3.0.3.
|
The Disjunctive Word |
The disjunct linguistic word issues out of the application
of different criteria at different levels of the language system. In
essence, in this approach to the definition of the word, phonic material
ruled ‘word’ at some level by some criteria and ‘nonword’ at some other
level by the same criteria could be a word at the latter level by some other
criteria : wordhood is a function also of the linguistic level. The levels
that Mao Naga recognises are :
|
[a] The phonological
level where the criteria that operated [in vain, though,
as we saw] in the definition of the conjunct word operate
to define what could be called the ‘phonological word’.
Typically, the boundaries of the phonological word, the
lexical word and the morphological word are identical, [b]
the morphosyntactic level where the syntactic criterion
of Mobility operates to define the ‘grammatical word’, and
[c] the interphrasal level where the test of substitutability
operates to define the ‘interphrasal’ word. Essentially,
if a [x] is a structure in a language and if the relevant
criteria operate to establish a [x] as an integral
linguistic entity, one is speaking at the phonological level,
of phonological wordhood ; if either of a and x
of the phonological word a[x] is syntactically
mobile, its scope ranging beyond is speaking at the grammatical/morphosyntactic
level, of the ‘grammatical’ or ‘morphosyntactic’ word. These
are phonologically bound units of syntactic distribution.
-we the habitual aspect marker, for instance, can be suffixed
either to the verb root or the postverbal adverb or the
postadverbial intensifier :
|
| 32. |
pfo1 |
imela2 |
sü-we3 |
|
‘I1
know3 Mao Naga2
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| 32
a. |
pfo1 |
imela2 |
sü3 |
to4
-we3 |
‘I1
know3 Mao Naga2
well 4 |
|
In terms of scope, -we is syntactic, not morphological.
If either of a or x can be isolated to
expound either of the two major categorical constituents
viz., the NP or the VP, one is speaking at the interphrasal
level, of the ‘interphrasal’ word. As has laready been pointed
out, le the future tense auxiliary can stand for
the whole verb phrase unlike -we the habitual aspect
marker, for instance :
|
| 33 |
ai1
|
mikrü-li2 |
lo3 |
le4 |
‘I1
will4 go down3
to Imphal2 |
| 33
a. |
ai1 |
le2 |
|
|
I1
will2 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| 32
b. |
ai1
|
imela2 |
sü-we3 |
|
‘I1
know3 Mao Naga2
|
| *32
c. |
ai |
we |
|
|
|
|
Note that one couldn’t argue that -we, unlike le,
is phonologically bound : In terms of potential pause, le
is phonologically bound as there is no temporal hiatus between
le and the preceding linguistic element, but in
terms, of Isolability, it is NOT phonologically bound. The
word in the disjunct approach is discrete rather than squishy
at all levels except the phonological where what is true
in the first approach is true here too.
|
| The various criteria operating at the three levels
elucidated lead to a five-term typology of the Mao Naga word. |
|
3.0.3.1.
|
The first type is a morphosyntactic word, and interphrasal
and phonological nonword. Illustrative of this type are
the individuators - i,
-hi and -sü which attach to different
word classes ; they attach not only to the head noun but
also to whatever follows the headnoun - postmodifiers, case
markers, postpositions etc. - and have the whole phrase
in their scope :
|
|
|
This was an example of the phrasal scope of morphosyntactic
words. The following exemplifies sentential scope. Phonologically bound
linguistic elements which can attach to any constituent in the sentence and
whose scope is sentential are called ‘clitics’.
|
| 35
a. |
ni |
idu |
takoo- i |
adi |
cü |
vue |
| b. |
ni-i |
idu |
takoo |
adi |
cü |
vu-e |
|
|
1
|
This particular sentence is not attested in the
data, but it is presumably |
possible, judging by a sentence attested in the data and
which is given below.
|
