The Marking System in the Dialect of Lamalera
International Journal of Language and Linguistics
Volume 5, Issue 4, July 2017, Pages: 105-120
Received: Apr. 28, 2017; Accepted: May 20, 2017; Published: Jul. 14, 2017
Views 441      Downloads 23
Author
Yosef Demon, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Flores University, Ende, Indonesia
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
Marking is a universal linguistic phenomenon. Marking is the giving of a marker either free or bound, either in front or back on a morphological form. The Dialect of Lamalera (DL) is one of 35 dialects in the Lamaholot Language family. The Lamalera dialect has apronominal marker attached either to the front in a number of certain categories of words or back in other categories. Interestingly, the DL is almost entirely in all categories of words. Provision of markers on anumber of categories triggers conformity to the word category often referred to as agreement verbs, personal clitics, subject markers, personal (prefixes, suffixes), agreement markers, or subject verb agreements. This paper will only examine the alignment in the DL with out comparing it with dialect or other languages cross language.
Keywords
Clitic, Proclitic, Enclitic, Verb Agreement
To cite this article
Yosef Demon, The Marking System in the Dialect of Lamalera, International Journal of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 5, No. 4, 2017, pp. 105-120. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20170504.14
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
Anderson, John M. 1997. ANotional Theory of Syntactic Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[2]
Arnol, B. T. and Choi, J. H. 2004. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[3]
Arteaga and Herschenson in Auger, Julie., J. Clancy Cements, Barbara Vance (Ed.). 2003. Contemporary Approaches to Roman Lingistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[4]
Auger, Julie. Ed. 2003. Contemporary Approaches to Roman Lingistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[5]
Bauer, Laurie. 2003. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[6]
Bromley, H. Myron. 1981. A Grammar of the Lower Grand Valley Dani. Australia, Canbera: Pacific Linguistics RSPAS, Australian National Universtiy.
[7]
Carstairs, Andrew-McCharty in Bendjaballah, S. Ed. 2000. Morphology. Selected Papers From The 9th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 24-28February2000.
[8]
Clackson, James. 2007. Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[9]
Demon, Yosef. Tipological Syntax Lamaholot Language Dialect Lamalera. Thesis. 2006. Postgraduate Program: Udayana University.
[10]
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. Volume 2. Grammatical Topics. Published in the United States of America: by Oxford University Press.
[11]
Dixon, R. M. W. 2004. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[12]
Dixon, R. M. W. 2012. Basic Linguistic Theory. Volume 3. Further Grammatical Topics. Published in the United States of America: by Oxford University Press.
[13]
Haan, Johnson Welem. 2001. The Grammar of Adang: A Papuan Language Spoken on the Island of Alor East Nusa Tenggara-Indonesia. Dissertation: Department of Linguistics, University of Sydney.
[14]
Harris, Alice C. I981. Georgian Syntax. A Study in Relational Grammar. Cambridge: University Press.
[15]
Hill, Jane, H. 2005. A Grammar of Cupeceno. Barkley, LosAngeles: Universityof California Press.
[16]
Hinrichs, E., Kathol, A., Nakazawa, T. 1998. Syntax and Semantics Complex Predicates in Nonderivational Syntax. Vol. 30. CaliforniaAcademicPress.
[17]
Hovav, M. R., Edit Doron, IvySichel. 2010. Lexical Semantics, Syntax and Event Structure. NewYork: Oxford Univeristy Press.
[18]
Keraf, G. 1978. Morphology of the Lamalera Dialect. Ende/Flores: Arnoldus Offset Printing.
[19]
Kroeger, PaulR. 2005. Analyzing Grammar. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[20]
Lehman, Winfred. P. and Helen Jo Jakusz Hewit. 1988. Language Typology. Typological Modelsin Reconstruction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins Publishing Company.
[21]
Luis, Ana R. in Patience Epps, Alexandre Arkhipov. (Ed). 2009. New Challenges in Typology.
[22]
Nishida, C. danJean-PierreY. Montreuil. 2006. New Perspectives on Romance Linguistics. Volume 1: Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam.
[23]
Núñez, Rafael-Cedeño, Luis Lópezin Auger (Ed.). 2003. A Romance Perspective on Language. John Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins Publishing Company.
[24]
Quiles, C. 2007. A Grammar of Modern Indo-European. Fisrt Edition. Dnghu Adsoquiation: TheIndo-European Languages Associtaion.
[25]
Quesada, J. Diego in Elisabeth Verhoeven, et al. 2008. Studies on Grammaticalization. New York: Mouton de Gruyter Berlin.
[26]
Schaeffer, J. C. 2000. The Acquisition of Direct Object Scrambilng and Clitic. Placement syntax and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[27]
Sportiche, Dominique, at all. 2014. An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory. Wiley & SonsLtd. Publication.
[28]
VanValin, Jr., R. D. 2004. An Introduction of Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[29]
VanValin, Jr., R. D. 2005. Exploring the Syntanx-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[30]
Zagona, K. 2003. The Syntax of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
548 FASHION AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10018
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-688-8931