Abstract

This paper focuses on subject extraction in Māori, the indigenous Polynesian language of New Zealand. Māori has a range of verbal and non-verbal predicate constructions. I argue that, whilst subject topicalisation is generally permitted in all constructions, subject questioning is restricted (see Bauer 1993; 1997). More specifically, I claim that subject questioning is permitted in verbal and prepositional predicate constructions, but prohibited in nominal predicate constructions, all else being equal (see also de Lacy 1999). I adopt and defend a cleft analysis of questions according to which the questioned constituent is the matrix predicate phrase and the matrix subject is a headless relative clause (Bauer 1991; 1993; 1997). I propose that the restriction on subject questioning results from intervention in this headless relative clause. I argue that the C head probes for a nominal feature rather than a traditional Aʹ-feature. Consequently, nominal predicate phrases intervene with Aʹ-movement of the subject, whilst verbal and prepositional predicate phrases do not. My analysis suggests that Aʹ-movement is generally triggered using nominal features in Māori. I discuss this proposal from an emergentist perspective, i.e. one where formal features are not innately pre-specified but rather emerge during language acquisition guided by the Third Factor cognitive bias to “Maximise Minimal Means” (Biberauer 2017; Biberauer & Roberts 2015; 2017).

Highlights

  • This paper focuses on subject extraction in Māori, the indigenous Polynesian language of New Zealand

  • 1 Introduction This paper focuses on subject extraction in Māori, the indigenous Polynesian language of New Zealand

  • I argue that, whilst subject topicalisation is generally permitted in all types of construction, subject questioning/focus is permitted in verbal and prepositional predicate constructions, but prohibited in nominal predicate constructions

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This paper focuses on subject extraction in Māori, the indigenous Polynesian language of New Zealand. This analysis accounts for why only subjects are accessible for focus/questioning: if the C head of the headless relative clause probes for a [d] feature, the subject phrase will act as an intervener for the relativisation of any lower nominal (see Aldridge 2004; 2008a; b). Something analogous may be observed with complex non-verbal predicate constructions, i.e. the complement of the head of the non-verbal predicate may appear following the subject Such splitting is not generally obligatory though it is preferred in many cases (see Bauer 1997: 31, 33, 63–64 for examples and discussion). Throughout this paper I will place the predicate (phrase) in bold and the subject in brackets (though I will only bold the verb head in verbal predicate constructions) unless stated otherwise (15) Bauer (1997: 431, ex (2836)) Me aha [te waka e tau i tatahi rā]? tam q the canoe tam anchor at seaside dist ‘What should be done with the canoe anchored there by the beach?’

Subject topicalisation
Non-verbal predicate constructions
Locational constructions
Classifying hei constructions
Summary
Analysis
Cleft and intervention analysis
Complementary distribution analysis
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call