dc.contributor.author | Carstens, Vicki | |
dc.contributor.author | Mletshe, Loyiso | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2017-02-28T09:50:52Z | |
dc.date.available | 2017-02-28T09:50:52Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2015 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Carstens, V. and Mletshe, L. (2015). Radical defectivity: Implications of Xhosa expletive constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 46(2): 187-242 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0024-3892 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00180 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10566/2573 | |
dc.description.abstract | In Xhosa VSO clauses, subject agreement exhibits default features,
objects cannot be pronominalized, a subject focus reading is obligatory,
and experiencer verbs with two DP arguments are precluded. We
argue that impoverished versions of T and v* in VSO clauses lack the
probe features involved in subject agreement, EPP, object shift, and
nominative/accusative valuation within Xhosa SVO sentences. Only
an unusual focus-linked strategy can Case-license full DPs in VSO
clauses, but this is incompatible with inherent Cases borne by arguments
of experiencer verbs. We show that CPs and augmentless NPs
appear in positions where DPs cannot surface because uCase is a feature
of D. Given the striking evidence for abstract Case in Xhosa, we
propose Case-friendly analyses for Bantu Case-theoretic anomalies
that Xhosa shares. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | MIT Press | en_US |
dc.rights | This is the pre-print version of thie article published available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00180 | |
dc.subject | isiXhosa | en_US |
dc.subject | Linguistics | en_US |
dc.subject | Language | en_US |
dc.subject | Expletives | en_US |
dc.title | Radical defectivity: Implications of Xhosa expletive constructions | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.privacy.showsubmitter | FALSE | |
dc.status.ispeerreviewed | TRUE | |
dc.description.accreditation | ISI | en_US |