Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-kpv4p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-03T06:01:10.497Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Negation as an exclusively nominal category

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Adam Roth Singerman
Adam Roth Singerman*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
*
[adamsingerman@uchicago.edu]
Get access

Abstract

Negation in Tuparí (Tupían; Brazil) is an exclusively nominal category: verbs must enter into a nominalized form to accept the negator -'om and must undergo a subsequent process of reverbalization so as to combine with tense and evidential morphology. These category-changing processes leave -'om in a low position in the clause, and scopal evidence confirms that negation is also interpreted low. In keeping with the low structural position of -'om, the same negative strategy known from finite matrix clauses appears in nonfinite embedded contexts as well.

Tuparí shows that negative phrases exhibit more crosslinguistic variation than standardly assumed: they may appear in either the nominal or verbal extended projection. This finding is not compatible with cartographic efforts to strictly circumscribe the distribution of NegP within the clause. Like nominal tense in Tupi-Guaraní and other languages, in Tuparí a grammatical category normally associated with the verbal domain instead surfaces within the nominal one. For the purpose of typological comparison, the Tuparí facts highlight the need for classifications of negation that take into account both constructional asymmetries between affirmative and negative clauses and individual negator morphemes' selectional and categorical properties.

Keywords

negationmorphosyntaxtypologynominalizationAmazonian languagesTupían languagesTuparí language

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 94 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 432 - 467
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. Evidentiality in Tariana. Studies in evidentiality, ed. by Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, R. M. W., 131-64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alves, Poliana Maria. 2004. O léxico do Tuparí: Proposta de um dicionário bilíngüe [The lexicon of Tuparí: Proposal for a bilingual dictionary]. Araraquara: Universidade Estadual Paulista dissertation.Google Scholar
Amritavalli, R. 2000. Kannada clause structure. The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2000. 11–30.10.1515/9783110245257.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amritavalli, R. 2004. Some developments in the functional architecture of the Kannada clause. Clause structure in South Asian languages, ed. by Dayal, Veneeta and Mahajan, Anoop, 13–38. Boston: Kluwer.10.1007/978-1-4020-2719-2_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amritavalli, R., and Jayaseelan, K. A.. 2005. Finiteness and negation in Dravidian. The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, ed. by Cinque, Guglielmo and Kayne, Richard S., 178–220. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1982. Where's morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13(4). 571–612. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178297.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511586262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aragon, Carolina. 2014. A grammar of Akuntsú, a Tupian language. Mānoa: University of Hawai'i at Mānoa dissertation.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2015. Formal generative typology. The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 2nd edn., ed. by Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko, 925-52. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199677078.013.0012.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C., and McCloskey, Jim. 2007. On the relationship of typology to theoretical syntax. Linguistic Typology 11(1). 285-96. DOI: 10.1515/LINGTY.2007.023.10.1515/LINGTY.2007.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa. 2009. Jespersen off course? The case of contemporary Afrikaans negation. Cyclical change, ed. by Gelderen, Elly van, 91–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.146.07bibCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa. 2012. Competing reinforcements: When languages opt out of Jespersen's cycle. Historical linguistics 2009: Selected papers from the 19th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Nijmegen, 10–14 August 2009, ed. by Kemenade, Ans van and Haas, Nynke de, 3–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders; and Roberts, Ian. 2014. A syntactic universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 45(2). 169–225. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00153.10.1162/LING_a_00153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, and Nichols, Johanna. 2007. Inflectional morphology. Language typology and syntactic description, 2nd edn., ed. by Shopen, Timothy, 169–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511618437.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnie, Andrew. 2010. Constituent structure. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carol, Javier, and Salanova, Andrés Pablo. 2017. Frustratives and viewpoint. Paper presented at the Symposium on Amazonian Languages II (SAL2), University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Caspar, Franz, and Rodrigues, Aryon Dall'Igna. 1957. Versuch einer Grammatik der Tuparí-Sprache [A sketch of the grammar of the Tuparí language]. Bern: Fonds National Suisse, ms.Google Scholar
Caspar, Franz, and Rodrigues, Aryon Dall'Igna. 2017. Esboço da gramática da língua Tuparí [A sketch of the grammar of the Tuparí language], trans. by Unterbäumen, Enrique Huelva, Wägerle, Laura, Silva, Ariel Pheula do Couto e, and Cabral, Ana Suelly Arruda Câmara. Brasília: Laboratório de Línguas e Literaturas Indígenas, University of Brasília.Google Scholar
Castro Alves, Flávia. 2004. O timbira falado pelos Canela Apaniekrá: Uma contribuição aos estudos da morfossintaxe de uma língua Jê [The Timbira spoken by the Apaniekrá Canela: A contribution to the study of the morphosyntax of a Jê language]. Campinas: Universidade de Campinas dissertation.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195115260.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo, and Rizzi, Luigi. 2009. The cartography of syntactic structures. The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, ed. by Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko, 51–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0003.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1979. Typology of sentence negation. Linguistics 17. 79–106. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1979.17.1-2.79.10.1515/ling.1979.17.1-2.79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2010. Typology of negation. The expression of negation, ed. by Horn, Laurence R., 9–38. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110219302.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1982. Where have all the adjectives gone? And other essays in semantics. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1997. The rise and fall of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511612060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2000. Counting genera vs. counting languages. Linguistic Typology 4(3). 334-50. DOI: 10.1515/lity.2000.4.3.334.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2006. Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and basic linguistic theory. Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing, ed. by Ameka, Felix K., Dench, Alan, and Evans, Nicholas, 207-34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Faller, Martina. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Fleck, David W. 2007. Evidentiality and double tense in Matses. Language 83(3). 589–614. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2007.0113.10.1353/lan.2007.0113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A., and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Francez, Itamar, and Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2017. Semantics and morphosyntactic variation: Qualities and the grammar of property concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198744580.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabas, Nilson. 1999. A grammar of Karo, Tupí (Brazil). Santa Barbara: University of California, Santa Barbara dissertation.Google Scholar
Galucio, Ana Vilacy. 2001. The morphosyntax of Mekens (Tupi). Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation.Google Scholar
Galucio, Ana Vilacy. 2014. Discourse and epistemic modality in Mekens: The frustrative construction. Revista Linguíʃtica: Revista do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Linguística da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro 10(2). 163-79. Online: https://revistas.ufrj.br/index.php/rl/article/view/4610.Google Scholar
Galucio, Ana Vilacy, and Nogueira, Antõnia Fernanda. 2011. Comparative study of the Tupari branch of the Tupi family: Contributions to understanding its historical development and internal classification. Memorias del V Congreso de Idiomas Indígenas de Latinoamérica, 6–8 de octubre de 2011.Google Scholar
Galucio, Ana Vilacy, and Nogueira, Antõnia Fernanda. 2018. From object nominalization to object focus construction: The innovative A-alignment in the Tuparian languages (Tupian family). Belém: Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, ms.Google Scholar
Giannakidou, Anastasia. 1998. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1978. Negation in language: Pragmatics, function, ontology. Syntax and semantics, vol. 9: Pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 69–112. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Green, Margaret Mackeson, and Igwe, Georgewill Egemba. 1963. A descriptive grammar of Igbo. Berlin: Akademie, and London: Oxford University Press.10.1515/9783112707074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2000. Locality and extended projection. Lexical specification and insertion, ed. by Coopmans, Peter, Everaert, Martin B. H., and Grimshaw, Jane, 115-33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 2005. Extended projection. Words and structure, 1–73. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, Anália. 2015. Evidential determiners in Nivaĉle. Anthropological Linguistics 57(4). 412-43. DOI: 10.1353/anl.2016.0011.Google Scholar
H. Varga, Márta. 2006. A magyar fosztó- és tagadóképző [The Hungarian privative and negative suffix]. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The syntax of negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511519727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harizanov, Boris, and Gribanova, Vera. 2018. Whither head movement? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, to appear.10.1007/s11049-018-9420-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2013. Diagnosing head movement. Diagnosing syntax, ed. by Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and Corver, Norbert, 112-19. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602490.003.0006.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3). 663-87. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2010.0021.Google Scholar
Haude, Katharina. 2010. ‘She kisses her late husband’ = ‘She kissed her husband’: Nominal tense in Movima. Rara & rarissima: Documenting the fringes of linguistic diversity, ed. by Wohlgemuth, Jan and Cysouw, Michael, 95–116. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110228557.95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, Jack. 2000. Negative polarity items: Triggering, scope, and c-command. Negation and polarity: Syntactic and semantic perspectives, ed. by Horn, Laurence and Kato, Yasuhiko, 115-46. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2017. Linguistic typology. The Oxford handbook of universal grammar, ed. by Roberts, Ian, 355-76. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199573776.013.15.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4(4). 465-97. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177789.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, Allen A. 1994. Wayampi. Typological studies in negation, ed. by Kahrel, Peter and van der Berg, René, 343-64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jensen, Cheryl. 1998. Comparative Tupí-Guaraní morphosyntax. Handbook of Amazonian languages, vol. 4, ed. by Derbyshire, Desmond C. and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 487–618. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kakumasu, James. 1986. Urubu-Kaapor. Handbook of Amazonian languages, vol. 1, ed. by Derbyshire, Desmond C. and Pullum, Geoffrey K., 326–403. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej A. 2005. Inflection versus derivation and the template for Athabaskan verb morphology. Proceedings of the 2005 Athabaskan Languages Conference, ed. by Gessner, Suzanne, 67–94. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Languages Center.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc. 2015. The privative derivational suffix in Hungarian: A new account. Negation in Uralic languages, ed. by Miestamo, Matti, Tamm, Anne, and Wagner-Nagy, Beáta, 601-14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Koopman, Hilda, and Sportiche, Dominique. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85. 211-58. DOI: 10.1016/0024-3841(91)90022-W.10.1016/0024-3841(91)90022-WCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. by Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie, 109-37. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1979. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Austin: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Lecarme, Jacqueline. 2012. Nominal tense. The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, ed. by Binnick, Robert I., 696–720. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matthewson, Lisa. 2012. Evidence about evidentials: Where fieldwork meets theory. Empirical approaches to linguistic theory: Studies in meaning and structure, ed. by Stolterfoht, Britta and Featherson, Sam, 85–114. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781614510888.85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2006. Head movement in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 37(1). 69–109. DOI: 10.1162/002438906775321184.10.1162/002438906775321184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, Jim. 1997. Subjecthood and subject positions. Elements of grammar, ed. by Haegeman, Liliane, 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, Jim. 2016. Interpretation and the typology of head movement: A reassessment. Paper presented at the Workshop on the Status of Head Movement in Linguistic Theory, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2016. The Afrikaans final negative particle as a negative isotopic, VP-level clitic. Plenary lecture presented at the 31st Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop, Stellenbosch University, South Africa.Google Scholar
Michael, Lev. 2014. A typological and comparative perspective on negation in Arawak languages. Negation in Arawak languages, ed. by Michael, Lev and Granadillo, Tania, 241–300. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, Lev. 2015. Reconstruction and historical development of the Proto-Arawakan privative *ma-. Paper presented at the Workshop on the Diachronic Syntax of South American Languages, Lyon.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2005. Standard negation: The negation of declarative verbal main clauses in a typological perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2014. Partitives and negation: A cross-linguistic survey. Partitive cases and related categories, ed. by Luraghi, Silvia and Huumo, Tuomas, 63–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110346060.63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2017. Negation. The Cambridge handbook of linguistic typology, ed. by Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, R. M. W., 405-39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781316135716.013.Google Scholar
Moore, Denny. 1984. Syntax of the language of the Gavião Indians of Rondõnia, Brazil. New York: City University of New York dissertation.Google Scholar
Moore, Denny. 1994. A few aspects of comparative Tupi syntax. Revista latinoamericana de estudios etnolingüísticos 8. 157-68.Google Scholar
Murray, Sarah. 2017. The semantics of evidentials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199681570.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, Pieter. 2008. Nominal tense: Time for further Whorfian adventures? Commentary on Casasanto. Language Learning 58. 81–88. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00463.x.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00463.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2007. Introduction. Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, ed. by Nikolaeva, Irina, 1–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199213733.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2015a. On the expression of TAM on nouns: Evidence from Tundra Nenets. Lingua 166. 99–126. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.006.10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2015b. Reference grammars. Syntax—theory and analysis: An international handbook, vol. 3, ed. by Kiss, Tibor and Alexiadou, Artemis, 2036-62. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Nogueira, Antõnia Fernanda de Souza. 2011. Wayoro ẽmẽto: Fonologia segmental e morfossintaxe verbal [The Wayoro language: Segmental phonology and verbal morphosyntax]. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo master's thesis.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel, and Sadler, Louisa. 2004. Nominal tense in crosslinguistic perspective. Language 80(4). 776–806. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2004.0219.10.1353/lan.2004.0219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Hagan, Zachary. 2018. Lexical semantics and Caquinte frustrative constructions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas (SSILA), Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Oliveira, Oliveira Christiane Cunha. 2005. The language of the Apinajé people of central Brazil. Eugene: University of Oregon dissertation.Google Scholar
Overall, Simon. 2017. A typology of frustrative marking in Amazonian languages. The Cambridge handbook of linguistic typology, ed. by Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Dixon, R. M. W., 477–512. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781316135716.015.10.1017/9781316135716.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, John R. 1985. Negation. Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 1: Clause structure, ed. by Shopen, Timothy, 197–242. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2011. Linguistic typology and formal grammar. The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, ed. by Song, Jae Jung, 650-65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria, and Kluender, Robert. 2007. Linguistic typology and theory construction: Common challenges ahead. Linguistic Typology 11(1). 273-83. DOI: 10.1515/LINGTY.2007.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3). 365–424. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178634.Google Scholar
Praça, Walkíria Neiva. 2007. Morfossintaxe da língua Tapirapé [Morphosyntax of the Tapirapé language]. Brasília: Universidade de Brasília dissertation.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, Eduardo Rivail. 2006. Macro-Jê. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., vol. 7, ed. by Brown, Keith, 422-26. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1989. A grammar of Slave. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110861822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1998. Slave (Northern Athapaskan). The handbook of morphology, ed. by Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold M., 648-89. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 2000. Morpheme order and semantic scope: Word formation in the Athapaskan verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511663659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. Elements of grammar, ed. by Haegeman, Liliane, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, Aryon Dall'Igna. 1999. Macro-Jê. The Amazonian languages, ed. by Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., 155–206. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Aryon Dall'Igna. 2013 [1953]. Morfologia do verbo Tupi [Morphology of the Tupi verb]. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Antropológica 3. 63–86.10.26512/rbla.v3i1.16235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Françoise. 2017. Nominal TAME marking in Mojeño Trinitario. Paper presented at WAIL 2017: Workshop on American Indigenous Languages, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1980. Noun incorporation in Greenlandic: A case of syntactic word formation. Language 56(2). 300–319. DOI: 10.2307/413758.10.1353/lan.1980.0036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1991. Autolexical syntax: A theory of parallel grammatical representations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Salanova, Andrés Pablo. 2007. Nominalizations and aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Salanova, Andrés Pablo. 2008. Uma análise unificada das construções ergativas do Mẽbengokre [A unified analysis of ergative constructions in Mẽbengokre]. Amerindia 32. 109-34.Google Scholar
Seki, Lucy. 2000. Gramática do Kamaiurá: Língua Tupi-Guarani do Alto Xingu [Grammar of Kamaiurá: A Tupi-Guaraní language of the Upper Xingu]. Campinas: Editora da UNICAMP.Google Scholar
Seki, Lucy. 2001. Aspectos morfossintáticos do nome em Tupari [Morphosyntactic aspects of the noun in Tupari]. Línguas indígenas brasileiras: Fonologia, gramática e história. Atas do I Encontro Internacional do Grupo de Trabalho sobre Línguas Indígenas da ANPOLL, vol. 1, 298–308. Belém: Editora Universitária, Universidade Federal do Pará.Google Scholar
Singerman, Adam Roth. 2016. Nasal harmony and phonotactic well-formedness in Tupari. International Journal of American Linguistics 82(4). 453-85. DOI: 10.1086/688603.10.1086/688603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singerman, Adam Roth. 2018a. Finite embedding and mixed headedness in Tuparí. University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of the 22nd Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas), to appear.Google Scholar
Singerman, Adam Roth. 2018b. Topics in the morphosyntax of Tuparí, a Tupían language of the Brazilian Amazon. Chicago: University of Chicago dissertation, to appear.Google Scholar
Speas, Peggy. 2008. On the syntax and semantics of evidentials. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(5). 940-65. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00069.x.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00069.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenzel, Kristine. 2008. Evidentiality and clause modality in Wanano. Studies in Language 32(2). 405-45. DOI: 10.1075/sl.32.2.06ste.10.1075/sl.32.2.06steCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenzel, Kristine, and Gómez-Imbert, Elsa. 2018. Evidentiality in Tukanoan languages. The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, ed. by Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., 357-87. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.18.Google Scholar
Storto, Luciana R. 1999. Aspects of a Karitiana grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Storto, Luciana R. 2018. Negation in Karitiana. Wa7 xweysás i nqwal'utteníha i ucwalmícwa: He loves the people's language: Essays in honour of Henry Davis (University of British Columbia occasional papers in linguistics 6), ed. by Matthewson, Lisa, Guntly, Erin, and Rochemont, Michael, 227-38. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2005. Word-formation and inflectional morphology. Handbook of word-formation, ed. by Lieber, Rochelle and Štekauer, Pavol, 49–71. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/1-4020-3596-9_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Guillaume. 2014. Nominal tense and temporal implicatures: Evidence from Mbyá. Natural Language Semantics 22. 357–412. DOI: 10.1007/s11050-014-9108-2.10.1007/s11050-014-9108-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonhauser, Judith. 2007. Nominal tense? The meaning of Guaraní nominal temporal markers. Language 83(4). 831-69. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2008.0037.10.1353/lan.2008.0037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, Lisa deMena. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Tupari, Geovane Kamarom, Isaias Tarimã, Tupari, Tupari, Raul Pat'awre; and Singerman, Adam Roth (eds.) 2016. Wan Tupari Ema'en Nĩka! Nova cartilha de leitura e alfabetização na língua Tupari. Literacy workbook financed by the Endangered Language Fund.Google Scholar
van Gijn, Rik, Galucio, Ana Vilacy; and Nogueira, Antõnia Fernanda. 2015. Subordination strategies in Tupian languages. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi: Ciências Humanas 10(2). 297–324.10.1590/1981-81222015000200006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2002. Sentential negation in Upriver Halkomelem. International Journal of American Linguistics 68(3). 253-86. DOI: 10.1086/466490.10.1086/466490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanuttini, Raffaella. 1997. Negation and clausal structure: A comparative study of Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195080544.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeller, Jochen. 2013. In defence of head movement: Evidence from Bantu. Diagnosing syntax, ed. by Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and Corver, Norbert, 87–111. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602490.003.0005.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602490.003.0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Singerman supplementary material

Singerman supplementary material
Download Singerman supplementary material(File)
File 24 MB