I argued above that
simplicity suggests that class markers are always elements of category D. Hence,
adjectival constructions would have the following general form:
(9)
Since this introduces a
further referential pro into a given sentence structure, it has to be
assured that no binding violation can occur. I will argue below that Bantu
languages are largely non-configurational, i.e. certain thematic and all
non-thematic elements occur in adjoined positions. Thus, syntactic dependencies
directly reflect semantic dependencies. Since pro is embedded in an
adjunct, it cannot govern into the remainder of the sentence. Overt lexical
arguments are shown to be either VP-internal or themselves in adjoined position.
In the first case, the overt argument is lower than pro, and in the
second case, the overt argument may not be a governor. Thus, a pro
embedded in an adjunct cannot be governed by an overt NP either, which means
that binding will not pose a problem. Numerals, possessives, relative pronouns
etc. can also occur with noun class marking: I assume that the basic structure
is essentially the same as for adjectival constructions.
A
verbal complex containing a noun class marker (i.e. subject or object
"agreement") would be constructed along the same lines, ignoring
surrounding details:
(10)
This analysis provides an
explicit answer the question around which much of the relevant literature
revolves: are noun class markers pronouns or do they license pro? I claim
that the latter is the case. However, while typical GB analyses tend to assume
that NCs are Agr and license pro in their Spec position, I claim that NC
and pro form an argument together and are thus both located in
[Spec, TP] or [Spec, AgrOP], depending on their function.
A
potential problem for this analysis is the fact that pro is commonly
regarded as [+pronominal, -anaphor]. According to Baker 1996, this circumstance
explains straightforwardly that Mohawk does not have independent anaphors like
reflexive her/himself or reciprocal each other, since they would
create binding violations with the pro's introduced by the verbal
complex. Like Mohawk, Bantu languages usually employ reflexive/reciprocal verbal
affixes instead of independent anaphors (see e.g. Chichewa in Mchombo 1993).
However, Zulu also seems to exemplify selection for an anaphoric null
complement. Deviating from the general Bantu pattern, in which verbal extensions
mark the reflexive, it uses an object noun class prefix instead. Example (11) is
ambiguous:
(11)
The prefix /zi-/ can thus
receive regular pronominal interpretation (identifying alternatively noun class
8 or 10) or it can refer back to the subject like a reflexive. (12) shows the
phrase structure given my assumptions on the nature of noun class markers:
(12)
Rather
than stipulating a language-specific type of pro, it seems more
reasonable to assume that the ambiguity between pronominal and reflexive
interpretation can be attributed to a lexical idiosyncrasy of zi-. The
fact that such anaphoric constructions are impossible with NCs markers of other
classes seems to support this view.
Myers
1987, 1998 argues that selectional restrictions hold between subject and tense
markers. Current syntactic models contradict his assumption of an AUX node
unifying both morphemes, but the Spec-head relationship commonly assumed for
Subject and Tense (as shown in 13) would certainly allow to capture the relevant
selectional restrictions without special assumptions.
(13)
In
line with Halle and Marantz's 1993 arguments, I assume that syntax manipulates
abstract feature bundles, and that phonological manifestation of these feature
bundles is a spell-out mechanism. The systematic relationship of the surface
phonological forms is thus a natural consequence of the structural equality of
NCs in their various environments. The morphological material available to fill
[NOUN CLASS] is monomoraic and thus prosodically deficient: the minimal word
requirement in Bantu languages is typically a bimoraic foot. Thus, NC markers
must cliticize to adjacent lexical heads. Notice that cliticization rather than
prefixation explains the promiscuity of noun class markers, with which they
occur on lexical heads of all major syntactic categories (A, N, V). The fact
that the syntactic literature often does not carefully distinguish between
clitics and affixes seems to be one of the main reasons for the multitude of
incompatible analyses for NC markers.