On the Structure and Derivation of Twi Multi‐Verb Constructions: Serialization Despite Multiple Clauses

Date
2011
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Producer
Director
Performer
Choreographer
Costume Designer
Music
Videographer
Lighting Designer
Set Designer
Crew Member
Funder
Rehearsal Director
Concert Coordinator
Advisor
Moderator
Panelist
Alternative Title
Department
Tri-College (Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Swarthmore Colleges). Department of Linguistics
Type
Thesis
Original Format
Running Time
File Format
Place of Publication
Date Span
Copyright Date
Award
Language
eng
Note
Table of Contents
Terms of Use
Rights Holder
Access Restrictions
Open Access
Tripod URL
Identifier
Abstract
This thesis provides a description and structural account of multi‐verb constructions in Twi, focusing on differentiating coordinate from non‐coordinate structures, a task which has been neglected in the literature on Twi. Extraction in the form of predicate clefting shows that Twi contains both coordinate and non‐coordinate multi‐verb constructions; a coordinate structure does not permit predicate clefting of either verb whereas a non‐coordinate structure permits predicate clefting of V1. Predicate clefting facts also elucidate the structure of non‐coordinating multi‐verb constructions in Twi; that V1 but not V2 can be predicate clefted suggests an asymmetry within the clause. I conclude that multi‐verb constructions such as (2) and (3) are serializing as explained by Aboh’s (2009) account of serialization—-though verbs appearing as V1 in these constructions seem to be fully lexical when they appear in mono‐clausal structure (i.e. they assign thematic roles to internal and external arguments), V1 is functional and V2 is lexical. Apparent 'object sharing’ is thus explained by the fact that only the functional V2 introduces the object, after which movement derives the V1 + OBJ + V2 surface word order. Furthermore, departing from traditional characterizations of SVCs, I argue that observed tense and aspect marking patterns necessitate that V2’s extended projection reach the TP level. Finally, I show that though an overt pronoun follows V2 in constructions like (2), this overt pronoun can be accounted for by the necessity that the edge of a Spell‐Out domain be pronounced in Twi (Kandybowicz 2010); thus (2) and (3) are structurally similar.
Description
Citation