A Sketch of the Nominal Domain in Bor Dinka
Anton Nguyen
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Abstract
This paper is primarily a descriptive look at the nominal domain in the Bor dialect of
Dinka, a Western Nilotic language spoken in South Sudan. The focus of the paper is on the word
order of demonstratives, possessives, numerals, and arguments. I show that, in general,
constituents within the nominal domain have some freedom of word order, though there are
general rules.
Keywords: nominal, domain, plural, agreement, Dinka, Bor
1
Introduction1
The Bor dialect of Dinka (henceforth referred to as Bor Dinka) is a member of the
Western Nilotic branch of the Nilo-Saharan languages. It is spoken in South Sudan, east of the
White Nile. I mainly provide a quick sketch of constituent order in nominals by drawing on the
relative word orders of demonstrative determiners, possessives and other arguments, adjectives,
and numerals.
This paper is organized as follows: section 2 will provide a mostly descriptive overview
of word order in the Bor Dinka nominal. Section 3 concludes. Following is an appendix of
constituent order paradigms.
2
Word order in Bor Dinka nominals
This section is mainly a descriptive look at the word order in Bor Dinka nominals. Each
subsection explores a different type of modifier/argument in the nominal domain. Constituents in
the nominal domain have a lot of freedom with respect to ordering. While I cannot argue for a
particular structure, I can provide an overview of facts. In the appendix are tables of paradigms
that demonstrate what I have encountered with respect to the ordering the different constituent
types that I have investigated.
1
This paper is the result of guidance from Michael Kenstowicz and Norvin Richards and elicitation work done by
the members of the Bor Dinka field methods class held at MIT in the spring of 2012. Special thanks go to our
language consultant, Abiar Makoor Guot. The lack of tone, breathy, and creaky voice diacritics, which are often
crucial to Bor Dinka syntax, and oversights and errors are my own fault.
1
2.1
Demonstrative determiners
In Bor Dinka, there are no determiner equivalents to English articles. So nouns are normally
determinerless and receive their definiteness based on context.
(1)
a.
b.
aŋaaŋ
cat
‘the cat’ or ‘a cat’
aŋaath
cats
‘the cats’ or ‘cats’
However, there is a variety of demonstrative determiners, corresponding to proximal,
medial, and distal demonstratives. The proximal demonstrative is ken (kake in the plural), which
indicates an entity closest to the speaker. The medial demonstrative is ee, which indicates an
entity far from the speaker and close to the listener. Nebel 1948 categorizes this demonstrative as
a suffix and transcribes it as e, which happens to cause mutation of the final consonant of the
noun it affixes to.
(2)
a.
b.
tik
woman
‘a woman’
tige
woman.this
‘this woman’
However, according to Andersen 2002, this is a false categorization since it can appear
after other modifiers within the noun phrase and still be interpreted as modifying the entire noun
phrase.
(3)
te
yee
kɔc
lɔ maay
tin
–e
place.CS1 HAB.NTS people go spend.dry.season PRO.INESS/ABL that
‘that place in which people spend the dry season’
(Andersen 2002)2
Finally, there is the distal demonstrative tuc, which indicates an entity that is far from
both participants in the discourse. It also indicates that something is physically further than the
medial demonstrative. There is one other demonstrative hi that I have encountered. It was given
as a translation for ‘that’ but I have not had the chance to determine whether it is medial or distal.
When we have demonstratives modifying nouns, we see that heads in the nominal
domain are head-final:
2
Refer to Andersen 2002 for the expansion of the abbreviations.
2
(4)
a.
b.
kitaap ken
book this
‘this book’
kitaap tuc
book that
‘that book (over there)’
If demonstratives are determiners in Bor Dinka, then we will expect them to appear only
at the right periphery of the nominal, after all other modifiers. In fact, this is true of
demonstratives according to Andersen 2002, an example of which is in (5). It is a reasonable
claim to say that demonstratives in Bor Dinka are determiners.
2.2
Possessives
Bor Dinka has possessive modifiers that function similarly to possessive determiners in
English. However, these can co-occur with demonstratives and is likely to rule them out as
determiners themselves.
(5)
malage du ken
spoon your this
‘this big spoon of yours’
The possessive modifiers show plural agreement with the nominal head by changing the
initial /d/ into /k/ for all persons and numbers. A full DP possessor is introduced with a particle e
between the singular possessum, which functions similarly to the periphrastic possessive in
English, which utilizes the preposition of. These periphrastic possessors are set into an oblique
case (Andersen 2002) while the possessa are set in the Construct State (Andersen 2002) which is
a set of noun forms that appear when the noun is being modified.
(6)
a.
b.
c.
malage
a3 Ayen
spoon.CS1 of Ayen.OBL
‘Ayen’s spoon’
weŋ
a Ayen
dit
tuc
cow.CS1 of Ayen.OBL be.big that
‘that big cow of Ayen’s’
weŋ
dit
tuc a Ayen
3
There is a phonological process that commonly causes vowels of clitics and particles to assimilate to a following
vowel.
a.
ɛn ci Deŋ tiŋ
I PRF Deŋ see
‘I saw Deŋ’
b.
ɛn ca Ayen tiŋ
I PRF Ayen see
‘I saw Ayen’
3
cow.CS1 be.big that of Ayen.OBL
‘that big cow of Ayen’s’
As shown in (6b-c), there seems to be relatively free word order of possessors and
demonstratives. I speculate that the full possessor ends up in position higher than the
demonstrative determiner in either (6b) or (6c) (which of the two cannot yet be determined),
which either requires the demonstrative determiner to occupy a position lower than D4 or the
existence of a projection higher than DP, to which the possessor may move.
2.3
Numerals
The Bor Dinka numerals from one to ten are as follows: tok ‘one’, kerou ‘two’, diak
‘three’, ŋuaŋ ‘four’, dhiec ‘five’, detem ‘six’, dherou ‘seven’, bet ‘eight’, dhonŋuaŋ ‘nine’, thiar
‘ten’. Predictably, numerals occur after the head noun, as we have seen of other modifiers. Of the
numerals listed (and numerals above ten), only tok exhibits restrictions on where it may occur,
which can be shown by using relational nouns.
(7)
a.
b.
c.
d.
thura e Bol
picture of Bol
‘a picture of Bol’
thura tok e Bol
picture one of Bol
‘one picture of Bol’
*thura e Bol tok
thuraa ke Bol ke-rou
pictures of.PL Bol PL-two
Note that the e5 particle in the examples occurs before each argument of the nominal. For
more on arguments within nominals, see section 2.5.
In (7b), we see that the numeral ‘one’ is allowed to occupy the position closest to the
nominal head, which contrasts with (7c) where it cannot occupy the position furthest from the
nominal head. This also contrasts with the plural numerals, which can occupy the position
furthest from the nominal head. (7d) shows plural agreement phenomena within the nominal.
The numeral rou ‘two’ is prefixed by a ke and the e particle shows plural agreement by changing
into ke.
2.4
Adjectives and relative clauses
4
The idea of a determiner occupying a position lower than D appears in Longobardi 2001 with evidence from
Crisma 1991 in Italian and Szabolsci 1994 in Hungarian.
5
This e is probably best glossed as a preposition corresponding to the English preposition of. However, because of
its plural counterpart ke, which shares surface similarities with a plural particle left behind in cyclic wh-movement, I
have opted to call it and its plural counterpart a particle as an umbrella term for both the preposition and the actual
particle.
4
Bor Dinka adjectives may appear as reduced relative clauses (Andersen 2002).
(8)
kɔɔc diit ku
people.CS1 be.big.PL.CS your.PL
‘your elders’
According to Andersen 2002, the word diit ‘be big’ is a stative verb modifying the noun
as an attributive relative clause. Bor Dinka adjectives appear post-nominally and seem to have
free ordering with respect to numerals.
(9)
a.
b.
c.
d.
kitaap dit
book be.big
‘a big book’
*dit
kitaap
be.big book
‘a big book’
aŋaath ke-diak dit6
cats PL-three be.big
‘three big cats’
aŋaath dit
ke-diak
cats be.big PL-three
‘three big cats’
The evidence in (10) suggests that there may be a preference in the order of the adjectives.
(10)
a.
b.
aŋaaŋ dit
darɔt (a
ci
miir tiŋ)
cat
be.big be.lazy (AGR PRF giraffe see)
‘The big lazy cat (saw the giraffe)’
aŋaaŋ *(a) darɔt dit (a
ci miir
tiŋ)
cat
AGR be.lazy be.big AGR PRF giraffe see)
‘The big cat that is lazy (saw the giraffe)’
Dit is a stative verb that represents the physical size of the nominal, which it modifies.
Darɔt, on the other hand, represents a behavioral quality. In (10a), the physical size stative verb
appears before the behavioral stative verb. In (10b), the behavioral stative verb appears before
the physical size stative verb and must show the 3rd person agreement marker a. In this way, the
behavioral stative verb’s relative clause is “full”. The adjective order in (10b) goes against the
general ordering restrictions of adjectives:
(11)
6
a.
Value > Dimension > Physical property > Speed > Human propensity >
Age > Color
Ignore the ke-prefix on the numeral as this is discussed in section 3.
5
(Dixon 1982)
Dit would be categorized under dimension, which is higher up the adjective ordering
restriction chain, which would linearize it towards the left periphery of the DP. Darɔt, on the
other hand, is similar to human propensity, which describes natural tendencies. This would cause
darɔt to be linearized away from the left periphery of the DP. If the ordering is violated as in
(10b), the violating stative verb requires agreement morphology to become a “full” verb in an
attributive relative clause.
According to Teodorescu 2006, adjectives are generated in the specifiers of their
categorical projections. So color adjectives would be Merged in Spec ColorP, size adjectives
would be Merged in Spec SizeP, and so on. It is worthwhile to note that if the linearization of the
adjectives matches the hierarchy and we see that the nominal head lies to the left of all adjectives,
then either Bor Dinka nominals must undergo movement to appear to the left of all other
modifiers. The diagrams in (12) demonstrate possible configurations based on head directionality,
and specifier directionality (for completeness, though one of my assumptions is that only left
specifiers exist). I do not consider cases where head directionality can switch.
(12)
a.
Head-final, specifier-initial
b.
Head-final, specifier-final
6
c.
Head-initial, specifier-final
d.
Head-initial, specifier-initial
7
Without any movement, none of these configurations gives the linear order N > AP in
[Spec, SizeP] > Propensity in Spec, PropP] > D. The specifier-final options order the adjectives
in reverse of the ordering hierarchy. The head-initial options order the determiner to the left of
the nominal head. The specifier-initial and head-final configuration puts the nominal head behind
the adjectives. Head movement of N to a projection under D but above SizeP and the remainder
of the adjectival projections, in any of the four configurations (12a-d) would not achieve this
ordering either. The only remaining option under these assumptions is phrasal movement of NP
(or some equivalent) to the left specifier of a projection above SizeP. Under the specifier-initial
and head-final configuration, phrasal movement would be able to account for the ordering of the
constituents.
(13)
8
Relative clauses behave similarly to adjectives in that they appear post-nominally as seen
in (3). Unfortunately, I was not able to investigate the syntax of relative clauses in relation to the
head noun.
2.5
Arguments
Nominals in Bor Dinka exhibit an e particle that appears before each argument in the
nominal.
(14)
a.
b.
agedh7 e piu
bottle of water
‘a bottle of water’
thura e Bol
picture of Bol
‘Bol’s picture’ (= ‘a picture of Bol’ and ‘a picture of Bol’s’)
This is not unlike the corresponding English translations in which the preposition of
serves a similar purpose, at least on the surface. However, unlike English, this e particle shows
agreement with the nominal head when it is set in the plural.
7
All modified nouns in this paper are set in the Construct State (Andersen 2002), which is a set of forms that nouns
take when modified. I generally avoid showing this in glosses because I did not investigate the difference between
the Construct State and normal forms of most nominals.
9
(15)
a.
b.
ageedh ke piu
bottles of.PL water
‘bottles of water’
thuraa ke Bol
pictures of.PL Bol
‘Bol’s pictures’ (= ‘pictures of Bol’ and ‘pictures of Bol’s’)
This agreement may be argued to occur with numerals as well; see section 2.3.
2.6
Argument hierarchy
Within a relational noun, the ordering of P(ossessor) and O(bject) (Longobardi 2001) is
free probably because of pragmatic knowledge of the world.
(16)
a.
b.
agedh e Bol e piu
bottle of Bol of water
‘Bol’s bottle of water
agedh e piu e Bol
bottle of water of Bol
‘Bol’s bottle of water’
Some more insights into the free order of these arguments can be seen when numerals
are involved8.
(17)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
ageedh ke-rou ke
piu ke
Deŋ
bottles PL-two of.PL water of.PL Deŋ
‘Two bottles of water of Deŋ’s’
*ageedh ke-piu ke-rou ke Deŋ
ageedh ke piu ke Deŋ ke-rou
ageedh ke-rou ke Deŋ ke piu
ageedh ke Deŋ ke-rou ke piu
*ageedh ke Deŋ ke piu ke-rou
From (7d), we know that numerals may appear after O. Therefore, the reordering of P and
O probably causes the ungrammaticality of (17f). I am currently unable to account for the
ungrammaticality of (17b) nor am I able to account for the possible orderings in the grammatical
examples of (17).
When pragmatics cannot distinguish between the nominal arguments, there is an apparent
ordering of what is P and what is O.
8
Ignore the ke particles for now, they are the morphology plural of the e particle, which will be discussed in section
3.
10
(18)
a.
b.
c.
d.
thura e Mayen e Deŋ
picture of Mayen of Deŋ
‘Deŋ’s picture of Mayen’
thura e Deŋ e Mayen
picture of Deŋ of Mayen
‘Mayen’s picture of Deŋ’
thura-die e Deŋ
picture-my of Deŋ
‘My picture of Deŋ’
thura e Maduk die
picture of Maduk my
‘Maduk’s picture of me’
With full DPs, the linear order of nominal arguments is NOP. With one argument being a
possessive suffix, which is not actually a suffix on the nominal head, but more a suffix on the
entire phrase, the order is NPO. I am unsure why the orderings should be different when there is
a possessive suffix.
3
Conclusion
In this paper, I have provided preliminary analyses and generalizations about constituent
order in the nominal domain. While there are general rules for each category of nominal modifier,
there is a degree of freedom with respect to other modifiers. I leave an appendix of judgement
data with regards to different combinations of nominal modifiers for future research to be done.
Appendix
The following tables document attested and unattested permutations of various kinds of
constituents within the nominal domain. Note that once I have established that nothing can occur
prenominally, I cease to include combinations involving prenominal modifiers out of brevity. Of
course, these may actually be grammatical in syntactic environments I have not yet encountered,
but my stipulation is that they are not grammatical.
* indicates an ungrammatical sequence. Ok indicates a grammatical sequence. ? indicates
a sequence that is understandable but not as good as an Ok. Other cells indicate that I have not
yet elicited the relevant sequence and thus they are gaps in my paradigms. However, I have
indicated by inferring from parts of other paradigms whether we would expect them to be
grammatical (+) or ungrammatical (-).
I utilize the following abbreviations: A indicates adjective (stative verb in a relative
clause); D indicates determiner (demonstrative); N indicates the nominal; O indicates a theme; P
indicates a possessor; p indicates a possessive suffix; 1 indicates the numeral tok ‘one’; #
indicates a plural numeral.
11
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(26)
(27)
A, N
Judgement
*
Ok
Sequence
AN
NA
D, N
Judgement
Ok
Sequence
DN
ND
O, N
Judgement
Ok
Sequence
ON
NO
P, N
Judgement
Ok
Sequence
PN
NP
p, N
Judgement
*
Ok
Sequence
pN
Np
1, N
Judgement
Ok
Sequence
1N
N1
#, N
Judgement
Ok
Sequence
#N
N#
A, D, N
Judgement
Ok
-
Sequence
NAD
NDA
A, P, N
Judgement
Ok
*
Sequence
NAP
NPA
12
(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
(33)
(34)
A, #, N
Judgement
Ok
Ok
Sequence
NA#
N#A
D, P, N
Judgement
+
Ok
Sequence
NDP
NPD
D, p, N
Judgement
+
Ok
Sequence
NDp
NpD
D, O, N
Judgement
Ok
Ok
Sequence
NDO
NOD
D, #, N
Judgement
?
Ok
Sequence
ND#
N#D
O, 1, N
Judgement
*
Ok
Sequence
NO1
N1O
O, #, N
Judgement
Ok
+
Sequence
NO#
N#O
(35)
P, p, N (there are semantic consequences of reordering)
Judgement
Sequence
Ok
NPp
Ok
NpP
(36)
A, D, p, N
Judgement
Sequence
13
*
?
*
*
Ok
*
(37)
(38)
(39)
NADp
NApD
NDAp
NDpA
NpAD
NpDA
A, D, P, N
Judgement
Ok
Ok
*
?
-
Sequence
NADP
NAPD
NDAP
NDPA
NPAD
NPDA
D, O, #, N
Judgement
Ok
?
?
*
+
+
Sequence
NDO#
ND#O
NOD#
NO#D
N#DO
N#OD
P, O, #, N
Judgement
Ok
Ok
Ok
*
*
Ok
Sequence
NPO#
NP#O
NOP#
NO#P
N#PO
N#OP
References
Andersen, Torben. 1991. Subject and Topic in Dinka. Studies in Language 15, 265-94.
Andersen, Torben. 2002. Case inflection and nominal head marking in Dinka. JALL 23, 1-30.
Crisma, Paola. 1991. Functional Categories inside the NP: a Study on the Distribution of
Nominal Modifiers. Tesi di laurea, Università di Venezia.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1982. Where have all the adjectives gone? and other essays in semantics and
syntax. Berlin: Mouton.
14
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2001. The Structure of DPs. In Baltin, M. and C. Collins (eds), The
Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 562- 604. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
Nebel, Arthur. 1948. Dinka Grammar (Rek-Malual Dialect). Verona.
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. The Noun Phrase, in Ferenc Kiefer and Katalin É. Kiss (eds.) The
Syntactic Structure of Hungarian (Syntax and Semantics 27). Academic Press, San Diego,
179-274.
Teodorescu, Alexandra. 2006. Adjective Ordering Restrictions Revisited. In Proceedings of the
25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Donald Baumer, David Montero,
and Michael Scanlon, 399-407. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
15