Aspect in Cherokee Nominals
| dc.contributor.author | Stone, Megan Schildmier | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2012-06-27T19:47:42Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2012-06-27T19:47:42Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2012 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0894-4539 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10150/231171 | |
| dc.description.abstract | In this paper I present evidence from Cherokee (Iroquoian, Southern Iroquoian) which refutes accounts of the distinction between process and result nominals based on the presence or absence of AspectP in the nominal’s functional structure. I argue that Cherokee has result nominals which contain aspect morphology, directly contradicting the proposal of Alexiadou (2001) that such nominals must lack an AspectP, and suggest that some other mechanism must be at play to account for the syntactic and semantic differences between result and process nominals. | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | University of Arizona Linguistics Circle (Tucson, Arizona) | en_US |
| dc.relation.url | https://coyotepapers.sbs.arizona.edu/ | en_US |
| dc.rights | Copyright © is held by the author(s). | en_US |
| dc.rights.uri | http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ | en_US |
| dc.title | Aspect in Cherokee Nominals | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |
| dc.type | text | en_US |
| dc.contributor.department | University of Arizona | en_US |
| dc.identifier.journal | Coyote Papers | en_US |
| dc.description.collectioninformation | The Coyote Papers are made available by the Arizona Linguistics Circle at the University of Arizona and the University of Arizona Libraries. Contact coyotepapers@email.arizona.edu with questions about these materials. | en_US |
| dc.source.journaltitle | Coyote Papers | |
| refterms.dateFOA | 2018-08-16T15:58:07Z | |
| html.description.abstract | In this paper I present evidence from Cherokee (Iroquoian, Southern Iroquoian) which refutes accounts of the distinction between process and result nominals based on the presence or absence of AspectP in the nominal’s functional structure. I argue that Cherokee has result nominals which contain aspect morphology, directly contradicting the proposal of Alexiadou (2001) that such nominals must lack an AspectP, and suggest that some other mechanism must be at play to account for the syntactic and semantic differences between result and process nominals. |
