing: (61) A di taiyad mi taiyad mek mi gwaan so A the tired 1st sg tired make 1st sg behave so “It’s because I’m tired that I behave this way.”
ii. Verbs can be modified by adjectives:
(62) A no aadineri wok im a wok A [neg] ordinary work 3rd sg [prog] work “It’s not an ordinary amount/type of work that he’s doing.”
So can focalized adjectives: (63) A no aadinery taiyad mi taiyad A [neg] ordinary tired 1st sg tired “It’s not an ordinary kind of fatigue that I’m experiencing.”
iii. Verbs can no longer be modified by TMA markers:
(64) *A did wok im (did) wok … A [+past] work 3rd sg ([+past]) work
Similarly, although unfocussed adjectives may be modified by TMA markers (65a), this is no longer possible with focussed adjectives (65b): (65) a.
Im did tayad 3rd sg [past] tired “S/he was tired.”
b. *A did tayad im (did) tayad… A [+ past] tired 3rd sg ([+past]) tired
iv. Verbs do not readily appear with their complements:
(66) ?? A nyam di bami im nyam di bami A eat the bammy 3rd sg eat the bammy
v. Another reason to believe that this position is exclusively nominal is suggested by the fact that elements which are fundamentally [+V], such as functional verbs like modals,8 cannot be syntactically focussed:
. There are occurrences of mosa in this position, but in these instances, mosa has the status of an epistemic adverb modifying a nominal, not as a modal marker: This might not be evident when it occurs with the bare verb, as in:
A mosa ron im ron A epistemic run 3rd sg run “He probably RAN”.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
(67) *A kyahn im kyahn dw i’ A can 3rd sg can do it
Another point suggesting that this focus position is a nominal position is that PPs do not easily undergo focussing: (68) ?A fi di pikni mi bring di aki A for the child 1st sg bring the ackee “It is for THE CHILDREN I brought the ackee.”
→ ?PP
(69) A di pikni mi bring di aki fa → DP with P-stranding A the child 1st sg bring the ackee for “It is THE CHILDREN whom I brought the ackee for.”
However note that certain PPs are unproblematic in focus constructions: (70) A opa stedyam dem en kip it A up+at stadium 3rd pl [+ past] keep it “It’s up at the Stadium they kept it.”
(Christie 1997)
It is as though PPs which can occupy subject position can undergo focussing, while others cannot: (71) Opa stiedyum9 a wan gud plie fi aid Up+at stadium [equative] article good place to hide “Up at the stadium is a good place to hide.”
But the situation is clearer once it is seen that mosa can be used with more obviously nominal XPs:
A mosa di aki im tiif A epistemic the ackee 3rd sg steal “What was stolen by him is probably the ackee”.
Notice that other modals cannot be used in this way, i.e., as modifiers of nominals: *A kyahn di aki im (kyahn) tiif A can the ackee 3rd sg (can) steal. Mosa (like other adverbs and modals) cannot be focussed on its own: *A mosa im mosa tiif A epistemic 3rd sg epistemic steal . Note that these PPs are the ones that also allow SAI in Standard English: “Is [under the table] a good place to hide?” This test is not applicable to JC since SAI doesn’t occur in the language. These PPs also occur in ECM structures in Standard English: “I expect [under the table to be a good place to hide]”.
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
(72) *Fi di pikni a wan gud aidiya For the child [equative] article good idea
Notice that these are PPs which can be pronominalized: (73) [Opa stiedyum]i? [De-so/Dat]i a wan gud plies fi aid Up+at stadium? There/That [equative] one good place to hide “Up at the stadium? There/That is a good place to hide.” (74) [Fi di pikni]i? *[Dem/Dat]i … For the child? *3rd pl/ That…
Indeed while the PP opa stiedyum can be referred to by means of a pronoun (73), this is impossible for a PP such as fi di pikni (74). A pronoun alone cannot refer to the latter PP. Therefore, it is as if only PPs which appear to have the status of a nominal constituent, have the option of moving to [Spec,FocP], reinforcing the notion that this position is reserved for XPs of a nominal nature. If focussed verbs are not really focussed V°s, but rather nominalized constituents, then we are faced with a new problem: why is reduplication of the verb (and adjective) necessary since Relativized Minimality is not violated as originally hypothesized? A possible solution to this dilemma lies in the observation that in instances of predicate focus, what is fronted is a matrix of features corresponding to the root of the predicate (which subsequently assumes certain nominal traits). As such, this fronted element cannot itself enter into a predicative relationship with the other elements of the sentence so that a verb (or adjective) must be present elsewhere in the structure. Under this prespective, the lower element in the clause would not be an obligatorily spelled-out copy of the fronted one, but rather a different element fulfilling the predicative role which the fronted one simply cannot fulfil. We come back to the status of focus-related a in section 3.7. 3.4 JC wh-questions The process of focalization resembles that of interrogation to a large extent in this language: For instance, we have seen that constructions involving focalization place the XP[+foc] at the front of the sentence, that this XP leaves a gap in the sentence (recall the absence of resumptive pronouns), and that this fronted XP is preceded (not followed) by an a-element. Notice now that these observations also hold for wh-constructions: (75) a. A wa im a nyam? A what 3rd sg [prog] eat “What is he eating?”
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
b. A-huu put i de? A who put it there “Who put it there?” c.
A-we unu pudong uno kluoz? A where 2nd pl put-down 2nd pl clothes “Where have you (pl) put your clothes?”
(Bailey 1966)
(Bailey 1966)
(76) a. A wa yaa se? A what 2nd sg [+prog] say “What are you saying ?” b. *Wa a yaa se?
It must be noted, however, that whereas this a-element obligatorily precedes focalized-XPs, it is optional in the case of wh-XPs: (77) Wa im en tell uno say? What him [+past] tell you[plur] say “What did he tell you all?” (78) Wa yu niem What you name “What’s your name.”
(Adams 1995)
(Bailey 1966)
Veenstra & den Besten (1995: 310) touch upon the recent tendency to omit a in interrogatives when they comment that “in Jamaican Creole(,) the highlighter a is optionally used with WH-words, but due to decreolization it is disappearing”. Therefore a behaves differently with focus and interrogative constructions in that it remains obligatory with the former although it has become optional with the latter. One may attempt to account for this in terms of a decreolization process, as postulated by Veenstra and den Besten (1995: 310), but the question remains: why should a be affected in this selective manner? One possible explanation lies in the analysis of a as a marker encoding a [+Foc] feature. It then suffices to observe that wh-words are inherently focussed. Their wh-morphology reflects this [+Foc] feature which has to be checked in [Spec,FocP], except in specific contexts such as echo-questions. XPs which may be focussed do not morphologically reflect a [+Foc] feature, and unless they are pronounced with considerable stress they cannot be interpreted as focussed. As is the case for wh-words in-situ, focus in-situ is reserved for instances of echo-focussing: (79) –Piita tel Jan Peter tell John “Peter told John.”
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
–Im tel JAN!? 3rd sg tell John “He told JOHN!?”
If the XP in-situ JAN above did not bear focal stress, it could not be interpreted as an XP in focus. Movement to a position of syntactic focus where this XP can be preceded by a allows the XP to be interpreted as focussed without needing to be pronounced emphatically. Roberts (1980) notices the possibility for a sentence with syntactic focus to be pronounced with a flat interpretation, but his interpretation of this fact is not entirely clear: He writes “(…) there is no difference in intonation between (80) A tuu baiskl wuda beta A two bicycle [modal] better
and (81) tuu baiskl wuda beta two bicycle [modal] better
to suggest that there is a structural difference between the two.” It may be, however, that the most plausible way of accounting for an absence of intonational difference between sentences where there is an interpretational difference is precisely in terms of a structural difference. The structural difference would simply be less visible in a sentence such as (80) above because JC is an SVO language, and in this sentence what is in focus is the subject. When an object is in focus (82b), movement is more obvious: (82) a.
Jan bai tuu baiskl John buy two bicycle “John bought two bicycles.”
b. A tuu baiskl [Jan bai A two bicycle John buy “What John bought is two bicycles.” c. *Jan bai a tuu baiskl
Here the variation in word order reveals that movement has taken place in the focus-construction. The structural parallelisms existing between Wh and Foc sentences in JC suggest that the type of movement involved in the latter is the same as that involved in the former. A further indication that the movement which takes place in “A [+Foc] [IP …” sequences is Wh-movement stems from the observation that in instances of wh-movement, there is a change in prepositional form depending
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
on if the preposition is followed by an overt object or a wh-trace, as can be seen by the contrast fi/fa in (83b): (83) a.
Im bring aki fi di pikni-dem 10 3rd sg bring ackee for the child-pl “S/he brought the ackee for the children.”
b. A (h)uu im bring dat *fi/ fa? A who 3rd sg bring that for “Who did s/he bring that for?”
Notice now that this change in preposition is evident also in cases of focus constructions: (84) A dem im bring dat *fi/fa A 3rd pl 3rd sg bring that for “THEY are who s/he brought that for.”
Da Cruz (1997: 36) observes a similar phenomenon at work in Fongbè regarding the distribution of the prepositions nú vs ná: (85) a. Kòkú sà motò ó nú Asíbá sell car DET P “Koku sold the car to/for Asiba.” b. *Kòkú sà motò ó ná sell car DET P (86) a.
Asíbá
Me (wè) Kòkú sà motò ó ná eci Who FOC sell car DET P “To/for whom did Koku sell the car?”
b. *Mei (wè) Kòkú sà motò ó nú eci Who FOC sell car DET P (87) a.
Asíbái(wè) Kòkú sà motò ó ná eci FOC sell car DET P “It’s to/for Asiba that Koku sold the car.”
b. *Asíbái (wè) Kòkú sà motò ó nú eci FOC sell car DET P
. Notice that here the order appears to be S – V – DO – IO. This reversal of the order of objects in the case of “fi” objects could be due to the fact that ambiguity would result if the normal order is used: in JC, possession may also be expressed via a “fi” phrase or a bare NP: i.e., (fi) di pikni-dem can also mean “the children’s”, so that yu bring (fi) di pikni-dem aki ? would be interpreted as: “Did you bring the children’s ackee ?”
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
In order to account for the distributional constraints highlighted above, Da Cruz (1997: 36) argues “that the contexts in which Benefactive ná appears involve whmovement of an NP.” Similarly, I propose that JC fa licenses a Wh-trace, while fi does not. The latter instead must select an overt lexical object. Fa appears to be the agreeing form of fi. Agreement would be triggered by transit of the wh-element from the PP specifier.11 If when a appears with an object there are various reasons to assume whmovement, then by analogy when this element appears with a subject, movement has also taken place. Notice that a is not only found in root interrogatives, but may also precede a preposed wh-constituent in embedded clauses, as seen to obtain for focus constructions (recall section 3.3.2. example 42b): (88) Wi neva ya a wa im en a say 1st pl never hear a what 3rd sg [past] [prog] say “We never heard what he was saying.” (89) Mi no bizniz a huu tel yu 1st sg [neg] business a who tell you “I don’t care who told you.”
(Adams 1995)
(Bailey 1966)
On the basis of these observations, JC, unlike Standard English, does not differ in the satisfaction of the AFFECT-Criterion in main and embedded contexts: a precedes wh-elements in both contexts and inversion does not take place in either: (90) a.
(A) we mek [im did gwaan so]? A why 3rd sg [past] go+on so “Why did he behave like that?”
b. *(A) we mek did
[im gwaan so]?
(91) Wi neva ya a wa [im en a say] 1st pl never hear a what 3rd sg [past] [prog] say “We never heard what he was saying.”
(Adams 1995: 45)
(92) *Wi neva ya a wa en [im a say]
Parallel to that observed for focussing (see section 3.3.1. example 26), multiple leftward movement of wh-constituents is banned in JC in both main and embedded sentences: (93) a. *(Mieri aks) a wa a wen yu tel im? (Mary ask) a what a when you tel 3rd sg
. This is reminiscent of the que/qui alternation found in French (Pesetsky 1982) and accounted for by Rizzi (1990) in terms of qui realizing the agreeing form of que.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
b. *(Mieri aks) a wen a wa yu tel im? (Mary ask) a when a what you tell
The similarities between interrogative and focus constructions in JC can be captured by attributing a similar syntactic analysis to the two. This implies that the sequence “a XP [+wh]” and the sequence “a XP [+foc]” must be subject to similar constraints and plausibly target the same position. Such an account would predict that the fronting of a focussed constituent is in complementary distribution with the fronting of a wh-constituent. This prediction is confirmed by the data in (94d,e): (94) a.
Im kyari di bami dis maanin 3rd sg carry the bammy this morning “He brought the bammy this morning.”
b. A wen [im kyari di bami A when 3rd sg carry the bammy “When did he bring the bammy?” c.
A di bami [im kyari dis maanin A the bammy 3rd sg carry this morning “What he brought this morning is the bammy.”
d. *A wen a di bami [im kyari A when a the bammy 3rd sg carry e. *A di bami a wen [im kyari A the bammy a when 3rd sg carry
The ungrammaticality of (93d,e) seems due to a constraint which is purely syntactic since there is no interpretational ban on a construction containing both a focussed and a questioned constituent. In fact JC allows the questioning of one XP to occur with the focussing of another as long as the XP [+Foc] (95a), and not the XP [+Wh] (95b), remains in-situ and is pronounced with considerable stress: (95) a.
A wen im kyari DI BAMI? “When did he bring THE BAMMY.”
b. *A di bami im kyari wen/WEN? c.
A huu kyari DI BAMI A who bring the bammy “Who brought THE BAMMY.”
d. *A di bami huu kyari?
This suggests that both an XP [+Foc] and an XP [+Wh], when preposed, undergo movement to the same position, namely [Spec,FocP], and an XP [+Wh] has priority over an XP [+Foc] in this position. Once again, FocP is a non-recursive
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
projection according to Rizzi (1997), which explains the fact that it is impossible to simultaneously prepose an XP [+Foc] as well as an XP [+Wh]. While considering focussed XPs in section 3.3.3., [Spec,FocP] was seen to host constituents of a nominal nature. If Wh XPs also target this position, we can account for the fact that these XPs (e.g., Who, What, When, Where)12 appear nominal – notice that questioning a verb gives rise to a nominalization of the latter: (96) What did you do?
Therefore this work analyses A XP[+Wh] IP sequences in JC as constructions involving wh-movement of an XP to [Spec,FocP], a position hosting nominalized elements. The fact that Wh-movement (i) involves movement of Operators binding variables and (ii) yields WCO effects is coherent with this approach to A XP[+Wh] IP sequences: (97) a. (A) (H)uu Jiemz tiif di manggo fram? (A) Who James thief the mango from → For which X, X is human, is it the case that James stole the mango from X b. (A) (H)uui im*i/k muma laik? (A) Who 3rd sg mother like “Whoi does his*i/k mother like?”
Finally, it is worth noting that se is “obligatorily deleted if the contained sentence is introduced by an interrogative word” (Bailey 1966: 112). Se appears to endow ForceP with a [+declarative] feature, so that an XP [+interrogative] becomes impossible in the structure due to feature incompatibility. Recall that this was not the case with an XP [+focus] (see section 3.3.2. example 42b). It remains to be seen whether se endows the CP layer with [+declarative] through occupying Force° or through selection from a higher position. I deal with this issue in the next section. 3.5 Identifying Force° and Fin° in JC In this section I discuss material from JC which appears to be located in the extremities of the complementizer layer, namely ForceP and FinP. In section 3.5.1., I concentrate on ForceP. Section 3.5.1.1. presents two different analyses for the element se in an attempt to identify Force°. Section 3.5.1.2. points out the importance of [Spec,ForceP] as illustrated by JC yes-no questions. In section 3.5.2., I turn to FinP.
. “Who” and “what” are more obviously nominal than “when” and “where”, however the latter do occur easily as complements of prepositions, which suggests their nominal status, e.g.,: “From when to when will he teach?” ; “From where to where will he travel?”
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
3.5.1 Force° 3.5.1.1 se Examples (39)–(41) repeated here as (98)–(100) for convenience, illustrated that the word se, when used in certain contexts, seems to take on the role of a complementizer: (98) Mi en nuo se im wudn 1sg [past] know se 3rd sg [+Mod] [+neg] “I knew that she wouldn’t come.”
kom come
(Bailey 1966: 37)
(99) Mi hier se fait brok out op a shap 1sg hear se fight break out up at shop “I hear that there is a fight up at the shop.”
(Bailey 1966: 37)
(100) Mi sari se unu neba kom 1sg sorry se you [pl] never come “I am sorry that you (pl.) did not come.”
(Bailey 1966: 44)
This use of se, contrary to lexical se, only selects sentential complements: (101) Mieri nuo se [IP di bwaai neva tiif di manggo-dem] Mary know se the boy never thief the mango-pl “Mary knows that the boy never stole the mangoes.” (102) *Mi nuo se [np dat] aredi 1st sg know se that already (103) Mi nuo [np dat] aredi 1st sg know that already “I know that already.” (104) Mi se [np dat] aredi 1st sg se that already “I said that already.”
By situating se in Force°, it followed from the structure in Rizzi (1997) that in embedded contexts, both syntactically focussed and topicalized elements have to follow se: (105) a.
Mi tingk se a di bami [Piita nyam] 1sg think se a the bammy Peter eat “I think that what Peter ate was the bammy.”
b. *Mi tingk a di bami se Piita nyam (106) Mi nuo se [yeside [Jan did waahn dash i’ we]] 1st sg know se yesterday John [past] want throw it away “I know that yesterday John wanted to throw it away.” (107) *Mi nuo [yeside se [Jan did waahn dash i’ we]]
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
In section 3.2.2. it was observed that this approach to JC se(h) would not be a novelty: “Hopper & Traugott (2003: 13–15) draw on Lord’s (1976: 179–82) work on West African languages to illustrate that it is not uncommon for “a locutionary verb meaning ‘‘say’’ (…) to function as a complementizer (…)”. Hopper & Traugott uphold that in these languages, there is a “process leading to grammaticalization of a ‘say’ verb into a complementizer”. Lord (1976: 151, 160) specifies that the ‘say’ complementizer in question is equivalent to the English complementizer ‘that’. According to the structure in (7), then, it would be accurate to analyse JC se as a manifestation of Force°.13 On closer examination, however, it is not entirely obvious that the most appropriate analysis of this use of se, and possibly of other ‘say’ equivalents, is one where the latter is situated in Force°. In fact there are some properties of se which suggest that this element is not located in Force°. Crucially, the IP-complement which follows se in JC can be nominalized and undergo wh-movement, leaving se behind: (108) Paul swier se Mieri no laik mi Paul swear se Mary [neg] like 1st sg “Paul swears that Mary doesn’t like me.” (109) a.
(A) Wa im swier se? (A) What 3rd sg swear se “What does he swear?”
(110) a.
Wa im tel yuu se?14 What 3rd sg tell you se “What did he tell you.”
(Roberts 1980: 27)
Notice that this cannot be a case of incorporation of the complementizer to the verb as a DP may intervene between the matrix verb and se, as attested by example (110a). Moreover if se were a complementizer, sentences (109a) and (110a) should be ruled out by the ‘that-t’ constraint,15 or more generally by violation the Subject Criterion (Rizzi 2004a),16 as would be the case for English ‘that’ (109b and 110b):
. Recall the discussion in section 3.1.1. which summarized this analysis for English that: “The English complementizer that, like Italian che, is situated in Force°: Its presence signals that the matrix verb has selected a clause, or a sentential-complement with an illocutionary “force” which is declarative. That can therefore be followed by a topic: that, tomorrow, John will leave (Rizzi 1997)”. . Bold letters are mine. . Previously accounted for in terms of The Empty Category Principle or ECP: the requirement for the trace left behind by Wh-movement to be properly governed. This was already touched upon in section 3.1.1. example (17a). . According to the reasoning in Rizzi (2004a), a complementizer in Forceº (encoding declarative force of a clausal argument and being the head of an argument) should block the
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
(109) b. *What does he swear that? (110) b. *What did he tell you that?
The grammaticality of (109a) and (110a), as compared to the ungrammaticality of (109b) and (110b), confirms that se cannot be a that-complementizer equivalent. A sentence such as (111b) below involving focalization of an embedded subject further upholds this reasoning: (111) a.
Mi tel yu se Jan tiif di manggo-dem 1st sg tell 2nd sg se John steal the mango-pl “I told you that John stole the mangoes.”
b. A Jani mi tel yu se ti tiif di manggo-dem A John 1st sg tell 2nd sg se trace steal the mango-pl “I told you that JOHN stole the magoes.” Literally: ‘It’s JOHN that I told you stole the mangoes’
Once again, if se were a complementizer in Force°, it would be surprising that sentence (111b) does not bring on a ‘that-trace’ effect. A Serial Verb Construction (SVC) analysis would seem more promising in accounting for these complex sentences involving se. Serial Verb Constructions involve a series of verbs which together describe one event and share logical arguments. The verbal sequence is uninterrupted by conjunctions or prepositions. Such constructions are commonly found in West African languages as well as in basilectal17 varieties of Creole. Under such an approach, the lexical quality of se would allow for proper government of the Wh-trace, and the particularities observed for the se constructions considered would still be potentially accounted for: Verb complexes containing se subcategorize for a CP-complement, and endow this complement with a [+declarative] feature. This selectional property explains why DPs may not follow a se SVC, as well as why se SVCs do not allow wh-XPs to occur in the ForceP they select. Recall that se is “obligatorily deleted if the contained sentence is introduced by an interrogative word” (Bailey 1966: 112). However there is no ban on the selected CP itself being the object of interrogation. Situating se within a complex verbal unit would predict that se is left behind when its CP complement undergoes wh-movement:
satisfaction of the Subject Criterion (previously referred to as the Extended Projection Principle or EPP) because it would be an element incapable of vacuously serving as an expletive. The reader is referred to Rizzi (2004a) for the detailed analysis. . See Chapter 1 for an explanation of the terms acrolect(al), mesolect(al), and basilect(al).
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole CP
(112) Spec
C’ C
IP Spec
I’ I
VP(SVC) V’
V1(Vps,Vap18) V2 se
V’ CP
18
Wh-movement
An SVC approach also accounts for the contrast below: (113) a. Im se im dash i’ we 3rd sg say 3rd sg throw i’ away “He said that he threw it away.” b. *Im se se im dash i’ we
Indeed, if there were two separate elements se, one the lexical verb, the other a functional complementizer, then it would be difficult to explain why the sentence in (113b) is ruled out. Recall that there is no such ban on the double occurrence of de copula with de adverbial: (114) Im de de/Im di de
Notice that the complementizer that in Standard English can co-occur with determiner that: (115) That that boy threw everything away is truly a shame
The fact that the JC say-verb used to introduce a clausal complement cannot occur with the lexical verb ‘say’ is a ban which extends to certain West African languages
. Following Bailey (1966: 112), I use the abbreviation Vps for “psychic state transitive verb”, and Vap for “Verb of appearance”.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
where this phenomenon is attested. Traugott & Hopper (2003: 13–14) based on data taken from Lord (1976) consider the case of Ewe when they write that: “if the matrix verb is the general verb bé ‘say’, no further complementizer is needed: (116) Me-bé me-wo-e. I-say I-do-it “I said, “I did it.”/I said that I did it.”
However, if some verb of saying other that bé is the matrix verb, bé must be used as a complementizer: (117) Me-gblo bé me-wo-e. I say say I-do-it “I said that I did it.” (where gblo is a different verb meaning ‘to say’).”
Notice that in terms of the complementizer approach, there is no obvious way to account for the above phenomenon. On the other hand, if complex sentences involving se are in fact SVCs, then se always retains its status as a lexical verb and the ungrammaticality of (113b) above follows: It would be repetitive for a lexical verb to reselect itself, and therefore understandable that such a redundancy is preferably avoided by the system. If the ‘say’ clause-linker verbs examined above retain their status as lexical verbs (even if situated inside a complex verbal unit), it becomes understandable why they may not be selected by the matrix verb when the latter is also ‘say’. It is nonetheless true, as Lord (1993: 186) points out, that se does not retain the full meaning of the verb ‘say’ when it combines with another verb to introduce a clause. For instance, the sentence below does not mean that the speaker, nor anyone else, has actually ‘said’ that the child threw something away. (118) Mi nuo se di pikni dash i’ we 1st sg know se the child throw it away “I know that the child threw it away.”
However I continue to uphold that this alteration in interpretation of se does not necessarily imply that se has been transformed into a complementizer: the alteration of the original meanings of lexical verbs is a basic property of SVCs. Consider the pair in (119a–b) below: (119) a.
Im tek di buk 3rd sg take Det book “S/he took the book.”
b. Im tek im ai luk pon mi 3rd sg take 3rd sg eye look at 2nd sg “S/he looked me over (in an unpleasant manner).”
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
In (119a), the verb tek implies the act of taking, while in (119b), the use of this same verb in an SVC does not imply the subject’s literally ‘taking’ his eyes to do anything, but rather yields a reading where the way in which the subject looked is perceived of as unpleasant. The fact that verbs in an SVC shift in meaning is to be expected: these constructions are widely recognized as syntactically involving various lexical verbs which together semantically express a single happening. As Da Cruz (1997: 31) puts it: “Serial verb constructions are (…) a combination of two or more verbs within a phrase, whose interpretation implies a single event as opposed to a sequence of two or more events”. Therefore se may in fact preserve its status as a lexical verb, while somewhat shifting in meaning, precisely because it is in an SVC. It has been underlined that se-stranding is a characteristic of constructions involving Wh/Foc-movement of the projection following se. It is worth adding that not only is se stranded in embedded question formation, but ‘se + XP’ sequences resist movement operations such as focalization and topicalization. This trait would be unexpected if the XP along with se formed a CP, hence a constituent (which is an argument): (120) Mi nuo se Jan tiif di manggo-dem 1st sg know se John thief the mango-pl “I know that John stole the mangoes.” (121) a. *A [se Jan tiif di manggo-dem]i mi nuo ti se+XP does not undergo focalization A [se John thief the mango-pl 1st sg know b. *[se Jan tiif di manggo]i, mi nuo [dat/i’] i se+XP does not undergo topicalization se John thief the mango,1st sg know that/it
These facts follow from an SVC approach: if se is in a complex verbal unit which in turn selects a CP, then se and the CP do not form a constituent and therefore cannot undergo movement (nor pronominalization in contexts of topicalization). The fact that se cannot take TMA markers does not necessarily indicate that se is a complementizer either, since once again this may stem from se’s being in an SVC: notice that the verbs in SVCs in JC share one set of inflectional markers: (122) Im run gaan lef ar 3rd sg run gone leave/left 3rd sg “He has run away and left her.” (123)
Im a go ron (*a go) gaan 3rd sg [+prog] [+prosp] run ([+prog] [+prosp]) gone (*a go) lef ar ([+ prog] [+ prosp]) leave/left 3rd sg “He’s going to run away and leave her.”
(Adams 1995: 35)
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
(124) Im did ron (*did) gaan (*did) lef ar 3rd sg [+past] run [+past] gone [+past] leave/left 3rd sg “He had run away and left her.”
This is a widespread (if not universal) characteristic of SVCs. As Baker (1989: 513) observes, SVCs share various structural elements: not only is there “Usually (…) only one tense/aspect specification for the whole chain of verbs; (but) the verbs also have a single structural subject and share logical arguments”. Under the ‘say’-complementizer approach put forth in Lord (1976, 1993), and upheld by Hopper and Traugott (2003) it is proposed that a ‘say’-verb goes through stages of grammaticalization before becoming a complementizer: initially it “is used to reinforce a variety of verbs of saying”, and then it is more generally “used as a complementizer after a whole range of matrix verbs (…) The verbs included are verbs of speaking, cognition, and perception. Since these are verbs which in most languages can have objects that are propositions (i.e., clauses) there is an obvious syntactic and semantic relation between them and ‘say’” (Hopper & Traugott 2003: 13–14). According to this reasoning, basilectal JC clause-introducing se should be a fully-fledged complementizer as it is used with a wide range of verb types: Bailey (1966: 112) observes that, in basiletal JC, “If the predicator in the containing sentence is a Vps (or Psychic state transitive)19 (…) a Vap (or Verb of appearance)20 (…) then the contained sentence is linked to it by se (…)”. Recall, however, that basilectal varieties of JC allow wh-movement of the complement selected by se, as illustrated below: (125) Mieri tingk se Piita nyam di bami Mary think se Peter eat the bammy “Mary thinks that Peter ate the bammy.” (126) (A) Wa Mieri riili tingk se? A what Mary really think se “What does Mary really think.” (127) Mi nuo se dat swiit yu 1st sg know se that sweet you “I know that that amuses you (128) (A) Wa yu nuo se? A what 2nd sg know se “What do you know.”
. E.g., tingk: “think”, nuo: “know”. . E.g., komiin-laik: “seems”.
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
Therefore I continue to uphold that in JC se is a lexical verb in an SVC. It begins entering into SVCs with verbs of saying in mesolectal varieties, and then does so in a more general manner in basilectal ones, e.g., with verbs of psychic state or appearance. Note that this is nothing exceptional, as basilectal varieties generally admit more SVCs than mesolectal ones. Indeed, this might be due to the fact that basilectal Creoles evince more substratum21 influence. It is interesting to note here that there is a general tendency for speakers of mesolectal JC to be influenced by the grammar of Standard English. As a result, in subordinate clause contexts, mesolectal speakers try to overtly fill Force°. Under an SVC analysis of se, it becomes clear why, in these instances, one can observe the co-occurrence of the Standard ‘that’ equivalent dat and se: indeed if se is not in Force°, then nothing prevents dat from occupying this position. Consider the following data drawn from Bennett (1979: 1): (129)
me hear Puss muma dah tell him seh dat anytime22 him 1st sg hear Cat mother [prog] tell 3rd sg se that anytime 3rd sg meet up Rat again (…) meet up Rat again “(…) I hear Cat’s mother telling him that anytime he meets up with Rat again (…)”
Roberts (1980) observes that this phenomenon is related to “social variation” found in “middle levels”, and notes that at least in these mesolectal varieties, se cannot be a that-equivalent: “Although se may be regarded as equivalent to S(tandard) E(nglish) that, in cases where social variation (change in form to suit formality or informality of context) is involved, the two forms are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as is seen in the sentence: Big Boi fada tel im se dat im waan somting “Big Boy’s father told him that he wanted something.” The problem arising from the co-occurrence of se and dat is that one cannot regard the two forms as merely social variants or that if they are indeed social variants in polar lects, in the middle levels the one or the other form changes in meaning or status”.23
. Substratum influence referring here to the influence from West African languages, as explained in Chapter 1. These languages often make use of SVCs. . Another indication that this sentence is from mesolectal JC is the use of the Negtive Polarity Item (NPI) anytime: indeed speakers of basilectal JC tend to avoid NPIs, so that in an instance such as this, wentaim would be preferred. . Bold letters are mine.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
Indeed I agree that se and dat are not ‘social variants’ in the middle lects, and furthermore propose that they are not equivalents in the polar lects either. According to this reasoning, the only difference between the mesolect and the basilect is that speakers of the former (being by definition more influenced by the acrolect than the latter) prefer overtly filling Force°. For this reason, speakers of the acrolectal varieties use a complementizer equivalent directly borrowed from acrolectal ‘that’: dat. This analysis explains the contrasts below: (130) a.
A wa Mieri tell yu se? A what Mary tell yu se “What did Mary tell you.”
b. *A wa Mieri tell yu se dat? A what Mary tell you se that (131) a.
A (h)uu yu tingk se tiif di manggo-dem A who 2nd sg think se steal the mango-pl “Who do you think stole the mangoes?”
b. *A (h)uu yu tingk se dat tiif di manggo-dem? A who 2nd sg think se that steal the mango-pl
The data above testifies to the fact that “that-trace” effects are absent with se and brought about by dat. 3.5.1.2 Additional evidence for ForceP In the CP-analysis put forth in Rizzi (1997), the ForceP projection encodes the illocutionary force of a given sentence, e.g., interrogative or declarative. So in (132), the presence of if in Force° determines the interrogative nature of the embedded clause, while in (133) the use of that endows the embedded clause with a declarative value. (132) I wonder if John stole the mangoes (133) I think that John stole the mangoes
Similarly, JC ef appears in embedded interrogatives: (134) Mi aks im ef a tiif im tiif di manggo-dem 1st sg ask 3rd sg if a steal 3rd sg steal the mango-pl “I asked him if he stole the mangoes.”
In root interrogatives, however, while the illocutionary force is encoded in ForceP, no overt material occupies this projection. Indeed in these instances, the overt Wh XP or Wh Operator targets the Focus projection. Since the difference in word order between root declaratives and root interrogatives in Standard English itself signals whether a given sequence is the former or the latter, the necessity for a ForceP is not immediately obvious. However in JC, the importance of the separation of tasks
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
between ForceP and FocusP is clear even in instances of root clauses – indeed the word order in declaratives involving focus and yes-no questions in this language may be identical, although the illocutionary force is different. Standard English: (135) Did John steal the mangoes?
(136) JOHN stole the mangoes
(not Peter)
J amaican Creole (137) Yeside, a Jan tiif di manggo-dem? Yesterday, a John steal the mango-[pl] “Yesterday, did John steal the mangoes?” (138) Yeside, a Jan tiif di manggo-dem Yesterday, a John steal the mango-[pl] “Yesterday, JOHN stole the mangoes.”
(no Piita) (neg Peter) (not Peter)
The examples above illustrate that Force° is void of overt material – notice that a topic can be the initial element in both instances. In JC, therefore, the overt material occupying FocP is the same in both (137) and (138), yet the interpretations yielded by the two constructions differ, one being an interrogative, and the other being a declarative. The separate role played by covert material in ForceP in specifying whether the sequence is interrogative or declarative becomes more evident in a language such as JC, where overt material may be identical in contexts of ± declarative force. 3.5.2 Fin° Parallel to that observed for Force°, it appears that morphologically filling Fin° is not the preferred option in basilectal JC. On the other hand, a corresponding morphological realization of Fin° is identifiable in mesolectal JC: (139) I wuda nais fi Jan fi go It [modal] nice FIN° John to go “It would be nice for John to go.”
(Bailey 1966: 124)
Cassidy (1961: 59) writes that “in Standard sentences beginning with the expletives it or there, the Jamaican folk speaker omits the expletive”. The use of an expletive in the above sentence therefore testifies to the fact that this sentence is not of the basilectal variety of JC. In fact JC speakers transform such sentences to avoid expletives, as we will see in section 3.7.4.2. The sentence above is drawn from Bailey (1996: 124), yet Bailey (1971: 344) herself notices that constructions involving expletives, such as “the existential phrase (…) do() not occur in JC”, where “JC” refers to the basilect, or “that form of language used in Jamaica which is syntactically, phonologically, and lexically farthest removed from the Jamaican standard” (Bailey 1971: 342). It is safe to conclude, nonetheless, that mesolectal varieties of JC make use of the complementizer fi.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
In those varieties of Creole where fi is used, the latter is used in a similar fashion to the English complementizer ‘for’, so one is tempted to situate this element in Fin°: (140) a.
Fi Jan fi gwaan so, dat no rait at aal24 FIN° John to go+on so, that not right at all “For John to behave that way, that is not right at all.”
It is difficult to situate fi in Fin° on the basis of its interaction with focus constituents since fi can not be preceded by an XP [+Foc] coming from within its clause (141a), nor can it be followed by a focalized XP (141b): (141) a. *A so fi Jan fi gwaan … [+Foc] so FIN° John to go+on … “It’s THAT WAY for John to behave…” b. *Fi a so Jan fi gwaan … FIN° [+Foc] so John to go+on …
On the other hand fi may be preceded by a topic, in which case the latter precedes the former, an order which would follow from fi being inserted in Fin°: (142) a.
Yeside, fi Jan fi gwaan so, dat no rait at aal Yesterday, FIN° John to go+on so, that not right at all “Yesterday, for John to behave that way, that is not right at all.”
b. *Fi yeside Jan fi gwaan so, dat no rait at aal fi yesterday John to go+on so, that not right at all (143) a.
Da frak de, fi Mieri fi tiif i, im mos wel bruk Dem dress loc, FIN° Mary to steal it, 3rd sg Mod2 well broke “As for that dress, for Mary to steal it, she must really be broke.”
b. *Fi da frak de, Mieri fi tiif i, im mos wel bruk FIN° Dem dress loc, Mary to steal it, 3rd sg Mod2 well broke
3.6 The relative orders of topic, focus and wh-constituents in JC While syntactically focussed constituents may follow topicalized constituents, the reverse order is unacceptable: (144) a.
Da bwaai-de, a di manggo [im tiif] That boy [loc] a the mango 3rd sg steal (thief) “As for that boya, he stole THE MANGO.”
b. *A di manggo da bwaai-de [im tiif]
. Notice the NPI here, once again revealing the mesolectal tone of the sentence.
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
This observation also holds for the ordering between an XP[+Wh] and an XP [+Top]: (145) a.
Da bwaai-de, a wa [im tiif]? That boy [loc] a what [3rd sg steal] “As for that boy, what did he steal?”
b. *A wa, da bwaai-de, [im tiif]? a what, that boy [loc] [3rd sg steal]
The relative order ‘topic > focus’ seen to hold in root clauses extends to embedded clauses: (146) Mi tingk se da bwaai-de, a tiif [im tiif di manggo] 1st sg think that that boy [loc] a steal (thief) 3rd sg steal the mango “I think that that boy STOLE the mango.” (147) *Mi tingk se a tiif da bwaai-de, [im tiif di manggo] 1st sg think that a steal (thief) that boy [loc] 3rd sg steal the mango
The varieties of JC considered here therefore give direct evidence for the structure ForceP > ModP > TopicP > FocusP > (FinP) > IP. This organization of the leftperipheral projections is compatible with that proposed by Rizzi (1997). On the other hand, JC does not give direct evidence for the lower topic projection proposed by the analysis in section 3.2.3 (7) (see 144b, 145b & 147) nor does this language exploit a recursive TopP (see section 3.2.4) but rather seems to distinguish between a projection hosting topicalized arguments, and another recursive projection reserved for preposed modifiers. At this point many questions still remain: What is the status of left-peripheral a? And where does one situate this marker in the structure? In the next section we will explore possible analyses of focus/interrogative a. 3.7 The status of a The element a serves many functions in the grammar of JC. Adams (1991: 39) provides a “cumbersome sentence contain(ing) the five different words a” in this language. The sentence referred to is given below:25 (148)
A Joe a di one who a “tan up a Foc Joe Equative-Copula the one who [+prog] stand up Preposition gate wid a daag? gate with Article dog “Is Joe the one who is standing up at the gate with a dog?”
. Gloss and bold letters are mine. Translation is left as is but could be fine-tuned in my view to avoid including the expression “the gate” since the idea conveyed here by the bare noun is more that Joe is standing up at some gate or another.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
In this section I will review these a-elements in an effort to determine the precise nature of the a associated with focus and wh-constructions. 3.7.1 Progressive a Consider the following sentence illustrating the use of the progressive particle a: (149) Im a nyam di bami S/he [+progressive] eat the bammy “S/he is eating the bammy.”
It is obvious that the a observed in focalization and interrogation is not the progressive particle. Indeed in many instances of focalization and interrogation, the verb is not interpreted in the progressive. In (149), the middle-field a-marker is present and a progressive reading results, however (150) below illustrates verbfocalization, and notice that a progressive reading is not yielded through the use of this sentence-initial particle a: (150)
A waak mi waak mek mi kom so liet A walk 1st sg walk make 1st sg come so late “It’s because I walked that I have come so late.” “*It’s because I’m walking that I’m coming so late.”
(Bailey 1966: 34)
Similarly, (151) is an example of an interrogative which lacks a progressive reading: (151)
A-wen Boti lef ya? A-when Bertie leave here “When did Bertie leave here?” “* When is Bertie leaving here?”
(Bailey 1966: 89)
Therefore sentence-initial-a observed in focus and interrogative contexts is not an instance of (inversion of) the progressive particle. 3.7.2 Prepositional a Cassidy (1961: 423 ftnt 14) underlines that in JC “There is also a preposition a, formed from at but meaning to: Go a Kingston; and another, formed from and meaning of: One a dem wrong.” Despite the homophony which exists between focus/interrogative-a and prepositional-a, I will not propose an analysis of this element as a preposition. Once again, this choice follows from the observation that the a-element in wh and focus constructions does not yield a prepositional reading.
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
3.7.3 Determiner a In certain languages which allow structural verb-focussing, the verb has visibly been nominalised. The example from Yoruba below illustrates this: the focussed verb ra meaning “buy” has undergone reduplication: (152) [Rírà]i ni Ajé ra ti ìwé Nom-buy Comp Ajé buy paper “It is buying the Aje { is doing, did } to { a book/book }” [i.e., he didn’t steal it/them]
(Manfredi 1993)
Manfredi (1993) proposes that verbal focalization in a language such as Yoruba involves focalization of a nominal VP. It has also been seen in section 3.3.3 that elements in [Spec,FocP] in JC evince nominal properties. From this perspective, the status of a as some form of nominalizer in JC is worth looking into. It is particularly interesting since a is occasionally used with nominal constituents as a determiner. Indeed Adams (1995: 15) observes that “the word a may serve as the indefinite article, as in standard English”, however she underlines that “the word one is frequently used in its stead. This may have resulted from the need to distinguish the indefinite article from the preposition a and the verb a”. The following examples illustrate the use of the indefinite articles a and one/ wan in JC: (153) Kieti sidung unda wan trii “Katie sat down under a tree.” (154) Mi a gaa one film “I am going to a movie.”
(Bailey 1966: 40) (Adams 1995: 15)
(155) im a rait wan leta “He is writing a letter.”
(Bailey 1966: 35)
(156) Gi mi a cutlass “Give me a machete.”
(Adams 1995: 15)
(157) Mi a go beg im a lif “I am going to ask him for a lift.”
(Bailey 1966: 38)
Examples (153) and (154) illustrate that one/wan may be used in contexts where the preceding phoneme is /a/, and (155) shows that one/wan may also be used where the preceding phoneme is other than /a/. Sentences (156) and (157) confirm that the indefinite article can be realised as a in JC, like its standard English counterpart. Notice that the phoneme preceding the indefinite article differs from a in these contexts. It seems that whenever the phoneme /a/ precedes the DP which is to yield a singular indefinite reading, wan is the preferred article, possibly because
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
otherwise, the following nominal may be understood to be a bare noun, which is not necessarily restricted to the singular: (158) a.
Im lov go a shap “S/he loves going to shops ; S/he loves shopping.”
Here a is understood as a preposition, and the nominal shap is taken as not bearing an overt article, which implies that the speaker is not restricting reference to one, single shop. This possibility is erased when one/wan is inserted: (158) b. Mi go a wan shap an mi bok-op di bwaai muma 1st sg go to Det shop and 1st sg bump-into Det boy mother “I went to a shop and I bumped into the boy’s mother.”
Given the preference for insertion of one/wan in contexts where the preceeding phoneme is /a/, it is therefore not surprising that in wh and focus constructions, ‘a + indefinite DP’ sequences spell out as ‘a+one/wan’: (159) A one duppy? A article ghost “Is it a ghost?”
(Adams 1995: 15)
Here we have co-occurrence of the Foc/Wh a and the indefinite article one. Notice also that a Foc/Wh is not mutually exclusive with a definite article either: (160) A di bami Piita nyam (…nutn muor) a the bammy Mary eat (… nothing more) “What Peter ate was the bammy (… nothing else).”
On the basis of these observations it is improbable that a [+foc/wh] is the indefinite article serving as a nominalizer in foc/wh constructions. One could argue that a is rather an instance of grammaticalization of what was originally an article into a nominalizing marker. However, under this perspective, a should not be necessary with DPs as the latter are inherently nominal. As shown in a sentence such as (160), this is not the case. Therefore an analysis of a [+foc/+wh] as a nominalizer is not easily tenable. Moreover, the observations in the following section uphold a different approach. 3.7.4 Equative a 3.7.4.1 Focus/Interrogative a as equative a Considering a in its emphatic use, Cassidy (1961: 59) writes that: “It seems to be clearly verbal, not prepositional, and to be either a phonetic reduction of is or, far more likely, an African loan-word. I take it to represent Twi à (or some related form), an emphatic particle which, following a noun or adjective, means it is, they are.
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
In Jamaica the word order has been reversed: a comes before the noun or adjective, following the English pattern; yet it has exactly the force of it is or there are, or the English expletive and verb”. Cassidy (1961: 56) also notes the presence of this a-element in interrogatives: “It should be noted (…) that Twi and other Niger-Congo languages have an interrogative particle à, which probably survives to some extent in Jamaica in such questions as “A who sen yu?” It is impossible, of course, to show that this is not the verb a meaning is, since the two are identical in form and fit such a context equally well.’ Christie, (1997: 38) also touches upon the possible connection between interrogative and emphatic a with the copula when she notes that “There are grounds for seeing a historical relationship between the focalizer a and the copula a, but exploration of this link is considered to fall outside the scope of this paper’. One clear link between the two can be found in the realization of the focus marker in mesolectal varieties of JC. Indeed these varieties replace basilectal a with the particle iz/is when focussing/questioning, although the rest of the structure evinces similar properties to those observed for basilectal focus and interrogative structures. Consider the examples below, all taken from Lowe (1999): (161) Is mad yu mad (…) ? Is mad you mad “Are you mad?” (162) Is whe im gone eeh, Sah? Is where 3rd sg gone eh, Sir “Where is he gone, eh, Sir?” (163) Is wha mek wid dis ole bus, eeh Sah? Is what make with this old bus, eh Sir “What is going on with this old bus, eh, Sir?” (164) But is why Me ave fe put up wid all dem crosses, Lahd? But is why 1st sg have to put up with all 3rd pl crosses, Lord “But why do I have to put up with all those crosses, Lord?” (165)
Is dat dem do all de while yu know… take de fare from Is that 3rd pl do all the while you know … take the fare from de likkle one dem (…) the little one 3rd pl “THAT is what they always do, you know … take the fare from the little ones (…).”
Markers resembling copulas seem to be commonly used for marking focus in African and Creole languages: The examples below show that when these markers signal focussing, they can appear either just after the focussed element, or sentenceinitially in which case they precede the element in focus: (166) [Pí-pa] ni nwô pa á kill is they kill him “They killed him.”
(Yoruba-Seuren 1993 taken from Boretzky 1983: 225)
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
(167) Na [swari] mi bribi a fisi swari aka (Sranan-Boretzky 1983: 221) Is swallow I believe the fish swallow hook “I believe the fish swallowed the hook.”
I will argue that it is possible to show that when a surfaces in the pre-IP domain (i.e., in interrogatives and focus constructions), it is not identical to equative-a which surfaces inside of the IP, despite the close resemblance that exists between the two in both basilectal and mesolectal varieties of JC and other languages. In fact, various differences between left-peripheral and middle-field a/is/iz markers uphold that they are distinct both syntactically and interpretationally in JC. The fact that both markers are homophonous would not stem from their being the same element, but could rather be due to focal/interrogative a being an instance of grammaticalization of the equative copula a.26 Copulas, being elements which are primarily functional elements, i.e., largely void of semantic content, seem to be particularly good candidates for cases of grammaticalization such as this: recall that the locative copula de may also be used for left-peripheral purposes in JC, namely for serving the purpose of signaling topicalization (Section 3.4.). 3.7.4.2 Why focus/interrogative a cannot be analysed as equative a Notice that if we were to analyse sentence-initial a as the equative copula, then sentences containing this element would have to be null-subject sentences, with a non-overt pro expletive in [Spec,IP] for the satisfaction of the EPP. For example, a sentence such as (168a) would have to be assigned a structure along the lines of (168b): (168) a. A di moni Piita tiif b. [[pro expletive] [equative copula a] [DP di moni [CP[IP Piita tiif]]]] “It is the money that Peter stole/ What Peter stole is the money.”
It is important to underline here that the grammar of JC does not generally license null-subjects as thematic pro. Compare the Spanish sentence in (169) with the one in JC (170). The contrast is clear: whereas in Spanish a thematic null-subject is legitimate, in JC it is not: (169) Ø como de todo pro 1st sg eat of all “I eat everything.”
. Melanie Green (2007) argues for a perspective where grammaticalization has also occurred to the copula in Hausa where it has taken on an additional role as a left-peripheral focussing marker.
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
(170) *Ø nyam evriting pro 1st sg eat everything “I eat everything.”
Regarding non-thematic subjects, i.e., expletives, it would appear that overt ones are often avoided in JC. Notice that in contexts where expletives are used in Standard English, Creole usually makes use of another strategy: For example, compare the “weather-sentences” in (171a & 172a) taken from Standard English with those in (171b,c & 172b,c) drawn from JC: (171) Standard English a. JC b. c.
It is raining Rien a faal Rain [+prog] fall ? It (a) rien
(172) Standard English a. JC b. c.
It is breezy Briiz a bluo Breeze [+prog] blow ? It (a) briizi
A statement such as a rien is in fact interpreted as a question (173a), as a correction, or as an answer to a question (173b), i.e., it is reserved for contexts of new information: (173) a.
A rien?: Is that rain?
b. A rien.: Either it has previously been implied that a certain noise is other than rain, or someone has necessarily previously asked what a certain noise is.
In various instances where an expletive is typically chosen by the lexifier, an alternative construction which avoids this dummy element is made use of in the Creole: for example in the initial sentence of narration, Standard English has the usual existential construction: (174) Once upon a time there was…
Whereas speakers of the acrolect variety retain this, those of the basilect resist it. Bailey (1971: 343, 346) provides two versions of the same tale, one an acrolectal and the other a basilectal: the following extracts confirm that where the acrolectal one retains the expletive construction used in standard English, the basilectal variety avoids it: (175) a. Acrolect: Wans opan a taim die woz a jengklman huu had Once upon a time there was a gentleman who had wan uondli daata. one only daughter “Once upon a time, there was a gentleman who had an only daughter.”
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
(175) b. Basilect: Wantaim, wan man en ha wan gyal-pickni nomo. One time one man [+past] have one girl child nomore Literally: “Once, a man had an only daughter.” “Once upon a time, there was a gentleman who had an only daughter.”
Bailey comments that the narrator of the acrolect “uses Jamaican Creole phonology throughout (…) But were it not for the fact that our technique requires it, there would be no necessity to gloss the story, for the lexicon and the syntax are obviously English and not creole.” She also observes that the speaker of the acrolect allows existential phrases which she assures “do( ) not occur in JC”. Her point is validated by the fact that the narration in the basilect is apparently exempt of expletives. However it is worth pointing out that there are a few limited instances where JC may fill [Spec,IP] with both a null and overt expletive, such as in the sentences given below: (177) a.
(I) komiin laik se di pikni a go ron we Expletive seem like se the child [prog] [prosp] run away “It seems like the child is going to run away.”
(178) a.
(i) luk laik im no laik yu Expletive look like 3rd sg [neg] like 2nd sg “It looks like s/he does not like you.”
It is crucial to note that while a null expletive can be inserted in certain constructions, it’s occurrence is strictly a root phenomenon. In other words, null expletives are completely banned from the the specifier position of an embedded clause:27 (177) b.
im tel mi se * (i) komiin laik di pikni a 3rd sg tell 1st sg se (expl) komiin like the child [prog] go ron we [prosp] run away “S/he told me that it looked like the child is going to run away.”
(178) b. im tel me se * (i’) luk laik im no laik yu 3rd tell me se (expl) look like 3rdsg [neg] like 2nd sg “S/he told me that it looks like s/he does not like you.”
If focus/wh constructions in JC were to involve “Pro Expl +a [equative]”, we could not account for the fact that a [+Foc/Wh] is found in embedded clauses (179), where null expletives are banned (177b & 178b):
. Note that this is reminiscent of Standard English: “Seems like he’s leaving”, vs “*John says that seems like he’s leaving”.
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
(179) Mi tingk se a di manggo Jan tiif 1st sg think se a [Det] mango John steal “I think that what John stole was the MANGOES.”
This reasoning implies that the instances of emphatic a/is/iz examined are unlikely to invlove “pro[+expletive] +copula +XP” structures. Moreover, other instances of sentence-initial a/is/iz offer further evidence for a left peripheral analysis: Firstly, it is worth underlining that a [+foc] is invariable. That is, it cannot be modified for TMA. (180) a.
A di moni Piita tiif A the money Peter steal (thief) “Peter stole THE MONEY.”
b. *Did a moni im tiif
Notice that middle-field equatives can be modified for past tense: consider examples (181,182) where the equative appears without the past tense marker did, with examples (183,184) where did precedes a: (181) Di pus a fi Mieri, an di daag a fi Piita The cat [equative] for Mary, and the dog [equative] for Peter “The cat is for Mary, and the dog is for Peter.” (182) Mi muma a di bes out a aal a unu Poss mother [equative] the best out of all of you-pl “My mother is the best out of all of you.” (183)
Piita neva shuda tek di pus we! Di pus did Peter never [modal] take the cat away! The cat [past] a fi Mieri! [equative] for Mary! “Peter never should’ve taken the cat away! The cat was for Mary!”
(184) Mi muma did a di bes out a aal a unu Possessor mother [past] [equative] the best out of all of you-pl “My mother was the best out of all of you.”
Now compare sentences (185, 186) with their ungrammatical counterparts in (187, 188), the only difference between the former and the latter being the insertion of the past tense marker did in front of sentence-initial a in the latter: (185) A di daag mi bring fi Piita A the dog 1st sg bring for Peter “THE DOG I brought for Peter.” (186) A mi muma shuda win di kompitishan A possessor mother [modal] win the competition “MY MOTHER should’ve won the competition.”
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
(187) *Did a di daag mi bring fi Piita (188) *Did a mi muma shuda win di kompitishan
The same pattern observed here can be seen to hold for interrogatives: (189) a.
A (h)uu tiif di manggo-dem? A who steal (thief) the mango [+pl] “Who stole the mangoes?”
b. (*Did) a (h)uu (did) tiif di manggo-dem?
Secondly, if these structures were “pro-expletive [equative copular] XP CP”, one would expect a complementizer such as Standard English that to occasionally surface in mesolectal varieties between the main clause yielding the new information, and the embedded one bearing old information. It is worth pointing out that a complementizer is not used to articulate the new and old information in a/is/iz – XP constructions. Indeed, an overt C° seems to be obligatorily absent in cases of focalisation in JC, even in mesolectal varieties which otherwise make use of the complementizer dat: Roberts (1980: 34) writes that “When a is replaced by iz in the children’s speech, the topicalizer28 grows closer to the verbal structure of SE (…) However, it never becomes identical with the SE structure, that is, there is no appearance of that or an equivalent. (190) Iz dat taim mii baan Iz that time 1st sg born “it is that time that I was born.” (191) iz shii di tel mi dat not tuu long ago iz 3rd sg [past] tell 1st sg that [neg] too long ago “it is she that told me that not too long ago.” (192) nuo, iz not tuelv skuul let uova [neg] iz [neg] twelve school let over “no, it is not at twelve that school finishes.” (193) ov kuors iz mii rait dis of course iz 1st sg write this “of course it is me that wrote this.”
(…) As such it has features of an “introducer” and features of a verb”.
. This is an unfortunate term here. Recall the discussion in section 3.3.1 where I point out that “A XP …” constructions have a clear syntactic particularity of focus i.e., a resumptive clitic is obligatorily absent.
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
Once again, this reinforces the idea that a/is/iz focal constructions are not clefts: notice that cleft constructions in English and French typically involve a complementizer: (194) It’s their attitude that I don’t like (195) C’est l’hiver que je ne supporte pas “It’s winter that I can’t stand.”
Under this perspective, if the JC focal constructions under examination here were cleft constructions, it would be difficult to explain why complementizers such as mesolectal dat don’t readily follow the XP which is focalized. If, however, the XP [+foc] were situated in a focus projection located in the left-periphery, this property would follow: the complementizers used in clefts, namely Standard English that, French que and by analogy JC (mesolectal) dat are located in the Force Projection, i.e., higher in the structure than FocusP. Under this perspective, only movement of XP[+foc] to [Spec, ForceP] could derive the surface order. Since this movement is unmotivated, we have a purely syntactic account for the ban on the sequence “* XP [+focus] < C° [+force]’’. Also, in cases of the focussing of a predicate, the latter is reduplicated in its base position, and occurs in pre-subject position suggesting that the CP-layer is exploited: (196) A tiif yu tiif di manggo-dem! A thief you thief the mango-3rd plur “You STOLE the mangoes!”
Furthermore, as already pointed out in section 3.4, interrogatives optionally involve a/is/iz: (197) A wa im tek? A what 3rd sg take “What did s/he take?”
With this in mind, compare (198) with sentences (196) and (197) above: (198) A di manggo Piita tiif A the mango Peter thief “Peter stole THE MANGO.”
Notice that, first of all, it would be uneconomical to elaborate a different syntactic apparatus for sentence (196) and sentence (198), the only difference between the two being the nature of the element which bears focus: In sentence (198) what is focalized is a purely nominal constituent [di manggo], and in (196) it is a nominalized verbal constituent [tiif]. Secondly, it is a well attested fact that movement in interrogatives and focus constructions involve similar syntactic patterns and constraints, implying that the wh-question in (197) should receive a syntactic analysis
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
reflecting an underlying structural commonality with (196) and (198). Consider, for example, the data from Hungarian in (199) and Gungbe, in (200): (199) a.
Melyik filmet làtta Jànos tegnap este? Which film saw John yesterday evening “Which film did John see last night.”
(Puskas 1997)
b. AMARCORDOT làtta Jànos tegnap este Amarcord saw John yesterday evening “It was Amarcord that John saw last night.” (200) a.
Sénái *(wè) ti xía wémà ló Sena wè read-perf book the “SENA read the book.”
(Aboh 1998)
b. ménúi *(wè) ti xìa wémà ló Who wè 3pl read-Perf book the “Who read the book?”
Both interrogative and focus structures trigger subject– verb[+fin] inversion in Hungarian (199a, b). In terms of the AFFECT criterion (Haegeman 1995), then, both focus and interrogative Operators must be in a Spec-X° agreement with a head bearing the feature [+foc/wh], and vice-versa, with the relevant head being the finite verb in Hungarian. The Gungbe focus and interrogative constructions in (200) show that the Spec-X° relation must be established between the Operator [+foc, +wh] and the X° wè, also [+foc, +wh]. Just as attested for Hungarian and Gungbe, there exist various similarities between focus and wh-constructions in JC. The approach sketched above for Hungarian and Gungbe wh/foc-sentences has the advantage of capturing these similarities. In light of these facts, it would be desirable to extend this approach to the corresponding structures in JC. Indeed the explanatory adequacy of an analysis which may generalize across foc/wh data would be lost if one were to postulate a null expletive analysis for (196, 198) and a wh-movement one for (197). Finally, there is some further empirical evidence that differentiates Jamaican “a/is/iz XP [IP” constructions from clefts. There are some restrictions on the occurrence of certain constituents in clefting which do not apply to structural focus constructions. Notice, for example, how adverbs resist clefting, as seen in (201), while they occur freely in focus constructions, as illustrated by the Hungarian data in (202): (201) ?? It's loudly that he spoke (202) KESERVESEN sirt Emöke bitterly cry-past-3sg Emöke “Emöke cried BITTERLY.”
(Puskas 2000)
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
Notice now that Jamaican Creole allows “a Adverb29 [IP” constructions: (203) a loud loud im plie im radio30 A loud loud 3rd sg play 3rd sg radio “S/he plays his radio LOUDLY.” (204) a faas faas im lik i’ aaf A fast fast 3rd sg lick it off “S/he gobbled it up MOST QUICKLY.”
It is interesting to note that Jamaicans prefer to reduplicate the adverb in these contexts, as reduplication has been analysed as a means of nominalizing constituents in various African languages. The example below from Yorùba illustrates verb nominalization/focalization:31 (205) [Rí-rà] i ni [Ajé ra ti ìwé] Nom-buy Comp Aje buy paper “It is a buying that Aje [is doing, did] to [a book/books]” (i.e., he didn”t steal it them)
(Manfredi 1993)
We are still faced with the fact that a/is/iz in Focus/Wh constructions is homophonous with the equative copula found in the corresponding variety of Creole. As mentioned at the beginning of this section, one possible account for this homophony is to analyse a as an instance of grammaticalization of the copula, the result is then logically a phonetically similar yet syntactically and interpretationally different element. Finally, the idea that the marker a [+wh/+foc] derives from the copula is reinforced by the fact that copula-like elements are cross-linguistically used as sentence-initial markers signalling focus or interrogative force. The data in (206)
. Note that certain adverbs resist syntactic focussing:
*A (riili) riili im riili sik A really 3rd sg really sick
It therefore looks like higher adverbs are excluded from FocP. This strikes a parallelism with other elements generated within the inflectional layer of the IP such as modals (see footnote 8). . Note that unlike the Standard English copula, JC a cannot occur in the middle field with adjectival predicates such as loud in a sentence such as: dis muzik (*a) loud: “This music is loud”. Instead the use of a seems restricted to nominal predicates: Jan a wan tiicha where it plays the role of an “equative”. . Manfredi (1993: 3) explains that “the deverbal nominal which appears in verb focus (…) is thematically licensed as the (…) “event” argument of the verb (…) The event nominalization moves to [Spec, CP].”
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
and (207) below illustrate the use of copula-like na in Krio and ni in Yoruba focus and interrogative constructions: (206) a.
na snek kil am Cop snake kill him “THE SNAKE killed him.”
b. Na undat bin kam? foc who past come “Who came?” (207) a. Iwé ni Kúnlé rà Book foc K. buy It”s a book that Kúnlé bought.”
(Byrne, Caskey, Winford 1993)
(Veenstra & den Besten 1995)
(Oládiípò Ajíbóyè 1997)
b. Kí ni Kúnlé rà ? What foc K. buy “What did Kúnlé buy?”
Although it seems safe to hypothesize that focus/interrogative a derives from the copular, exactly why these constructions should single out this element as the most adequate marker deserves further research which is beyond the scope of the present chapter. 3.7.5 A structural analysis of Foc/Wh a in JC We have seen that JC makes use of a copula-like marker in its focus/wh constructions. In basilectal varieties, this element is realized as a and in mesolectal varieties, it is realized as is/iz. In the previous section it was therefore argued that focus/ interrogative a/is/iz are markers encoding a [+Foc/Wh] in the left-periphery of the clause. It was also seen that cross-linguistic investigation reveals both orders “Cop XP” and “XP Cop”. Since both orders are attested in these constructions, it is appealing to account for the surface variation in terms of movement. This section discusses this analysis. Recall that other languages, like JC, make use of a sentence-initial copula-like element in foc/wh constructions: Examples (206) from Krio are repeated here for convenience: (208) a.
na snek kil am Cop snake kill him “THE SNAKE killed him.”
b. Na undat bin kam foc who past come “Who came.”
(Byrne, Caskey, Winford 1993)
(Veenstra & den Besten 1995)
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
In brief, the attested structure in these languages and in JC is as follows: (209) Cop > XP [+ Foc/ + Wh] > [ip]
It was also seen that languages which employ a copula-like marker in Foc/Wh constructions may show the reverse ordering: (210) a. Iwé ni Kúnlé rà Book foc K. buy “It’s a book that Kúnlé bought.”
(Oládiípò Ajíbóyè 1997)
b. Kí ni Kúnlé rà ? What foc K. buy “What did Kúnlé buy ?”
In this way, JC and Krio and Yoruba are very similar, and differ apparently only in surface word-order: (211) a.
Yoruba: [Foc/Wh XP] > Cop > [ip]
b. JC, Krio: Cop > [Foc/Wh XP] > [ip]
The surface ordering in Foc/Wh constructions in a language such as Yoruba ressembles that attested in Gungbe and Hungarian: (212) a.
Yoruba:
[Foc/Wh XP] > Cop
> [ip]
b. Gungbe, Hungarian: [Foc/Wh XP] > wè, V [+ Fin] > [ip]
The main variation between Yoruba, on the one hand, and Gungbe and Hungarian on the other seems to reside in the fact that the former prefers a copula-like element, while the latter make use of other kinds of heads to encode [+Foc/+Wh]. In order to capture this cross-linguistic parallelism, it is preferable to situate all these Foc/Wh heads in the same position. More specifically, it is theoretically appealing to insert the Yoruba copula-like X° in the same position as the Gungbe and Hungarian heads, namely in Foc°. If the copula associated with Foc/Wh constructions in Yoruba is located under Foc°, then the JC Foc/Wh marker should also sit in Foc° at some stage in the derivation. Analyses for the order Foc > XP[+Foc/Wh] do not always favour such an approach. For instance, Pearce (1999: 12, 13) proposes that Maori, which also evinces Focus marker > Focus XP ordering, makes use of a device whereby the particle in question “is the complex head of a K(ase)P constituent which is attracted to the [Spec, FocusP] position to check the features on the Focus° head”. Under her approach, the sentence in (213) is assigned the structure in (214). (213) Na Pou i here atu te kuri Na Pou T/A tie away the dog “It was Pou who tied up the dog.”
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
(214)
ForceP
Force
FocusP
Spec, FocusP Focus
FiniteP
KP i here atu te kuri
na Pou
In light of the reasoning adopted in this paper, an approach whereby JC a, like na above, is situated under [SpecFocP] is unappealing. Indeed such an approach could not capture the structural and interpretative similarities encoded by Foc/Wh heads cross-linguistically. On the other hand, an approach whereby all the Foc/Wh heads sit in Foc° at some point is therefore preferable as it strikes a parallelism between a in JC, na in Krio, ni in Yoruba, wè in Gungbe, and the inverted finite verb in Hungarian. Nevertheless, even if JC a sits in Foc° at some stage in the derivation, it cannot remain there. In order to account for the surface-order variations a must move to another head-position. The question which remains is: where does a move to? One possible solution would be to say that a moves up to Force° where it encodes the illocutionary force [+interrogative/+focus]. Recall that Force° in basilectal Creole leaves Force° empty under the hypothesis that se is in an SVC construction, and is not a complementizer in Force°. Granted this hypothesis, the data below is unproblematic: (215) Ruoz-dem tel im se a Klaris mash di pat (Bailey 1966: 111) Rose-[pl] tell 3rd sg say foc Klaris mash the pot “Rose and the others told her that it was Claris (who) broke the pot.”
However the acceptability of basilectal (216) and mesolectal (217) illustrates that a cannot be located in Force°: (216) If a tiif im tiif di manggo, im shuda jos se so Force° a thief 3rd sg thief the mango, 3rd sg [modal] just say so “If what he did was steal the mango, he should just say so.” (217)
Dem tel mi se dat (da likle pickney de) a tiif 3rd pl tell 1st sg say Force° (the little child [deictic]) a thief im tiif di manggo 3rd sg thief the mango “They told me that (the little child) what he did was steal the mango.”
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
The data above provides an empirical argument for not locating a in Force°, and the cross-linguistic evidence examined in this work provides theoretical reasons for a being a head which must transit Foc° at some point in the derivation. In light of this reasoning, therefore, the remaining option is that which follows: (218)
ForceP
Force°
TopP
Topº
XP
X°
FocP
a XP[Foc/Wh] Focº
IP
〈a〉
A logical question at this point is: why must a move to this X°? Also, what is the precise nature of the projection whose head position hosts a? A possible reply to these questions is found in the subtle interpretational difference between copula > Foc sequences (as found in JC and Krio) as opposed to Foc > Cop sequences (as attested in Yoruba): the former, encode exhaustivity while the latter do not. A clear test for an exhaustive reading involves coordination, such as illustrated by the data below (drawn from Kiss 1998 building on Szabolcsi 1981): (219) a.
It was a hat and a coat that Mary picked for herself
(Kiss 1998: 250)
b. ≠ > It was a hat that Mary picked for herself
(219a) does not entail (219b) because a cleft construction is an exhaustive focussing device: indeed, if a sentence with a coordination does not entail the same sentence without one of the coordinates, then the original construction is exhaustive. Similarly, consider the data below from JC: (220) a.
A [wan bami an wan bredfrut] Mieri bai A one bammy and one breadfruit Mary buy “What Mary bought was one bammy and one breadfruit.”
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
b. ≠ > A wan bami Mieri bai
We have essentially the same phenomenon at work here, with focus constructions in JC encoding exhaustivity. Abels and Muriungi (2006) also identify focus particle > Focus XP sequences as exhaustive in Kîîtharaka (a Bantu language) and develop more tests to verify such readings:32 For instance, they argue that when the focus particle appears pro-cliticised to either the subject (221a) or the object (222a) in this language, these sequences can be found in the answer to a question requiring and exhaustive focusing of the subject (221b) or object (222b) respectively but not to a “mention-some” question (223a,b) since the latter requests a non-exhaustive reply: (221) a.
I- Maria a – ra - ak –ir –e nyomba f- 1Maria sm1 – pn – build – perf – fv 9house “Maria built a house.”
(222) a.
I-nyomba Maria a –ra –ak –ir –e f-9house 1Maria sm1 –np–build –perf –fv “Maria built a house.”
(221) b. Who built the house? (222) b. What did Maria do? (223) a.
#Is there anybody who built a house?
b. #Is there something that Maria built?
Finney (2004) also upholds that Krio focusing, which like JC involves copula > FocusXP ordering, has exhaustive focusing. On the other hand, Yoruba focussing, which manifests the reverse order: FocusXP > copula, is not exhaustive Oládiípò Ajíbóyè (personal communication). These distinctions can be captured in terms of an anlysis where the focus particle in languages like JC and Krio is further endowed with an exhaustive feature that would need to be checked in a higher position to FocP. We will call this higher position Exhaustiveº, the head of ExhaustiveP.33 From this position, it establishes an Agree relation with the exhaustively focussed XP which sits in [Spec, FocP]. . Abels & Muriungi (2006) propose a thorough discussion of ways to probe for exhaustivity and the interested reader is therefore referred to their paper for the details. Moreover Abels & Muriungi (to appear) provide convincing arguments in favour of an analysis involving movement to the left periphery rather than a cleft-construction approach for accounting for focus constructions in Kîîtharaka, where a pre-Focus particle is also used. . In this way, the analysis here provides a more thorough account of the focus/wh particle to the one presented in Durrleman (2004).
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
(224)
Exh(austive)P Exh’
Spec Exh° a
FocusP
Focus’ Spec XP[+Foc+Nom] Focus°
FinP 〈a〉
This brings us back to another issue raised in section 3.4 which is the optionality of a with wh constructions, unlike that observed for focus. After a close consideration of the interpretational value of a, what emerges is that depending on the presence or absence of a with a Wh-XP, two readings result: An exhaustive reading in the presence of a, or a non-exhaustive one in its absence. It follows that a is not accurately described as optional in the true sense, since its presence and absence are representative of different strategies for different results. The use of a signals that the speaker knows that his/her interlocutor can provide an exhaustive set in the answer and is requesting precisely this set as a response. Without this marker, the speaker asking the question is not necessarily aware of such a set to begin with. This type of presupposition associated with a question particle is not only found in JC but was already pointed out by Muysken (1977) for Papiamentu: (225) a. Kiko b’a trese pa mi? What 2sg-ASP bring for me “What did you bring for me?” [the person asking the question does not know whether the other had brought him or her something] b. Ta kiko b’a trese pa mi? TA what 2sg-ASP bring for me “What did you bring for me?” [the person asking the question knows the other has bought him something, but doesn’t know what]
The question in (225b) requests an exhaustive answer, while (225a) does not – in fact, cannot, since the speaker is unaware that there even exists such a list. Regarding focus, the left periphery allows for only one reading: that corresponding to exhaustivity – therefore the focussed XP must be accompanied by a. It seems that another device is used to obtain a non -exhaustive reading, corresponding to simple new information focus, and that is the application of considerable stress on an XP in-situ.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
3.8 Conclusion This chapter has concentrated on exploring the syntax of constructions involving topicalization, focalization, and interrogation in varieties of JC oscillating between the basilect and the mesolect. On the basis of the discussion, the following analysis is proposed, with elements which are specifically mesolectal underlined: (226)
VP (SVC) V’ V1 (Vps,Vap34)
V’
V2 se
ForceP Spec Force° dat/if
Force’ Mod(ifierP35) Spec
Mod’ Mod°
Top(ic)P
Top’ Spec XP[Top] (de) Top°36 Exh(austive)P Spec
Exh’ Exh° a
FocusP
Spec XP[+Foc+Nom]
Focus’
Focus° 〈a〉
FinP Spec
Fin’ Fin° fi
IP
3435
. Following Bailey (1966: 112), I use the abbreviation Vps for “psychic state transitive verb”, and Vap for “Verb of appearance”. . Recall the discussion about scene-setters versus genuine topics in section 3.4. 36 Section 3.2.4 discussed a possible morphological manifestation of this Topº as de but concluded that the relevant Topic head position realized by this element is in fact located
Chapter 3. CP – The left periphery in Jamaican Creole
The Creole data here examined therefore testifies to the universal quality of the analysis of the articulate left-periphery put forth in Rizzi (1997): JC proves consistent with the Split-CP architecture, making use of the various projections in the order they are proposed, as well as it explicitly illustrates the need for the separation of roles played by ForceP and FocusP in the formation of interrogatives. It is worth underlining that this language however does not provide morphological evidence for the lower TopP. Moreover, the data from JC considered here suggests that the nature of [Spec, FocP] seems to be characterized by nominal traits. Finally, this work points to the need for further developing the structure postulated in order to (i) capture the differences between topicalized arguments versus topicalized scene-setting modifiers, and (ii) account for cross-linguistic variation between the orderings and interpretations of syntactically focussed constituents and their related focus-heads.
in the nominal left-periphery rather than the clausal one. This analysis is upheld by a closer consideration of the DP, provided in Chapter 4, section 4.2.6.
chapter 4
DP – JC nominals and their extended projection 4.0 Introduction We continue our mapping of functional structure, and in this section we turn to the extended projections of nominals. As with the other portions of the clause examined until present (IP, CP) we will see that evidence from JC supports the view that nouns involve an articulate structure composed of distinct functional projections, each respecting a rigid hierarchy. It is widely admitted that the structure of nouns shares striking similarities with the structure of sentences, as clearly illustrated by Szabolcsi (1983) and Abney (1987). In essence, this implies that the functional layers identified in the clause can be found to have equivalents in the noun phrase. The latter is therefore analyzed as being divided into at least three sections:
(1) The lexical core or NP, equivalent to VP in sentences.
(2) An Agreement Phrase or AgrP, corresponding to IP of the clause.
(3) The Determiner Phrase or DP, corresponding to CP of the clause.
Moreover, as we have seen in preceding sections, IP and CP layers of the clause have been split into a series of discrete projections and the same applies to the corresponding layers in the DP domain. I will be examining to what extent the enriched structural analysis of nominals is visibly exploited in Creole. I will also consider how the internal structure of nominals interplays with the temporal and aspectual interpretations of the sentence in this language. 4.1 The framework: Functional structure in the DP Analogies between the structure of sentences and that of nouns were already pointed out by Lees in his 1960 dissertation. Lees (1960) underlined, for example, that both clauses and nominals could serve as subjects and direct objects, and could undergo passivization. He also observed the clear similarities between the internal structure of the two categories. The internal structural parallelisms of nominals and sentences were further explored in the pivotal work of Abney (1987). Many important observations, both
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
empirical and theoretical, were put forth to justify the postulation of the functional layers AgrP and DP above NP, corresponding to IP and CP above VP. For instance, on an empirical level, certain languages such as Yup’ik (a Central Alaskan Eskimo language) show that the noun agrees with the possessor in the same way as the verb does with its subject. In this language, the possessor is also marked for the same case as the clausal subject. These two properties provide transparent justifications for an Agreement Projection in the nominal domain. Turkish is also seen to provide specific morphological evidence in favor of postulating an inflectional node, responsible for assigning genitive case. Another clear parallelism between possessors and clausal subjects is illustrated by theta-role assignment of deverbal nouns:
(4) a.
The enemy destroyed the city
(Haegeman & Guéron 1999: 412)
b. The enemy’s destruction of the city
Here we see that the agent of the verb destroy is the enemy, and in a similar fashion the agent of the deverbal noun destruction is the enemy’s. As a result, possessors like clausal subjects are arguably generated within the lexical core, NP for the former and VP for the latter, and for licensing purposes, these move to the specifier of an Agreement-type projection in the extended projection of N or V respectively. Justifications for a DP projection are also provided by Abney (1987). On a theoretical level, he notes that Det should be integrated into the generalized X-bar format shown to hold for other categories, so as to allow for theory-internal consistency. Moreover, he argues in favour of a selectional relationship between the determiner and the noun where the former selects the latter, rather than vice versa. One of the justifications for this is that determiners1 can occur on their own in certain instances. In the data below, for example they behave like the noun phrases they substitute:
(5) [DetP That] was a nice idea
(6) I would like [DetP some]
(7) John thought about [DetP those]
(Abney 1987: 74)
Abney (1987) reasons that this sort of observation suggests that the Determiner Phrase actually is the noun phrase. Another point upholding DetP as the relevant category for referring to noun phrases is that pronouns, which refer to the entire noun phrase, arguably belong to the category Det. This would explain why they cannot occur with any noun specifiers. Relevant examples include:
. N.B. Up to this point, demonstratives were still typically classified as determiners.
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
(8) *[the she that I talked to] was nice
(9) *[my she] has always been good to me
(Abney 1987: 281)
(10) *[dependable them] are hard to find (11) *[many they] make housecalls (12) *[two dozen us] signed the petition
In summary, “determiners, possessors, adjectives, quantifiers, measure phrases, are all prohibited” (Abney (1987: 281). He pursues this line of thought by recalling that Postal (1966) already observed that certain occurrences of pronouns further illustrate that they take on a determiner-like distribution. This is shown in the following examples: (13) I Claudius (14) We tradesmen (15) You idiot (s)
In line with these observations, additional illustrations have been provided showing that the DP shares some characteristics of the CP-layer of the clause. For example, the DP allows for Wh-movement to its specifier (Szabolcsi 1983). Below are examples showing this Wh-movement parallelism between clausal and nominal structures: (16) a. b. [Spec,cpHow accurate [c is
[ip This analysis is accurate] [ip this analysis?]]]
(17) a. [Spec,dp b. [Spec,dp How accurate
[d An accurate analysis] [d an [ip analysis?]]]
Since work by Abney (1987), it is widely adopted that DP, rather than NP, is the accurate syntactic label for the nominal projection, with NP serving as the lexical core. From now on I therefore refer to nominals as DPs. Abney’s identification of this functional layer, as well as that of other projections (e.g., KP, QP, AP) in the nominal domain, crucially fueled much subsequent investigation to uncover the precise nature of the extended projection of nouns. This has led to the postulation of a vast array of functional XPs inserted between DP and NP. For instance, Cinque (1994) reveals that adjectives are organized in a specific order, with cross-linguistic variations such as those given below being captured in terms of noun-movement: (18) a. English: b. French: c. Italian:
The beautiful red ball Le joli ballon rouge (Haegeman & Guéron 1999) The beautiful ball red La bella palla rossa
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
This work suggests an analysis of adjectives as specifiers of dedicated functional projections2 occurring hierarchically within the nominal domain. This cartographic perspective for the adjectival layer was subsequently adopted by Scott (2002) who meticulously refines their architecture in a fashion reminiscent of that proposed by Cinque (1999) for adverbials in the clausal domain. The literature also provides justifications for additional projections in the nominal architecture: NumP, for example, was initially proposed by Ritter (1991) as the projection responsible for encoding singular and plural. Another functional projection is argued to host demonstratives and their related reinforcers in its specifier (see e.g., Brugè 2002; Ihsane 2003; amongst others). With respect to the latter projection, however, it remains controversial exactly where to position this FP as well as how to go about deriving the surface orders of the relevant elements. In this chapter, I examine to what extent justifications for an articulate nominal structure are provided by the JC data.3 In section 4.2.1. we identify the Determiner Phrase. In section 4.2.2., we turn to Case, in particular Genitive Case, which is the only one with a morphological reflex in the language. In section 4.2.3. we look at numerals with emphasis on wan and 4.2.4. considers the element som. Section 4.2.5. is on expressions of quantification, namely distributivity and focus. In section 4.2.6 we study demonstratives and their interactions with deictic reinforcers. Section 4.2.7. deals with the expression of plurality and “inclusiveness”. Section 4.2.8. establishes adjectival hierarchy. Up to this point, the work focuses on how morphological material provides evidence for the structural makeup of IP, CP and DP. In section 4.3. the aim shifts to how the presence of this morphological material in the DP (e.g., in the form of articles, possessors, numerals) versus its absence (i.e., for the ‘‘bare noun’’ or nouns modified with an adjectival) interacts with the absence of such material in the IP. Indeed we observe that in sentences that do not include TMA marking, otherwise known as “bare sentences”, certain default interpretational effects can be triggered and we sketch a possible structural account for this. More specifically, we discuss possible ways of thinking about default telic meanings in the system examined here. Section 4.4. concludes the discussion.
. It has been proposed that such F(unctional) P(rojection)s are Agr(eement) P(rojection)s (Cinque 1994; Giusti 1997) but I retain the label FP in this work, particularly given that there is no overt manifestation of agreement morphology in the Creole under analysis. . Given that the nominal domain encompasses projections of the type found in both the IP and the CP layers, for reasons of space this chapter restricts itself to an overview of the realizations of these projections.
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
4.2 The extended projection of nominals in JC 4.2.1 D(eterminer) P(rojection) 4.2.1.1 [+ Def] The term definiteness implies familiarity and identifiability of the referent. Heim (1982) argues that the Familiarity Condition governs the occurrence of definite descriptions, and in this way distinguishes them from indefinite descriptions. The latter are instead subject to a Novelty Condition, meaning that they occur when their referent is being introduced. We come back to indefinites in the next section. The article di in JC appears when the existence of the referent is indeed established in that it is familiar and identifiable. As such I take it to be the morphological realization of the definite article in Dº: (19) Di aki ties swiit, yu si! [+ Def] ackee taste sweet, you see ‘‘The ackee tastes great, you know!’’ (20) Im put Ø rokstuon pon yu glas teible an *Ø/ di rokstuon bruk 3rd put rock on 2nd sg glass table and *Ø/ [+ Def] rock break di teibl [+ Def] table ‘‘S/he put a/some rock/s on your glass table and the rock/s broke the table.’’
Following standard approaches to nominal structure since Abney (1987), we will assume that the definite article di in JC is part of the functional structure of nominals, heading its own projection DP: (21)
DP Spec
D’
D[+Definite] di
… NP
4.2.1.2 [–Def] Non-definite readings are yielded in the absence of the marker di. As can be seen by the following examples, bare nouns can occur in both subject and object positions and are used to introduce a referent into the discourse: (22) Yu ier dat? Daag a baak roun de! 2èmesg hear that? Dog [prog] bark around there ‘‘Did you hear that? There is/are (a)/(some) dog/s barking over there.’’
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
(23) Jan a riid buk Jean [prog] read book ‘‘John is reading (a)/(some) book/s.’’
The considerations so far suggest the following analysis for the head of the JC DP, where di is realized in D so as to mark [+ Def] but null-D is associated with indefinites: (24)
DP Spec
D’
D[+Definite] Di D[–Definite] Ø
… NP
4.2.2 K(Case) P(rojection) In Jamaican Creole, neither lexical DPs nor pronouns show morphological marks for nominative or accusative case: (25) Jan laik Mieri an Mieri laik Jan John like Mary and Mary like John ‘‘John likes Mary and Mary likes John.’’ (26) Wi no laik dem an dem no laik wi 1st pl [neg] like 3rd pl and 3rd pl [neg] like 1st pl ‘‘We don’t like them and they don’t like us.’’
A full inventory of the pronouns used in Jamaican Creole is as follows, regardless of whether these bear Nominative or Accusative: (27)
a. b. c. d. e. f. g.
Mi – I/me Wi – We/us You – you (singular) Unu – you (plural) Im – s/he, him/her, it I ’ – it Dem – they/them
Despite the general absence of morphological evidence for Case on JC nominals, there is an instance where we can see the overt realization of a case-assigning head present, and that is for Genitive. Concretely, possessives may be realized with a prepositional element fi preceding them, as seen below:
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
(28) Fi im/Jan pikni a di swiitis likl ting P 3rd sg/John child [equative] Det [definite] sweetest little thing ‘‘John’s child is the sweetest little thing.’’
This head is optionally overt: (29) Im/Jan pikni a di swiitis likl ting 3rd sg/John child [equative] Det [definite] sweetest little thing ‘‘His/Her/John’s child is the sweetest little thing.’’
The next question is where to situate the elements under consideration in the structure. A language such as Italian allows for determiners and possessors to co-occur: (30) Il suo libro The his book ‘‘his book.”
What a language like Italian then reveals is that the possessor occurs lower down than the determiner. Indeed the possessor is plausibly first merged in [Spec, NP] where it is locally assigned its theta role. In Italian no movement to DP takes place at Spell-Out. However in JC, we cannot tell if there is movement to DP or not, given that the determiner and the possessive are in complementary distribution, like in Standard English: (31) *Di (fi) Jan/im pikni DET P John/3rd sg child
The projection hosting fi [+ Genitive] can be thought to occur in between the DP layer and the NP, as follows, in which case the possessive can stay in [Spec, NP] where it is first merged: DP
(32) Spec
D’
KP D [+Def] Spec K’ K (fi)
NP Spec Jan/im
N’ N pikni
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
Given, as we saw in the previous section, that elsewhere in JC grammar, D [+ Def] is realized by di, it is difficult to understand why null D here would encode [+ Def]. This would mean that the language makes use of two different mechanisms (di and Ø) to arrive at the same result: [+ Def]. It is also unconvincing to argue that this null-D would be the realization of an agreeing head that assigns case since the case-assigning head here is fi, not null D. In light of these theoretical considerations, one needs to say more about why D[+ Def] is null in the presence of a possessor in JC. There seems to be a commonly attested grammatical property whereby specifiers and heads tend to avoid co-occuring. This syntactic reflex is captured by Dimitrova-Vulchanova & Giusti (1998) who state that “A Functional Projection must be visible at all levels of representation: by (a) making the Spec visible and/or (b) making the head visible”. We will adopt a view where the possessive in JC moves to [Spec, DP], and it would therefore be the filling of the specifier that licenses the non-pronunciation of D [+ Def], otherwise realized as di: (33)
KP K’
Spec K fi
DP D’
Spec Jan/im D [+Def] di -> Ø
Spec ·Jan/imÒ
NP N’ N pikni
Structure (33) benefits from the theoretical advantage of explaining a [+ Def] reading in the absence of di. There is also an empirical reason for opting for this analysis: indeed structure (32) cannot account for the distribution of adjectives with respect to the ‘‘fi + possessor’’ sequence: (34) Luk pon fi Jan priiti pikni4 Look at fi John pretty child ‘‘Look at John’s pretty child.”
. This sentence also upholds that a possessor-phrase marked by fi can itself be selected by a preposition.
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
Given that the adjective priiti intervenes between the possessor (fi) Jan and the noun pikni, one has to conclude that the possessor has moved out of [Spec,NP] where it is first merged to a pre-adjectival position. In light of the theoretical reasons already highlighted for its targeting [Spec,DP], we can conclude that fi is generated above the DP layer. It is worth noting that other languages also appear to evince Genitive elements in pre-DP positions. For example, consider the data below from Greek:5 (35) Psáxno [tis Marías [to vivlio]] Search 1st sg Gen Mary Def book ‘‘I’m looking for Mary’s book.”
In sum, it looks as though case assignement can indeed take place in a high, pre-DP position in certain languages, and plausibly in JC as well.6 The most likely source for JC fi is Standard English prepositional ‘‘for’’. It is interesting to note that Case assignment by ‘for’ in Standard also favors the above configuration for ECM: i.e., where the head assigns into the Specifier of the complement. (36) For [John/him to go to Jamaica] is normal
If case features are checked in a specifier-head configuration with the JC fi-element in Kº, then this checking must be delayed until LF given the ungrammaticality of the following: (37) *[Spec,KP Jan/im [K° fi John/3rd sg ‘‘fi’’
[pikni]]] child
4.2.3 N(ume)ral P(rojection) 4.2.3.1 Wan It is generally proposed in the literature that wan is the realization of the [–Definite] article in JC (Bailey 1966; Patrick 2004; Stewart 2006). However as seen in section 4.2.1. above, [–Definite] arises in some instances in the absence of wan. An analysis of wan as the indefinite article therefore forces one to conclude that [–Definite] is encoded at times by null D, and at other times by wan.
. Thanks to Attina Adnvá for this data. . Other instances of case assignment are structural (as opposed to inherent for Genitive), therefore occur outside of the nominal domain, so I do not discuss these here. Current theories link Accusative case assignement to an AgrOP type position, and Nominative Case assignment to a Spec-X° agreement in AgrSP. There is no obvious case-assigning-agreement head in JC that would morphologically realize either of these projections given that agreement morphology is radically absent from the basilectal creole under consideration – instead we get other markers of TMA as discussed in Chapter 2.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
Another way of seeing things is that null D° encodes [–Def] across the board. In this case, when wan is present, its role is not to encode [–Def]. The obvious question then is: what function does it serve? The data below shows that JC wan can play the role of a numeral: (38) fram maahnin mi nyam wan (suosuo) manggo From morning 1st sg eat one (only) mango ‘‘Since morning I’ve eaten one mango (only).”
Wan would therefore be inserted in the same structural position as numerals, namely in N(ume)ralP. Its role here would not be to yield [–Def] (given that this is done by nul-D), but rather to render explicit that the nominal it is associated with is singular. Indeed the presence of this element triggers atomicity and restricts to the singular, an effect otherwise absent from bare nominals (see examples 22–23 above). A favourable consequence of this approach, i.e., whereby wan is merged under Nralº, is that it is compatible with a definite article in Dº: (39) Dat a di wan bwai mi no laik Dem equative [+ Def] Num boy 1stsg [Neg] like ‘‘That is the one (single) boy I don’t like.”
It follows that the only interpretation possible when di is used in combination with wan is [+ Def] [+ sg]: DP
(40) Spec
D’
D [+Definite] FP di D [-Definite] Ø Spec NralP [+Singular] wan F [–Singular] tuu, chrii, etc.
F’ … NP
As seen below, other creole languages such as Sranan show that the use of a pre-nominal wan element serves this individuating function, more than that of marking indefinite (although this author still glosses wan as INDEF). Compare the data in (41a) with that in (41b):
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
(41) a. Bassia gi zomma zopie basya give person Ø rum ‘‘Basya, give the people rum.”
(Bruyn 2006, taken from vDyk108)
b. Joe buy gi den bassia wan zopi(Bruyn 2006, taken from vDyk68) 2sg boy give DEF.pl basya INDEF rum ‘‘You boy, give the basyas (overseers) a (glass of) rum.”
Bryun (2006: 18) observes that “The occurrence of wan in (41b) (…) does not seem to make the arguments in any sense more referential than the bare nouns in the (a)-sentence (…). Cases such as these suggest that in such cases it is impossible to relate the occurrence of wan to anything other than the intentions of the speaker with regard to individuation.” Finally, it is worth pointing out that when a direct object of a [-Stative] verb is modified by wan, or any other numeral, this object is ‘quantized’ and as such serves to ‘delimit’ the event in Tenny’s (1987) sense – i.e., it ‘measures out’ the event such that in the absence of other inflectional (TMA) markers, this object renders available a [+ Past], [+ Completive] reading for the event: (42) mi nyam wan (suosuo) manggo 1st sg eat one (only) mango ‘‘I’ve eaten/ate one mango (only).”
A bare noun prefers a [-Past], [-Completive] interpretation in ‘bare sentences’ (i.e., sentences exempt of TMA marking): (43) mi nyam manggo 1st sg eat mango ‘‘I (generally) eat mango.”
We return to a discussion of this phenomenon in section 4.3. 4.2.4 Num(ber)P: Som JC wan and som differ in that while the former is used with [+ sg] nominals, the latter occurs with [-sg] ones: (44) Som pikni ‘‘Some children.” ‘‘*Some child.”
Aside from this difference, it can be pointed out that both wan and som share various properties: Both occur with null D, thus in [-Def] contexts. Moreover, like wan, som serves to trigger certain temporal/aspectual effects such as those outlined for wan. As can be observed below (45a), a direct object realized by a
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
som-nominal, like with a wan-nominal (example 42 above), yields [+ Past], unlike with a bare nominal (45b): (45) a. Jan dringk som rum John drink some rum ‘‘John drank some rum.” b. Jan dringk rum John drink rum ‘‘John drinks rum.”
Som differs from wan, and from other numerals, by not delimiting to a precise amount. However as seen by the different temporal readings above, we can conclude that a som-nominal (45a), unlike a bare nominal (45b), does serve nonetheless to delimit the noun it modifies to a vague quantity, but to a quantity nonetheless. It is this delimiting which has the effect of anchoring the event aspectually and temporally, giving rise to a [+ Completive/+ Past] interpretation in (45a). Once again, we return to this notion of delimitedness and aspectual interpretations in section 4.3, and attempt to provide an account for the lack of overt TMA marking in these instances. It is worth pointing out that a third point in common between the elements wan and som has to do with scope (Stewart 2006). For example, an object realized with the indefinite wan cannot take scope over another quantifier, here evri, in subject position: (46)
Evri man lov wan uman Stewart (2006: 7) Every man love IND woman a. For every man that there is, there is a/one woman that he loves b. #There is a/one woman, and every man loves that woman
In this way wan has diverged from its plausible lexifier counterparts one and a. JC som shows similar scopal restrictions: (47)
Evri man lov som uman Every man love som woman a. For every man that there is, there are some women that he loves b. #There are some women, and every man loves those women
In order to derive the reading in (47b), one would need to topicalize som as done below: (48) Som uman, evri man jos lov *(dem) Som woman, every man just love *(them) ‘‘There are some women, and every man loves those women’’.
Recall that in Chapter 3, topicalized elements are shown to be non-quantificational, and a reflex of these is that they do not leave gaps in their base positions but rather occur with resumptive pronouns. The fact that resumptive dem is obligatory in the data above points in the direction of JC som being non-quantificational.
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
A further point upholding the non-quantificational nature of som is that no WCO effects are brought about in its presence, as illustrated below: (49) Som gyal-piknii, demi muma riili lov demi Som girl-child, 3rd pl mother really love 3rd pl ‘‘Some girls, their mothers really love them.”
To recapitulate then, (i) wan and som are realized with null-D [–Def], and (ii) serve to delimit the noun they modify with respect to a quantity. They also are seen here to (iii) both evince low scope. To account for these facts, it would be appealing to propose an analysis where the two elements share a similar syntax, with both occupying the same projection at some stage, but while one bears the [-singular] feature, the other encodes the [+ singular] one. A difference between the two, however, is that while wan can arguably be analysed as a numeral, som is clearly not a numeral. Som is therefore plausibly directly inserted in NumP where it encodes [-singular]. Wan, on the other hand, is inserted in NralP, and arguably further moves up to NumP where it encodes [+ singular]. Neither would move on to a Q(uantifier)P, as this step would entail that they gain access to a wide scope reading, which they both resist in JC. These observations can be represented as follows: KP
(50)
K’
Spec K
DP D’
Spec D Ø [–Def]
NumP
Spec wan [+SG] som [-SG]
Num’ Num
(…) FP
Spec NralP <wan> [+SG]
We now turn to elements which do project QPs.
F’ F
… NP
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
4.2.5 Q(uantifier) P(hrase) This section deals with Quantifier Projections in the JC nominal domain. First we discuss reduplication, a productive process in JC. We have seen in the IP domain that reduplicated verbs realize frequentative aspect (Chapter 2, Section 2.3.5.5). We will now see that reduplication can apply to elements within the extended nominal projection. Distributive readings arise when numerals reduplicate, and a focused interpretation is yielded by reduplicated adjectives.7 We then turn to a brief consideration of the quantifier evri. 4.2.5.1 Reduplication of numerals: Distributive Numerals in Standard English can yield a distributive reading, which can be made explicit through use of the quantifier ‘each’: (51) I gave the children three coconuts (each)
Numerals in JC, unlike in SE, do not give rise to distributive readings unless they are reduplicated.8 Indeed, the object in (52a) below cannot function as a distributee while the one in (52b) can: (52) a. Im gi di pikni-dem chrii kuoknat 3rd sg give Det child [pl] three coconut ‘‘S/he gave the children (a total of) three coconuts.’’ b. Im gi di pikni dem chrii- chrii kuoknat 3rd sg give Det child [pl] three- three coconut ‘‘S/he gave the children three coconuts each.’’
This strategy is found in other languages such as Hungarian: (53) A gyerekek [három-három almát] kaptak9 the children [three-three apple-acc] received ‘‘The children received three apples each.’’
Stewart (2006: 216–17) also noted this property of numerals in Creole as opposed to the lexifier language: “In a language such as English, the NP ‘three policemen’’ might indicate either that there are three individual persons, or that there are three policemen acting collectively. In the JC case, only the latter interpretation is . Nouns may also reduplicate, however in these instances the reduplicated noun does not yield a focus reading but rather implies “an abundance of N”. . A distributive reading can also arise when a numeral is in the scope of a Quantifier forcing this interpretation. We will discuss this in the next section when we address the Quantifier evri. . Estzer Varga, personal communication.
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
a vailable (…) the numeral does not represent the number of sets (…) but the size of the single set (…) The referent of chii polis, then, consists of a 3 member set. A collective may not distribute, and so the object of such a sentence could not serve as a distributed share. In such a case, the reduplicative wan-wan would be needed to modify the object, thus marking it as a distributive share: (54) Chii polis kyari wan-wan gon10 Three police carry one-one gun ‘‘Three policemen each carry a gun.”
Stewart’s point here is that the nominal Chii polis is not individuated in an example such as: Chii polis kyari wan gon, but instead functions as a set: ‘Three policemen together carried one single gun’, unless the numeral over which it takes scope is reduplicated: Chii polis kyari wan-wan gon when suddenly the DP chii polis has to function as a distributor, with each one carrying a different gun. So in sum this means that: i. The numeral on its own serves to establish the relevant amount of entities under consideration and as such is situated in NumP.11 ii. The reduplication of a numeral renders the DP [+Distributive] so that this quantity of the set, specified by the first numeral, re-occurs for each individual of the DP: (55) wan-wan gon ‘‘one gun each.’’ (56) chii-chii gon ‘‘three guns each.’’
This co-relating/distributing liaison can be represented as follows: (57)
Qp [+Dist] Q’
Spec chii Q
FP Spec NralP
F’ F
… NP
. Bold letters are mine. . More precisely, it moves to [Spec,NumP] from [Spec, FP] where it is merged as a numeral (as sketched in section 4.2.4., tree (50).
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
If the numeral moves to [Spec, QP] to check its [+ Dist] feature, then one can conclude that its copy is spelled out, yielding the reduplication attested for distributive nominals. This predicts that no material can be inserted in between the numeral and its reduplicated form, which is what we find: (58) Chii (*big) chii gon …
4.2.5.2 Evri 4.2.5.2.1 Distributive evri. Unlike the case of (non-reduplicated) numerals above, evri distributes even in the absence of a reduplicated numeral: (59) evri man kyari wan grip?
(Stewart 2006: 219)
(60) Ye. Dat is chii separet grip Yes. That is three separate suitcase ‘‘Yes. That is three different suitcases.’’
Stewart (2006) argues that distributivity seems then to be a feature that is optionally specified on the universal evri, and this element will be interpreted as a distributor once it takes scope over any quantized DP. It seems then that a distributive reading arises once the following configuration is established, i.e., with a quantifier such as evri or a reduplicated numeral taking scope over a numeral: (61) QP evri/wan > NumP wan
4.2.5.2.2 Collective evri. Evri does not necessarily encode the distributive feature. JC evri may indeed yield collective readings, unlike its English counterpart ‘every’, as pointed out by Stewart (2006): (62) Evri chochman gyada fi sovis a 10 aklak Every churchman gather for service at 10 o’ clock ‘‘All churchmen gathered for service at 10 o’ clock.”
Stewart (2006: 41)
Here we see that a collective predicate such as gyada ‘‘gather’’ occurs freely with JC evri, which is not the case for Standard English ‘‘every’’: (63) *Every man gathered at the stroke of midnight
(Gil 1995: 309 e.g., 12)
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
In English the appropriate reading for ‘‘every’’ is distributive, explaining the ungrammaticality of the example above. This is further illustrated by the fact that ‘every’ is impossible in Vendler’s (1967) relational sentences since these are only grammatical with a collective subject such as ‘‘all’’: (64) All those blocks are similar/*Every one of those blocks is similar.
However consider the following creole data, which illustrates evri occurring with the predicate fieva: ‘‘look alike’’: (65) Evri man in dat de haus fieva Every man in that there house favour ‘‘All the men in that house look alike.’’
(Stewart 2006: 49)
With this data, Stewart (2006) shows that JC evri may be interpreted collectively as well. As a result, the QP it occupies may be [-Dist] in the absence of a QP lower down marked [+ Dist]. To summarize, then, evri can have either [+ Distributive] or [–Distributive] (i.e., [+ Collective]) properties, and these come out depending on the QP over which it takes scope. Stewart (2006: 106) further underlines that “JC evri may be co-indexed with either a singular or a plural pronoun”. According to Stewart (2006: 120), the plural pronoun is used with evri to yield an interpretation of the group as a whole, while the singular pronoun is used to yield a distributive reading, so that each member of the set being referred to is implied: (66) Evri man a dringk dehm bier Every man ASP drink 3rd pl beer ‘‘Every man is drinking their beer.’’
(Stewart 2006: 118)
(67) Evri man dringkin ihm bier Every man drink 3rd sg beer ‘‘Every man is drinking his beer.’’
(Stewart 2006: 119)
As a result of these considerations, evri itself is not analysed as a referring element, but rather as a quantificational one, along the lines of Stewart (2006). This justifies its heading a QP such as that arrived at above.12
. Recall wan (non-redupicated) and som do not include a QP in their structure, unlike evri. The latter then logically will always take scope over the former in JC.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
The next question is where to situate this quantificational projection. Interestingly, JC allows for the co-occurrence of the definite determiner with evri in certain contexts. In these instances, the determiner precedes evri: (68) Di evri baal im buol, im lik di wikit13 DEF every ball 3s bowl, 3s hit DEF wikit ‘‘Every time he bowled the ball, he hit the wicket.’’
(Stewart 2006: 243)
Evri can also occur after a possessor: (69) Dat-de gyal a wach im evri muuv Dem-deictic girl [Prog] watch poss every move ‘‘That girl is watching his every move.’’
Given the analysis attributed to di and possessors in sections 4.2.1. and 4.2.2., (68) and (69) suggest the ordering DP > evri. In (70) we see that evri precedes numerals, developing our hierarchy to evri > FPNral: (70) Evri tuu mont im (h)afi go a dakta Every two months 3rd sg Mod go Prep doctor ‘‘Every two months s/he has to go to the doctor.’’
By transitivity, the data above provides empirical evidence for an analysis of the QP hosting evri as follows: (71)
14
KP K’
Spec K
DP D’
Spec
QP14
D
Q’
Spec Q evri
FP Nral Spec NralP
F’ F
(…) NP
. Note that the combination of di and evri does not seem to be accepted by all speakers of JC – none of my informants (save one) accepted this sentence as is, and instead repeated it to me without the determiner. . Puskas (2002: 119) looks at sentences with floating quantifiers and illustrates that the positions of these do not have obvious repercussions on the interpretation of a sentence with a collective or a distributive reading:
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
4.2.5.3 Reduplication of adjectives:Adjectival Focus.15 We have seen that in Creole, numerals reduplicate to yield a distributive interpretation. Reduplication also applies to adjectives to give rise to an emphatic reading: (72) No bada wid dem mashop- mashop [Neg] bother with 3rd pl mashed+up+mashed+up ‘‘Don’t bother with those WRECKED ackees.”
aki ackee
(73) Luk pon dat priiti-priiti pikni Look on that pretty-pretty child ‘‘Look at that BEAUTIFUL child.” (74) Hear de foo-fool gal Hear Det Adj Adj ‘‘Listen to the exceedingly silly girl.”
(Bennett 1993: 4)
Cassidy (1961: 72) described this stating “If the basic element expresses a quality or property, when iterated it usually expresses intensification – pretty-pretty, plentyplenty, flat-flat, mean very pretty, pletiful, flat (…)”. It is worth noting that this adjectival reduplication is not recursive: (75) *Di tuu fuu- fuul priiti- priiti gyal Det Num > Adj [+ Foc] Adj Adj [+ Foc] Adj N
(X)
All the clowns lifted the piano The clowns all lifted the piano
(Puskas e.g., 51)
(Y)
All the visitors signed the guest book (Puskas e.g., 52) The visitors all signed the guest book
Since what is preferred for (X) is the collective reading and for (Y) it is the distributive reading, then what forces one or the other does not seem to follow from the actual position of the quantifier but rather the nature of the predicate. . This section looks at reduplication as an instance of focussing. As mentioned in footnote 7, reduplication can also apply to nouns, but when it does it yields a reading of “lots of N” rather than N [+Foc] – “Thus was-was, ‘‘swarm of wasps’’, from was, ‘‘wasp’’, and robish-robish, ‘‘garbage’’, refer to an abundance of the item referred to in the simple form” (Bailey 1966: 16). So a sentence such as
Di kriv(e)n fren-fren bout di pleis a bruk mi Det greedy friend-friend around the place [Prog] broke 1st sg
Means: ‘‘The abundance of greedy friends around the place are making me broke’’ Not: ‘‘The (abundance of) greedy FRIENDS (as opposed to family) around the place are making me broke’’
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
This suggests that the FocP hosting the reduplicated adjectival is itself unique. It appears to be able to host a reduplicated adjective that is not necessarily phonetically emphasized, or a single adjective bearing considerable phonetic stress: (76) Bredda Anansi pick annuda BIG melon an huol up it (Tanna 1984: 95) Brother Anansi pick another BIG melon and hold up it ‘‘Brother Anansi picked up another really big melon and held it up.”
That adjectival FocP is unique likens it to the FocP in the left periphery, where we also noted (Chapter 3 examples 26a & b) that two focused constituents were banned: (77) a. *A di bami a di pikni [im gi A the bammy a the child [3sg give b. *A di pikni a di bami [im gi A the child a the bammy [3sg give
Another parallellism between DP and CP focus is that both involve movement to a higher position – so consider the example below, where we see that the unmarked/ unemphatic order between these adjectives is Length > Speed:16 (78) Di lang faas chriela tun ova Det long fast trailer turn over ‘‘The long fast trailer turned over.”
If we want to focus lang, we can pronounce it with considerable stress, but it has to be fronted to preceed other adjectives. This is not visible if the focused adjective is the first in the sequence as in: (79) Di LANG faas chriela tun ova Det long fast trailer turn over ‘‘The LONG fast trailer turned over.”
However the adjectival movement becomes more obvious when one tries to target the lower adjective for focusing purposes – in these instances we see that it cannot remain in its base position: (80) a. ??Di lang FAAS chriela tun ova b. Di FAAS lang chriela tun ova
So subversion of the base order Length > Speed is permitted, even preferred, when Speed is focused, and we can account for this in terms of movement to a DP-internal Focadj projection. . We come back to a more detailed consideration of ordering restricitions of adjectives in section 4.2.8.
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
The next question is: what happens syntactically when an adjective is reduplicated for focussing? Is the base ordering subverted? The following attests to the fact that indeed this is the case: (81) a. b.
*Di lang faas-faas chriela tun ova Det long fast-fast trailer turn over Di faas faas lang chriela tun ova Det fast-fast long trailer turn over
So within the nominal architecture, we situate the FocP [Adj] above other adjectival FPs, so that movement to this FocP allows for the resulting ordering that we observe: that is, with the intensified adjective preceeding the others. Note that the entire reduplicated adjectival form targets FocP: c.
*Di faas lang 〈 faas〉 chriela tun ova Det fast long 〈fast〉 trailer turn over
For this reason we cannot claim here that reduplication is the result of spelling out the base position of the adjective. Here we are apparently dealing with a unit that is simply emphatic because of a phonological doubling that has occurred. This is a difference between focussing within the nominal domain as opposed to that occurring within the left periphery – recall that in Chapter 3 we observed that verb-focussing spelled out the copy in the base position, and these two elements were not immediately juxtaposed in focus position. (82) A tiif dem tiif di mango-dem Foc steal 3rd pl steal the mango-3rd pl ‘‘What they did was steal the mangoes.”
In sum, this FocP [adj] hosts either the reduplicated adjective or the adjective bearing particular phonetic stress. It cannot, however, host more material than this: This is another difference between focussing within the DP and focussing within the CP (see again Chapter 3). More specifically, within the nominal domain, one cannot focus the adjective along with the noun it modifies (e.g., through reduplication of both 83, 84) whereas in the left-periphery, focusing of the noun along with its modifier is unproblematic (85, 86): (83) *Bredda Anansi pick annuda [BIG melon] BIG melon an huol up it Brother Anansi pick another BIG melon BIG melon and hold up it “Bother Anansi picked up another big melon and held it up.” (84) *Luk pon dat [priiti pikni] priiti pikni Look on that pretty child pretty child “Look at that beautiful child.”
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
versus: (85) A [BIG melon] Bredda Anansi pick A BIG melon Bother Anansi pick “It’s a big melon that Bother Anansi picked.” (86) A [priiti pikni] mi a luk pon A pretty child 1st sg [Prog] look on “It’s a beautiful child that I am looking at.”
As a result of these considerations, we situate FocP [adj] above other adjectival FPs, and claim that the specifier of this projection hosts an adjectival marked [+ Foc] either through phonetic doubling or phonetic stress/emphasis. When various adjectives are present, movement of one adjective from the sequence to Spec, FocP[adj] may then entail a subversion of the base order (as seen in examples 80 and 81). We now see that this FocP is located below NralP, as focused adjectives follow numerals: (87) Di tuu fuu- fuul gyal did de a di dans laas nait Det Num > adj [+Foc] adj N [past] loc P Det dance last night ‘‘The two SILLY girls were at the dance last night.”
Along the lines of Cinque (1994) we generate Adjectives in the specifier of a functional projection in the extended projection of nominals, and propose the following structure for the JC data considered: (88)
DP Spec
D’ D
FP Spec NralP
F’ F
FocP
Spec AdjP [+reduplicated] AdjP [+phonetic emphasis] Foc
Foc’ FP Adj Spec
F’ F
… NP
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
4.2.6 Dem(onstrative) P(hrase) 4.2.6.1 Demonstratives and articles Demonstratives in Creole are realized as dis and dat (singular), as well as dem (plural) as shown in (89–91). These elements cannot occur with the article di (92–96): (89) Dis pikni ‘‘This child.” (90) Dat pikni ‘‘That child.” (91) Dem pikni-(ya); Dem pikni-(de) ‘‘These children; Those children.” (92) Di pikni ‘‘The child.” (93) *Dis di pikni (94) *Di dis pikni (95) *Dem di pikni (96) *Di dem pikni
It is often argued that a demonstrative undergoes movement from the projection where it is generated to a higher specifier position. Brugè (2002) specifies that the target of this movement is [Spec, DP] so that the fact that D° remains empty is a consequence of the presence of the demonstrative in [Spec, DP]. This syntactic reflex was already seen to be relevant for the analysis of possessors in section 4.2.2., where possessor movement to [Spec, DP] was seen to license null D [+Def]. It seems to be a pervasive characteristic of FPs in JC that at Spell-Out they are visible through morphological realization of either their specifier or their head. This approach accounts for the above data once the demonstrative is postulated as occupying [Spec, DP] at Spell-Out in JC: DP
(97) Spec DemP i
D’
… FP
D [+Def] Ø
F’
Spec i F
… NP
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
This analysis would indeed account for the complementary distribution attested between the demonstrative and di in JC, however this is not a universal restriction: Note that certain languages do allow for co-occurrence of both the demonstrative and the article, as seen by the examples below taken from Aboh (2004: 95) evincing the overt realization of DEM-DET-N: (98) auto ó aner
this the boy
(Greek)
(99) ika ń anak
this the boy
(Javanese)
(100) ez a haz
this the house (Hungarian)
What this seems to indicate is that while the specifier and head of a functional projection cannot be simultaneously overt in many instances, it is not a universal constraint and therefore subject to cross-linguistic variation. 4.2.6.2 Demonstratives and deictics Both singular dis and dat as well as plural dem often occur with a deictic element such as ya or de. Singular dis may be accompanied only by ya and da(t) is restricted to de: (101) a. c.
Dis pikni-ya/*de . . . b. ‘‘This child.” Da pikni-de/?ya17 . . . d. ‘‘That child.”
Dis ya/*de pikni Da-de/*ya pikni
Dem does not show this restriction: (102) Dem-ya/de ton blue 3rd pl-deictic turn blue ‘‘These/Those turned blue.”
(Bailey 1966)
Like JC, French and Italian also have locatives appearing with demonstratives, although they cannot do so with articles: (103) a. ce (livre) ci/là a’. *le livre ci/là (French) Giusti (2002: 61) b. questo libro qui/quel libro li b’. *il (libro) qui/li (Italian) this (book) here/there
This phenomenon is also found in other languages, such as Spanish. Brugè (2002) underlines that in this language: “the information expressed by este libro ‘‘this book’’ and by este libro de aquí ‘‘this book of here’’ are the same”, and she proposes that . Patrick (2004) considers the sequence da ting ya acceptable (although not all of my informants do,) and in this instance provides the translation ‘‘this thing’’. What seems then to determine the proximal (or distal) reading even for the singular demonstrative, is the reinforcer. This suggests that in JC it is the reinforcer which encodes contrast rather than the demonstrative. We come back to this in section 4.2.6.3.
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
the presence of the locative simply reinforces the demonstrative’s deictic value. This strikes a parallelism with the JC data, where the presence of ya/de serves this function as well, and so we will often refer to de and ya as ‘reinforcers’. On the other hand de and ya also serve an additional function, that of encoding contrast: this is particularly felt when they occur with the plural demonstrative dem which itself doesn’t reflect the feature of proximal or distal (through space or time) as one would find on the English plural demonstratives these and those. Instead in JC this is given by the insertion of the contrative reinforcer.18 Note that this observation was already made by Cassidy (1961: 55) for JC demonstratives: Jamaican demonstratives are generally as in Standard English elsewhere, but the folk speech often adds ya (here) – compare this-here and them-there of substandard English and American. (…) No doubt these combinations were at first emphatic but later became generalised: ‘‘Dish-ya one ya,’’ ‘‘Put dis-ya rope pon you,’’ meaning simply this ; ‘‘Dem-ya a hog plum,’’ meaning these are hog plums; so dat-de and dem-de for that and those. (…) They are pronounced /ya, de/. All forms are also used without ya or de, except when contrasted.
The noun in JC may also be inserted in between the noun and the deictic: (104) a.
Dem frak-ya b. 3rd dress-deictic ‘‘These dresses.”
Dem-ya frak 3rd- deictic dress
(105) a.
Dem pikni-de no iizi b. Dem-de pikni no iizi 3rd pl child-deictic Neg easy 3rd pl deictic child Neg easy ‘‘Those children are not easy (to deal with).”
As seen above (103a,b) the order in (104a, 105a) can be found in various languages. The examples below testify to the fact that the order in (104b, 105b) are also often attested: (106) a. b. c.
Ona tamo (nova) kniga That there (new) book this here (nice) book denne herre (flotte) bilen this here (nice) car-the
(Bosnian)
(Brugè 2002: 26)
(English) (Norwegian)
Possible JC orders are then as follows: (107) a. Demonstrative > N > deictic b. Demonstrative > deictic > N
. See also Ihsane (2003) who discusses post-nominal demonstratives found in Arabic dialects and post-nominal reinforcing particles (such as ci-là in French) and notes that these share the particularity of serving to contrast referents.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
It is worth pointing out that the data with the order in (107a) are ambiguous between a discourse-linked reading, and a locative one. So, for example, the interpretations yielded by (105a) would be as follows: i. Those children (we are speaking about) are not easy ii. Those children (there – in that place) are not easy
Discourse-Linked Locative
However (105b) leaves no room for such ambiguity and yields only the interpretation in (i). In this way, once the deictic is indisputably a DP-internal element, here because it occurs in between the demonstrative and the noun, it can no longer be analysed as a locative copula and is instead necessarily an element serving to mark discourse-linking. Note that the use of this particular D-linking occurence of de/ya: ‘there/here’ is restricted to occurences of the demonstrative – we do not find it used with an article or a possessor: Examples such as the following are acceptable but here ya/de yield a locative reading rather than a D-linked one: (108) Di pikni- ya/de Det child locative ‘‘The child over here/there.” (109) (fi) Jan pikni- ya/de P John child locative ‘‘John’s child over here/there.”
As seen above, the ocurrence of ya/de with an article (or posessive) is restricted solely to the [+ Locative] interpretation. Note that it is impossible to say: *Di-ya pikni or *di-de pikni, since this pre-N occurrence of ya/de is reserved exclusively for the deictic reinforcer. In sum, the deictic in JC is dependent on the presence of the demonstrative, in that it cannot cannot occur with an article (as explained above), and it cannot occur on its own: (110) * Ø Pikni- ya/de no iizi Children deictic [Neg] easy
Before proposing a syntactic analysis for the data, it is worth also underlining that what can sit in between the demonstrative and the reinforcer is in fact more than just the noun: (111) Dis [kriv(e)n pikni]-ya DEM Adj child reinforcer ‘‘this greedy child.”
This is also the case in French:
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
(112) Ce [livre jaune]- ci This book yellow here ‘‘This yellow book.”
Bernstein (1997)
(113) Ce [marchand de vin]- ci This merchant of wine here ‘‘This wine merchant.”
4.2.6.3 Demonstratives and accompanying deictics in JC – an analysis As pointed out in the previous section, the two orders attested in JC are as exemplified in (114a, b) and summarized in (115a, b), where ΣP stands for the sum of projections selected by F° in (116): (114) a. b.
Dis [kriv(e)n pikni]- ya DEM Adj child reinforcer ‘‘This greedy child.” Dis- ya [kriv(e)n pikni] DEM reinforcer Adj child ‘‘This greedy child.”
(115) a. DEM – ΣP–Reinforcer (like French) b. DEM – Reinforcer – ΣP (like non-St Eng)
I propose to derive these options along the lines of the following structure: (116)
DP Spec Deictic P
D’
Deictic’ D° Topic/Discourse-Linked [+Contrastive] Spec Ø DemP [+Def] Dis/Da/Dem Deictic° Spec Top’ ΣP (krieven) pikni Top° [+Contrast]
FP
Spec
F’ F°
… <ΣP> < (krieven) pikni >
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
This accounts for the surface orders that are attested. The analysis also captures the following constraints on the occurrence of this reinforcer in JC: I. the reinforcer must co-occur with a demonstrative This is accounted for by generating the two within a constituent situated in the specifier of an FP in the nominal architecture.19 The constituent that occupies this specifier position will be labeled DeicticP, since both the demonstrative and the reinforcer encode a deictic feature. I opt for an analysis situating the demonstrative in [Spec, DeicticP] and the deictic-reinforcer in Deicticº. Situating the reinforcer in such a functional head would therefore allow for certain properties to follow from its categorical status as a functional head, such as its tight dependency on the realization of the demonstrative. Indeed it is a general property of functional heads that they are phonologically or morphologically dependent, that they can be sisters to only one kind of category and cannot occur in isolation of this sister category. I opt therefore for an analysis of reinforcers as lexicalizations of the head position of DeicticP, situated in the specifier of an FP of the extended nominal projection. Note also that reinforcers in French and Creole have other head-like properties: for example, they tend to ‘‘fuse’’/‘‘attach onto’’ the material that immediately preceeds them: i.e., the noun (and its complements) in (115a) or the demonstrative in (115b). This is often reflected in the orthography by a dash: Da-de bwai; da bwaide (JC); Cet homme-ci (French), which further suggests their status as functional heads rather than a specifier. II. the reinforcer must follow the demonstrative, not precede it My approach generates/merges the demonstrative higher up than de/ya, which are taken to realize the very head position where the demonstrative is generated: [SpecDeicticP Demonstrative [Dectic° Reinforcer]]. The movement of the demonstrative from its base position to [Spec, DP] would be motivated by the checking of the referential feature in the DP projection, through establishing a Spec-X° agreement with D [+ Ref].20,21 . This idea is also present in Ihsane (2003) and Brugè (2002), although the former adoptes the inverse order to that proposed here, and the latter expresses this constituent as a complex predicate. . See also Giusti (1997) on the movement of demonstratives to [Spec, DP]. . Along the lines of Brugè (2002), Cross-linguistic variation would therefore stem from the point at which this feature is checked in one language or another, i.e., at PF or the latest LF. A strong [Ref] feature would bring on obligatory movement to [Spec, DP] before Spell-Out, which is what we get in JC, while a weak feature would allow movement to procrastinate until LF. In the latter scenario, the demonstrative surfaces in this lower position, as optionally possible in Spanish (Brugè 2002: 15):
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
III. The reinforcer cannot occur with an article (117) *Di buk ya/de DEF book loc
This property follows from the fact that the reinforcer must occur with a demonstrative, and a demonstrative must move to check its strong [Ref] feature in [Spec, DP], in this way eliminating the possibility for D to be realized according to the tendency to avoid an overtly realized Spec-X. As pointed out at the beginning of this chapter, this tendency is largely operative in JC.22 IV. The reinforcer cannot occur with a possessive (118) *Mi buk ya/de Possessor book reinforcer
6) nor with a proper name: (119) *Jan ya/de John reinforcer
These two characteristics also follow from our generating the reinforcer together with the demonstrative – i.e., in the same constituent. The realization of the deictic would be parasitic on the realization of the demonstrative. Demonstratives are in complementary distribution with possessors and proper names due to their all ultimately targeting the very same position, namely [Spec, DP]. V. The reinforcer is optional The demonstrative + reinforcer sequence renders the nominal like a ‘‘Topic’’ with respect to the fact that the nominal in question has to already be part of the universe of discourse (or surrounding environment). Demonstrative +deictic serve then to refer back to an entity which is ‘‘old information’’. This entity is singled out contrastively (as opposed to others not being singled out) amongst others already present (discursively or physically) in terms of distance or proximity (through time or space). This last point explains why such reinforcers are typically realized as locatives.
los libros estos/esos/aquellos the books these/those/those ‘‘these/those books’’
. This restriction is also apparent in the second chapter where functional projections in the middle-field tend to be made visible by insertion of material in the head position (as TMA markers) rather than in the specifier position (as Adverbs).
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
So as to check this contrastive feature the reinforcer moves to Topcontrastive. The demonstrative on the other hand targets [Spec, DP], which as explained earlier, rules out the occurrence of other elements targeting this position (e.g., possessors, proper names) and licenses null D [+ Def] in JC. The demonstrative does not move on its own, however, and instead pied-pipes the entire DeicticP. This Specifier to Specifier movement occurs after movement of the reinforcer in Deicticº to a higher D-linking [+ Contrast] head. Recall that JC de is the same marker which is used in Topic constructions in the CP (see chapter 3 section 3.2.4.).23 De appears to signal discourse-linking/salience when articulated with arguments occurring in the left-periphery as well as in the clause. Its status as a head [+Top] becomes especially clear if we adopt the following definition of topicalization (Rizzi 1997: 4), assuming that ‘‘old information’’ in this case refers to those instances where the information is ‘‘old’’ precisely because it is salient in the discourse: (120) topicalization: a preposed element characteristically set off from the rest of the clause by comma intonation and normally expressing old information The optionality of the deictic further suggests its status as a Top head – no language seems to obligatorily realize the Top° position in the left periphery of the clause (recall the discussion in Chapter 3 section 3.2.4. of the Gungbe topic-marker ya). The realization of a Top/left-peripheral type head by the deictic would further strike a parallelism between the left periphery of clauses and nominals – both simply include a TopP. VI. the reinforcer either directly follows the demonstrative, preceding the noun (and its adjectival modifiers), or follows the noun These distributions are accounted for by movement of the demonstrative without the deictic and by lower chunks containing the noun and its complements optionally moving across the deictic or not. If the lower chunk of the sentence selected by this Top° can move up to preceed the deictic at Spell-Out, then we can accommodate this ΣP in the specifier of contrastive TopP, and yield one relevant order attested: JC: da krieven bwai-de; French: ce joli tableau-ci. The fact that movement of this chunk is optional in JC, and obligatory in French, would account for another order being found in JC but banned in French: da-de kireven bwai; *ce-ci joli tableau.
. Note that it now becomes clear that another perspective to that initially sketched in Chapter 3 is one where de would be a DP-internal Topic marker, rather than one occupying Top° in the left-periphery.
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
Note that under this analysis, we can also account for data such as the following from Cassidy (1961: 55):24 (121) Dish- ya one ya [Spec, DP]- Deicticº one Topº ‘‘This one.”
Here we appear to have the spelling out of the pied-piped copy of the deictic in [Spec, DP], as well as the Topº signalling these two positions in structure (116). The next question is: where exactly within the nominal architecture does one situate the functional projection where demonstrative and reinforcer are merged? Brugè (2002) proposes generating these elements deep down in the nominal domain, lower than adjectives, based on the observation that deictics can occur after adjectives in French, but not after nominal complements. However note that it is unclear that reinforcers cannot follow nominal complements, as Bernstein (1997) points out: (122) Ce marchand de vin ci This merchant of wine here ‘‘this wine merchant.”
Given this, what seems to be happening is indeed that the lower nominal chunk ΣP, moves up to the equivalent of a left-peripheral, contrastive discourse-linked FP to check the Top [+ Contrast] feature, so the fact that the reinforcer follows adjectives does not imply that it is generated lower than these, but rather that these are part of the chunk that has crossed over the reinforcer. In fact, recent work (Cinque 2005) points to the need to generate demonstratives in a structurally high position. The reason is that out of 24 mathematically possible orders for demonstrative, numeral, adjective and noun, only fourteen are attested in language. So as to derive the fourteen orders and rule out the unattested ones, Cinque (2005) proposes a unique underlying hierarchy which is Demonstrative > Numeral > Adjective > Noun. The analysis adopted here is compatible with this approach, as seen by the structure in (123) below, which merges the demonstrative and its reinforcer in the specifier of an FP generated higher than other nominal modifiers: (123) DP > TopP [+ Contrast] > FP [+ D-linked] > QP [+ Dist] > NumP [+ Num] > FP [+ Cardinal] > FP [+ Adj] … NP
. My gloss, Cassidy’s (1961) translation. Note that this sequence can also yield the locative reading as attested in section 4.2.6.2., however what is interesting for our purposes here is that it can also simply serve the function as the reinforcer, as the original author’s gloss implies.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
4.2.7 Plurality and inclusiveness: Cl(assifier)P(hrase) The plural in Creole is often expressed by adding the marker dem at the end of the noun. As seen below, this marker is identical to the 3rd person plural pronoun: (124) Di dopi dem Det ghost 3rd pl ‘‘The ghosts.”
In these instances, plurality must be marked on the N in order to unambiguously interpret this noun in the plural: (125) Di bwaai*25(dem) The boy (pl) ‘‘The boys.”
Plurality cannot be overtly marked on all nominals in JC. Indeed, it occurs on those realized with a determiner, as seen above, while it is banned on a bare noun: *bwaai-dem. Dem is also found on nouns preceded by possessors: (126) Fe – me fut bruk Poss 2nd sg foot break ‘‘My foot broke.”
(Tanna 1984: 58)
(127) Fi – me fut- dem bruk Poss 2nd sg foot pl break ‘‘My feet broke.”
Dem may occur on a proper name as well: (128) Mieri-dem ron go tel im Mary-pl run go tell 3rd sg ‘‘Mary and company hurried to tell them.”
This use of dem is commented on by Patrick (2004: 37) who writes: “In JamC, as in a number of Atlantic Creoles and African substrate languages, an associative plural using –dem may attach to a person’s proper name with the meaning “X and her customary associates” (e.g., friends, family members, co-workers, etc). While this construction resembles coordinate structures in vernacular Englishes (e.g., John an dem in AAVE, (…)) there is no conjunction in the JamC cases (129): (129) Miss Waaka dem laaf afta im Miss Walker [pl] laugh after 3rd sg ‘‘Miss Walker and the others laughed at him.”
A similar phenomenon is found in Japanese:
. Without the plural marker dem this would refer to one, single boy.
(Roberts 1973: 18)
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
(130) Taroo-tati Taro- pl ‘‘Taro and those in his group.”
(Yasuo Ishii 2000)
Ishii (2000: 2) explains that the above example “refers to a specific group of people including Taro, and does not mean two or more people named Taro”. Like with possessors, there is an absence of determiners with proper names: (131) *Di Mieri(-dem)… Det Mary -pl
Indeed when dem is used with a proper name, meaning that person and family or that person and friends, the determiner is not used because proper names, being referential, are in fact inherently definite (and move to [Spec, DP] to check this feature). This particular use of associative dem seems constrained in its occurrence to proper names, as Stewart (2006: 207ftnt 19) notes: “Di kwiin dem”, for example, may not refer to the Queen and her entourage, but must mean “the queens’’. One generalization that becomes apparent at this point is that dem occurs with only elements that bear the feature [+Definite]. Indeed DPs marked with di, possessives and proper names all share this trait. It follows that the morphological realization of plurality is parasitic on definiteness in JC. Use of dem to mark plurality is awkward in instances where [+Plural] is expressed elsewhere in the DP. Indeed dem is generally avoided when there is already a plural modifier present. It follows that when a plural demonstrative (132), also realized as dem, or a numeral such as tuu ‘two’’ (133), or the element som (134), already precedes the noun, then plural dem will be excluded: (132) Dem pikni (??dem) Demonstrative + pl child (??pl) ‘‘Those children.” (133) a.
Tuu bwaai (*dem) Two boy (pl) ‘‘Two boys.”
But: b. Di tuu bwaai (#dem) (134) *Som bwai-dem Some boy (pl)
To summarize, we observe that plurality is only marked morphologically by dem when the noun encodes [+Def], i.e., when it is realized as a proper name, or overtly preceded by a definite determiner, or by a possessor. It becomes marginally acceptable with a plural demonstrative,26 but as this element itself encodes . Note that Patrick (2004) found only one occurrence of this in his entire data collection of 3,600 tokens.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
plurality, plural dem sounds somewhat redundant. It is preferably omitted in the presence of a numeral, but becomes possible with these if a definite determiner is present. It is in complementary distribution with som. One generalization that comes to mind that offers a partial account for these facts is that a morphological reflex of plurality only occurs when there is no other marker of plurality available. However this does not fully explain why (133b) is not ungrammatical – what this example shows is that the presence of definiteness does play a role with respect to licensing the use of plural dem. But how can we account for this interaction syntactically? Why is there this syntactic reflex of marking D [+ Def] (overtly with di, or covertly with Possessives or proper names) in instances of plurality? Gadelii (2006) considers Lesser Antillean Creole (LA) noun phrases and proposes to think about the interaction between definiteness and plurality in the following way: “Implied categories do not have to be overtly marked, and thus cannot be. Definite implies singular and singular therefore does not have to be marked, and thus cannot be (*fanm la on).27 Instead, fanm-la without number marking is interpreted as singular ‘‘the woman’’. If a plural reading is intended it has to be marked overtly. Se fanm-la28 ‘‘the women’’. Indefinite implies plural and plural therefore does not have to be marked, and hence cannot be. There is no specific morpheme functioning as an indefinite determiner in LA (recall that on and se are Numº heads), which is why null D expresses the indefinite (as opposed to filled Dº, which expresses the definite). Plural cannot be marked in this case. Fanm means ‘‘some women,’’ se fanm cannot be generated. If a singular reading is intended, it has to be overtly marked: on fanm.” This idea that [+Definite] is by default singular is interesting in accounting for the obligatory insertion of dem with definite nominals, i.e., to express the marked value. It also explains why the use of other elements which themselves express plural, such as plural numerals, the plural demonstrative and plural adjectives, render plural dem’s occurrence awkward/ungrammatical: The insertion of plural dem is as such reserved for the expression of the marked value, which would not be the case in instances of other plural modifiers. Before opting for a particular syntactic analysis of dem [+Plural] as proposed by Stewart (2006), it is important to underline that various reasons have been put forth to argue that dem does not mark plurality alone. The main points which are thought to suggest that the behavior of this element is not that of a typical plural morpheme are as follows: . fanm la on: N(Woman) Def sg. . Se fanm-la: pl N(Woman) Def.
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
I. Patrick (2004: 33) observes that the sequence di … dem is restricted to nominals which are third person: (135) *Aal yaa bwai dem All you boy 3rd pl ‘‘All you boys.”
Such a restriction is not common of plural morphemes. However he notes that this constraint could stem from dem’s deriving from the English third person plural pronoun: ‘‘them’’. Indeed this property may then be accounted for in light of the historical origin of the element. II. Patrick (2004: 40) also considers di … dem to be more productive with nouns [+ human] than [–human]. To the extent that this preference does hold amongst speakers of JC, this is not typical of a classical plural marker. Note, however, that I have not found such a preference to be a part of my informants’ intuitions, and that the literature also shows –dem surfacing on both +/-human entities: (136) di manggo-dem swiit The mango – pl sweet ‘‘The mangoes are sweet.”
(Bailey 1966: 27)
III. Stewart (2006: 241) argues that “(…) it is not appropriate to consider this element to be a plural morpheme in the sense of the English plural ‘‘-s’’. This is in part because its presence is not required29 to render a plural meaning.(….) (137) Di tuu bwai (dem) dong a road DEF two boy dem down LOC road ‘‘The two boys are down the road.”
Note however that the example she uses above renders dem optional only because of the presence of a plural numeral. Compare the above with Di bwaai *(dem), where the absence of dem would imply one, single, boy, showing that indeed dem is not optional on a definite DP when there is no other element present to encode plurality.30 Another point made by Stewart is that, in some instances, inherently plural modifiers do indeed occur with dem. Given that dem is compatible with tuu in examples such as (137), Stewart opts for an analysis of dem as serving a different function to that of redundantly expressing plural once again.
. Bold letters are mine. . That the default interpretation for these definite nominals without –dem (in the absence of numerals) is singular is illustrated by the following data from Bailey (1966:27): di mango swiit: “the mango (a given one) is sweet” vs di mango-dem swiit: “the mangoes are sweet”.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
Stewart (2006) proposes that the relevant function served by this element is that of expressing inclusiveness, and glosses it as INCL. As such, dem “only marks plurality insofar as inclusiveness entails plurality” (Stewart 2006: 251). So the use of dem implies a collaborative effort, which therefore presupposes plurality. A close consideration of data such as (138a, b) below allows her to identify this semantic difference: (138) a.
Chii bwai kil dem faada Three boy kill INCL father ‘‘Three boys killed their father.’’
(Stewart 2006: 204)
b. Di chii bwai (dem) kil dem faada DEF three boy INCL kill 3 pl father ‘‘The three boys killed their father.’’
She (2006: 204) argues that the example in (138b) suggests that it is likely that the event represents one incident, which is not necessarily implied by the example in (138a). She therefore proposes that dem is not a plural marker, but rather an inclusiveness marker. I have tested this data on various JC informants and must stress that a reading where the three boys acted collectively for (138a), and separately for (138b)31 is also possible. This seems to reveal that the inclusiveness interpretation is not systematic, although it is perhaps encouraged. What is clear with the use of di … dem sequences is that, although the referent does not have to act collectively as a group, it must form a group nonetheless, a set identifiable according to some shared property – here having committed patricide, be it by killing their single father collectively, or their respective ones. In sum, dem indeed contributes to defining a group, and can be taken to encode inclusiveness in this precise sense. Another merit of an analysis of dem as an inclusiveness marker is that it captures why its realization is dependent upon the realization of the definite determiner. As Stewart (2006: 215) remarks: “the naturalness of the use of plural with the JC definite di is easily explained when it is considered that inclusiveness is a feature of definiteness (…) What is taking place here, is that dem indicated that it is the totality of bwai which is under consideration. Its plural construal is a consequence of it being a marker of inclusiveness – a group of boys must necessarily denote (semantic) plurality”. As a marker of inclusiveness, Stewart proposes to situate dem under Cl°, where Cl stands for ‘‘classifier’’. The projection ClP is taken to be responsible for encoding atomic or non-atomic interpretations, here the latter is yielded by dem while the former is yielded by a null Cl°. Put differently, the presence of null Cl° prepares the noun for individuation (Stewart 2006: 192), while overt Cl dem serves a group-forming function. Dem being inserted under Cl°, movement of
. Thank you to Joseph Farquharson for confirming this.
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
the NP it selects logically targets [Spec,ClP] yielding the correct surface order, i.e., where the noun preceeds dem.32 The relevant structure is as follows: (139)
DP D’
Spec D di [+Def]
... CIP Spec Cl’ dem [+INCL]
Cl’ NP
In certain languages such as Bangla, a classifier preceeds the noun (and adjectives) it modifies, so that this movement arguably does not take place in such instances: (140) oi duTo [lal boi] those two CLASSIFIER red book ‘Those two red books’
Such data also suggests situating this ClP just lower that numerals and just higher than adjectives. We turn to the domain reserved for AdjPs in the next section. 4.2.8 Adj(ectival) P(hrase) 4.2.8.1 A cartography of AdjPs Cinque (1994) provides a detailed study of the distributional constraints on adjectives in the DP domain. The ordering revealed to obtain amongst adjectivals strikes a clear parallelism with the rigid hierarchy also observed to hold amongst adverbials in the IP domain (Cinque 1999). Scott (2002)33 further refines the hierarchy of adjectival projections in the DP domain. He proceeds by restricting himself to selecting examples with a maximum of three adjectives, since “(…) strings with more than three stacked adjectives at . Following Kayne (2001), I take prepositional complements to be merged in a position outside of NP (one which is headed by the preposition). As such these PPs do not move with the NP here. The result is that despite NP movement, only the N itself ultimately precedes dem, yielding orders such as Di buk-dem bout Jamaica. “The books about Jamaica”. . See also Laenzlinger (2005) for a study of French adjectival ordering.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
once (…) are comparatively rare and moreover quite long, (so) they tend to make it difficult to judge which of the various possible orderings is the most common or most natural.” To exemplify the reasoning applied, consider the examples below which justify the order SizeP > TemperatureP: (141) a.
Pitkä kuuma kesä b. *kuuma pitkä kesä (Finish) Long hot summer hot long summer
Once a projection is identified, it is examined further to see if it is not in fact a ‘‘layer’’ which includes various projections, each denoting another related notion. For instance, to take the above projection SizeP, Scott (2002) draws on data such as the following to illustrate that this XP is in fact an entire section of the nominal domain that can be iself decomposed into separate XPs all relevant to ‘size’: (142) Length > Height: A long high cliff face
*a high long cliff face
(143) Height > Width: Pitkä lihava mies Tall fat man
*lihava pitkä mies (Finnish) fat tall man
(Scott 2002: 100)
(Scott 2002: 99)
The above, through transitivity, yields the overall hierarchy: Length > Height > Width Moving on to e.g., Weight, we see that it follows Width: (144) Width > Weight: A slim light volume
*a light slim volume
We arrive at an order respecting the following hierarchy: (145) LengthP > HeightP > WidthP > WeightP
Any subversion of this ordering is analysed by Scott (2002) as the result of focus movement of an adjective from its base position to a FocP type projection within the nominal projection. Recall that we pointed out examples of this in JC in section 4.2.5.3. In this way, based on a consideration of a maximum of three adjectives at a time, Scott proposes the overall order below: (146) [DP the\this [Subj.CommentP nasty\magnificent [SizeP big\small [LengthP long\short [HeightP tall\high [SpeedP fast\slow [WidthP fat\thick\thin [WeightP light\heavy [TemperatureP hot\cold [AgeP Edwardian\modern [ShapeP round\triangular [ColourP dark brown\white [Nationality\OriginP German\Parisian [MaterialP rosewood\brass [NP … (Scott 2002: 102)
Let us now see to what extent this hierarchy is respected by the JC data.
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
4.2.8.2 JC adjectives In JC, more than two adjectives stacked sounds awkward, so I have restricted the examples to two at a time. The creole data can be seen to uphold the following orders: Length > Height: (147) Dat a wan lang hai klif, iihn? *Dat a wan hai lang klif, iihn? That [equative] IND long high cliff, eh That [equative] IND high long cliff, eh ‘‘That’s a long high cliff, isn’t it?’’ (148)
Height > Width: Di taal fat ginal get we Det tall fat trickster get away ‘‘The tall fat trickster got away.”
*Di fat taal ginal get we Det fat tall trickster get away
(149) Di shaat fat pikni gi tu moch chobl *Di fat shaat pikni gi tu moch Det short fat child give too much trouble Det fat short child give too much ‘‘The short fat child gives too much trouble’’ chobl trouble Width > Weight (150) Dat a wan tin lait toto34 fi truu *Dat a wan lait tin toto Det [equative] IND thin light toto for true Det [equative] IND light thin toto ‘‘That is truly a thin light toto (cake).” fi truu for true
So far this implies the order: Length > Height > Width > Weight. Continuing our mapping of adjectivals, consider the following: Subjective Comment > Age: (151) Di duti uol tiif gaan wid mi manggo-dem Det dirty old thief gone with poss mango-pl ‘‘The dirty old thief has gone with my mangoes.” (152)
Length > Speed: Di lang faas fish jos nyam aaf di likl gopi-dem Det long fast fish [Retrospective] eat off Det little guppy-dem ‘‘The long fast fish just devoured all of the little guppies.”
(153) *Di faas lang fish jos nyam aaf di likl gopi-dem Det fast long fish [Retrospective] eat off Det little guppy-dem
Size > Shape: (154) Di likl roun chrii priiti iihn? *Di roun likl chrii priiti iihn? Det little round tree pretty, eh Det round little tree pretty, eh ‘‘The little round tree is pretty, isn’t it.”
. ‘‘Toto’’ is a Jamaican cake made with coconut.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
Size > Width: (155) Mi si wahn big fat uman dong a maakit * Mi si wahn fat big uman 1st sg see INDEF big fat woman down Prep market dong a maakit ‘‘I saw a big fat waoman at the market.” (156)
Length > Speed: Di lang faas chriela ton uova dis maanin *Di faas lang chriela ton uova dis maanin Det long fast trailer turn over Dem morning ‘‘The long fast trailer turned over this morning.”
Speed > Width: (157) Di sluo maaga man liet wid di mechiz agen*Di maaga sluo man liet wid di mechiz agen Det slow skinny man late with the message again ‘‘The slow skinny man is late with the message again.”
The adjectives examined until now prove compatible with the following hierarchy, and therefore structure (158) complies with Scott (2002): (158) Subj.CommentP > SizeP > LengthP > HeightP > SpeedP > WidthP > WeightP > AgeP > ShapeP > NP
The relative order of Adjectives as compared to numerals is as follows: (159) Dem > Num > Adj > N (160) Dem chrii kriev(e)n pickni (-de) a go kil mi! 3rd pl three greedy child (-deictic) [prog] [prosp]kill 2nd sg ‘‘Those three greedy children are going to kill me!’’
Given that nouns always follow their adjectival modifiers, we can conclude that noun movement to the head position of any intermediate FP [+ Adj] does not occur in JC. 4.3 Nominal structure and telicity So far, we have looked at morphological evidence for functional projections at various levels (IP, CP, DP) in the grammar of JC, and we have taken into account how the projections are organized and interact to determine interpretations that are ‘‘read off ’’ from them. Now we compare how the presence versus absence of morphology in the structure of nominals impacts upon interpretations at the clausal level, namely in terms of aspectual, and in turn temporal, readings. Recall that in the preceding sections, it was pointed out that nouns occurring without a determiner obey certain syntactic restrictions: for example, they cannot be marked with the post-fix dem, a [+Plural/+Inclusive] marker (Bailey 1966; Patrick 2004; Stewart 2006).
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
Here I turn to semantic aspects of these nominals, commonly referred to as ‘‘bare’’ nominals (BN). In JC, a predicate’s selection of a BN (rather than a DP) influences the aspectual and temporal readings of the clause, as we shall see.
4.3.1 Nominal marking and temporal interpretations In Jamaican Creole, temporal interpretations vary depending on properties of (i) the verb and (ii) the object it selects. It is internal arguments, not external ones, that impact on the aspectual/temporal interpretation of the event at hand – so we see in the data below that past readings are the default values (i.e., in the absence of TMA marking) that arise when the verb is [-Stative] and the direct object is [+ Def]: (161) Pikni mek naiz Child make noise ‘‘Children make noise.”
non-past
(162) Di pikni mek di naiz Det child make Det noise ‘‘The child made the noise.”
past
(163) Pikni mek di naiz Child make Det noise ‘‘Children made the noise.”
past
(164) Di pikni mek naiz Det child make noise ‘‘The child makes noise.”
non-past
4.3.1.1 Direct objects and tense In the absence of markers, stative verbs such as nuo with bare nominal objects have a default [–Past] interpretation (165): (165) Jaimz nuo regei James know reggae ‘‘James knows reggae.”
On the other hand, [+Stative] verbs with [+Definite] objects are ambiguous: depending on the context, the reading may be [+past]/[–past] (166). (166) Jiemz laik di sang James like Def song ‘‘James likes /liked the song.”
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
Default interpretations for [–Stative] VPs differ from those sketched above for [+Stative] ones. For instance, if [–Stative] VPs include a [+Definite] direct object, then a [+Past] reading is obligatorily yielded (167): (167) Jan nyam di aki John eat Def ackee ‘‘John has eaten/ate the ackee.”
With a bare nominal object, on the other hand, the default reading is [-Past] (168a & b). (168) a. Jan nyam aki John eat ackee ‘‘John eats ackee.” b. Jiemz no nyam puok James [Neg] eat pork ‘‘James does not eat pork.”
However the selected DP does not have to be [+Definite] to give rise to a [+Past] reading. In fact it suffices for a direct object to bear a numeral for this effect to arise (169). (169) Mieri nyam chrii bredfruut! Mary eat three breadfruit ‘Mary ate three breadfruits!’
Other factors can play a role as well, such as the insertion of a temporal adverb. The use of aredi ‘already’ in the examples below over-rides the above pattern, so that we get a [+Past] interpretation regardless of the [+/–Stative] property and independently of the type of object selected. (170 a.
Jan aredi nyam aki John already eat ackee ‘‘John has eaten ackee before.”
b. Jan aredi nyam di aki John already eat Def ackee ‘‘Jan has eaten the ackee already.”
Similarly, the retrospective marker jos forces a past reading, whether or not the object is preceeded by a definite determiner or a numeral. (171) a. Im jos nyam manggo 3rd sg eat mango ‘‘He has just eaten mango.” b. Im jos nyam di manggo 3rd sg eat [+ Def] mango ‘‘He just ate the mango.”
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
The generalization seems to be that in the absence of overt functional material in the middle-field, if the quantity of the object is ‘‘vague’’, such as in the case of bare nominals, the reading is [–Past], while when it is quantized, we get [+ Past]. If the object clearly identifies the quantity to be affected by the action of the verb, then we can conclude that it ‘‘measures out’’ the event, to use Tenny’s (1987) words, such that the event is ‘‘delimited’’ temporally by this object. The feature that is relevant is then not, as it has been suggested in the literature, [+ Definite] or [+ Specific] (see e.g., Fitzpatrick 2005; Patrick 2004) but rather the fact that the object is somehow quantized. A clear illustration of this includes the use of the element wan in JC, which occurs in the example below with null Dº and therefore yields an indefinite reading. Despite the fact that wan in (172) is both [-Definite] as well as [-Specific], the reading that results is [+ Past]. This seems to follow from this marker’s resembling a numeral and as such serving mainly to assign a singular quantity to the object: (172) Im nyam wan bami 3rd sg eat IND bammy ‘‘S/he ate a bammy.”
Déchaine (1991: 32) comments that: “In some sense, it is a ‘‘natural or obvious fact’’ about events that their temporal reference is past, ‘‘while it is a “natural or obvious fact’’ about states that their temporal reference is non-past.” Stowell (1991) also observes that we find bare eventive verbs such as ‘‘beat’’ in headlines yielding a past reading while bare stative verbs such as ‘‘love’’ yield a non-past interpretation: (173) MAN BEATS DONKEY (174) MAO SECRETLY LOVES RED GUARD
The observation that verb types affect temporal readings is recurrent in the literature, and is often coupled with the observation that the object also plays a role in this respect. Déchaine (1991: 37) underlines that: “Semantically, Infl must be referential or ‘anchored’ relative to some moment: in the absence of a Tense operator, Infl is evaluated relative to the moment of utterance, t0 (cf. Enç 1991). Stative predicates, which are unbounded, are non-past to the moment of utterance. Eventive predicates, being bounded, are generic (roughly, iterative) if non-delimited and past if delimited. (…) In Haitian, whether an event is delimited depends on the nominal complement: a bare noun projects NP and is [-specified quantity]; a specific noun projects a DP and is [+ specified quantity] (cf. Verkuyl 1972). (…) The nominal complement participates in ‘aspect composition’ (Verkuyl 1989): if the complement is unspecified quantity, the event is non-delimited. In bare sentences, non-delimited events are generic. By definition, non-bounded predicates (= states) are not sensitive to [+/– specified quantity].”
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
The distinction of verb types until now is made in terms of [+/– Stative], with [–Stative] verbs varying between [+/– Past] depending on the nature of the object: i.e., whether it delimits the event or not. A more fine-grained distinction than [+/– Stative] should be made given examples such as the following, which show that within the [-Stative] verb group, certain nuances have repercussions on the temporal possibilities: (175a) Piita kil im waif vs
(b) Piita biit im waif
(176a) Peter *kills/killed his wife (b) Peter beats/beat his wife
The subtle semantics of the verb constrains the tenses that can be derived: ‘killing’ can only take place once, while ‘beating’ can reoccur and so this reading becomes accessible if the context renders it salient enough. Therefore, aside from the [+/- stative] nature of the verb, one must also take into account more subtle properties of the event (here, whether or not it can plausibly reoccur). 4.3.2 Previous accounts 4.3.2.1 Tenny (1987): Grammaticalizing aspect and affectedness Tenny (1987) considers the notion of delimitedness and describes it as a property playing a role in syntax by contributing to the temporal organization of events. She explains that events are delimited when it is clear that they cease at some point in time. Tenny (1987: 20) points out that Vendler (1967) had already outlined four classes of linguistic events, half delimited and half non-delimited: I. Accomplishments are delimited, with a clear end, although their duration is of some length. An example would be ‘‘making a chair’’. II. Achievements are also delimited, with a definite endpoint, however they differ from accomplishments in that they are of brief or no duration. Such an event is, for instance, the recognizing of a face. III. Activities are non-delimited and indeed evince indefinite duration. This is illustrated by events such as ‘‘running’’, ‘‘swimming’’, ‘‘pushing’’, etc. IV. Statives are also non-delimited because of their indefinite duration. A typical example of a state is ‘‘know the answer’’. One way of testing this (non)-delimited status of events is to examine their (in) compatibility with duratives such as ‘‘for 3 hours’’. When used with such expressions, activities and states yield a reading where the event took place only once during the span expressed (177a,b) while delimited events yield an iterative reading (178a, b): (177) a. Kim slept for three hours (Tenny 1987: 21) b. Kim liked sheep for three years (and then got bitten by one)
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
(178) a. Kim spotted that sheep for 3 hours b. Kim climbed the silo for 3 hours35
Contrary to ‘‘for 3 hours’’, the expression ‘‘in 3 hours’’ gives rise to an awkward result when used with non-delimited events (179a, b), although it is perfectly acceptable with delimited ones (180a, b): (179) a. ?Kim slept in an hour b. ?Kim liked sheep in 3 years
(Tenny 1987)
(180) a. Kim spotted that sheep in 3 hours b. Kim climbed the silo in 3 hours
Delimited events occur with direct objects which measure out the event in terms of providing a finite spatial entity which is affected during the course of the event. It is this property of a DP that contributes to delimiting the VP. The following sentences taken from Stewart (2006) show that in JC an expression such as ina di spies a tuu owa ‘‘in the space of two hours’’ is felicitous when an accomplishment occurs with a quantized, delimited object, unlike fi tuu owa ‘for two hours’, which is incompatible with such nominals: (181) a.
Im rait 5 leta / evri leta / som leta / wan leta … ina di 3sg write 5 letter/ every letter/ some letter / one letter …in DEF spies a tuu owa space of two hour ‘‘He wrote 5 letters/ everyletter/ some letters/one letter in two hours.”
b. Im rait *5 leta/ *evri leta / *som leta/ *wan leta fi tuu owa 3sg write *5 letter / every letter / some letter / one letter for two hour ‘‘He wrote 5 letters / every letter/ some letters/ one letter for two hours.”
Note that activities can be made to be delimited by providing an object that delimits them: (182) a. b.
Im ron fi tuu owa/ * ina di spies a tuu owa s/he run for two hour/ *in the space of two hour Im ron [wan ries] *fi tuu owa/ ina di spies a tuu owa S/he run one race for two hour/ in the space of two hour
Non-statives are then ‘‘delimited’’ when they occur with direct objects which measure out the event in terms of providing a finite spatial entity which is affected during the course of the event. There is a parallelism between spatially delimited entities and temporally delimited events: the former has a physically fixed extent . Note that this sentence can possibly, although not necessarily, be interpreted to mean that Kim spent 3 hours just to climb the silo once, but in this instance it is not an accomplishment in the true sense but rather an activity: climbing (on the silo).
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
and the latter a fixed duration. A spatially delimited entity contributes to rendering a verb phrase delimited in that once it is completely affected by the action described the event is complete. As a result, the direct object has the responsibility of measuring out the event and in this way delimiting it. Delimitedness is then compositional, depending on the type of verb (evoking an accomplishment or an achievement) as well as on the property of the direct argument to be affected by the verb (spatially finite). There is therefore a correlation between the degree of affectedness of the direct argument and the reading of the event as delimited/nondelimited, an interaction yielding aspectual effects. ‘As such, “(…) the semantic property of aspectual delimitedness is relevant and accessible to syntax” (Tenny 1987: 191). Note that this approach captures the aspectual/temporal interpretational difference between unergative and accusative verbs in Creole bare sentences. As Déchaine (1991: 40) observes for Haitian Creole, an unergative verb gives rise to a [–Past/ + Generic] default reading while an unaccusative verb yields a [+ Past + Completive] reading. This distinction is also found in JC grammar. Consider the questions below: (183) a. b.
Mieri dans? Mary dance? ‘‘Does Mary dance?’’ Mary kom? Mary come ‘‘Did/Has Mary come?’’
Dans, being an unergative, does not select an internal argument and therefore there is no entity that can serve to delimit this ‘‘dancing event’’. On the other hand kom, being an unaccusative, does select an argument, and once this argument has undergone the activity at hand (i.e., that of coming) then the event is complete. Structurally, Déchaine (1991: 41) explains this distinction as follows:36 Dans
Kom
(184) Unergative: generic IP Infl
(185)
Unaccusative: past
VP
IP Infl
VP
DP Ve . Where Ve refers to an eventive VP.
Ve
DP [+specified quantity]
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
What remains to be established at this point is precisely what allows for a nominal to qualify as [+specified quantity]? I propose that structure that is situated higher than Adjectivals defines the nominal enough to allow it to ‘‘delimit’’ an event: put differently, any morphological material that signals the presence of projections generated higher than the adjectival layer, suffices to trigger telicity effects. Note that this is not an arbitrary point in the nominal domain. Shlonsky (2004) notes a difference in DP-internal NP-movement along the following lines: “Whereas attributive adjectives must appear to the right of the noun in Hebrew and in practically all varieties of Arabic, other functional material such as numerals, demonstratives, quantifiers, etc., is either exclusively pre-nominal (like the definite determiner) or is subject to dialectal variation as to its position relative to the head noun’’. In other words, the NP must preceed the adjectival layer, but only optionally preceeds other modifiers. It is the structure that hosts these modifiers that I observe to be responsible for triggering the JC telicity effects under discussion. It seems then that we can provide a purely structural account for the concept [+Specified quantity]: Recall that in the preceding sections, we have argued in favour of a nominal architecture for JC along the lines of the following: (186) KP > DP > TopP Contrastive > FP - Functional Phrase D-Linked > Quantifier Phrase Distributive > NumberP Number > FP Cardinal > ClassifierP Inclusiveness > FocP Adjectival > FP Adjectival > NP
According to the approach whereby the projections situated syntactically higher than Adjectivals constitute the relevant structure for defining a nominal as [+specified quantity], such that it ‘delimits’ an event, we can account for the data below: (187) Jan nyam (big) bredfruut John eat (big) breadfruit ‘John eats (big) breadfruits’ Vs. (188) Jan nyam di / dis / som / chrii bredfruut (-dem) John eat the/ this / some / three breadfruit (plural/inclusiveness) ‘John has eaten/ ate the/this/some/three breadfruit(s) (up)’
We now have an idea of what sort of structural make-up renders an internal argument [+specified quantity]: the presence of certain functional projections within a direct object gives it this characteristic. As a result, this type of quantized DP impacts on certain [-Stative] VPs, which in turn impacts on the AspP allowing for a completive interpretation. The next question is then: How does this impact/interaction take place syntactically? In other words, what is the precise mechanism at work in the syntactic apparatus which accounts for the aspectual (and in turn the temporal)
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
readings observed in Creole ‘bare sentences’, i.e., where overt markers encoding these notions are not realized? We turn to this in the next section. 4.3.2.2 Fitzpatrick (2005): The factative effect Fitzpatrick (2005) discusses certain instances of English where T is not pronounced and we derive a default interpretation along the the lines of those observed for Creole. This is found in English question truncation contexts, and he refers to this as ‘‘the factative effect’’. As he remarks: “in the absence of an explicit tense specification, a tense interpretation for these structures is computed based on structurally present factors”. He points out that, just as in Creoles, the nature of the object plays a role, although he refers to this role in terms of the temporal interpretation yielded: (189)
a. b. c. d.
You sell your car? You sell cars? You like my cat? You like cats?
(= Did you sell your car?) (= Do you sell cars?) (= Do you like my cat?) (= Do you like cats?)
He observes a correlation between these instances of aux-drop and Creole bare sentences, although the language he draws on is not JC, but rather Haitian Creole: (190) a. Pyè vann bèf yo Pyè sell cattle Det ‘‘Pyè sold the cattle.”
(Déchaine 1991)
b. Pyè vann bèf Pyè sell cattle ‘‘Pyè sells cattle.” c. Sisi renmen chat mwen Sisi like cat 1sg ‘‘Sisi likes my cat’ d. Lili tùn Kòkú Lili know Koku ‘‘Lili knows Koku.”
Eventives like ‘‘sell’’ are interpreted as [+ past] with a definite object and [–Past] with a bare noun, while statives such as ‘‘like’’ and ‘‘know’’ yield a [–Past] reading independently of the nature of the object. Because of these parallelisms with English aux-drop structures, he concludes that the two constructions should be attributed a similar analysis. He proposes that for English, the auxiliary was present at one stage of the derivation for structural reasons, but is not ultimately submitted to the phonological and semantic components as a result of movement to the first position of the root.
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
A series of arguments upholds his hypothesis that the auxiliary, although it is not pronounced, is nevertheless structurally present. Indeed aux-drop interrogatives cannot be analyzed as bare VPs but rather must include more structure because of the following considerations: I. Negation and adverbs which are arguably generated higher than VP (Cinque 1999) can be found in these structures: (191) Negation: (Does) anybody not want to go?
(Fitzpatrick 2005)
(192) Speech act: (Does) anyone honestly believe Oswald did it alone? (193) Tense: (Is) everyone now aware that Cheney’s in bed with Enron?
II. Aux-drop structures appear in questions, which themselves arguably contain left-peripheral material encoding a [+ WH] feature. III. Pronouns in aux-drop constructions bear Nominative case, which is assigned by T: (194) (Is) He/*Him here yet?
IV. Finally, Case adjacency effects are seen to hold in aux-drop constructions (195a), just as in other instances of SAI involving an intermediary adverb (195b): (195) a. *Ǿ Now everyone aware that Cheney’s in bed with Enron? b. *Is now everyone aware that Cheney’s in bed with Enron?
These facts suggest not only that T is structurally present, but also that it has undergone movement to the front of the clause, more specifically to a position preceding subject position. These two characteristics would be responsible for giving rise to the ‘‘factative effect’’. This effect refers to the interpretation of tense, in the absence of tense specification, based on predicate aspect and the definiteness of objects. Put differently, the absence of an explicit T specification implies that T is computed based on other, structurally present factors. This phenomenon is reminiscent of that found in Creole languages, although in Creole this effect is not only found in interrogatives but in declarative contexts as well. The T and Asp interpretational result in both the English aux-drop data and the Creole ‘bare sentences’, can be summed up as follows:37 (196) Object Pred = Eventive Pred = Stative + Def/ + Delimiting + Past/ + Completive + Present –Def/ –Delimiting –Past/ + Generic + Present
. Fitzpatrick (2005) proposes a similar (although not identical) recapitulation of the facts.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
Fitzpatrick maintains that, like his analysis for aux-drop data, there is a Tense head in the Creole (and Fongbè) cases also. He points out that there is morphological evidence provided by Igbo for such a head when the factitive effect arises: the overt factitive morpheme ákpù: (197) Ó rì –rì ákpù áhùn 3sg eat-FACT bread the ‘‘S/he ate the bread.”
(Déchaine & Manfredi 2001)
(198) Ó chò –rò ákpù áhùn 3sg want- FACT bread the ‘S/he wants the bread’
In Creole and Fongbè, then, the T is also erased at some point. Given that these interpretations are not limited to interrogatives, however, and that even in interrogatives the inflectional markers don’t seem to target CP (see Chapter 3), one cannot conclude that this deletion occurs because of movement to the left-periphery of the root. Recall that aux-drop, unlike Creole bare sentences, is restricted to instances where the auxiliary has been raised to the first position of the root clause. If this condition is not met in English, then the structure is out (Fitzpatrick 2005): (199) Constituent Questions Who *(does) everyone like? When *(did) everyone wake up? (200) Focus/Negative Inversion Only Mary *(does) everyone like Not a single professor *(does) everyone like (201) VP Ellipsis Inversion I don’t like candy corn, and neither *(does) any one of you I like gazpacho, and so *(do) you (202) Exclamative Inversion Boy, *(are) you dirty! (203) Counterfactual Inversion *(Were) he a better swimmer, John would have lived longer
Deletion of the auxiliary is therefore only possible if the auxiliary has raised to the initial, root position, and the result of this omission can only yield a restricted set of temporal interpretations – i.e., the factative effect. The syntactic context that determines the availability of this effect in English follows from Nissenbaum’s (2000) idea that what is submitted to the phonological and semantic components is the complement of a phase head rather than the phase head itself.
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
(204) Pre-movement structure: [YP Y Z] Move Y: Y … [YP (Y) Z] Spell Out YP, pronounced: Z
(Fitzpatrick 2005: 90)
So here, the lower occurrence of the auxiliary is a ‘‘tense variable’’ while the root CP has the peculiarity of remaining unpronounced. This particularity of the periphery of the root layer may also have a more general impact of explaining why complemetizers are not realized in root declaratives. The precise root-interrogative contexts where this effect is possible in English is captured by the analysis above: We see that the initial position of the root clause is available for deletion in this language, but what remains to be determined is what renders deletion acceptable in the Creole cases? Recall that in Creole, we have this effect available in both declarative and interrogative contexts. The obvious question now is: How can a parallelism be established between this scenario observed for English and the one that occurs in Creole where there is no auxiliary movement to the root-initial position and therefore no c-command between the null element and a higher temporal one? In the next section, I argue that deletion of T° and Completive Aspect° is related to movement in Creole as well. I propose, however, that this movement is different to that outlined above for the English examples. In JC, the mechanics of this licensing of the relevant null inflectional heads has to be conceptualized differently so as to not restrict its occurrence to interrogatives. I immediately turn to an illustration of this analysis. 4.3.3 Nominal structure and telicity effects in JC: An account We observe that in Creole, deletion of T° and CompletiveAsp° occurs once the eventive VP they select contains an object that is finite spatially and thus permits the measuring out of the event. This phenomenon brings us back to the beginning of the work: In Chapter 2, we noted that when Completive° is overtly realized with the marker don, the VP over which it takes scope can on the one hand follow the marker, like that seen for all other TMA markers, but crucially, on the other hand, the VP can also optionally preceed don. This seems to suggest that movement to [Spec, CompletiveP] can occur (see Chapter 2) and I would like to propose that possibly precisely because this option is available, then when such movement does occur, the Completiveº is no longer obligatorily realized. This is what I take to happen here. Telicity effects are indeed intimately related to completive aspect: a situation can be described as telic if there comes eventually a point when the action is complete (Comrie 1976: 44). This occurs when the situation can be measured out precisely by the presence of an internal argument (as opposed to an external one) allowing for this completion to be reached. As such, telic situations are triggered by
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
the presence of a direct object that can be completely affected, i.e., objects that refer to a delimited entity that ultimately defines the end-point of the situation. This is what is lacking from objects that are bare nouns, but are present on objects that are grammatically delimited by modifiers higher than the adjectival layer, i.e., definite article, possessive, demonstrative, numeral, etc. Such modifiers testify to the morphological realization of certain projections in the DP, which in turn has implications for the kind of role this object will play within the VP. The VP that is formed by the verb and this kind of internal argument (providing the terminal point for the process designated by the verb) itself qualifies for movement to CompletiveP, and if it does move to this position, triggers a completive reading and permits deletion on Completive º. We can take things one step further, so as to explain the absence of overt T marking in these bare sentences. More specifically, in the case of such sentences, it is plausible that a snowballing-type movement occurs, targeting specifiers of AspCompletiveP and TP respectively, and rendering the corresponding heads AspCompletive° and T° non-overt.38 The analytic structure for the bare sentences (lacking TMA marking) including non-bare nominals (which serve to delimit the event) is given below: A question that the first movement in (205) may raise is how a property of the complement of V can affect the nature of the entire VP in [Spec, AspCompletive] in such a way that the empty Asp head is licensed. An analogy may be of some help here. This situation would of course be similar to what we have in certain cases of wh-movement. For example, in To whom did you talk? the crucial property for the specifier-head relation in CP is located on the complement of the constituent in the specifier (i.e., the wh-feature on whom, the complement of P) and this property seems to affect the entire constituent in the specifier position (generally referred to as “feature percolation”). This specifier can then enter into a licensing configuration with the head C. In (205), it also seems to be the complement of the constituent in [Spec, AspCompletive] (i.e., the object DP) which determines the nature of the moved constituent (i.e., the VP) such that it can license something in the head position of this projection. Therefore in both cases, we have a complement that affects the nature of the projection of its head. It is worth underlining that the syntactic mechanism being described here for completive constructions is not limited to these but instead seems a pervasive characteristic of the Creole grammar being described here: indeed once the
. Along the lines of Durrleman (2007).
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
(205)
TP
Spec
T’
T°
… Asp [Completive] P
Spec
Asp[Completive]
Asp[Completive]°
… VP
Spec
V’
V°
DP [+Specified Quantity]
specifiers are overtly realized in JC then the heads become potentially null, while when the Spec is empty the head is filled with a marker. As already pointed out, this is reminiscent of the observation made by Dimitrova-Vulchanova & Giusti (1998) that “ Functional Projection must be visible at all levels of representation: by (a) making the Spec visible and/or (b) making the head visible”.
4.4 Conclusion The data presented in this chapter have shown that the DP domain in JC is highly articulate, involving various projections that host nominal functional material. The overall structure arrived at is given in (206). We also observed that the FP specified for Adjectives is in fact representative of an adjectival domain which is articulated along the lines of the discrete projections in (207).
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
(206) KP–Case Phrase [+Genitive] K’
Spec
DP–Determiner Phrase [+/–Definite,+Referential]
K
D’
Spec D
TopP[+Contrastive] Top’
Spec Top
Spec DeicticP (Demonstrative+Reinforcer)
FP–Functional Phrase [+D-Linked] F’ F
QP–Quantifier Phrase [+Distributive] Spec
Q’ Q
NumP[+Number] Num’
Spec Num
FP[+Cardinal] F’
Spec Numeral
CIP[+Classifier]
F
Cl’
Spec Cl
FP[+Adj] F’
Spec AdjP F
NP
(207) Subj.CommentP > SizeP > LengthP > HeightP > SpeedP > WidthP > WeightP > AgeP > ShapeP > NP
We further concluded that a unique projection allowing for focus of adjectives can be generated to the right of adjectival domain. As a result, a single adjective may undergo movement to this FP so as to bear emphasis in the structure, thus yielding a subversion of the base order in these instances. Other typically left peripheral notions such as Topic, Quantification and Definiteness are found slightly higher in the DP. Like the clause, it appears that nominal architecture involves a Csystem, which further consolidates the parallelisms between clausal and nominal structures.
Chapter 4. DP – JC nominals and their extended projection
In the final section, we touched upon certain telicity effects in instances of absence of morphological material in the IP. We observed that in these ‘‘bare sentences’’, temporal/aspectual interpretations are affected by the absence or presence of overt structure in the DP. More precisely, we observed that a quantized nominal, if it is a direct object in a [-stative] VP, triggers a default past, completive reading for this VP in the absence of TMA marking. We proposed that in these instances, the presence of functional material in the DP serves to delimit the VP along the lines of Tenny (1987), qualifying VP-movement to the specifier of CompletiveAspP, already argued for on independent grounds in Chapter 2. It is this movement that would allow the head of this aspectual projection to remain potentially null, given that the specifier in these instances would be responsible for rendering the projection visible.
chapter 5
Conclusion In this work, I have explored the syntax of Jamaican Creole from a cartographic perspective. The cartographic view (Cinque 1999, 2002; Rizzi 1997, 2004b) upholds the existence of a rich array of hierarchically organized projections, thus proposing to account for syntax in terms of a highly detailed functional map. The book therefore examined to what extent the grammar of JC provided morphological manifestations of an articulate IP, CP and DP. The data considered in this study has been seen to offer new evidence in favour of these enriched structural analyses, and indeed the instances where surface orders differ from the underlying functional skeleton were accounted for in terms of movement operations. In the IP domain, the data revealed that the overt realization of free inflectional morphemes realized the head position of a good deal of the projections argued for by Cinque (1999), namely over one third. We observed that on one occasion, that of the realization of Completive Aspect, we had an apparent subversion of ordering, with the aspectual marker optionally following the VP over which it takes scope. We proposed an analysis of this surface word order in terms of VP-movement to the specifier of Completive AspP, which captured this syntactic particularity of don while retaining the underlying structure. With respect to the CP domain, topicalization, focalization and interrogation were analysed as following the general syntactic layout provided in Rizzi (1997). The specifier positions of the various projections were seen to be hierarchically realized, with in certain instances the optional realizations of related heads as well. The head encoding [+ Foc/WH], however, was observed to surface to the left of the related XP [+ Foc/WH] and as such could not be analysed as realizing the head of FocP. This head a was additionally noted to yield an ‘exhaustive’ reading. The distributional and interpretational properties of a were accounted for in terms of movement to a head immediately higher that FocP: Exhaustive°. Turning to the DP domain, we concluded that the projections present are of two kinds: certain reflected properties of an inflectional type (e.g., Adjectival modifiers) and others encoded features of the left-peripheral sort (discourselinking, quantification, focus). Those projections linking the nominal entity to the discourse were noticed as generated higher than those that served to modify the noun itself, just as attested at the clausal level.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective
Finally, we observed that the presence of morphological material occurring in the extended nominal projection was linked to the triggering of certain telicity effects. We concluded that a DP involving a certain amount of structure served to measure out the event evoked by the verb (Tenny 1987). The mechanics of this was interpreted in terms of the quantized DP serving to qualify the eventive VP for movement to [SpecCompletive, AspP]. We proposed that it is as a result of this movement that null Completive° is licensed. VP-Movement to the Completive Projection was independently argued for in Chapter 2. The investigation of Jamaican syntax in this book has yielded the following overall architectures: i. For the sentence: ForceP > Mod (ifierP) > Top(ic)P > ExhaustiveP > FocusP > FinP > Modepistemic > T > Modnecessity > Modobligation > Modability/permission > T(Anterior) > Aspcontinuative > Aspretrospective Aspprogressive > Aspprospective > Aspcompletive > Aspfrequentative ii. For nominals: KP > DP > TopP Contrastive > FP – Functional Phrase D-Linked > Quantifier Phrase Distributive > NumberP Number > FP Cardinal > ClassifierP Inclusive > FP Adjectival > NP The above structures allow us now to conclude that the ‘poor’ inflectional morphology typical of Creole languages in general, and of Jamaican Creole in particular, does not correlate with poor structural architecture. Indeed the free morphemes discussed in the preceeding chapters, as well as the word order considerations that indicate syntactic movement to designated to projections, serve as arguments in favour of a rich underlying functional map.
References Abels, K. & Muriungi, P. To appear. The focus particle in Kîîtharaka: Syntax and semantics. In Lingua. Abels, K. & Muriungi, P. 2006. The focus particle in Kîîtharaka. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 46: 1–20. Aboh, E.O. 1996. On argumental topicalization in Gungbe. GengenP 2: 80–92. Aboh, E.O. 1998. Focus constructions and the focus criterion in Gungbe. Linguistique Africaine 20. Aboh, E.O. 2002. La morphosyntaxe de la périphérie gauche nominale. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 31: 9–26. Aboh, E.O. 2004. The Morpho-syntax of Complement-Head Sequences: Clause Structure and Word Order Patterns in Kwa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Abney, S. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Adams, L.E. 1991. Understanding Jamaican Patois: An Introduction to Afro-Jamaican Grammar. Kingston: Kingston Publishers. Arends, J., Kouwenberg, S. & Smith, N. 1995. Theories focusing on the non-European input, In Pidgins and Creoles: An Introduction, [Creole Language Library 15], J. Arends, P. Muysken & N. Smith (Eds), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Arends, J., Muysken, P. & Smith, N. (Eds), 1995. Pidgins and Creoles: An Introduction [Creole Language Library 15]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Avolonto, A. 1992. AspP et la. catégorie INFL en fongbè. Journal of West African Languages 22(1): 97–113. Bailey, B. 1966. Jamaican Creole Syntax: A Tranformational Approach. Cambridge University Press. Bailey, B. 1971. Can dialect boundaries be defined? In Pidginization & Creolization of Languages D. Hymes (Ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, M. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–415. Baker, M. 1989. Object sharing and projection in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 513–554. Baker, M. & Stewart O.T. 2002. A serial verb construction without construction. Ms, Rutgers University. Bakker, P. 1995. Pidgins. In Pidgins and Creoles: An Introduction, [Creole Language Library 15] J. Arends, P. Muysken & N. Smith (Eds), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Baptista, M. & Gueron, J. 2006. Noun Phrases in Creole languages: A Mult-Faceted Approach, [Creole Language Library 15], Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Belletti, A. 1990. Generalized Verb Movement. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier. Bennett, L. 1979. Anancy and Miss Lou. Kingston: Sangster’s Book Stores. Bennett, L. 1993. Aunty Roachy Seh. Kingston: Stephensons Litho Press. Bernstein, J.B. 1997. Demonstratives and reinforcers in Romance and Germanic languages. Lingua 102: 87–113. Besten, H. den & Webelhuth, G. 1987. Adjunction and remnant topicalization in the germanic SOV languages. GLOW newsletter.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective Bickerton, D. 1981. Roots of Language. Ann Arbor MI: Karoma. Bickerton, D. 1984. The language bioprogram hypothesis, Behavioural and Brain Sciences 7: 173–188. Boretzky, N. 1983. Kreolsprachen, Substrate und Sprachwandel. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Brody, M. 1990. Some remarks on the focus field in Hungarian. UCL Working Papers 2: 201–225. Brugè, L. 2002. The positions of demonstratives in the extended nominal projection. In Functional Structure in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 1., G. Cinque (Ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bruyn, A. 2006. Bare nouns and articles in Sranan. In Noun Phrases in Creole languages: A Mult-Faceted Approach, [The Creole Language Library 31], M. Baptista & J. Guéron (Eds), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Byrne, F., Caskey, A. & Winford, D. 1993. Focus and Grammatical Relations in Creole Languages, [Creole Language Library Vol. 12]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cargill, M. 2000. Creole talk again. In The Jamaica Gleaner (Local Newspaper, March 23, 2000). Cassidy, F.G. 1961. Jamaica Talk: Three Hundred Years of the English Language in Jamaica. London: Macmillan. Cassidy, F.G. & Lepage, R.B. 1967. A Dictionary of Jamaican English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Christie, P. 1997. Thematization in Jamaican speech. Uwiling 3. Cinque, G. 1990. Types of A’-Dependencies. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Cinque, G. 1994. Evidence for partial N-movement in the romance DP. In Cinque et al. (Eds), 85–110. Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cinque, G. 2005. Deriving Greenberg’s universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3). Collins, C. 1997. Argument sharing in serial verb constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 461–497. Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Da Cruz, M. 1995. Aspectual verbs fó, vò ‘finish’ in Fongbè. The Linguistic Review 12: 361–380. Da Cruz, M. 1997. Serial verb constructions and null arguments in Fòn. In Object Positions in Benue-Kwa, R.-M. Déchaine & V. Manfedi (Eds), 31–45. The Hague: HAG. Decamp, D. 1971a. The study of pidgin and creole languages. In Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, D. Hymes (Ed.), 13–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Decamp, D. 1971b. Towards a generative analysis of post-creole continuum. In Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, D. Hymes (Ed.), 349–370. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dechaine, R.-M. 1991. Bare sentences. In Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference SALT I [Cornell University Working Papers 10]. S. Moore & A.Z. Wyner (Eds), Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Dechaine, R.-M. & Manfredi, V. 2001. Tense denotations and verb raising. Paper presented at the Center for Language and Communication, University of Amsterdam.
References
Degraff, M. (Ed.) 1999. Creolization, Language Acquisition & Language Change. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Degraff, M. To appear. Morphology and word-order in creolization and beyond. In Handbook of Comparative Syntax, G. Cinque & R. Kayne (Eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Delfosse, R. 1997. Viewpoint: Patois- The rights and wrongs. The Weekly Gleaner, June 11–17, 1997, Kingston. Den Besten, H. & Webelhuth, G. 1987. Remnant topicalization and the constituent structure of the VP in Germanic SOV languages. GLOW talk. Deumert, A. & Durrleman, S. 2006. Structure and Variation in Language Contact. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. & Giusti, G. 1998. Fragments of Balkan nominal structure. In Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, A. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 22], A. Alexiadou & C. Wilder (Eds), 333–360. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Durrleman, S. 2000. The architecture of the clause in Jamaican Creole. GG@G 1: 189–241. Durrleman, S. 2001. The articulation of inflection in Jamaican Creole. Rivista di grammatica generativa 26: 21–61. Durleman, S. 2004. Notes on The Left Periphery in Jamaican Creole. GG@G 4: 113–158. Durleman, S. 2007. Completive aspect: The complete story? GG@G 5: 143–157. Edwards, W.F. 1991. A comparative description of Guyanese Creole and Black English preverbal aspect don. In Verb Phrase Patterns in Black English and Creole, W.F. Edwards & D. Winford (Eds), Detroit MI: Wayne State University Press. Enç, M. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 1–25. Finney, M. 2004. Substratal influence on the morphosyntactic properties of Krio. Linguistic Discovery 2(2): 58–83. Fitzpatrick, J. 2005. Anybody seen the auxiliary. In Minimalist Approaches to Clause Structure [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 50]. K. Hiraiwa & J. Sabbagh (Eds), 71–91. Cambridge MA: MIT. Frawley, W. 1992. Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gadelii, K. 2006. The bare NP in Lesser Antillean. In Noun Phrases in Creole languages: A MultFaceted Approach [The Creole Language Library 31], M. Baptista & G. Guéron (Eds), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gibson, K. 1986. The ordering of auxiliary notions in Guyanese Creole. Language 62: 571–586. Gil, D. 1995. Universal quantifiers and distributivity. In Quantification in Natural Languages, E. Bach, E. Jelinek, A. Kratzer & B. Partee (Eds), 321–362. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Giusti, G. 1997. The categorial status of determiners. In The New Comparative Syntax, L. Haegeman (Ed.), 95–123. London: Longman. Giusti, G. 2002. The functional strucutre of noun phrases: A bare phrase structure approach. In Functional Structure in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 1. G. Cinque (Ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grange, O. 2006. Article published in ‘The Sunday Observer’, August 13, 2006, Jamaica. Green, M. 2007. Focus in Hausa [Publications of the Philological Society 40]. Oxford: Blackwell. Haegeman, L. 1995. The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haegeman, L. & Gueron, J. 1999. English Grammar: A generative Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. Hall, R.A. 1966. Pidgin and Creole Languages. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press. Heim, I. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective Hopper, J. & Traugott, E. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ihsane, T. 2003. Demonstratives and reinforcers in Arabic, Romance and Germanic. In Research in Afroasiatic Grammar II. Selected papers from the Fifth Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, J. Lecarme (Ed.), 263–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ishii, Y. 2000. Plurality and definiteness in Japanese. Ms, Kanda University of International Studies. Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Kayne, R. 2002. On some prepositions that look DP-internal: English of and French de. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 1: 71–115. Kegl, J., Senghas, A. & Coppola, M. 1999. Creation through contact: Sign language emergence and sing language change in Nicaragua. In Language Creation and Language Change: Creolization, Diachrony, and Development. M. Degraff (Ed.), Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Kegl, J. & Iwata, G.A. 1989. Lenguage de Signos Nicaragüense: A pidgin sheds light on the ‘creole?’ ASL. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference. Eugene OR: University of Oregon. Kiss, É.K. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74: 245–273. Koopman, H. 1984. The Syntax of Verbs: From Verb Movement Rules in the Kru Languages to Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Koopman, H. & Lefebvre, C. 1981. Haitian Creole PU. In Generative Studies on Creole Languages, P.C. Muysken (Ed.), 201–223. Dordrecht: Foris. Laenzlinger, C. 2005. French adjective ordering: Perspectives on DP-internal movement types. Lingua 115: 645–689. Lamiroy, B. 1987. The complementation of aspectual verbs in French. Language 63: 278–298. Lasnik, H. & Stowell, T. 1991. Weakest crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 687–720. Leblanc, A. 1989. Le statut syntaxique des adverbes de temps en créole haïtien. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique 18: 41–63. Lees, R. 1960. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton. Lefebvre, C. 1974. Discreteness and the linguistic continuum in Martinique. Anthropological Linguistics 16 (2): 47–72. Lefebvre, C. et al. 1982. La syntaxe de l'haïtien. Ann Arbor MI: Karoma. Lightfoot, D. 1999. The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change and Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell. Lord, C. 1976. Evidence for syntactic reanalysis: From verb to complementizer in Kwa. In Chicago Linguistic Society 12: Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax’S. Steever C. Walker & S. Mufwene (Eds), 179–91. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. Lord, C. 1993. Historical Change in Serial Verb Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lowe, S. 1999. Shub Down & Small-up Yuself! Diaries of Jamaica by Bus. Jamaica W.I.: Polar Bear Press. Magloire-Holly, H. 1982. Les modaux: Auxiliares ou verbes? In Syntaxe de l’Haïtien, C. Lefebvre et al. (Eds), Ann Arbor MI: Karoma. Manfredi, V. 1993. Verb focus in the typology of Kwa/Kru and Haitian. In Focus and Grammatical Relations in Creole Languages [Creole Language Library 12]. F. Byrne & D. Winford, 3–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. McWhorter, J. 1998. Identifying the Creole Prototype: Vindicating a typological class. Language 74(4): 788–818. McWhorter, J. 2000. Defining creole as a synchronic term. In Degrees of Restructuring in Creole
References
Languages, [Creole Language Library 22]. I. Neumann-Holzschuh & E. Schneider (Eds), 85–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mühlhäusler, P. 1986. Pidgin and Creole linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Muysken, P. 1977. Movement rules in Papiamentu. Amsterdam Creole Studies 1: 80–102. Muysken, P. (Ed.) 1980. Creole tense/mood/aspect systems: The unmarked case? In Generative Studies on Creole Languages, 85–123. Dordrecht: Foris. Newport, E.L. 1999. Reduced input in the acquisition of signed languages: Contributions to the study of creolization. In Language Creation and Language Change: Creolization, Diachrony, and Development, M. Degraff (Ed.), Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Nissenbaum, J. 2000. Investigations of Covert Phrasal Movement. PhD dissertation, MIT. Oládiípò, A. 1997. ‘Moba ni’. Paper presented at the 9th Niger Congo Workshop on Focus Constructions, Ghana. Patrick, P. 1999. Urban Jamaican Creole: Variation in the Mesolect [Varieties of English around the World Series G17]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Patrick, P. 2004. Jamaican Creole morphology and syntax. In A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol 2: Morphology and Syntax, B. Kortmann, E. Schneider, C. Upton, R. Mesthrie & K. Burridge (Eds), 407–438. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Pearce, E. 1999. Topic and focus in a head-initial language: Maori. In Proceedings of AFLA vi. The Sixth Meeting of the Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association, held at the University of Toronto April, 16–18, 1999 [University of Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics] C. Smallwood & Catherine Kitto (Eds), 249–263. Toronto: University of Toronto. Pesetsky, D. 1982. Paths and Categories. Ph.D. England dissertation, MIT. Pinker, S. 1994. The Language Instinct. Penguin Books. Pollard, V. 2003. From Jamaican Creole to Standard English: A Handbook for Teachers. Mona, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press. Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry, 20: 365–424. Postal, P. 1966. On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English’. In 19th Monograph on Language and Linguistics, F. Dinneen (Ed.), Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Puskas, G. 1997. Focus and the CP domain. In The New Comparative Syntax, L. Haegeman (Ed.), 145–164. London: Longman. Puskas, G. 2000. Word Order in Hungarian: The Syntax of A’ Positions. Amsterdam Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Puskas, G. 2002. Floating quantifiers: What they can tell us about the syntax and semantics of quantifiers. GG@G, 3: 105–128. Ritter, E. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing [Syntax and Semantics 25], S. Rothstein (Ed.), 37–62. New York NY: Academic Press. Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Rizzi, L. 1990. Speculation on verb second. In Grammar in Progress, GLOW Essays for Henk van Riemsdijk, J. Mascaro & M. Nespor (Eds), 375–86. Dordrecht: Foris. Rizzi, L. 1996. Residual verb second and the WH-criterion. In Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax, A. Belletti & L. Rizzi. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rizzi, L. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, L. Haegeman (Ed.), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rizzi, L. 2004a. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. (Also published in Cheng L. & Corver N. (Eds), 2006. Wh-movement: Moving On. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
The syntax of Jamaican Creole: A cartographic perspective Rizzi, L. 2004b. The Structure of CP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Vol 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, P.A. 1973. Speech of 6–year old Jamaican children [Society for Caribbean Linguistics Occasional Paper No. 1]. Mona, Jamaica: University of the West Indies (Caribbean Language Research Programme). Roberts, P.A. 1980. The adequacy of certain theories in accounting for important grammatical relationships in a Creole language. In Issues in English Creoles G2, Papers from the 1975 Hawaii Conference. R.R. Day (Ed.), Heidelberg: Groos. Roberts, I. 1999. Verb movement and markedness. In Language Creation and Language Change. M. DeGraff (Ed.), 287–328. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Roberts, I. 2007. Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Romaine, S. 1988. Pidgin and Creole Languages. London: Longman. Russel, T. 1868. The Etymology of Jamaican Grammar, by a Young Gentleman. Kingston: De Cordova, McDougall. Scott, G.-J. 2002. Stacked adjectival modification and the structure of nominal phrases. In Functional Structure in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 1, G. Cinque (Ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sebba, M. 1993. London Jamaican. London: Longman. Seuren, P. 1993. The question of predicate clefting in the Indian Ocean Creoles. In Focus and Grammatical Relations in Creole Languages [Creole Language Library 12], F. Byrne & D. Winford (Eds), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Seuren, P. & Wekker, H. 1986. Semantic transparency as a factor in creole genesis. In Universals vs. Substrata in Creole Genesis [Creole Language Library 1], P. Muysken & N. Smith (Eds), 57–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Shlonsky, U. 2004. The form of the Semitic noun phrase. Lingua 114: 1465–1526. Stewart, M. 2006. Quantification in Jamaican Creole. The Syntax and Semantics of EVRI (‘Every’) in Interaction with Indefinites. Ph.D. dissertation, University of the West Indies, Mona. Stowell, T. 1991. Empty heads in abbreviated English. Presented at GLOW, Leiden. Szabolcsi, A. 1981. Compositionality in focus. Folia Linguistics XV: 141–161. Szabolcsi, A. 1983. The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3: 89–102. Tanna, L. 1984. Jamaican Folk Tales and Oral Histories. Kingston: Institute of Jamaica Publications. Tenny, C. 1987. Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Tsimpli, I.-M. 1995. Focussing in Modern Greek. In Discourse-configurational Languages, É.K. Kiss (Ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. Veenstra, T. & den Besten, H. 1995. Fronting. In Pidgins and Creoles. An Introduction. [Creole Language Library 15], J. Arends, P. Muysken & N. Smith (Eds), 303–315. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Veenstra, T. 2006. Modeling creole genesis: Headedness in morphology. In Structure and Variation in Language Contact. [Creole Language Library 30], A. Deumert & S. Durrleman (Eds), Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Verkuyl, H. 1972. On The Compositional Nature of Aspect. Dordrecht: Reidel. Verkuyl, H. 1989. Aspectual classes and aspectual composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 39–94. Winford, D. 1993. Predication in Caribbean English Creoles. [Creole Language Library 10], Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Index of names
A Abels, K., 118 Aboh, E.O., 16, 50–52, 65, 72, 80, 112, 146 Abney, S., 12, 13, 16, 123–25, 127 Adams, L.E., 8, 10, 27, 28, 30, 71, 84, 87, 95, 101, 103, 104 Arends, J., 1, 2, 42 Avolonto, A., 42 B Bailey, B., 3, 6, 8, 12, 14, 25, 27, 28, 30, 34, 40, 47, 70, 71, 77, 84, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 96, 99, 102, 103, 107, 108, 116, 120, 131, 141, 146, 157, 162 Baker, M., 44, 47, 96 Bakker, P., 11 Belletti, A., 12, 19, 20, 59, 61 Bennett, L., 97, 141 Bernstein, J.B., 149, 153 Bickerton, D., 9 Boretzky, N., 105, 106 Brody, M., 63 Brugè, L., 126, 145–47, 150, 153 Bruyn, A., 133 Bybee, J., 32 Byrne, F., 114 C Cargill, M., 5, 7 Caskey, A., 114 Cassidy, F.G., 3, 10, 34, 71, 80, 99, 102, 104, 105, 141, 147, 153 Chomsky, N., 8, 13, 66 Christie, P., 70, 80, 82, 105 Cinque, G., 12, 13, 15, 16, 19–25, 31, 33–35, 38, 39, 44, 54–56, 58, 59, 61, 66, 125, 126, 144, 153, 159, 171, 179
Collins, C., 47 Comrie, B., 33
J Jackendoff, R., 32
D Da Cruz, M., 37, 41–49, 52, 53, 86, 87, 95 Decamp, D., 1, 2, 6, 11 Déchaine, R.-M., 165, 168, 170, 172 Degraff, M., 9 Delfosse, R., 6, 7 Den Besten, H., 79, 84, 114 Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M., 130, 175 Durrleman, S., 25, 118, 174
K Kayne, R., 44, 159 Kegl, J., 9 Kiss, É.K., 117 Koopman, H., 11, 80 Kouwenberg, S., 2
E Edwards, W.F., 49 Enç, M., 165 F Finney, M., 118 Fitzpatrick, J., 165, 170–73 Frawley, W., 33 G Gadelii, K., 156 Gibson, K., 23, 31, 58 Gil, D., 138 Giusti, G., 126, 130, 146, 150, 175 Grange, O., xi Green, M., 106 Guéron, J., 124, 125 H Haegeman, L., 63, 112, 124, 125 Hall, R.A., 11 Heim, I., 127 Hopper, J., 67, 77, 91, 96 I Ihsane, T., 126, 147, 150 Ishii, Y., 155 Iwata, G.A., 9
L Laenzlinger, C., 159 Lamiroy, B., 37 Lasnik, H., 69 Lees, R., 123 Lefebvre, C., 1, 11, 80 Lord, C., 67, 77, 91, 94, 96, 105 Lowe, S., 105 M Magloire-Holly, H., 32 Manfredi, V., 103, 113, 172 Mcwhorter, J., 4 Muriungi, P., 118 Muysken, P., 1, 14, 119 N Newport, E.L., 9 Nissenbaum, J., 172 O Oládiípò, A., 114, 115, 118 P Patrick, P., 2, 8, 14, 146, 154, 155, 157 Pearce, E., 115 Pesetsky, D., 87 Pinker, S., 9 Pollard, V., 4 Pollock, J.-Y., 12, 13, 19–21, 59, 61
Index of names Postal, P., 125 Puskas, G., 65, 140 R Ritter, E., 126 Rizzi, L., 13, 15, 61–69, 75, 76, 87, 89–92, 98, 101, 121, 179 Roberts, I., 9 Roberts, P.A., 85, 91, 97, 110, 154 Romaine, S., 10 Russel, T., 8
S Scott, G.-J., 16, 126, 159, 160, 162 Sebba, M., 28 Seuren, P., 4, 11 Shlonsky, U., 169 Smith, N., 1, 2 Stewart, M., 47, 131, 134, 136–140, 155–58, 162, 167 Stowell, T., 69, 165 Szabolcsi, A., 123 T Tanna, L., 142, 154
Tenny, C., 166, 177 Traugott, E., 67, 77, 91, 96 Tsimpli, I.-M., 63 V Veenstra, T., 9, 84, 114 Vendler, Z., 166 Verkuyl, H., 165 W Winford, D., 26, 114 Webelhuth, G., 79 Wekker, H., 4, 11
Index of subjects
A Adjective cartography, 159–63, 176 focusing, 78–83, 141–44 Adverb cartography, 20–22, 24, 54–58 locative, 70–72 focusing, 112, 113 temporal, 73, 164 speech act, 171 AFFECT Criterion, 63, 87, 112 Aspect cartography, 30–55, 58 progressive, 33, 34, 36, 40, 45, 46, 102 prospective, 33, 34, 36, 50, 51 completive, 14, 15, 17, 34–38, 40–57, 133, 134, 168, 169, 173–75, 177, 179, 180 Frequentative, 12, 39, 40, 136 Retrospective, 34, 36, 39, 40, 164 Continuative, 39, 40 B Bare Noun, 101, 104, 126, 127, 132–34, 154, 162–70, 173–75 Bare sentences, 126, 133, 163–77 C C-command, 52, 57, 173 Clause-linker se, 90–98 Creole Continuum, 1–6 D Decreolization, 6, 84 Default, 17, 26, 28, 29, 33, 59, 126, 156, 157, 163, 164, 168, 170, 177. See also Unmarked Deictic, 16, 70, 126, 146–53, see also Reinforcer(s)
Determiner, 16, 80, 93, 103, 123–29, 140, 154–56, 158, 162, 164, 169 Demonstrative, 16, 71, 124, 145–153, 155, 156, 169, 174 Diglossia, 2 DP hypothesis, 123–26 E English, 62, 65, 70, 71, 78, 79, 93 English vs Creole in Jamaican society X, XI-XII, 1–8 English & Creole, 15, 35, 37, 54, 80, 82, 87, 91, 97–100, 103, 105, 107, 108, 110, 111, 113, 129, 131, 136, 138, 139, 147, 157, 170–73 English & Romance, 22, 91, 111, 125 English & German, 22, 23 English & Fongbè, 47, 48 Empty Category Principle (ECP), 66, 91 Exhaustivity, 117–19, 179 Expletive, 4, 92, 99, 105–10, 112 Ewe(gbe), 94 Extended Projection Principle (EPP), 92, 106 F Factative Effect, 170–73 Fin(ite)(P), 15, 16, 64, 65, 89, 99–101, 180 Focus, 57, 61–66, 74–90, 98, 99, 100–21, 126, 136, 141–44, 160, 172, 176, 179 Focus Criterion, 63, see also AFFECT Criterion Fongbè, 41–50, 52–54, 86, 172 Force(P), 64, 65, 67, 68, 71, 77, 89–99, 101, 111, 113, 116, 117, 120, 121
French, 20, 21, 27, 48, 87, 111, 125, 146–50, 152, 153, 159 G Gbe see Fongbè, Gungbè and Ewe(gbè) Gungbe, 50, 51, 65, 66, 72, 76, 80, 112, 115, 116, 152, 159 Greek, 131, 146 Guyanese, 23, 31, 35, 49, 58 Grammaticalization, 67, 77, 91, 96, 104, 106, 113 Government, 92 H Hungarian, 65, 66, 75, 76, 112, 115, 116, 136, 146 Hausa, 106 Haitian, 23, 32, 80, 165, 168, 170 Hawaiian Creole, 9 J Japanese, 154 K Krio, 114–118 L Lexifier, 1, 2, 6, 107, 134, 136 Locality, 13, see also Relativized Minimality M Marked(ness), 58, 59, 156 Modal(s), 14, 23, 26–28, 30–32, 81, 82, 113, see also Mood Mood, 11, 14, 16, 19, 23, 25 N Nativization, 11 Negation, 4, 44–46, 171 Nominalization, 51, 52, 89, 95, 113 Null subjects, 106, see also Pro
Index of subjects P Pidgin, 9–11 Preposition(s), 85, 86, 89, 92, 102–04, 128–31, 159 Plural, 16, 126, 139, 154–59, 162 Pro, 69, 106–110 Pronoun(s), 5, 83, 124, 125, 128, 139, 154, 157, 171 Resumptive, 16, 69, 73, 75, 83, 134 Possessive, 128–31, 151, 155, 156, 174 Q Quantifier(s), 16, 69, 72, 76, 125, 134, 136–44, 169, 180 Quantification(al), 69, 76, 126, 134, 135, 139, 140, 176, 179 R Reduplication, 11, 12, 39, 40, 78–80, 83, 103, 113, 136–38, 141, 143 Referential, 70, 133, 150, 155, 165, 176 Reinforcer(s), 16, 126, 146–53, 176, see also Deictic Relativized Minimality, 13, 15, 21, 36, 55, 79, 83 Referential, 70, 133, 150, 155 165, 176
S Sign Languages, 9 Serial Verb Construction(s) (SVC), 41–53, 92–97, 116 Scene-setter(s), 15, 16, 73, 120 Stative/[+Stative] Verb(s), 14, 26, 29, 33, 37, 40, 46, 53, 163–66, 169, 170, 171 Non-Stative/[-Stative] Verb(s), 14, 26, 28, 29, 33, 35–37, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169, 177 Subject Criterion, 91, 92 Substrate, 1, 2, 50, 53, 54, 71, 97, 154 Superstrate, 1, 2, 53, 54 Split-Infl Hypothesis, 19, 20, 63 Split-CP Hypothesis, 61–66 Scope, 41, 42, 52, 55, 57, 134–39, 173, 179 Subject(s), 25, 31, 32, 44, 45, 62, 65, 66, 69, 76, 82, 87, 91, 92, 95, 96, 106, 107, 111, 112, 118, 123, 124, 127, 134, 171 T That-trace effect, 66, 92, 98 Theta Criterion, 45 Telicity, 17, 162–77, 180
Tense, 4, 11, 12, 14, 16, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28–32, 34, 54–58, 96, 109, 163–66, 170–75 Topic(P), 15, 16, 61, 64–76, 91, 95, 99, 100, 101, 106, 120, 121, 135, 149, 151, 152, 176, 179 U Unmarked, 9, 142, see also Default Universal Grammar (UG), 8, 9, 11, 12, 19, 24 V VP-movement, 15, 17, 35, 44–57, 177, 179, 180 W Weak crossover (WCO), 69, 76, 89, 135 Wh-Criterion, 62, 63, see also AFFECT Criterion Wh-question(s), 83–89, 111, 114–19 X X-bar theory, 13, 63, 124 Y Yes-No questions, 89, 99 Yoruba, 103, 105, 114–18
Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers’ website, www.benjamins.com 136 Kandybowicz, Jason: The Grammar of Repetition. Nupe grammar at the syntax–phonology interface. xiii, 159 pp. + index. Expected November 2008 135 Lewis, William D., Simin Karimi, Heidi Harley and Scott O. Farrar (eds.): Time and Again. Theoretical Perspectives on Formal Linguistics. In honor of D. Terrence Langendoen. Expected November 2008 134 Armon-Lotem, Sharon, Gabi Danon and Susan Rothstein (eds.): Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics. vi, 388 pp. + index. Expected October 2008 133 MacDonald, Jonathan E.: The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect. A minimalist perspective. xv, 234 pp. + index. Expected November 2008 132 Biberauer, Theresa (ed.): The Limits of Syntactic Variation. vii, 515 pp. + index. Expected September 2008 131 De Cat, Cécile and Katherine Demuth (eds.): The Bantu–Romance Connection. A comparative investigation of verbal agreement, DPs, and information structure. xix, 350 pp. + index. Expected October 2008 130 Kallulli, Dalina and Liliane Tasmowski (eds.): Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages. ix, 431 pp. + index. Expected September 2008 129 Sturgeon, Anne: The Left Periphery. The interaction of syntax, pragmatics and prosody in Czech. xi, 139 pp. + index. Expected October 2008 128 Taleghani, Azita H.: Modality, Aspect and Negation in Persian. 2008. ix, 183 pp. 127 Durrleman-Tame, Stephanie: The Syntax of Jamaican Creole. A cartographic perspective. 2008. xii, 190 pp. 126 Schäfer, Florian: The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives. External arguments in change-of-state contexts. 2008. xi, 324 pp. 125 Rothstein, Björn: The Perfect Time Span. On the present perfect in German, Swedish and English. 2008. xi, 171 pp. 124 Ihsane, Tabea: The Layered DP. Form and meaning of French indefinites. 2008. ix, 260 pp. 123 Stoyanova, Marina: Unique Focus. Languages without multiple wh-questions. 2008. xi, 184 pp. 122 Oosterhof, Albert: The Semantics of Generics in Dutch and Related Languages. 2008. xviii, 286 pp. 121 Tungseth, Mai Ellin: Verbal Prepositions and Argument Structure. Path, place and possession in Norwegian. 2008. ix, 187 pp. 120 Asbury, Anna, Jakub Dotlačil, Berit Gehrke and Rick Nouwen (eds.): Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P. 2008. vi, 416 pp. 119 Fortuny, Jordi: The Emergence of Order in Syntax. 2008. viii, 211 pp. 118 Jäger, Agnes: History of German Negation. 2008. ix, 350 pp. 117 Haugen, Jason D.: Morphology at the Interfaces. Reduplication and Noun Incorporation in Uto-Aztecan. 2008. xv, 257 pp. 116 Endo, Yoshio: Locality and Information Structure. A cartographic approach to Japanese. 2007. x, 235 pp. 115 Putnam, Michael T.: Scrambling and the Survive Principle. 2007. x, 216 pp. 114 Lee-Schoenfeld, Vera: Beyond Coherence. The syntax of opacity in German. 2007. viii, 206 pp. 113 Eythórsson, Thórhallur (ed.): Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory. The Rosendal papers. 2008. vi, 441 pp. 112 Axel, Katrin: Studies on Old High German Syntax. Left sentence periphery, verb placement and verbsecond. 2007. xii, 364 pp. 111 Eguren, Luis and Olga Fernández Soriano (eds.): Coreference, Modality, and Focus. Studies on the syntax–semantics interface. 2007. xii, 239 pp. 110 Rothstein, Susan (ed.): Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect. 2008. viii, 453 pp. 109 Chocano, Gema: Narrow Syntax and Phonological Form. Scrambling in the Germanic languages. 2007. x, 333 pp. 108 Reuland, Eric, Tanmoy Bhattacharya and Giorgos Spathas (eds.): Argument Structure. 2007. xviii, 243 pp.
107 Corver, Norbert and Jairo Nunes (eds.): The Copy Theory of Movement. 2007. vi, 388 pp. 106 Dehé, Nicole and Yordanka Kavalova (eds.): Parentheticals. 2007. xii, 314 pp. 105 Haumann, Dagmar: Adverb Licensing and Clause Structure in English. 2007. ix, 438 pp. 104 Jeong, Youngmi: Applicatives. Structure and interpretation from a minimalist perspective. 2007. vii, 144 pp. 103 Wurff, Wim van der (ed.): Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar. Studies in honour of Frits Beukema. 2007. viii, 352 pp. 102 Bayer, Josef, Tanmoy Bhattacharya and M.T. Hany Babu (eds.): Linguistic Theory and South Asian Languages. Essays in honour of K. A. Jayaseelan. 2007. x, 282 pp. 101 Karimi, Simin, Vida Samiian and Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.): Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds. 2007. vi, 424 pp. 100 Schwabe, Kerstin and Susanne Winkler (eds.): On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Generalizations across languages. 2007. vii, 570 pp. 99 Martínez-Gil, Fernando and Sonia Colina (eds.): Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. 2007. viii, 564 pp. 98 Pires, Acrisio: The Minimalist Syntax of Defective Domains. Gerunds and infinitives. 2006. xiv, 188 pp. 97 Hartmann, Jutta M. and László Molnárfi (eds.): Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax. From Afrikaans to Zurich German. 2006. vi, 332 pp. 96 Lyngfelt, Benjamin and Torgrim Solstad (eds.): Demoting the Agent. Passive, middle and other voice phenomena. 2006. x, 333 pp. 95 Vogeleer, Svetlana and Liliane Tasmowski (eds.): Non-definiteness and Plurality. 2006. vi, 358 pp. 94 Arche, María J.: Individuals in Time. Tense, aspect and the individual/stage distinction. 2006. xiv, 281 pp. 93 Progovac, Ljiljana, Kate Paesani, Eugenia Casielles and Ellen Barton (eds.): The Syntax of Nonsententials. Multidisciplinary perspectives. 2006. x, 372 pp. 92 Boeckx, Cedric (ed.): Agreement Systems. 2006. ix, 346 pp. 91 Boeckx, Cedric (ed.): Minimalist Essays. 2006. xvi, 399 pp. 90 Dalmi, Gréte: The Role of Agreement in Non-Finite Predication. 2005. xvi, 222 pp. 89 Velde, John R. te: Deriving Coordinate Symmetries. A phase-based approach integrating Select, Merge, Copy and Match. 2006. x, 385 pp. 88 Mohr, Sabine: Clausal Architecture and Subject Positions. Impersonal constructions in the Germanic languages. 2005. viii, 207 pp. 87 Julien, Marit: Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. 2005. xvi, 348 pp. 86 Costa, João and Maria Cristina Figueiredo Silva (eds.): Studies on Agreement. 2006. vi, 285 pp. 85 Mikkelsen, Line: Copular Clauses. Specification, predication and equation. 2005. viii, 210 pp. 84 Pafel, Jürgen: Quantifier Scope in German. 2006. xvi, 312 pp. 83 Schweikert, Walter: The Order of Prepositional Phrases in the Structure of the Clause. 2005. xii, 338 pp. 82 Quinn, Heidi: The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English. 2005. xii, 409 pp. 81 FuSS, Eric: The Rise of Agreement. A formal approach to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal inflection. 2005. xii, 336 pp. 80 Burkhardt, Petra: The Syntax–Discourse Interface. Representing and interpreting dependency. 2005. xii, 259 pp. 79 Schmid, Tanja: Infinitival Syntax. Infinitivus Pro Participio as a repair strategy. 2005. xiv, 251 pp. 78 Dikken, Marcel den and Christina Tortora (eds.): The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. 2005. vii, 292 pp. 77 Öztürk, Balkız: Case, Referentiality and Phrase Structure. 2005. x, 268 pp. 76 Stavrou, Melita and Arhonto Terzi (eds.): Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou. 2005. viii, 366 pp. 75 Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.): UG and External Systems. Language, brain and computation. 2005. xviii, 398 pp. 74 Heggie, Lorie and Francisco Ordóñez (eds.): Clitic and Affix Combinations. Theoretical perspectives. 2005. viii, 390 pp. 73 Carnie, Andrew, Heidi Harley and Sheila Ann Dooley (eds.): Verb First. On the syntax of verbinitial languages. 2005. xiv, 434 pp.
72 FuSS, Eric and Carola Trips (eds.): Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar. 2004. viii, 228 pp. 71 Gelderen, Elly van: Grammaticalization as Economy. 2004. xvi, 320 pp. 70 Austin, Jennifer R., Stefan Engelberg and Gisa Rauh (eds.): Adverbials. The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure. 2004. x, 346 pp. 69 Kiss, Katalin É. and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.): Verb Clusters. A study of Hungarian, German and Dutch. 2004. vi, 514 pp. 68 Breul, Carsten: Focus Structure in Generative Grammar. An integrated syntactic, semantic and intonational approach. 2004. x, 432 pp. 67 Mišeska Tomić, Olga (ed.): Balkan Syntax and Semantics. 2004. xvi, 499 pp. 66 Grohmann, Kleanthes K.: Prolific Domains. On the Anti-Locality of movement dependencies. 2003. xvi, 372 pp. 65 Manninen, Satu Helena: Small Phrase Layers. A study of Finnish Manner Adverbials. 2003. xii, 275 pp. 64 Boeckx, Cedric and Kleanthes K. Grohmann (eds.): Multiple Wh-Fronting. 2003. x, 292 pp. 63 Boeckx, Cedric: Islands and Chains. Resumption as stranding. 2003. xii, 224 pp. 62 Carnie, Andrew, Heidi Harley and MaryAnn Willie (eds.): Formal Approaches to Function in Grammar. In honor of Eloise Jelinek. 2003. xii, 378 pp. 61 Schwabe, Kerstin and Susanne Winkler (eds.): The Interfaces. Deriving and interpreting omitted structures. 2003. vi, 403 pp. 60 Trips, Carola: From OV to VO in Early Middle English. 2002. xiv, 359 pp. 59 Dehé, Nicole: Particle Verbs in English. Syntax, information structure and intonation. 2002. xii, 305 pp. 58 Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 2: Morphology, phonology, acquisition. 2003. vi, 309 pp. 57 Di Sciullo, Anna Maria (ed.): Asymmetry in Grammar. Volume 1: Syntax and semantics. 2003. vi, 405 pp. 56 Coene, Martine and Yves D’hulst (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 2: The expression of possession in noun phrases. 2003. x, 295 pp. 55 Coene, Martine and Yves D’hulst (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 1: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases. 2003. vi, 362 pp. 54 Baptista, Marlyse: The Syntax of Cape Verdean Creole. The Sotavento varieties. 2003. xxii, 294 pp. (incl. CD-rom). 53 Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter and Werner Abraham (eds.): Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax (Groningen, May 26–27, 2000). 2002. xiv, 407 pp. 52 Simon, Horst J. and Heike Wiese (eds.): Pronouns – Grammar and Representation. 2002. xii, 294 pp. 51 Gerlach, Birgit: Clitics between Syntax and Lexicon. 2002. xii, 282 pp. 50 Steinbach, Markus: Middle Voice. A comparative study in the syntax-semantics interface of German. 2002. xii, 340 pp. 49 Alexiadou, Artemis (ed.): Theoretical Approaches to Universals. 2002. viii, 319 pp. 48 Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena Anagnostopoulou, Sjef Barbiers and Hans-Martin Gärtner (eds.): Dimensions of Movement. From features to remnants. 2002. vi, 345 pp. 47 Barbiers, Sjef, Frits Beukema and Wim van der Wurff (eds.): Modality and its Interaction with the Verbal System. 2002. x, 290 pp. 46 Panagiotidis, E. Phoevos: Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns. ‘Pronominality’ and licensing in syntax. 2002. x, 214 pp. 45 Abraham, Werner and C. Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds.): Issues in Formal German(ic) Typology. 2002. xviii, 336 pp. 44 Taylan, Eser Erguvanlı (ed.): The Verb in Turkish. 2002. xviii, 267 pp. 43 Featherston, Sam: Empty Categories in Sentence Processing. 2001. xvi, 279 pp. 42 Alexiadou, Artemis: Functional Structure in Nominals. Nominalization and ergativity. 2001. x, 233 pp. 41 Zeller, Jochen: Particle Verbs and Local Domains. 2001. xii, 325 pp. 40 Hoeksema, Jack, Hotze Rullmann, Víctor Sánchez-Valencia and Ton van der Wouden (eds.): Perspectives on Negation and Polarity Items. 2001. xii, 368 pp. 39 Gelderen, Elly van: A History of English Reflexive Pronouns. Person, Self, and Interpretability. 2000. xiv, 279 pp.
38 Meinunger, André: Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment. 2000. xii, 247 pp. 37 Lutz, Uli, Gereon Müller and Arnim von Stechow (eds.): Wh-Scope Marking. 2000. vi, 483 pp. 36 Gerlach, Birgit and Janet Grijzenhout (eds.): Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. 2001. xii, 441 pp. 35 Hróarsdóttir, Thorbjörg: Word Order Change in Icelandic. From OV to VO. 2001. xiv, 385 pp. 34 Reuland, Eric (ed.): Arguments and Case. Explaining Burzio’s Generalization. 2000. xii, 255 pp. 33 Puskás, Genoveva: Word Order in Hungarian. The syntax of Ā-positions. 2000. xvi, 398 pp. 32 Alexiadou, Artemis, Paul Law, André Meinunger and Chris Wilder (eds.): The Syntax of Relative Clauses. 2000. vi, 397 pp. 31 Svenonius, Peter (ed.): The Derivation of VO and OV. 2000. vi, 372 pp. 30 Beukema, Frits and Marcel den Dikken (eds.): Clitic Phenomena in European Languages. 2000. x, 324 pp. 29 Miyamoto, Tadao: The Light Verb Construction in Japanese. The role of the verbal noun. 2000. xiv, 232 pp. 28 Hermans, Ben and Marc van Oostendorp (eds.): The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality Theory. 2000. viii, 322 pp. 27 Růžička, Rudolf: Control in Grammar and Pragmatics. A cross-linguistic study. 1999. x, 206 pp. 26 Ackema, Peter: Issues in Morphosyntax. 1999. viii, 310 pp. 25 Felser, Claudia: Verbal Complement Clauses. A minimalist study of direct perception constructions. 1999. xiv, 278 pp. 24 Rebuschi, Georges and Laurice Tuller (eds.): The Grammar of Focus. 1999. vi, 366 pp. 23 Giannakidou, Anastasia: Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)Veridical Dependency. 1998. xvi, 282 pp. 22 Alexiadou, Artemis and Chris Wilder (eds.): Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. 1998. vi, 388 pp. 21 Klein, Henny: Adverbs of Degree in Dutch and Related Languages. 1998. x, 232 pp. 20 Laenzlinger, Christopher: Comparative Studies in Word Order Variation. Adverbs, pronouns, and clause structure in Romance and Germanic. 1998. x, 371 pp. 19 Josefsson, Gunlög: Minimal Words in a Minimal Syntax. Word formation in Swedish. 1998. ix, 199 pp. 18 Alexiadou, Artemis: Adverb Placement. A case study in antisymmetric syntax. 1997. x, 256 pp. 17 Beermann, Dorothee, David LeBlanc and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.): Rightward Movement. 1997. vi, 410 pp. 16 Liu, Feng-hsi: Scope and Specificity. 1997. viii, 187 pp. 15 Rohrbacher, Bernhard Wolfgang: Morphology-Driven Syntax. A theory of V to I raising and prodrop. 1999. viii, 296 pp. 14 Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Henk van Riemsdijk and Frans Zwarts (eds.): Materials on Left Dislocation. 1997. viii, 349 pp. 13 Alexiadou, Artemis and T. Alan Hall (eds.): Studies on Universal Grammar and Typological Variation. 1997. viii, 252 pp. 12 Abraham, Werner, Samuel David Epstein, Höskuldur Thráinsson and C. Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds.): Minimal Ideas. Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework. 1996. xii, 364 pp. 11 Lutz, Uli and Jürgen Pafel (eds.): On Extraction and Extraposition in German. 1996. xii, 315 pp. 10 Cinque, Guglielmo and Giuliana Giusti (eds.): Advances in Roumanian Linguistics. 1995. xi, 172 pp. 9 Gelderen, Elly van: The Rise of Functional Categories. 1993. x, 224 pp. 8 Fanselow, Gisbert (ed.): The Parametrization of Universal Grammar. 1993. xvii, 232 pp. 7 Åfarlí, Tor A.: The Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions. 1992. xii, 177 pp. 6 Bhatt, Christa, Elisabeth Löbel and Claudia Maria Schmidt (eds.): Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrases and Sentences. 1989. ix, 187 pp. 5 Grewendorf, Günther and Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.): Scrambling and Barriers. 1990. vi, 442 pp. 4 Abraham, Werner and Sjaak De Meij (eds.): Topic, Focus and Configurationality. Papers from the 6th Groningen Grammar Talks, Groningen, 1984. 1986. v, 349 pp. 3 Abraham, Werner (ed.): On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania. Papers from the 3rd Groningen Grammar Talks (3e Groninger Grammatikgespräche), Groningen, January 1981. 1983. vi, 242 pp. 2 Ehlich, Konrad and Jürgen Rehbein: Augenkommunikation. Methodenreflexion und Beispielanalyse. 1982. viii, 150 pp. With many photographic ills.
1
Klappenbach, Ruth (1911–1977): Studien zur Modernen Deutschen Lexikographie. Auswahl aus den Lexikographischen Arbeiten von Ruth Klappenbach, erweitert um drei Beiträge von Helene MaligeKlappenbach. (Written in German). 1980. xxiii, 313 pp.
