Syntactic domains in Ikalanga.

This dissertation investigates the interaction of morphology and syntax by examining three different syntactic domains in Ikalanga; nuP, the theta role assignment and accusative Case checking domain, the inflectional TP domain, the domain of nominative Case checking and agreement, and the CP domain, the domain of A' related feature checking. In the nuP domain, I investigate theta role assignment in applicative constructions and propose that the ambiguity that arises in applicativized transitives is a lexical semantic ambiguity arising from the homophony of the applicative morpheme in ditransitives and applicativized transitives. I also argue that although applicativized transitives and ditransitives are structurally similar, they differ in the head that nu selects. V takes the applicative head as a complement in applicativized transitives but takes V as a head in ditransitive constructions. I also argue that 'apparent' subjects in Ikalanga are base generated in A' position, based on distributional, scopal and movement tests. In addition, I argue contra Bresnan and Mchombo (1987) that subject agreement markers are never incorporated pronouns but are agreement morphology identifying the phi- features of the null subject. This conclusion follows from the fact that subject agreement markers co-vary with tense/aspect morphology, a characteristic of agreement morphology. In addition, subject agreement markers, unlike object markers analyzed as pronominal clitics, are obligatory while pronominal clitics are not. This dissertation also investigates a morphological asymmetry observed in Ikalanga WH constructions involving subjects and objects. Subjects and in-situ objects do not trigger WH agreement. In-situ objects do not trigger WH agreement because they never occupy the specifier of the polarity phrase (spec, PolP), the specifier in which WH agreement is licensed. Subjects too never occupy spec, PolP because they are base generated in spec, TopP, a position higher than spec, PolP. This means that even when subjects raise to check their focus feature, they never land in spec, PolP since this position is lower. Thus WH agreement in Ikalanga is an indication that the WH phrase entered into a spec-head relation with the head of PolP, the A' agreement licensing head. This relation is realized only if movement takes place via spec, PolP. Thus, morphology plays an important role in syntactic relations in Ikalanga.Ph.D.Language, Literature and LinguisticsLinguisticsUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/123223/2/3068911.pd