Chapter 9 engages with issues arising from Chapters 4–8. The current analysis of inflection is argued to account sufficiently for movement adverbs, complementization marking, juxtaposition and second predication without recourse to extra machinery invoked in the literature. It is also argued to be more parsimonious in its treatment of Kayardild's dual tense marking system in terms of the complexity of the feature set and conditions on its usage. It is argued that Kayardild inflections are neither morphological verbalizing nor nominalizing. Attested patterns of overt inflection are tabulated according to their underlying features and feature ordering, and their relationship to syntax is discussed. After quarantining some suspicious data, it is argued that observable upper bounds on syntactic complexity are inherently syntactic, and not derivative of constraints on morphology. Some implications for existing formal analyses of Kayardild are discussed, of the current reanalysis of inflection relative to previous accounts.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.