Complex Predicates: Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Event Structure

Complex Predicates

Complex predicates are multi-predicational, but monoclausal structures. They have proven problematic for linguistic theory, particularly for proposed distinctions between the lexicon, morphology, and syntax. This volume focuses on the mapping from morphosyntactic structures to event structure, and in particular, the constraints on possible mappings. The volume showcases the ‘coverb construction’, a complex predicate construction which, though widespread, has received little attention in the literature. The coverb construction contrasts with more familiar serial verb constructions. The coverb construction generally maps only to event structures such as those of monomorphemic verbs, whereas serial verb constructions map to a range of event structures differing from those of monomorphemic verbs. The volume coverage is truly cross-linguistic, including languages from Australia, Papua New Guinea, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, East Africa and North America. The volume establishes a new arena of research in event structure, syntax, and cross-linguistic typology. is a senior lecturer in Linguistics at the University of New South Wales (Sydney, Australia). He is the co-editor (with P. Collins) of Language Universals and Variation (), and (with H. de Hoop) of Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case (), and the editor of The Language of Memory in a CrossLinguistic Perspective (). MENGISTU AMBER BER

is a senior lecturer in Linguistics at the University of New England (Armidale, Australia). He is the author of Word Structure in Ngalakgan () and the co-editor (with Ilana Mushin) of Discourse and Grammar in Australian Languages (). BRETT BAKER

is a senior lecturer in Linguistics at the University of Newcastle (Australia). His previous publications include Proto Mirndi: A Discontinous Language Family in Northern Australia (), A Grammar of Gaagudju, a Language of the Alligator Rivers Region, Northern Territory (), and A Grammar of Limilngan: A Language of the Mary River Region, Northern Territory (). MARK HARVEY

Complex Predicates Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Event Structure

Edited by

MENGISTU AMBERBER , BRETT BAKER , AND MARK HARVEY

CAMBR IDGE UNIVERSITY PR ESS

Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/ © Cambridge University Press  This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published  Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data Complex predicates : cross-linguistic perspectives on event structure /[edited by] Mengistu Amberber, Brett Baker, Mark Harvey. p. cm. ISBN ---- (hardback) . Grammar, Comparative and general–Verb phrase. . Grammar, Comparative and general–Syntax. I. Amberber, Mengistu, – II. Baker, Brett J. (Brett Joseph), – III. Harvey, Mark, – IV. Title. P.C  ′.–dc  ISBN

---- Hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Contents

List of figures and tables List of contributors Preface  Introduction: complex predicates

page vi vii viii 

MENGISTU AMBERBER , BRETT BAKER , AND MARK HARVEY

 Complex predicate formation



BRETT BAKER AND MARK HARVEY

 The light verb jungle: still hacking away



MIRIAM BUTT

 Events and serial verb constructions



WILLIAM A . FOLEY

 Cotemporal serial verb constructions in White Hmong



NERIDA JARKEY

 Activity incorporates in some Athabaskan languages



KEREN RICE

 Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core



MARY LAUGHREN

 Complex predicates in Wambaya: detaching predicate composition from syntactic structure



RACHEL NORDLINGER

 Compound verbs and ideophones in Wolaitta revisited



AZEB AMHA



The structure of the light verb construction in Amharic



MENGISTU AMBERBER

Index



v

List of figures and tables

Figure . Figure . Figure . Figure . Figure . Figure . Figure . Figure . Table . Table . Table . Table . Table . Table . Table . Table . Table . Table . Table . Table .

vi

Types of LCS-syntax relations Gentner and Boroditsky’s Division of Dominance Morphosyntactic structure of the Warlpiri inflected verbal constituent Event structure of stative predicate Event structure of ‘change’ predicate Internally controlled cause change event Externally caused change event Copula verb and nominal predicate Ngan’gityemerri finite verb inventory Slave classificatory verbs Coindexation of arguments in SVC types Verb types and ordering in cotemporal motion SVCs Stance and spatial configuration verbs CHANGE of state and CAUSE change of state dependent verbs Converb markers in Wolaitta V verbs in Wolaitta in Adams Asymmetrical V verbs in Wolaitta Symmetrical set in Wolaitta Transitivity of the light verb construction Coverbs derived from activity intransitives

page                    

Contributors

School of Languages and Linguistics, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, . Australia AZEB AMHA Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Leiden University, van Wijkplaats , P.O. Box ,  RA Leiden. The Netherlands BRETT BAKER School of Behavioural, Cognitive, and Social Sciences, University of New England, Armidale, NSW . Australia MIRIAM BUTT Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz, Fach D, D- Konstanz, Germany WILLIAM FOLEY Department of Linguistics, School of Letters, Arts and Media, University of Sydney, NSW, . Australia MARK HARVEY School of Humanities and Social Science, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan , NSW. Australia NERIDA JARKEY Department of Japanese, School of Languages and Cultures, University of Sydney, NSW, . Australia MARY LAUGHREN Linguistics Program, School of English, Media Studies and Art History, The University of Queensland, . Australia RACHEL NORDLINGER School of Languages and Linguistics, University of Melbourne, VIC . Australia KEREN RICE Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto,  St. George Street, Toronto, Ont. MS H. Canada MENGISTU AMBERBER

vii

Preface

Most of the contributions to this volume are based on papers presented at the Complex Predication and the Coverb Construction session held in Brisbane (Queensland, Australia),  July , as part of the Australian Linguistic Society annual conference. We wish to thank all the contributors for their support and patience. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers who assisted in reviewing the individual contributions. Many thanks also to the three anonymous reviewers commissioned by Cambridge University Press for their critical feedback on the prospectus for the volume. Special thanks are due to Helen Barton, Commissioning Editor (Linguistics and Anthropology) at Cambridge University Press, for guidance and encouragement. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Australian Research Council, Discovery Grant (DP). M. Amberber, B. Baker, M. Harvey March, 

viii

1

Introduction MENGISTU AMBERBER , BRETT BAKER, AND MARK HARVEY

What is a complex predicate? There is currently no widely accepted answer to this question, no agreed set of criteria which allow an analyst to classify Construction A as a ‘complex predicate’, and Construction B as ‘not a complex predicate’. This volume does not pretend to offer the final definitive answer to this basic question, but it does aim to further delimit the range of possible answers. The volume does this in two ways. First, it provides detailed data on constructions usually classified as ‘complex predicates’ in a range of languages from Australia, East Africa, Papua, South and Southeast Asia, and North America. In particular, it provides detailed data on a hitherto little described construction – the coverb construction. Coverb constructions are common among Australian, East African, Iranian, and Oceanic languages. The construction involves two constituents: a coverb and a verb. Coverbs must be analysed as a distinct partof-speech class (Amberber, Baker, and Harvey ). They share some characteristics with verbs – they are inherently predicational and they are not derived from any other part of speech. However, they differ from verbs in being inherently non-finite. The volume also aims to delimit the range of possible answers by providing a detailed examination of the mapping between complex predicates of various types and event structure, in the sense of Rappaport Hovav and Levin (). This is a central focus for all of the papers in the volume. This mapping has not previously been as prominent a focus of research. The seminal work in the field of complex predicates is Alsina, Bresnan, and Sells () – a collection of papers which covers a range of complex predicate constructions including resultatives, V-V compounds, preverb + V combinations, Noun + light verb constructions, noun incorporation, and the way-construction in English, among others. At the outset, the complex predicate is defined as ‘predicates which are multi-headed; they are composed of more than one grammatical element (either morphemes or words), each of which contributes part of the information ordinarily associated with a head’ (Alsina et al. : ). 1

2

Introduction

Since Alsina et al. (), works such as Ackerman and Webelhuth (), Andrews and Manning (), Hale and Keyser (), and Hinrichs et al. () have contributed greatly to theoretical research in the field. There have also been a number of important works on individual languages or language groups: Bowern (), Butt (), McGregor (), SchultzeBerndt (), and Wilson (). This volume brings together and further develops empirical and theoretical analyses and questions from this body of literature. The volume also proposes new lines of analysis. Any analysis of ‘complex predicate’ naturally turns on the analysis of the term ‘predicate’. This term has a pedigree going back to ancient and modern logic, but in linguistics it refers to the ‘part of a clause or sentence traditionally seen as representing what is said of, or predicated of, the subject’ (Matthews : ). The subject is usually regarded as more definite and determined than the predicate ( Jespersen : ). In formal semantics, the standard Fregean view is that a predicate is an ‘unsaturated expression’ and must combine with an entity in order to form a proposition (Bowers ). A predicate is most typically realised by a verb phrase and ‘combines with the subject NP to make up the complete sentence’ (Trask : ). In John bought a book, the predicate is the whole VP ‘bought a book’ and not only the verb ‘bought’. This does not mean that the predicate ‘bought a book’ is more complex than the predicate ‘went’ in John went. A predicate is said to be complex with reference to the head of the predicate. The head of the predicate is normally an X category, whereas a complex predicate is multiheaded. Thus, the term ‘complex predicate’ properly construed is shorthand for complex predicate head. Given this, it is necessary to consider what counts as the head of a predicate. We may consider the English constructions (a) I will walk and (b) I walk. Is it the case that the predicate in (a) but not in (b) is multi-headed? This type of periphrastic construction involving an auxiliary and main verb has been analysed as a complex predicate in the literature (Müller ). However, it stands to reason that if ‘will walk’ is treated as a kind of complex predicate, then ‘walk-ed’ should also be analysed in the same way. The fact that tense is marked by an inflectional affix in ‘walk (PAST)’ but periphrastically in ‘walk (FUTURE)’ does not have any deep syntactic consequences. For the purpose of delimiting the object of inquiry, we consider only elements of the multi-headed predicate that make a significant lexical–semantic contribution including, in particular, information that is relevant to determining the argument structure of a clause. It is important to note here that at a sufficiently abstract level of analysis, every predicate can be treated as complex. In the Generative Semantics of the seventies virtually every lexical verb, including monomorphemic ones, was analysed as a complex form at Deep Structure (Lakoff ). Famously, for example, the English verb ‘kill’ was analysed as ‘cause to become dead’.

Amberber, Baker, and Harvey

3

Even though the identification of semantics with Deep Structure was gradually abandoned as a viable research programme in mainstream generative grammar (Fodor ), some key elements of the programme, including its decompositional approach, have been incorporated into many contemporary studies, including the influential works of Baker (), Jackendoff (), Pustejovsky (), Hale and Keyser (, ), Rappaport Hovav and Levin (), the neo-Lakovian approach of Pesetsky (), and a number of neo-constructionist approaches such as Marantz (), Borer (a,b), and Ramchand (), just to name a few. It can also be seen in the widespread practice of decomposing verbs into syntactically transparent but abstract entities such as voice (Kratzer ), and (little) v in most studies within the Minimalist Program of Chomsky (). Restricting ourselves to multi-headed forms where the heads make an intuitively non-trivial lexical–semantic contribution, we find that the term ‘complex predicate’ is commonly used to refer to a variety of constructions including: periphrastic causatives (Mary made him go to the shop), verb particle combinations (the child picked it up), resultatives (they hammered the iron flat), consider + predicate combinations (she considers him (to be) intelligent), and restructuring constructions (typical of infinitival constructions in Romance). The extent to which any or all of these constructions can be analysed as involving complex heads is not always clear, and the formal analyses of the constructions are still controversial. For example, Wurmbrand () has specifically argued that German Clause Union/restructuring constructions do not involve complex V-V heads (as assumed by many scholars), but rather are derived through regular VP complementation. The enduring theoretical interest in complex predicates is undoubtedly due to the fact that in some aspects they pattern with prototypical words, whereas in other aspects they pattern with prototypical phrases. Complex predicates exhibit word-like properties in terms of argument structure composition and in sometimes having lexicalised meanings. They exhibit phraselike properties in allowing certain syntactic operations, such as movement, to manipulate their internal structure. This presents a major challenge to grammatical theory, particularly if the lexicon is formally segregated from syntax, as enshrined by various principles such as the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis (LIH). The LIH assumes that ‘no syntactic rule can refer to elements of morphological structure’ (Lapointe ), and that ‘words are built out of different structural elements and by different principles of composition than syntactic phrases’ (Bresnan and Mchombo : ). The LIH has been explicitly rejected in a number of frameworks (Marantz , Borer a,b). There is also a range of different interpretations of the LIH which attempt to curtail its domain of application in various ways – for example by prohibiting the direct syntactic manipulation of word-internal

4

Introduction

(X) categories, but nevertheless allowing the syntax to have some access to sub-lexical features. Two leading morphologists have aptly summarised the current state of play in this domain as follows: ‘we have available to us not only multiple theories of syntax to consider, but also multiple theories of word formation. It is impossible to reassess the LIH without considering a multitude of possibilities’ (Lieber and Scalise ). Whatever the ultimate fate of the LIH, the contributions to this volume support the view that its fundamental insight will need to be incorporated into linguistic theory. This insight is that there is no single mapping procedure that will proceed from any system of structural analysis to reliably produce the full set of predicate meanings that are associated with the total range of monoclausal structures found in human language. Whatever system of structural analysis is adopted, it appears that it will be necessary to posit at least two mapping procedures in order to account for the full set of predicate meanings that can be associated with monoclausal structures. One mapping procedure derives ‘word-like’ meanings, and the other procedure derives ‘phrase-like’ meanings. The contributions Brett Baker and Mark Harvey argue in Chapter  that complex predicates fall into two main classes in terms of their event structure configuration. The key claim is that some complex predicates (for example, coverb constructions in many Australian languages) involve the merging of argument structure at the level of a Jackendovian-type Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS), ( Jackendoff , ). Such predicates are shown to have the semantic and morphosyntactic range of monomorphemic verbs in more familiar languages such as English. On the other hand, other complex predicates (for example, serial verb constructions (SVCs)) involve the coindexation of argument structure at LCS. Coindexation allows for a wider range of event structures, including many structures which cannot be expressed by monomorphemic verbs. By appealing to a richly articulated level of conceptual structure and the independently motivated tools of ‘merger’ and ‘coindexation’, Baker and Harvey provide a detailed analysis of coverb constructions, tying together a number of descriptive generalisations (for example, verb serialisation may enable the ‘raising’ of non-subcategorised arguments, something which coverb constructions never do) within a single overarching framework. While the insights behind the notions of ‘merger’ and ‘coindexation’ have reflexes in other frameworks (for example, the processes of Event Fusion and Argument Fusion in Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) parallel ‘merger’ and ‘coindexation’, as pointed out in Nordlinger (this volume)), Baker and Harvey show how a variety of empirical consequences fall out from the application of these two simple operations.

Amberber, Baker, and Harvey

5

In their analysis of coverb constructions, Baker and Harvey take monoclausality as one of the defining properties of complex predicates. That is, while complex predicates have two or more heads, these heads function as a single predicate in a monoclausal configuration. This property of complex predication plays a central role in the analysis of light verbs and complex predication by Miriam Butt in Chapter  (this volume). While the empirical focus of Butt’s study is Urdu, the main purpose of her analysis is to provide a novel and cross-linguistically valid understanding of light verbs with particular reference to the relationship between light verbs and complex predicates. Butt identifies a number of salient properties of light verbs: (a) they are form identical with a main verb, (b) they have a marked morphosyntactic behaviour distinguishable from both auxiliaries and main verbs, and (c) they serve to modify the event encoded by the main predicator in a way that is different from other types of verbs (including auxiliaries, modals or main verbs). These and other distributional factors strongly suggest that light verbs have a semi-lexical status (neither fully lexical nor fully functional) and that they should be treated as a separate syntactic class. Of course, this conclusion, if true, has non-trivial consequences not only to the traditional typology of part-of-speech categories, but also to all current models of grammar where the light verb carries out a central theoretical function (as in the Minimalist Program and Distributed Morphology, among others). Although many studies – both within the formal-generative and the typological-functionalist traditions – assume that monoclausality is a crucial property of complex predicates, it does not mean that the notion itself is always conceptually clear. The use of monoclausality and other notions such as ‘event’ (single vs. multiple eventhood) in the analysis of complex predicates in general and serial verb constructions in particular is sharply critiqued by William Foley in Chapter . Foley starts his discussion with Aikhenvald’s () definition of SVCs, according to which the sequence of verbs in an SVC occurs within a single clause, and the verbs are interpreted as expressing a ‘single event’. On the basis of data from Yimas and other Papuan languages, Foley questions the extent to which any expression in an SVC constitutes a single event. For example, what does it mean to say that an expression such as ak-mpiwul ‘push down (into the water)’ in Yimas encodes a single event? In other words, how can we distinguish a single event from multiple events on necessary and sufficient grounds? Foley argues that the number of ‘events’ cannot be determined in relation to a criterion of ‘simplicity’, however this criterion is to be constructed. The event encoded by the aforementioned verb in Yimas is patently not simple (typically requiring multiple agents, a complex path, and figure-ground configuration). Foley invites us to reconceptualise the notion of eventhood (and indeed other related terms) within a wider, and arguably more cognitively salient,

6

Introduction

notion of linguistic organisation. For this purpose, Foley appeals to the notion of Division of Dominance as developed by Gentner and Boroditsky () in the domain of early word learning. The idea is that there are two types of principles – cognitive dominance and linguistic dominance – that guide children in their acquisition of lexical meaning. By virtue of a person’s perceptual engagement with the world, linguistic units can be used to label certain items in a rather straightforward manner (cognitive dominance). This is how the meaning of concrete nouns such as the word dog is acquired. On the other hand, the meaning of a word such as the English although does not fall out from a person’s perceptual engagement with the world, thus must be learned on a language-particular basis (linguistic dominance). If this is on the right track, the prediction is that there is a fundamental asymmetry between the distribution of nouns and verbs: all languages will have a linguistic unit (root) for concrete entities – ‘dog’, for example – whereas a lot more cross-linguistic variation would be expected with respect to verbal concepts such as ‘kill’. Foley then goes on to show how this asymmetry plays out in the formation of SVCs, demonstrating that the term SVC actually refers to a heterogeneous class of predicates both within and across languages. The issue of eventhood and SVCs is also examined in Chapter  by Nerida Jarkey, who examines the SVCs of White Hmong (spoken in Mainland Southeast Asia). Four distinct types of SVCs – referred to as Cotemporal, Disposal, Pivotal, and Attainment – are identified on the basis of two formal criteria: the coindexation relations between the predicates and the relative order of predicates and arguments. The focus of Jarkey’s chapter is the Cotemporal SVC that is characterised by the coindexation of the subject argument of all verbs in the serial complex. Thus, in the White Hmong equivalent of ‘The Hmong crossed the Mekong River, escaping Laos and going to Thailand’, the subjects of the three motion verbs cross, escape and go are coindexed. Jarkey shows that the main function of the Cotemporal SVCs is to focus attention on and highlight what the subject argument does and how s/he does it, rather than simply encoding the event as motion, state or action. As such, their function is similar to adverbial expressions in portraying a particular action in a vivid and dynamic manner, as Jarkey demonstrates. The fundamental question of the nature of the potential mappings between structure and events is brought into particular focus in Chapter  by Keren Rice. Working on the Athapaskan languages, which are famous for their complex morphological structure, Rice examines a construction which she terms the activity incorporate construction, which has the meaning ‘do X while Y-ing’. This construction differs formally from those examined elsewhere in this volume, in that it is a noun incorporation structure, with X being a verb and Y being an incorporated noun. The events specified by X and Y occur simultaneously and have the same subject. Thus, for

Amberber, Baker, and Harvey

7

example, in the Koyukon language the equivalent of ‘they are going along shouting’ involves the incorporation of a noun ‘shout’ into a verbal complex based on the ‘go’ verb root. Rice argues that the activity incorporate construction exhibits properties that suggest that it is a kind of complex predicate. These properties include: (a) argument structure (the two predicational elements have the same subject within a monoclausal structure); (b) aspect (there is a single marking for aspect); and (c) phonological status (the verb word behaves as a single phonological unit). Further, she notes that in terms of its predicate structure, this noun incorporation structure classes with SVCs. By contrast with SVCs and noun incorporation, the coverb construction is relatively understudied. This neglect is most obvious in formal theoretical linguistics, notwithstanding some earlier seminal studies on this phenomenon (for example, Nash , Hale  and Simpson , among others). Therefore, a closer investigation of the coverb construction deploying formal linguistic methodologies is important both for understanding the coverb construction in its own right, and also for providing evidence that bears on some current issues actively pursued in formal syntactic theories. This is what Mary Laughren does in Chapter  on the Warlpiri verbal complex. Her empirically rich and formally fine-grained analysis provides a better understanding of the Warlpiri verbal complex, particularly those involving preverbs (= coverb). This has implications for some broader theoretical questions about the organisation of grammar. In terms of the current debate between so-called ‘lexicalist’ and ‘syntactocentric’ approaches to word formation, Laughren defends the view that the Warlpiri data is best accounted for if the grammar has a level of syntax (S-Syntax) which is formally distinct from lexical syntax (L-syntax) in the sense of Hale and Keyser (, ) and much related work. While Laughren’s discussion assumes familiarity with recent studies of event structure within formal generative theories (Travis , Folli, Harley and Karimi , among others), the descriptive insights are easily accessible to anyone familiar with the broad terrain of work on predicate argument structure in the past twenty-five years (see Levin and Rappaport Hovav () for an excellent review). Laughren argues that the verbal constituent in Warlpiri has a complex structure. She proposes an inner ‘thematic core’ which must contain a verb and may additionally contain a preverbal element drawn from a particular set, and an outer periphery consisting of ‘outer’ preverbal constituents that modify the thematic core in largely productive ways. The mapping between morphological form and the inner thematic core of a preverb construction is not necessarily one-to-one. Thus, very closely related predicates may be expressed by different structures, such as wanti- and para-karri: while both roughly have the same meaning – ‘fall’ – the former is a simplex V, whereas the latter is a PV-V complex.

8

Introduction

Throughout her discussion, Laughren shows that the morphosyntactic and semantic properties of complex predicates in Warlpiri exhibit important similarities to complex predicates in other languages such as Persian. Although there are a number of unresolved issues (for example, the role of some verbalisers in the derivation of complex predicates), Laughren’s study provides a model for the kind of work that needs to be carried out if our understanding of this fascinating construction is to be advanced. The formation of complex predicates in another Australian language, Wambaya, is the focus of Chapter  by Rachel Nordlinger. The two Wambaya constructions investigated in detail are: (a) the associated motion construction, which is analogous to coverb constructions in other languages; and (b) a serial verb construction (involving the combination of two lexical verbs). In the associated motion construction an obligatory lexical verb is combined with a ‘directional marker’ (‘go/away’ or ‘come/towards’). This is an auxiliary, which is inflected for person agreement and tense/aspect. The semantic contribution of the directional auxiliary is not fixed, but rather depends on the nature of the main verb. When the main verb encodes a motion event, the directional auxiliary specifies the direction of motion. Motion verbs in Wambaya have no specification for direction of motion. On the other hand, when the main verb encodes a non-motion event, the direction affix marks a sequential motion event, resulting in two sub-events. Likewise, in the motion serial verb construction which involves the verb yarru ‘go’, the contribution of the motion verb yarru depends on the nature of the verb it combines with. Thus, when it combines with a motion verb it specifies concurrent motion (‘go sneaking’ vs. ‘sneaking’), and with a nonmotion verb it indicates sequential motion (‘go and (then) swim’). Hence, while the associated motion construction and the yarru serialisation are formally distinct, they are semantically identical with respect to the constraints on their contribution to Predicate Composition in complex predicates. Nordlinger argues that this co-occurrence of formal distinction with semantic identity is evidence that the theoretical representation of syntax should be distinct from the theoretical representation of Predicate Composition, as in theories such as Lexical-Functional Grammar. As previously stated, the coverb construction is not limited to Australian languages. This construction is also found in a number of Ethiopian languages belonging to the Cushitic, Omotic, and Semitic families, where it is known in the literature as a compound verb or composite verb. The compound verb construction in these languages involves two predicative elements, a closed class of inflecting verbs and an open class of coverbs (also known as ‘converbs’). The most productive inflecting verbs that occur in the compound verb construction are roughly equivalent to the English verbs say and do/make – often contrasting in transitivity. This construction is the focus of the last two contributions of the volume. Chapter  by Azeb Amha focuses

Amberber, Baker, and Harvey

9

on the Omotic language Wolaitta and Chapter  by Mengistu Amberber investigates the Ethio-Semitic language Amharic. Amha shows that the compound verb construction in Wolaitta that involves two predicative entities (V + V) allows a wider range of V verbs (about ten) compared to other languages of the area. While bearing verbal inflection is not a defining formal criterion of the V verbs, tense–aspect and mood are typically marked on the V. Importantly, Amha argues that, contrary to previous studies on Wolaitta, the V verbs should not be identified simply as an auxiliary verb. She provides two main reasons for this. First, treating the V verbs as ‘auxiliary’ in the compound construction but as ‘lexical’ elsewhere is unmotivated, as the verbs have exactly the same form and distribution. Second, the V verbs do not simply mark tense, aspect, and modality, but have argument structure and make a clear lexical semantic contribution to the complex predicate. Amberber makes the same point for Amharic – the V component is not merely a marker of tense–aspect–mood features in the compound verb construction. There is considerable overlap between the compound verb construction of Wolaitta and what Amberber refers to as the light verb construction in Amharic. Nevertheless, there are also some important differences. In Amharic, as in other Semitic languages, all inherently predicational word forms, whether finite or non-finite, are derived from a consonantal root. This consonantal root cannot itself appear as a word. There is an extensive range of derivational structures, known as binyan. The coverb is formed by derivation of the root into one of these binyan. In most languages, the coverb binyan is closed, and new coverbs cannot be freely created. However, in Amharic, and to some extent in Tigrinya and Qafar, the coverb binyan is open. Virtually any inherently predicational root in the language can derive a coverb binyan. With regard to the compound verb construction in Amharic, Amberber argues that the light verbs have the same function as valency-encoding derivational affixes (causative, inchoative, passive-reflexive). He argues that both the light verb construction (coverb binyan + light verb) and directly inflected verbal binyan can be analysed in terms of a single morphosyntactic structure, which he presents within the framework of Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz () and subsequent work). The contributions to this volume demonstrate that empirical and theoretical research proceed most profitably in tandem. Ultimately, it is possible that the various formal mechanisms employed in the contributions may turn out to be notational variants. Nevertheless, the contributions show that the exercise is important in itself, as each theory forces us to unearth and zero in on a set of facts that might otherwise be left in the background in competing frameworks.

10

Introduction

The contributions obviously do not cover all issues pertinent to the understanding of complex predicates and coverb constructions. However, they present not only a range of empirically rich analyses of data from different languages, but also an interesting array of theoretical perspectives on complex predicates with important implications for current debates on the syntax–semantics interface. References Ackerman, F. and Webelhuth, G. . A Theory of Predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Aikhenvald, A. . Serial Verb Constructions in Typological Perspective. In Aikhenvald, A. and Dixon, R. (eds) Serial Verb Constructions: A Crosslinguistic Typology, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Alsina, A., Bresnan, J., and Sells, P. (eds), . Complex Predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Amberber, M., Baker, B., and Harvey, M. . Complex Predication and the Coverb Construction. In Siegel, J., Lynch, J., and Eades, D. (eds) Language Description, History and Development. Linguistic Indulgence in Memory of Terry Crowley, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Andrews, A. and Manning, C. . Complex Predicates and Information Spreading in LFG. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Baker, M. . Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Borer, H. a. In Name Only: Structuring Sense, vol I. Oxford: Oxford University Press. b. The Normal Course of Events, vol II. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bowern, C. . Bardi Verb Morphology in Historical Perspective. PhD dissertation, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Bowers, J. . Predication. In Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds) The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, –. Blackwell: Oxford. Bresnan, J. W. and Mchombo, S. A. . The Lexical Integrity Principle: Evidence From Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory : –. Butt, M. . The Structure of Complex Predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Chomsky, N. . The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fodor, J. . Three Reasons for not Deriving ‘Kill’ from ‘Cause to Die’. Linguistic Inquiry :  –. Folli, R., Harley, H., and Karimi, S. . Determinants of Event Structure in Persian Complex Predicates. Lingua , : –. Gentner, D. and Boroditsky, L. . Individuation, Relativity and Early Word Learning. In Bowerman, M. and Levinson, S. (eds) Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development, –. Cambridge University Press. Hale, K. L. . Warlpiri and the Grammar of Non-configurational Languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory .: –. Hale, K. L. and Keyser, S. J. . On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds) The View

Amberber, Baker, and Harvey

11

From Building : Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, –. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Halle, M. and Marantz, A. . Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds) The View from Building : Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, –. Cambridge: MIT Press. Hinrichs, E., Kathol, A., and Nakazawa, T. (eds.) . Complex Predicates in Nonderivational Syntax. San Diego: Academic Press. Jackendoff, R. . Semantic Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jespersen, O.  []. The Philosophy of Grammar. New York: Norton. Kratzer, A. . Severing the External Argument From its Verb. In Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds) Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, –. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Lakoff, G. . Irregularity in Syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Lapointe, S. . A Theory of Grammatical Agreement. PhD dissertation, Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. . Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lieber, R. and Scalise, S. . The Lexical Integrity Hypothesis in a New Theoretical Universe. Lingue e Linguaggio , –. Marantz, A. . No Escape From Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics :: Proceedings of the st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, Dimitriadis, A., Siegel, L., Surek-Clark, C., and Williams, A. (eds), –. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Matthews, P. H. . Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McGregor, W. . Verb Classification in Australian Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Müller, S. . Complex Predicates. In Brown, K. (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics, nd edn., –. Elsevier: Oxford. Nash, D. . Warlpiri preverbs and verb roots. In Swartz, S. (ed.) Papers in Warlpiri Grammar: In Memory of Lothar Jagst. Work Papers of SIL-AAB, Series A vol , –. Berrimah, NT: SIL-AAB. Pesetsky, D. . Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pustejovsky, J. . The Syntax of Event Structure. Cognition : –. Ramchand, G, . Verb Meaning and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rappaport Hovav, M. and Levin, B. . Building Verb Meanings. In Butt, M. and Geuder, W. (eds) The Projection of Arguments, –. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Schultze-Berndt, E. . Simple and Complex Verbs in Jaminjung: A Study of Event Categorization in an Australian Language. PhD dissertation, Catholic University Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Simpson, J. . Warlpiri Morpho-Syntax. A Lexicalist Approach. Dordrecht/ Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

12

Introduction

Trask, L. . A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms. London: Routledge. Travis, L. . Agents and Causes in Malagasy and Tagalog. In Erteschik-Shir, N. and Rapoport, T. (eds) The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation, –. New York: Oxford University Press. Wilson, S. . Coverbs and Complex Predicates in Wagiman. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Wurmbrand, S. . How Complex are Complex Predicates ? Syntax : –.

2

Complex predicate formation* BRETT BAKER AND MARK HARVEY

.

Introduction

The term ‘complex predicate’ has a wide usage, including, for example, serial verb constructions, light verb constructions, and particle + verb constructions, among others. An examination of the data provided by analysts in their discussions of complex predicates shows that monoclausality is the critical factor in determining whether a construction involves a complex predicate or not. Complex predicates are monoclausal structures involving two or more predicating morphemes. Butt (this volume) is explicit on this point. [T]he term complex predicate is used to designate a construction that involves two or more predicational elements (such as nouns, verbs, and adjectives) which predicate as a single element, i.e. their arguments map onto a monoclausal syntactic structure.

We show that monoclausality as a criterion does not determine a unitary set of predicate structures. Rather, we show that there are two quite distinct ways of combining predicate information within monoclausal structures. We call one method ‘merger’ because the predicate information from the contributing constituents merges where they have common conceptual structure. This method produces predicate structures whose range classes with the range of predicate structures found in monomorphemic predicates. We propose that there are constraints on the conceptual structure of monomorphemic predicates which also apply to merger constructions. We discuss the constraints on monomorphemic predicates in Section .. We call the other method ‘coindexation’ because relations among the contributing predicates are constrained only by a requirement that some of their arguments must be coindexed. This method produces multi-predicate * We would sincerely like to acknowledge the important contribution of the following scholars to the ideas developed in this paper, even though they would not necessarily agree with our arguments: Mengistu Amberber, John Beavers, Bill Foley, Cliff Goddard, Andrew Koontz-Garboden, Beth Levin, Rachel Nordlinger, Nick Reid, Eva Schultze-Berndt, and audiences at Manchester, USC, Nijmegen, ALS  in Brisbane, and LSA  in Anaheim.

13

14

Baker and Harvey

structures whose range classes with multi-clausal structures. The range may overlap to some degree with that of monomorphemic and merger predicates, but always extends to conceptual structures which cannot be expressed by monomorphemic and merger predicates. Given that coindexation structures are multi-predicational, they are not subject to the constraints on the conceptual structures of monomorphemic and merger predicates. The distinction we draw between two classes of conceptual structure associated with monoclausal structures is independent of morphological or syntactic oppositions. As we will see, there are some common associations between each of the classes of conceptual structure and particular morphosyntactic structures. However, there are no bi-directional one-to-one correspondences between a particular conceptual structure class and a particular morphosyntactic structure. We may illustrate the opposition in conceptual structure classes by comparing two apparently similar morphosyntactic constructions, whose predicate interpretations are very different. The first construction is a coindexation construction, in this case a serial verb construction. These are well known in the literature on complex predicates. The following example from Barai (Papua New Guinea) is typical. ()

fu burede ije sime abe ufu he bread DEF knife take cut ‘He cut the bread with the knife.’ (Barai – Foley and Olson : )

In Barai, abe ‘take’ is a ‘light’ verb which adds the function ‘with x [instrument]’ to the clause. This is a very common pattern with serial verb constructions (Aikhenvald ). We illustrate merger constructions with a less well-known class of complex predicates: the class of ‘coverb’ constructions. Consider the following example from the Australian language Marra (Heath ). ()

rang=ng-anyi Ø-manuga hit=SG.S/SG.O-TAKE.PC MA-rock ‘I hit a rock.’ (Not: ‘I hit it with a rock.’)

The coverb construction involves two different kinds of verbal words – a coverb, in this case rang ‘hit’, and an inflected finite verb, here nganyi which means ‘I was taking it’ when used as an independent verb. Coverbs constitute a basic word class. They are non-derived, inherently predicational, and inherently non-finite. That is, they do not inflect for tense, mood or agreement, but may inflect for aspect. In the coverb construction, the coverb generally conveys the main lexical meaning in the complex predicate. The finite verb usually, but not necessarily, functions as a light verb. It conveys tense, aspect, mood, and agreement, and some very general predicate information (‘generic’ in the terms

Complex predicate formation

15

of Schultze-Berndt : ). As we will see (section .), it also determines argument structure. Both () and () involve two inherently predicational constituents, and in both the ‘take’ verb is a light verb. Yet their interpretations are very different. In (), the ‘take’ verb adds an instrumental argument. By contrast, in (), it does not add an instrumental argument. Rather, it provides the necessary tense, aspect, and agreement information that the coverb cannot itself provide. . Merger constructions Among languages which have complex predicate structures, there are some languages which have only merger structures. This includes many languages of northern Australia. We illustrate the range of conceptual structures characteristic of merger constructions with data from Marra. In Marra, the class of verbs is a small closed class with  members (Heath : –). The coverb class is an open class. The great majority of ‘verbal’ predicates are expressed through the coverb construction. Nearly all the languages of north-central and north-western Australia have this same pattern of organisation for verbal predicate meanings. In all languages with the coverb construction, a sizeable number of coverb lexemes can co-occur with two or more different finite verbs. In the great majority of cases, the alternation between finite verbs has a semantically predictable effect on the meaning of the complex predicate. In every language with the coverb construction, the construction codes alternations in transitivity. Monovalent coverbs, such as dirra ‘be tied up’ and birli ‘go in’ may be combined with both transitive and intransitive finite verbs. ()

dirra=nga-jurliyi be.tied.up=SG.S-BE.PR ‘I am tied up.’

()

birli=gu-lini go.in=SG.S-GO.PC ‘He went in.’

()

dirra=nan-bili-ju be.tied.up=SG.O-PL.S-DO.FUT ‘They are going to tie me up.’





Coverb constructions are found in many languages of northern Australia, including Warlpiri (where they are commonly called ‘preverb’ constructions), as well as many languages of the Ethio-Semitic family (e.g. Amharic: Amberber: this volume), Kurdish, Persian (Megerdoomian , Folli et al. ), and many languages of Papua New Guinea and South America. It is unclear whether there are languages which permit only coindexation. The well-known serialising languages of West Africa such as Twi may be of this type, but we lack sufficient information to be certain.

16

()

Baker and Harvey

birli=nga-Ø-ganji go.in=SG.S-SG.O-TAKE.PP ‘I put it in(side).’

As illustrated, the finite verb determines the argument structure of the overall merger construction. Significantly, these alternations apply productively to loaned coverbs in all the Australian languages we have examined. In Marra, for example, loaned verbs take a range of light verbs. In general, the light verb appears to be selected on an analogical basis: a loaned coverb takes the same light verb as native coverbs with related meanings. Hence, we assume that the verb bendijimap ‘bandage’ (tr.), borrowed from Kriol (an English-lexifier creole spoken across northern Australia) takes the light verb jujunyi ‘do’ () because coverbs with a similar meaning, such as dirra ‘be tied up’ do also (). ()

bendijimap=nan-bili-ju bandage=SG.O-PL.S-DO.FUT ‘They are going to bandage me up.’

We should not be particularly surprised that a light verb such as jujunyi ‘do’, with  of the total of  coverbs listed in the dictionary (Heath ), can derive new loans. What is most striking about Marra is that even light verbs with a small class of coverbs can derive new loans. For instance, the light verb janyi ‘tell’ takes just  attested coverbs, yet it too can derive new loans (), again apparently by analogy with coverbs of related meaning (). ()

ringimap =nan-bili-yi ring=SG.O-PL.S-TELL.PP ‘They rang me.’

()

gaw=nan-bili-yi call=SG.O-PL.S-TELL.PP ‘They called me.’

Apart from transitivity alternations, manner specifications are another common function of coverbs, as illustrated in ()–() (Heath ). 



Except where otherwise indicated, Marra examples are taken from the first author’s fieldnotes, . Marra finite verbs have complex, largely irregular inflectional paradigms for tense/aspect/mood (see Heath ). Finite verbs are cited in their citation form in Heath (), which is the Past Continuous Durative form, for most verbs. We use the standard orthography now in use for teaching and documentation purposes by Marra speakers, hence the representational differences from Heath (). A reviewer asks whether () and () include the meaning of ‘bite’ as well as the meaning of the coverb. We assume that, in keeping with the behaviour of this construction in Marra

Complex predicate formation

()

jag=nga-Ø-bayngarli chew.briefly=SG.S-SG.O-BITE.PC ‘I chewed it briefly.’

()

buny=nga-Ø-bayngarli suck=SG.S-SG.O-BITE.PC ‘I was sucking on something.’

()

gil=nga-lini crawl=SG.S-GO.PC ‘I was crawling along.’

()

jarlarla=nga-lini walk.around=SG.S-GO.PC ‘I went for a walk.’

17

In some languages, such as Marra, coverbs never appear independently. They are always in a dependency relationship with some finite verb. Indeed, speakers do not recognise some coverbs independently of the inflected finite verb. If the linguist pronounces these coverbs independently, speakers will insist that the finite verb must be pronounced also. In other cases, speakers will recognise the coverb and even give a sense for it. In other languages, such as Jaminjung (Schultze-Berndt ) and Wagiman (Wilson ), coverbs have relatively greater independence. They can appear immediately after the finite verb (approximately  percent of clauses). They appear as independent words, and occur in imperatives and in non-initial clauses without an accompanying finite verb. However, in no Australian languages do coverbs as a class have the full range of possibilities for inflection and independence that finite verbs have. Clearly, coverbs form a separate part-of-speech class in these languages. .

Coindexation constructions

One of the best-known classes of coindexation constructions is serial verb constructions. Serial verb constructions are found as an areal feature of many West African languages such as Twi (Lord ), East Asian languages such as Cantonese (Matthews and Yip ), Oceanic languages such as Ambae and other languages, they do not, but we have not explicitly tested these examples with speakers. The translations are those given by Heath in the dictionary section of his grammar of Marra (). In general, as we discuss in section ., the meanings of coverb complexes merge the meanings of the constituent predicates, such that more specific meanings (such as ‘chew briefly’) tend to override more general meanings (such as ‘bite’); moreover, many finite verbs can be regarded as realising a semantically ‘bleached’ meaning in coverb constructions, compared to their meaning as independent verbs. We assume this is the case with these examples.

18

Baker and Harvey

(Crowley, ), Papuan languages (Foley ), and also many Caribbean creoles (Sebba ). As with the term ‘complex predicate’, the term ‘serial verb’ has been applied to a wide variety of constructions with many kinds of semantic structures involved. Here we focus on some representative serial verb structures, such as benefactive marking with ‘give’, comitative marking and object marking with ‘take’, and complementisers with ‘say’. None of these can be conveyed by merger constructions. The following examples are from Twi (Lord : ; citing Christaller :  and : , respectively). In () and () we see the ‘give’ verb being used to introduce a non-subcategorised dative argument into a monoclausal structure. ()

ageŋkwã no wú mãã Saviour the die GIVE ‘The Saviour died for us.’

y e- ŋ us

()

daŋ mu hɔ n-sõ m-mã house in there NEG-be.large NEG-GIVE ‘The house is not large enough for all of them.’

wɔŋ them

In () and (), we find the ‘take’ verb de being used to introduce a nonsubcategorised argument – in this case an instrumental – into a monoclausal structure. ()

o-de n’ensa be-ñkum he-TAKE his-hand left ‘He eats with his left hand.’

o-didi he-eat

()

o-de adarre o-tya duabasa he-TAKE hook he-cut branch ‘He cut off a branch with a hook.’

This function – the introduction of non-subcategorised arguments into monoclausal structures – is a prominent feature of serial verb constructions in West African languages and Caribbean creoles (Lord ), as well as Southeast Asian languages (e.g. Cantonese: Matthews and Yip ). This function is not universally a prominent characteristic of serial verb constuctions – it is not typical of serial constructions in Oceanic languages (Crowley ). Merger constructions, as exemplified by the coverb construction, never have this function. Other characteristic functions of serial verb constructions are the introduction of information on direction () and manner (). That is, functions which are again realised by adjuncts in other languages. 

Crowley (: –) provides evidence that the Paamese constructions in ()–() are monoclausal serial verb constructions and not multi-clausal conjoined constructions.

Complex predicate formation

()

ni-suvulu ni-hiitaa SG:DIST.FUT-climb.down SG:DIST.FUT-descend ‘I will climb down.’ (Paamese – Crowley : )

()

inau na-muasi-ko Ø-gaiho SG SG:REAL-hit-SG SG:REAL-hard ‘I hit you hard.’ (Paamese – Crowley : )

19

netano down

Aspect distinctions are often realised by means of serial verbs: ()

teeviti Ø-mule Ø-metau David SG:REAL-stay SG:REAL-afraid ‘David is (habitually) afraid.’ (Paamese – Crowley : )

Serial verb constructions also commonly convey all kinds of resultative and causative meanings: ()

inau nuas vuas he:mat inau ni-uasi vuasi hee-mate SG SG:DIST.FUT-hit pig SG:DIST.FUT-die ‘I will hit the pig to death.’ (Paamese – Crowley : )

()

ne-sakini-e ko-musau SG:REAL-cause-SG SG:REAL-sing ‘I made you sing.’ (Paamese – Crowley : )

.

Constraints on monomorphemic predicates

We have proposed that the differences between merger constructions and coindexation constructions follow from differences in the way that the constituents contribute to the overall complex predicate. Specifically, we propose that merger constructions class fundamentally with monomorphemic predicates. We group merger constructions and monomorphemic predicates together in a class of ‘simplex event’ constructions. In this section, we argue that there are constraints on simplex events, following similar proposals in the tradition of Dowty (); e.g. Van Valin and LaPolla (), Rappaport Hovav and Levin (), and Levin and Rappaport Hovav (). Our analysis relies on Jackendoff’s (, , ) theory of Lexical Conceptual Structures (hereafter LCS). LCSs are formal decompositions of the meaning of event lexemes, constructions, and clauses. Jackendoff recognises that conceptual structure cannot be approached from a single perspective. Levin and Rappaport Hovav (: –) discuss three of the principal approaches – which they call ‘localist’, ‘causal’ and ‘aspectual’. The localist approach claims explicitly that

20

Baker and Harvey

all verbs can be represented in terms of predicates of location or motion (Levin and Rappaport Hovav : ). Early work representing this position includes Gruber () and Jackendoff (). In later work Jackendoff (: ) proposes that LCSs have distinct ‘tiers’, which represent distinct bases for the analysis of conceptual structure. He proposes an ‘action tier’ for Actor–Patient relations – the causal approach – and a ‘thematic tier’ for motion and location – the localist approach. Jackendoff () does not propose a representation for the aspectual approach (though Jackendoff (, ) contain developments of such an approach), but as we will see (section .), there is evidence that there must be a level of representation for aspect in lexical conceptual structure. In this chapter, we are principally concerned with representations on the thematic tier. This is because relations of motion and location are the most frequent criteria in distinguishing between the two classes of complex predicates. This in turn is presumably because relations of motion and location are more commonly constant across the various appearances of a particular lexeme than are aspectual or causal relations (Gruber ). A classic example is the verb ‘hit’. In all uses, there is motion from the location of one entity x towards the location of another entity y. Neither aspectual nor causal relations are constant across all uses of ‘hit’. We do not, however, intend to deny the importance of aspectual and causal relations, and we discuss them at various points. The thematic tier consists of ‘conceptual functions’, predicates with very general meanings and their arguments. The arguments of the conceptual functions correspond to the arguments (overt or implicit) of a clause. Conceptual functions can themselves be the arguments of other conceptual functions. The major conceptual functions relevant to event structure are BE, BECOME, CAUSE and MOVE. These functions are similar in relevant respects to the sets of basic functions found in other work in predicate decomposition, such as Dowty (), Rappaport Hovav and Levin (), Van Valin (), and others. We propose that there are two major constraints on simplex event structures, whether realised as monomorphemic predicates or as merger constructions. ()





The major Predicate functions – CAUSE, BECOME, MOVE, BE – may appear only once in the LCS of the overall complex predicate.

Jackendoff ( : –) distinguishes two motion functions – a MOVE function and a GO function. The difference between the two is that the GO function has a Path expression, whereas the MOVE function does not. We discuss this issue and others more fully in section .. See especially Levin and Rappaport Hovav () for an overview of work in this tradition.

Complex predicate formation

()

21

The major Predicate functions must appear in the following sequential order: CAUSE >

BECOME > BE {MOVE

We propose that stative predicates are characterised by a BE predicate, whereas activity predicates are characterised by a MOVE predicate ( Jackendoff ). We propose that the distinctions between the various types of activities are coded by subscripting the MOVE predicate with a manner specification. Within the class of events involving activity predicates, there is a basic opposition between those involving a Path expression (motion predicates), and those not involving a Path expression. Other categories of events, such as achievements and accomplishments may be derived by the application of additional predicates such as BECOME and CAUSE. Given the constraints in () and (), we can derive the following simplex event structures: ()

Intransitive state predicates, e.g. ‘be wet’  BE (      Thing  ,  place  )  State

()

Intransitive activity predicates, e.g. ‘tremble’     Event MOVE (  Thing  )

()

Intransitive motion predicates, e.g. ‘walk’      Event MOVE (  Thing  ,[ Path ])



Levin and Rappaport Hovav (: ) propose a similar set of ‘event structure templates’ for simple predicates, following on from the agenda-setting work of Vendler () and Dowty (), though they distinguish just five basic types (state, activity, achievement, and two kinds of accomplishment, corresponding to our (), (), (), and (), though we do not distinguish between their ‘internally caused’ and ‘externally caused’ accomplishments). They do not distinguish the various transitivity sub-types of activities and accomplishments, nor between motion and non-motion activities without further augmentation of the template –‘event structure templates may be freely augmented up to other possible templates in the basic inventory of event structure templates’ – but we feel the two accounts are broadly comparable.

22

()

Baker and Harvey

Intransitive accomplishments, e.g. ‘sink’ and achievements, e.g. ‘shatter’

(

)

     Event BECOME  Thing  ,  State BE (  Thing  ,[ Place ])   

()

Causatives of intransitive activity predicates, e.g. ‘shake something’

(

)

     Event CAUSE  Thing  ,  Event MOVE (  Thing  )   

()

Transitive motion predicates, e.g. ‘walk a dog’

(

)

    Event CAUSE  Thing  ,  Event MOVE (  Thing  , [ Path ]) 

()

Transitive accomplishment predicates, e.g. ‘build a house’

(

   Event CAUSE  Thing  ,  Event BECOME  Thing  ,  State BE (  Thing  , [ Place ])    

(

) )

There is one other licit simplex event LCS, but its structure differs from those in ()–(). Unlike all of these constructions, it involves simultaneous functions – MOVE and BECOME. This special merger construction is examined in section .. Allowing for this special construction, we propose that there are no licit LCSs for simplex event structures, beyond those listed in ()–(). The constraints predict that the following kinds of structures should not be licit simplex event structures, either because they involve an illicit ordering of predicates, or because they involve duplication of predicate functions. ()

Inceptives of activity, e.g. ‘start to laugh’

(

)

    Event BECOME  Thing  ,  Event MOVE (  Thing  )   





This entails that the object position of transitive activity verbs like ‘hit’ does not find a straightforward reflection in the structure, a problem also noted by Levin and Rappaport Hovav (). We have addressed only the major predicate functions here. We omit from consideration minor types such as ‘EXT’ (extend), ‘CONF’ (configure) etc., as well as adjuncts, and additional possibilities for the ‘Path’ argument discussed in Jackendoff ().

Complex predicate formation

()

23

Inceptives of motion, e.g. ‘start to go’

(

)

     Event BECOME  Thing  ,  Event GO (  Thing  , [ Path ])   

()

Associated state with state, e.g. ‘be sitting drunk’      State  State BE (  Thing  , [ Place ])  State BE (  Thing  , [ Place ]) 

()

Associated state with activity, e.g. ‘be sitting laughing’   BE (        Thing  , [ Place ])  Event MOVE (  Thing  )   State  State

()

Associated motion with state, e.g. ‘go along drunk’

(

)

    Event GO  Thing  ,  State BE (  Thing  ,[ Place ])   

()

Associated motion with activity, e.g. ‘go along laughing’

(

)

     Event GO  Thing  ,  Event MOVE (  Thing  )   

()

Associated motion with causatives and inceptives of a transitive verb, e.g. ‘go along causing to/starting to eat’    [ Thing ],        Event MOVE [ Thing ] ,  Event CAUSE          Event BECOME ([ Thing ] ,  State BE ([ Thing ],[ Place ]) )   

(

   Event MOVE  Thing  ,  Event BECOME  Thing  ,  State BE (  Thing  ,  Place  )    

(

))

Because these are not licit simplex event structures, we predict that in no language should we find such events expressed as monomorphemic predicates. We also predict that merger constructions should not be able to produce such event structures. Coindexation constructions, on the other hand, may be able to code all or any of ()–(), depending upon the operation of other constraints. We show that this is the case in section .

24

.

Baker and Harvey

The formal structure of merger

In the preceding sections . and ., we showed that the semantic range covered by coverb constructions is a subset of that covered by serial verb constructions. In this section, we show how this difference in ranges follows from the differing ways that predicate information is combined in the two constructions. Following Wilson (), we propose that merger takes place at the level of conceptual structure. The LCSs of two predicates merge to produce a single LCS. The general principle is that predicate information from the constituents is maintained in the merged predicate. Wilson presents the following description of conceptual merger. What actually happens is that the coverb’s LCS fuses into the verb’s LCS wherever it happens to fit. Where it happens to fit will depend upon the particular LCSs involved. For instance, the light verb -ge- ‘putLT’ contains a State as part of its LCS. The coverb guk ‘sleep’ is a State. So when the LCSs are fused together, the LCS of guk is fused with the State entity in the LCS of ge-. But the LCS of bort ‘die’ consists of an Event which is expanded as a BECOME function. So when it is fused with the LCS of -ge-, it is fused with the BECOME Event there, and not with the State. In short, I propose that the LCS of the coverb is fused with some part of the LCS of the inflecting verb with which it can unify. (Wilson  : –)

Using the examples from Marra preceding, repeated here, we present the basic structure of conceptual merger. ()

birli=nga-Ø-ganji go.in=SG.S-SG.O-TAKE.PP ‘I put it in(side).’

()

birli=gu-lini go.in=SG.S-GO.PC ‘He went in.’

The LCS of the Marra coverb birli ‘go in’, following Jackendoff (: ) can be characterised as in (). ()

birli ‘go in’: [Event MOVE ([Thing x ], [Path IN])]

The LCS of the verb lini is given as (). ()

lini ‘go’:

[Event MOVE ([Thing x ], [Path ])]

The LCS of the light verb ganji is given as (). ()

ganji ‘take’: [Event CAUSE ([Thing y ], [EventMOVE ([Thing x ], [Path ])])]

Complex predicate formation

25

When coverbs and finite verbs merge, the LCS of the finite verb takes the LCS of the coverb as an argument, at the highest shared predicate function. Since the LCS of birli contains a MOVE function, it can merge successfully with a light verb containing a MOVE function. In the case of ganji, this MOVE function is in turn an argument of a CAUSE function, and hence the only argument of MOVE becomes an internal argument of CAUSE. This gives us the syntactic result that birli+ganji is a transitive verb where the only argument of birli surfaces as the object of the CAUSE predicate. ()

birli+ganji ‘put in’:

[EventCAUSE ([Thing y ], [MOVE ([Thingx ], [PathIN])])]

In the process of merger, the LCS of birli merges with the LCS of ganji at the point where the two LCSs share a predicate in common. As already explained, this is at MOVE. When birli combines with lini ‘go’, the result is straightforward. We simply get the LCS that birli has anyway, with the only argument of MOVE surfacing as the subject of the coverb construction. ()

birli+lini ‘go in’:

[Event MOVE ([Thing x ], [PathIN])]

Having a predicate function in common is not, however, sufficient to ensure a successful merger. We may consider the following Wagiman examples. ()

bak ‘break’:

[Event BECOME ([State BE ([Thing ], [PlaceAT (broken)])])]

()

yu ‘be’:

[State BE ([Thing ], [Place ])]

()

*bak yu ‘be broken’:

[State BE ([Thing ], [PlaceAT (broken)])]

The bak ‘break’ and yu ‘be’ predicate have a common predicate function BE. However, as Wilson (: , ) points out, this merger fails because the lexical structure of the coverb is not preserved in the merger construction. Wilson uses Lexical-Functional Grammar to encode this as a constraint on merger. We express the constraint as follows. ()

The LCSs of the finite and non-finite constituents must be merged at the level of the highest major predicate function in the LCS of the non-finite predicate(s).

The constraint expresses the intuition that the central motivation for merger constructions is to enable the non-finite constituent to head a clause. Consequently, its conceptual structure is maintained in the merged LCS. In addition to this constraint, the predicates resulting from merger, being simplex event predicates, are subject to the constraints in () and (), already discussed. The effects of these constraints may be illustrated 

Except where otherwise indicated, Wagiman examples are taken from Harvey’s fieldnotes.

26

Baker and Harvey

by comparing the acceptable combination of the motional activity coverb birli ‘go in’ with the finite verb lini ‘go’, against the unacceptable combination of another non-motional activity coverb wir ‘whistle’ with the same finite verb. ()

*wir=gu-lini whistle=SG.S-GO.PC ‘He went along whistling.’

The obvious interpretation of this combination is the associated motion meaning ‘go along whistling’, which is perfectly semantically and pragmatically plausible. However, it is not possible to compose this meaning within a merger predicate. ()

wir ‘whistle’:

[Event MOVE<WHISTLE> ([Thing ])]

()

lini ‘go’:

[Event MOVE ([Thing ], [Path ])]

()

*wir+lini: [Event MOVE< WHISTLE> ([Thing ], [Path ])] ‘move along a path by means of whistling’

As shown in (), the result of merging ‘whistle’ and ‘go’ is the semantically incoherent ‘move along a path by means of whistling’. In order to express the associated motion meaning, two simultaneous MOVE predicates are required – one describing the whistling and the other describing motion along a path. However, the constraint in () prohibits multiple appearances of the MOVE predicate. Consequently, non-motion activity coverbs cannot generally combine with a motion verb in Marra. The ungrammaticality of () does not, however, follow from any inherent prohibition on the merger of non-motion functions with motion functions. Rather it follows from the real-world implausibility of the resultant combination. We may consider the following examples from Wagiman. ()

warratj-ja ga-ba-yu yurrup-pa dance-ASP PRES-PL.S-be stand-ASP ‘They are dancing, standing upright.’

()

jahan-gu warratj-ja g-i-ya what-DAT dance-ASP PRES-SGS-go ‘Why are you dancing along/going dancing along?’ (Wilson : )



It should be noted that this combination is unacceptable only in the interpretation ‘go whistling’. In other north Australian languages, the ‘go’ verb has an additional light verb entry ‘DO/BE for a long time’ (e.g. Jaminjung; Schutlze-Berndt : ). In these languages the combination of activity coverb lacking a Path expression with the ‘go’ verb is perfectly acceptable in the meaning ‘DO activity for a long time’.

Complex predicate formation

()

27

warratj-ja Ø-di-nginy dance-ASP SGS-come-P.PFV ‘She came dancing.’ (Wilson : )

The coverb warratj ‘dance (of women)’ may plausibly describe both motional and non-motional situations. When describing a non-motional situation – dancing on the spot – it takes the ‘be’ verb. When describing a motional situation, it takes either the ‘come’ or the ‘go’ verb. With changes in real-world circumstances other mergers might become plausible. For example, in the weightless environment of space a sentence like ‘She sneezed herself into the next compartment of the space capsule’ might be perfectly acceptable. In this case the movement of sneezing would be sufficient to engender a path. Our analysis of the class of activities differs somewhat from that of Jackendoff. Jackendoff (: –, –) proposes two activity functions – a MOVE function and a GO function. The difference between the two is that the GO function has a Path expression, whereas the MOVE function does not. This opposition is different in kind from the other oppositions between predicate functions. Predicate functions are not otherwise distinguished by whether or not they require or prohibit a particular expression. We suggest that this is not a well-motivated basis for opposition. Further, the analysis that manner of motion [MOVE] is necessarily conceptually distinct from motion along a path [GO] is problematic. Some predicates, at least, seem inherently to involve both. The paradigm example is ‘walk’. This is a manner of motion, but it must necessarily be realised along a path. While it is possible to run, hop, skip, jump, and dance on the spot, it is not possible to walk on the spot. Proposing a distinction between MOVE and GO functions also requires additional formal theoretical structure. In order to describe situations where a manner of motion predicate encodes a path, Jackendoff requires adjunction rules which add a GO function (: ). ()

GO-adjunct rule (version ) [VPVh…PP] may correspond to  GO α ,  ([ ] [ Path ])     α  AFF [ ] i ,      WITH/BY MOVE ([α ])    h  

(



)

The ‘be’ verb has two meanings in Wagiman. One is to signal stativity, the other to signal atelicity (section .). In (), it signals atelicity.

28

Baker and Harvey

The rule, as presented by Jackendoff, requires an overt expression of the endpoint of the motion – the PP in Jackendoff’s formalisation. It is unclear how Jackendoff would account for examples such as (), where there is no overt endpoint expression. We may also note that this adjunction rule has no overt linguistic realisation in many cases ( Jackendoff : ). Given these issues, we depart from Jackendoff’s analysis and propose that there is only a MOVE function, common to all activity predicates. This MOVE function may license an optional Path expression. Whether an individual predicate does license a Path expression is subject to real-world considerations and to language-specific variation. In those cases where a Path expression is not licensed, a non-finite constituent encoding a MOVE predicate must select a verb other than ‘go’ or ‘come’ in order to construct a successful merger. In Marra, a coverb such as wir ‘whistle’ selects the mindini ‘do/say (thus)’ verb (see section .). ()

wir=nga-mindini whistle=SG.S-DO.PC ‘I was whistling.’

We propose that this is possible because the verb ‘do’ is the generic activity verb, being simply a MOVE predicate, without further specification as to the manner of movement. ()

mindini ‘do’:

[Event MOVE ([Thing ])]

()

wir+mindini ‘whistle’:

[Event MOVE<WHISTLE> ([Thing ])]

In merger constructions, the finite predicate is commonly less extensively specified than the non-finite predicate. Activity coverbs normally have either a manner subscript, e.g. <WHISTLE>, or a specification in the Path expression, e.g. IN. The ‘go’ verb, on the other hand, has neither. However, as Wilson (: ) points out, it is not necessary that finite predicates should bear less specification than non-finite predicates in some quantifiable way. The following examples from Wagiman illustrate this. ()

durdut-ta ba-di-nya run-ASP PLS-come-PAST ‘They came running.’

()

durdut bula-ndi run:PFV leave-PAST (Wilson : –) ‘She ran away from him/She ran away and left him.’

The LCSs of these predicates are set out in ()–(): ()

di ‘come’:

[Event MOVE ([Thing ], [Path TOWARD ([Place HERE])])]

Complex predicate formation

()

bula ‘leave’:

[Event MOVE ([Thing ], [Path FROM ([Thing])])]

()

durdut ‘run’:

[Event MOVE ([Thing ], [Path])]

29

The merged LCSs are set out in () and (): ()

durdut di ‘come running’:

[Event MOVE ([Thing ], [Path TOWARD ([Place HERE])])]

()

durdut bula ‘run away from’:

[Event MOVE ([Thing ], [Path FROM ([Thing])])]

The verbs di ‘come’ and bula ‘leave’ do not have light verb entries in Wagiman. Further, it is not evident how their degree of specification might be quantified as against the coverb durdut ‘run’. Nonetheless, neither of these factors prevents them from entering into merger constructions. In keeping with the general principle of preserving predicate information, merged structures may involve compound functions, where these are plausible, as in (), where the DOWN function from the coverb lek ‘move down’ is compounded with the TOWARD function from the finite verb di ‘come’. () lek ‘move down’:

[Event MOVE ([Thing ], [Path DOWN])]

() lek di ‘come down’: [Event MOVE ([Thing ], [Path DOWN TOWARD ([Place HERE])])] . Merger and motional inchoatives The merger constructions discussed in section . all involve sequential relations among the major predicate functions. The constraint in () generally prohibits simultaneous relations among the major predicate functions. However, there is one circumstance where the constraint does not prohibit simultaneous relations. This is when motion to an endpoint induces a change of state in an entity contemporaneous with that endpoint. In this case, merger can support simultaneous MOVE and BECOME predicates. We provide examples of this type of merger construction from Wagiman (Wilson, : , , ): ()

bak Ø-linyi-ng lari break SG-fall-PP arm ‘He fell and broke his arm.’ [lit. ‘His arm broke in falling.’]

()

menuny burbur bak ga-ba-du-n maybe wing break NP-PLS-cut-PR ‘Maybe they break its wings by cutting them.’



Wilson translates this sentence as ‘They broke its wing by spearing’, but ‘spear’ is a separate verb re, while the verb used here, du-, centrally refers to cutting, not spearing.

30

Baker and Harvey

The coverb bak ‘break’ is an inchoative coverb (Wilson : –), and has the following LCS: ()

bak ‘break’: [Event BECOME ([State BE ([Thing ], [PlaceAT (broken)])])]

The LCSs of the ‘fall’ and ‘cut’ verbs are as follows: ()

linyi ‘fall’:

[Event MOVE ([Thing ], [Path DOWN])]

()

du ‘cut’:

[Event CAUSE ([Thing ], [Event MOVE ([Thing ], [Path TO ([Place IN [Thing]])])])]

The LCS of the coverb may be merged with the LCSs of these verbs to produce the following: ()

bak linyi ‘break by falling’:

[Event MOVE ([Thing ]i, [Path DOWN])] [Event BECOME ([State BE ([Thing ] i, [PlaceAT (broken)])])]

()

bak du ‘break by cutting’: [Event CAUSE ([Thing ],

[Event MOVE ([Thing ], [Path TO ([Place IN [Thing] i ])])])] [Event BECOME ([State BE ([Thing] i, [Place AT

(broken)])])]

The BECOME function is monovalent, and its argument must be coindexed with either the argument of the MOVE function or the argument of the TO function. If the TO function has no argument then there is no choice. If the TO function has an argument, then considerations of simultaneity determine coindexation. The MOVE and BECOME functions are simultaneous at the endpoint of the motion, rather than during its trajectory. Consequently, if there are distinct trajectory and endpoint arguments, the argument of the BECOME function is coindexed with the endpoint argument. We propose that simultaneous MOVE and BECOME functions may only appear in a merger construction when they are independently supplied by the contributing constituents. If they are not independently supplied then the merger construction will not be interpretable with an inchoative meaning. In the available materials, there are no examples of a stative coverb merging with a motion verb and the resulting merger construction having an inchoative interpretation. We predict that such combinations cannot be so interpreted. ()

mele-ma Ø-linyi-ng black-ASP SGS-fall-PP *‘S/he became black by falling.’

This interpretation is not impossible for real-world reasons. A situation where a white-skinned person fell into a large puddle of black mud could plausibly be described this way.

Complex predicate formation

31

In addition to the straightforward examples of motion inchoatives, such as () and (), there are other less immediately evident examples. The following examples are from Ngaliwurru (closely dialectal with Jaminjung – Schultze-Berndt p.c.). ()

darnku gani-yu full SGS.SGO-do.PP ‘He has become full.’ (‘He is full/He has had a feed.’)

()

darnku gani-minda-ny full SGS.SGO-eat-PP ‘He has eaten (food) to becoming full.’ (‘He has eaten till full.’)

() darnku full

gani-ngarna-ny SGS.SGO-give-PP

‘She gave him (food) and he become full.’ (‘She fed him./She gave him a feed.’)

The coverb darnku is an inchoative coverb ‘become full’, and not a stative coverb ‘be full’. This is shown by the fact that it occurs in intransitive constructions with the ‘do, say, become’ verb and not the ‘be’ verb. The merger constructions in () and () are motional inchoatives. Their LCSs are set out following: ()

[CAUSE ([x],

[MOVE ([ food ] [TO (stomach of [x])])])] [BECOME ([BE ([x], [AT (full)])])]

()

[CAUSE ([ y],

[MOVE ([ food ] [TO (stomach of [x])])])] [BECOME ([BE ([x], [AT (full)])])]

. ‘Be’ and ‘do’ verbs Any analysis of complex predicate constructions necessarily involves some consideration of how these are to be distinguished from auxiliary constructions. Auxiliary verbs are traditionally analysed as nonpredicational. Unlike light verbs, they lack an argument structure. Consequently, monoclausal constructions involving an auxiliary verb and a main verb are not complex predicate constructions. Thus the English perfect HAVE + V-en and progressive BE + V-ing constructions are not complex predicate constructions, as ‘have’ and ‘be’ have no effect on argument structure in these constructions. Rather, they provide aspectual information. In English, there is a very clear distinction between auxiliaries, which have no argument structure, and light verbs, which do have an argument structure. The two classes may co-occur – ‘She should have given you an

32

Baker and Harvey

answer’. Butt (this volume) shows that the two classes are similarly distinct in Urdu and may co-occur. She argues that a distinction must be drawn cross-linguistically between ‘auxiliary’ and ‘light verb’. However, in many languages with the coverb construction, it is not immediately evident whether this distinction is applicable. The issue as to whether the distinction is applicable or not arises in relation to verbs translated with the classic auxiliary meanings ‘be’ and ‘do’. Verbs translated with these meanings have a wide range of uses, which vary somewhat from language to language, and determining their language specific meaning is complex. A full analysis of the semantics of ‘be’ and ‘do’ verbs is beyond the scope of this chapter. The only detailed discussion of these verbs in a language with the coverb construction is Schultze-Berndt (: –, –, –, –) on Jaminjung. We consider the Jaminjung data here, as it is illustrative of the general patterns in languages with the coverb construction. Schultze-Berndt suggests that there is a distinction between auxiliary function and light verb function, at least for the ‘be’ verb. We may consider the following example, where the coverb takes the continuous suffix -mayan. ()

en janyungbari burlug-mayan ga-yu gugu and another drink-CONT SGS-BE.PRES water ‘And the other one is drinking water.’ (Schultze-Berndt : )

In this case the Jaminjung construction burlug-mayan ga-yu and its English translation is drink-ing are morphologically isomorphic. Both involve a derived progressive/continuous non-finite form burlug-mayan ~ drink-ing and a finite ‘be’ verb. The two constructions are not only morphologically isomorphic, they also appear to be predicationally isomorphic. The Jaminjung ‘be’ verb appears to lack an argument structure. The coverb burlug ‘drink’ is apparently bivalent. Bivalent coverbs cannot otherwise combine with monovalent verbs (). The ‘be’ verb in () signals atelic aspect (Schultze-Berndt : ). Schultze-Berndt therefore proposes that the ‘be’ verb is an auxiliary in this construction. However, she states that the analysis of continuous coverbs and this auxiliary interpretation requires further research (: ). She presents two reasons why further research is required. First, with non-continuous coverbs, the ‘be’ verb behaves straightforwardly as a light verb: ()

bayirr ga-yu be.supported SGS-BE.PRES ‘It is supported.’ (Schultze-Berndt : )

Second, continuous coverbs do not require the ‘be’ verb in Jaminjung:

Complex predicate formation

() jarr-mayan=biya put.down.one-CONT=NOW

gan-arra-m=ngarndi SGS.SGO-put- PRES =SFOC

33 ba-ngawu IMP-see

‘She keeps putting them down one at a time, look!’ (Schultze-Berndt : )

Polyvalent coverbs such as jarr-mayan ‘put.down.one-CONT’ may combine with polyvalent verbs such arra ‘put’. Given that the apparent mismatch in () is not categorically required, we suggest that it is not a sufficient basis for distinguishing two morphosyntactic functions of the ‘be’ verb. Further, we propose that there are in fact no mismatches in Jaminjung where a bivalent coverb combines with a monovalent verb. The examples of this mismatch listed in Schultze-Berndt () all involve the coverbs burlug ‘drink’ or thawaya ‘eat’. Examination of the combinatorial possibilities of burlug show that it is not best translated with a bivalent ‘drink’ meaning. Rather its distribution exactly parallels that of darnku ‘become full of food’ (–). As such it is better translated with a monovalent meaning something like ‘become full of water’. Similarly, the coverb thawaya codes the intransitive ‘eat’ meaning. The transitive ‘eat’ meaning is coded by the finite verb minda ‘consume’. Nonetheless, it must be recognised that the semantic contribution of ‘be’ in () is distinct from its contribution in (). This must be formally modelled with two distinct lexical entries – one for stative ‘be’ and the other for atelic ‘be’. As discussed in section ., Jackendoff does not provide a formal representation for aspectual information in lexical conceptual structure. In his model, it would presumably be an independent tier. It would be on this tier that the aspectual information from ‘be’ in () would be integrated into the LCS of the merger construction. In the absence of any formalisation of this tier, we do not examine this issue further. The semantics of the ‘do’ verb are particularly complex (Schultze-Berndt : –). In Jaminjung, it conveys the meanings ‘become’ and ‘say’ as well as ‘do’. This set of meanings is attested in a heterogeneous range of languages, particularly the ‘do/say’ combination (Schultze-Berndt : –). This argues that it is not a chance collocation, but follows from general principles. Schultze-Berndt (: ) proposes that this verb has the following meaning. ()

x internally causes, and gives immediate evidence of, an event E

The Event in this representation could be an utterance, a cognate object noun (‘speech/word’), or a coverb. She proposes, further, that ‘do’ is the default light verb in Jaminjung (: ). If there is a positive motivation for another light verb, then ‘do’ is not used. The LCS formalisms adopted in this chapter do not allow for default defined meanings such as that in (). Rather, meanings must be positively determined. Given that the core meaning of this verb is an

34

Baker and Harvey

unspecified activity, we propose that its representation is as a simple MOVE predicate. ()

do:

[Event MOVE ([Thing ])]

In many languages, including Jaminjung, the same form has another lexical entry with an inchoative meaning. ()

do:

[Event BECOME ([State BE ([Thing ], [Place])])]

This additional lexical entry is licensed by universal metaphor, where inchoative relations are analogically assimilated to motional relations ( Jackendoff : ). The analysis of the ‘be’ and ‘do’ verbs presented here is undoubtedly preliminary in nature, and we agree with Schultze-Berndt that much further research is required. However, we may note that there is no clear evidence for an opposition between an auxiliary category and a light verb category in Jaminjung. This appears to be true in many languages with the coverb construction. In the absence of clear evidence for this opposition, we analyse coverb constructions as involving light verbs only. . Monoclausality: the dissociation between simplex event structure and clause structure At this point, it is useful to reconsider the notion ‘complex predicate’, with which we started this chapter, now that we have introduced the different types of constructions equally labelled ‘complex predicates’ in the literature. Jackendoff’s () model allows us to represent the relation between Lexical Conceptual Structure and syntax in a more sophisticated way. It appears that the parameters ‘constituting a licit simplex event structure’ and ‘being a clausal predicate’ must be allowed to vary independently. This produces at least four kinds of LCS:Syntax relations, shown in Figure .. Type (a) represents a simple, monomorphemic predicate heading a single clause. Type (b) represents the merger construction, where two predicates jointly contribute to an event which corresponds in its semantic range to the events realised by monomorphemic predicates. Type (c) is a standard construction where multiple predicates are realised by multiple clauses. Type (d) is a multi-predicational, but monoclausal construction, as in the classic serial verb construction. In this case, we regard the conceptual structure as one in which there are multiple events. This is contrary to the commonly held view, as summarised by Aikhenvald (: ). 

We note that further research may establish that there are some languages where the verb in a coverb construction is clearly an auxiliary.

Complex predicate formation

35

Type (a): simple, monomorphemic predicate – monoclausal structure [ Event ] Lexical Conceptual Structure

[

Syntax

]Word

Type (b): classic coverb construction – monoclausal structure

[

Event

]

[[ ] Wdi

Lexical Conceptual Structure

[ ] Wdj

] Clause

Syntax

Type (c): multiple predicates – multiple clauses

[ Eventi ]

[ Eventj ]...

[[ ] Wdi] Clausei

[[ ] Wdi ] Clausej ...

[ Eventn ]

Lexical Conceptual Structure

[[ ]Wdi ] Clausen Syntax

Type (d): multi-predicational, but monoclausal construction – classic SVC

[ Eventi ]

[ Eventj ]

[ Eventk ]...

[ Eventn ]

[[ ] Wdi

[ ] Wdj

[ ] Wdk...

[ ] Wdn ] Clause Syntax

Lexical Conceptual Structure

Figure . Types of LCS-syntax relations

A serial verb construction (SVC) is a sequence of verbs which act together as a single predicate, without any overt marker of coordination, subordination, or syntactic dependency of any other sort. Serial verb constructions describe what is conceptualised as a single event.

In terms of permissible event types and sequences, classic serial verb constructions class with multi-clausal structures. They differ from multi-clausal structures in that serial verb constructions are always constrained in terms of some argument coindexation requirement. . The range of oppositions between merger and coindexation constructions We have proposed that coindexation constructions are multi-predicate constructions and consequently not subject to the constraints which affect merger constructions. This leads to a number of differences both obvious and less immediately evident. Firstly, coindexation constructions may permit 

It is, however, clearly necessary to recognise at least three different types of coindexation relationships between predicates below the level of completely independent sentences. Theories of syntax need to accommodate nuclear junctures, core junctures, and clause chaining, in addition to completely independent sentences (Foley and Olson ). Foley (this volume) discusses these issues.

36

Baker and Harvey

multiple instances of one of the major predicate functions. As such, coindexation constructions may code causatives of transitives. ()

nayphon hây tháhan khâ nákrian general give soldier kill student ‘The general made the soldiers kill the students.’ (Thai – Pongsak, p.c.)

By contrast, in languages with the merger construction, complex predicates cannot form the causatives of transitives. The only way of forming the causatives of transitives is with a biclausal construction, as in (). () nan-gu-yi sgO-SGS-tell.PC

nani

na-boj

judum=nga-mi

nana

rayi

MA.OBL

MA.OBL-boss

shoot=SGS-DO.FPUN

MA.REL

bird

‘The boss told me to shoot those birds.’

In coindexation constructions, there is theoretically no upper limit on the number of verbs in a single clause, subject to pragmatic and semantic wellformedness. While not common, examples with three or more verbs may be found, as in (): ()

o da mɔng la saao de bing bare ko ma .s PAST stir FACT food take put leave give me ‘S/he made food and left it there for me.’ (Dagaare – Bodomo, : )

In merger constructions, the maximum attestation is two non-finite predicates. This is illustrated in the following example from Jaminjung (SchultzeBerndt, : ): ()

munuwi-ni gabarl yurl gani-mangu\ wirib bee-ERG go.close chase SG:SG-HIT.PST dog ‘The bees came up close chasing him, the dog.’ [lit. ‘The bees chased him up close, the dog.’]

In all examples of this type – two coverbs and a single verb – one coverb modifies the other. Many languages, such as Marra, do not allow more than one coverb per clause. Coindexation constructions permit the major predicate functions to appear in sequential orders other than that specified in (). ()

dbëhna-noh-me-r sick-die-REM.PAST-SGM ‘He was sick and died.’ (Alamblak – Bruce : )

In (), the BE (sick) predicate precedes the BECOME (BE (AT dead)) predicate. Coindexation constructions also permit simultaneous

Complex predicate formation

37

temporal relations between all the major predicate functions. The following examples are from Ngan’gityemerri, with () involving two simultaneous MOVE predicates, and () involving simultaneous MOVE and BE predicates. ()

nga-ganim-fifi SGS-go.PR-smoke ‘I’m going along smoking.’ (Ngan’gityemerri – Reid p.c.)

()

ngi-rim-fifi

ngi-rribem-fifi

ngi-bem-fifi

SGS-sit.PR-smoke

SGS-stand.PR-smoke

SGS-lie.PR-smoke

‘I am sitting smoking.’

‘I am standing smoking.’

‘I am lying smoking.’ (Reid : )

For an example of associated motion with a transitive predicate, we may consider the following from Gurr-goni (Green, : ). ()

njirr-rre+rrmi-rri

njiwurr-ma-nay

gut-djardi

MIN:A.AUG.O-pound+REDUP-PRE

AUG.S-go.along-PRE

IV-rain

wana big

‘We went along being pelted by heavy rain.’ [lit. ‘Big rain pounded us while we went.’]

This example is also of interest because the first person entity would in most theories bear different thematic relations to the two predicates – the theme/patient of ‘pound’ and the agent of ‘go’. In some theories, it might be classified as the theme of ‘go’, thereby giving it the same thematic relation to both predicates. However, there are examples of serial verb constructions where a single entity bears distinct roles under any theory of thematic relations. ()

wǒ qiú tā dàibiǎo wǒ SG beg SG represent SG ‘I begged him/her to represent me.’ (Mandarin Chinese – Li and Thompson, : )

()

wón mu otí yó they drank wine drunk ‘They drank wine until drunk.’ (Yoruba – Bamgbose, : )

In merger constructions, an entity can bear only one thematic role within the overall complex predicate. 

We omit from consideration here reflexive and reciprocal constructions.

38

Baker and Harvey

Both merger and coindexation constructions allow the formation of ‘light verbs’. However, the process of light verb formation is quite distinct in each construction type. As we have seen, one common pattern in serial verb constructions is that the ‘take’ verb adds an instrumental argument to the clause: ()

fu burede ije sime abe ufu he bread DEF knife take cut ‘He cut the bread with the knife.’ (Barai – Foley and Olson, : )

The LCS of the ‘take’ verb is shown in (). ()

[Event CAUSE ([Thing y ], [EventMOVE ([Thing x ], [Path TO ([Thing y ])])]

An implicature of this LCS is that entity y has possession of entity x. It is a development of this implicature which survives in the serial verb construction ( y has the knife and y cuts the bread J y cuts the bread with the knife). This is an example of what is commonly analysed as ‘grammaticalisation’. By contrast, in merger constructions light verbs are created by deleting inner conceptual structure from the LCS of finite verbs. () ‘takeLIGHT’: [Event CAUSE ([Thing y ], [EventMOVE ([Thing x ], [Path ])])] This allows the merger to add additional material into the open inner positions of the argument structure. The coverb rang ‘hit’ has the following LCS. ()

[Event CAUSE ([Thing y ], [EventMOVE ([Thing x ], [Path TO ([Thing z ])])]

This coverb may successfully unite with the light verb to form a standard transitive predicate, as in (). ()

rang=ng-anyi Ø-manuga hit=SG.S/SG.O-TAKE.PC MA-rock ‘I hit a rock.’ (Not: ‘I hit it with a rock.’) (Marra – Heath )

In order to express an instrumental use, Marra requires an oblique noun class prefix, one of whose functions is to mark instrumental case, as in (). ()

rang=nga-nyi hit=SG.S/SG.O-TAKE.PC ‘I hit it with a rock.’

na-manuga MA.OBL-rock

Instrumentals cannot be expressed with verbs in Marra, nor in any other coverb language that we are aware of.

Complex predicate formation

39

The same kind of opposition is found with the ‘give’ verb. In serialising languages commonly the ‘give’ verb adds a Benefactive argument to the clause (Twi – Lord : ): ()

a.

ageŋkwã no wú mãã Saviour the die give ‘The Saviour died for us.’

y e- ŋ us

We propose that, in this case, what survives in the grammaticalised version of ‘give’ is the thematic relation of Benefactive. In Jackendoff’s () model, thematic roles depend upon the ‘action tier’. By contrast, the presence of the ‘give’ verb in a merger construction does not encode non-subcategorised Benefactive type relations. We may consider the previously discussed Ngaliwurru example (), repeated here as () for convenience. ()

darnku gani-ngarna-ny full SGS.SGO-give-PP ‘She gave him (food) and he become full.’ (‘She fed him./She gave him a feed.’) (Not: ‘She became full for/on him.’)

As indicated, this does not describe an action performed affecting someone else. As elsewhere, this does not follow from real-world considerations. A malefactive interpretation – ‘s/he became full negatively affecting him’ – at least is plausible. . Correlations between conceptual oppositions and morphosyntactic oppositions In our presentation of materials thus far, the semantic opposition between merger and coindexation has generally matched the categorial opposition between coverb constructions and serial verb constructions. Coverb constructions involve the merger of conceptual structures, whereas serial verb constructions involve coindexation. While coverb constructions most commonly map to merger structures, they do not necessarily do so. Thus, Ngan’gityemerri is a language which on initial inspection appears to class structurally with the other Australian languages so far discussed – Jaminjung, Marra, Wagiman. It has a large open class of coverbs and a small closed class of finite verbs. Most verbal clauses involve a coverb construction. However, there are a number of differences between Ngan’gityemerri on the one hand, and other Australian languages on the other hand.

40

Baker and Harvey

First, as we have seen, coverb constructions in Ngan’gityemerri can convey meanings, such as associated motion () and stance (), which coverb constructions cannot generally in Australian languages. Examples () and () are repeated here as () and () for convenience. ()

()

nga-ganim-fifi SGS-go.PR-smoke ‘I’m going along smoking.’ (Ngan’gityemerri – Reid p.c.) ngi-rim-fifi

ngi-rribem-fifi

ngi-bem-fifi

SGS-sit.PR-smoke

SGS-stand.PR-smoke

SGS-lie.PR-smoke

‘I am sitting smoking.’ ‘I am standing smoking.’

‘I am lying smoking.’ (Reid, : )

Second, the coverb construction in Ngan’gityemerri is syntactically different from that in most other Australian languages. As previously discussed (section .), the configurationality of coverb constructions varies somewhat among Australian languages. In some languages, such as Jaminjung and Wagiman, coverbs have a greater degree of independence. However, even in these languages, in at least  percent of occurrences a coverb immediately precedes a finite verb. In other languages such as Marra, the coverb construction is configurational and coverbs necessarily immediately precede a finite verb. In Ngan’gityemerri, as illustrated in () and (), the coverb necessarily immediately follows the verb. Third, the inventory of finite verbs in Ngan’gityemerri is very different from that in most other Australian languages. The inventories of Jaminjung (Schultze-Berndt : –) and Wagiman (Wilson : ) are set out in () and (). ()

Jaminjung Intransitive: be, be sick, burn, come, do/say, go, fall ( verbs) Transitive: approach, be angry with, bite, bring, chop, cook, deceive, eat, excrete, fear, follow, get, give, have, hear, hit, leave, make, put, remove, see, ‘sing’ someone, spear, step on, swear at, take, throw ( verbs)

()

Wagiman Intransitive: be ( distinct verb roots – historically ‘lie’ and ‘sit’), be afraid, be egocentric/narcissistic, become, burn, come, cry, do/ say, dream, fall, go, stand, stay ( verbs) Transitive: beget/name, bite, bring, cause, chase, cook, cut, deceive, eat, follow, fuck, get, give, have/keep, hear, hit, leave, look for, loose, make, put, see, sew, ‘sing’ someone, spear, step on, take, tell off, throw ( verbs)

Complex predicate formation

41

These inventories are very similar. There is a comparatively small number of intransitive verbs. The stance verbs are notable by their absence. There are a large number of transitives. These Australian inventories may be compared with the inventory of light verbs appearing in Persian coverb constructions (Folli et al. : ). ()

Persian (about  directly inflecting verbs –  appear commonly as light verbs) Intransitive: be, become, come, fall, go ( verbs) Transitive: arrange, bring, carry, catch/take, collide, do/make, entrust, give, have, hit, pass/cross, pull, scatter, show, throw, tie, wash ( verbs)

This Persian inventory is similar to the two Australian inventories. The Ngan’gityemerri inventory is set out in Table .. There are two obvious differences between the Ngan’gityemerri inventory and the usual inventory, as illustrated in (–). First, four of the seven members of the Ngan’gityemerri intransitive inventory are stance verbs – lie, perch, sit, stand. Second, Ngan’gityemerri has a set of formally distinctive reflexive (detransitive) directly inflecting verbs. ()

nge-riny-Ø-syirr SGA-HANDS-SGO-scratch ‘I scratched her.’

nge-meny-syirr sgS-HANDS.REFL-scratch ‘I scratched myself.’ (Reid : )

It may be observed that these detransitive verbs bear no formal relationship to their corresponding transitives. Specifically, detransitive verbs of this kind are not part of the inventory of directly inflecting and/or light verbs in most languages with coverb constructions. In this respect, the inventory of Ngan’gityemerri is more similar to the inventories of classificatory verbs in Athabaskan languages, where pairs of controlled and non-controlled verbs show no formal relationship to one another, as shown in Table .. It may be noted that some Athabaskan languages have associated motion constructions (Rice: this volume), of a similar kind to those we find in Ngan’gityemerri, as in (–). The differences between Ngan’gityemerri and other languages with the usual coverb patterns are summarised in (). ()



a. The coverb obligatorily follows the verb, as opposed to normally or obligatorily preceding it.

The ‘stand’ verb in Wagiman is extremely rare. It occurs only with a couple of coverbs and is not obligatory with these. It does not occur independently, unlike all the other finite verbs.

42

Baker and Harvey

Table . Ngan’gityemerri finite verb inventory (Reid : ) Intransitive arrive

involving arrival/emergence

go

carried out in motion

lie

carried out in a lying posture

perch

carried out up off the ground

sit

carried out in a sitting posture

stand

carried out in a standing posture

travel

carried out in motion (goal-oriented motion)

Transitive do/say

speech and unspecified doing (do things, say things)

poke

using long, thin things in point contact (stab, prod)

see

performed with the eyes (look at, watch, keep an eye on)

slash

using hinged trajectory and edge-on contact (sweep, slice)

take

taking/bringing things

bash

using vertical trajectory and lumpy contact (thump, crash)

feet

holding things down with the feet (tread on, kick, walk on)

hands

holding things within the grasp of the hands (grab, hold, grip)

heat

applying heat (burn, melt, warm, light)

mouth

holding things within the mouth (chew, suck, some speech verbs)

move

moving things to a different place (shift, throw, push)

pull

pulling things (pull, tow, lever up)

snatch

acquiring things (get, pick up)

suck

ingesting things (eat, drink)

Reflexive bash.refl

reflexive activity using vertical trajectory and lumpy contact

do/say.refl

reflexive speech (talk to yourself, mutter under your breath)

feet.refl

reflexive activity holding things down with feet

hands.refl

reflexive activity holding things within the grasp of the hands

heat.refl

reflexive activity by applying heat

mouth.refl

reflexive activity holding things within the mouth

move.refl.dyn

reflexive activity by moving things to a different place-dynamic

move.ref.stat

reflexive activity by moving things to a different place-stative

see.refl

reflexive activity performed with the eyes

Complex predicate formation

43

Table . Slave classificatory verbs (Rice: –) action by poking (with stick, hand)

action by hand

action by foot

controlled

Ø-kwi, Ø-ge

non-controlled

Ø-ka

controlled

h-nih

non-controlled

Ø-tsi

controlled

Ø-ʔéh

non-controlled

Ø-táh

b. The stance verbs constitute half of the inventory of intransitive finite verbs, as opposed to being absolutely or effectively absent. c. The inventory of transitives is matched by an inventory of formally unrelated detransitives, as opposed to detransitivisation being marked by standard morphological or syntactic structures. d. Meanings such as ‘associated motion’ and ‘associated stance’ may be conveyed by the coverb construction in Ngan’gityemerri. These meanings cannot be conveyed by coverb constructions in most languages. The features listed in () are also characteristic of the western and northern neighbours of Ngan’gityemerri – Marranj, Marramaninjsji, Marringarr, Marrithiyel, Matige, Murriny-Patha. This suggests that the features in () are not a chance collocation, but follow from significant structural differences between the coverb construction in these languages, and the coverb constructions found in the great majority of other languages. The patterns found in Ngan’gityemerri and its neighbours are not the only types of departures from the usual patterning of the coverb construction. In three Australian languages, Kamu, Malak-Malak, and Matngele, coverbs can combine with other coverbs in serial constructions to form complex predicates through coindexation, as in (). ()

dal-ngak-ma=gu-yang poke-eat-IMPF=SGS-GO:PR ‘(The bird) is pecking (at the food).’ [lit. ‘(The bird) is poking, eating (the food).’] (Kamu – Harvey fieldnotes)

In summary, it is clear that there is no necessary connection between the existence of coverbs as a part-of-speech class, their combination with finite verbs to form coverb constructions, and the event structures which are

44

Baker and Harvey

possible within a single clause. In many languages with coverbs, only simplex event structures are possible within a single clause. In a small group of Australian languages from the north-western Northern Territory, however, more complex event structures can be encoded with coverb constructions. The situation with serial verb constructions is unclear. In terms of the available evidence, it appears that a subset of the serial verb constructions in many languages may map to coindexation conceptual structures. It is conceivable that in some languages with serial verb constructions, only simplex event structures may be possible within a single clause, suggesting that these languages may only allow merger of LCS, and not coindexation, as with many languages with coverb constructions. It is also conceivable that languages with serial verbs may allow merger and coindexation as mapping mechanisms at different levels of syntactico-semantic structure (as in the ‘nuclear’ vs. ‘core’ juncture model of Van Valin and LaPolla , for example). These are questions for future research. There are also other morphosyntactic structures such as Germanic particle + verb constructions, whose status with respect to the merger vs. coindexation distinction is likewise an area for further research. .

Conclusion

We have shown that complex predicates may be divided into two classes in terms of their correspondence with conceptual structure. One class of complex predicates – the merger construction – groups with monomorphemic predicates in that merger constructions only allow predicates which correspond to the classic Vendlerian verb classes. Various authors (e.g. Dowty , Rappaport Hovav and Levin ) have proposed that the Vendlerian classes represent a constraint on what kinds of events may be lexicalised as monomorphemic verbs in languages. Merger constructions therefore obey this constraint, and for this reason we have characterised them as realising ‘simplex’ event structures. The other class – coindexation constructions – groups with multi-clause sequences, in allowing more complex event structures, which cannot in many cases be expressed by simple monomorphemic predicates in other languages. It is not clear whether there are limits on the complexity of event structures expressible by coindexation constructions. We have also shown that this distinction in conceptual structures is not predictable from the morphosyntactic structure of complex predicates, although there is a clear bias in most languages with coverb constructions towards merger of conceptual structures, rather than coindexation. The deeper question, which we have not addressed here, is why it is that a complex predicate construction such as the coverb constructions of Marra, Wagiman, and Jaminjungan should be so constrained. We have

Complex predicate formation

45

similarly not attempted to explain which particular finite verbs become selected for use in coverb constructions. Again, there are relatively clear preferences for verbs with ‘generic’ meanings such as ‘take’, ‘get’, and ‘hit’ rather than more specific meanings, though there are exceptions to this general pattern in most languages with multiple coverbs, such as Marra janyi ‘tell’, or Bardi -ar- ‘spear lice’ (Bowern ) (see Amberber, Baker and Harvey ). These are topics for future research. References Aikhenvald, A. . Serial Verb Constructions in Typological Perspective. In Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, Alexandra Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds), –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Amberber, M. . Verb Classes and Transitivity in Amharic [Lincom Studies in Afro-Asiatic Linguistics ]. Muenchen: Lincom Europa. Amberber, M., Baker, B., and Harvey, M. . Complex Predication and the Coverb Construction. In Language Description, History and Development: Linguistic Indulgence in Memory of Terry Crowley, Jeff Siegel, John Lynch, and Diana Eades (eds), –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bamgbose, A. . On Serial Verbs and Verbal Status. Journal of West African Linguistics :–. Bodomo, A. B. . Paths and Pathfinders: Exploring the Syntax and Semantics of Complex Verbal Predicates in Dagaare and Other Languages. PhD dissertation, Trondheim: The Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Bowern, C. . Bardi Verb Morphology in Historical Perspective. PhD dissertation, Harvard. Bruce, L. . The Alamblak Language of Papua New Guinea (East Sepik). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics Series C: . Butt, M., this volume. The Light Verb Jungle: Still Hacking Away. Crowley, T. . Serial Verbs in Paamese. Studies in Language :– . . Serial Verbs in Oceanic: A Descriptive Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dowty, D. R. . Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel. Foley, W. A. . The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foley, W. A. and Olson, M. . Clausehood and Verb Serialisation. In Grammar Inside and Outside the Clause, Johanna Nichols and Anthony C. Woodbury (eds), –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foley, W. A. and Van Valin, R. D. . Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Folli, R., Harley, H., and Karimi, S. . Determinants of Event Type in Persian Complex Predicates. Lingua : –. Green, R. . A Grammar of Gurr-goni: A Language of North Central Arnhem Land. PhD dissertation, Canberra: ANU.

46

Baker and Harvey

Gruber, J. . Studies in Lexical Relations. PhD dissertation, MIT. [Published as part of Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: NorthHolland, .] Hale, K. and Keyser, S.J. . On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In The View from Building : Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), –. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Heath, J. . Basic Materials in Mara: Grammar, Texts and Dictionary. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics : Series C: . Jackendoff, R. . Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . Parts and Boundaries. Cognition :  –. . The Proper Treatment of Measuring Out, Telicity, and Possibly Even Quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory , : –. . The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. . Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Li, C. and Thompson, S. . Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lord, C. . Historical Change in Serial Verb Constructions [Typological Studies in Language, vol. ]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Matthews, S. and Yip, V. . Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar. London/ New York: Routledge. Megerdoomian, K. . Event Structure and Complex Predicates in Persian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics  (/): –. Special Issue on the Syntax of Iranian Languages. Ramchand, G. and Svenonius, P. . The Lexical Syntax and Lexical Semantics of the Verb-Particle Construction. In WCCFL  Proceedings, L. Mikkelsen and C. Potts (eds), –. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Rappaport Hovav, M. and Levin, B. . Building Verb Meanings. In The projection of arguments, Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder (eds), –. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Reid, N. . Complex Verb Collocations in Ngan’gityemerri: A Non-derivational Strategy for Encoding Valency Alternations. In Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity, R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Aikhenvald (eds), –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rice, K. . A Grammar of Slave. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. This volume. Activity Incorporates in Some Athabaskan Languages. Schultze-Berndt, E. . Simple and Complex Verbs in Jaminjung. Nijmegen: Catholic University. Sebba, M. . The Syntax of Serial Verbs: An Investigation into Serials in Sranan and Other Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Complex predicate formation

47

Van Valin, R. D. . A Synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. (ed.), –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Van Valin, R. D. and LaPolla, R.J. . Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vendler, Z. . Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Wilson, S. . Coverbs and Complex Predicates in Wagiman. Stanford, CA: CSLI.

3

The light verb jungle: still hacking away MIRIAM BUTT

.

Introduction to the jungle

This is a revised and updated version of Butt (), which noted that the study of light verbs and complex predicates is fraught with dangers and misunderstandings that go beyond the merely terminological. This chapter thus attempts to provide some clarity by addressing how light verbs and complex predicates can be identified cross-linguistically, what the relationship between the two is and whether light verbs must always be associated with uniform syntactic and semantic properties. Based primarily on both diachronic and synchronic evidence from the South Asian language Urdu, but also by taking cross-linguistic patterns into account, this chapter attempts to pull together the relevant available knowledge in order to arrive at a more definitive understanding of light verbs. Jespersen (, Volume VI: ) is generally credited with first coining the term light verb, which he applied to English V+NP constructions as in (). ()

have a rest, a read, a cry, a think take a sneak, a drive, a walk, a plunge give a sigh, a shout, a shiver, a pull, a ring

The intuition behind the term ‘light’ is that although these constructions respect the standard verb complement schema in English, the verbs take, give, etc., cannot be said to be predicating fully. That is, one does not actually physically ‘take’ a ‘plunge’ but rather one ‘plunges’. The verbs therefore seem to be more of a verbal licenser for nouns. However, the verbs are clearly not entirely devoid of semantic predicative content either: there is a clear difference between take a bath and give a bath. The verbs thus seem to neither retain their full semantic predicational content, nor are they semantically completely empty. Rather, they appear to be semantically light in some manner that is difficult to identify. From a 

Thanks go to the editors for bearing with me, to an anonymous reviewer for very thoughtful comments and finally, to Veronika Walther for converting this paper, which was originally in LaTeX, to Word.

48

The light verb jungle: still hacking away

49

diachronic perspective, the intuition has been that the light form of these verbs developed from the main verb and that the light form lost some of the semantic content as part of historical change (but see section .). However, what it is precisely that the light verb contributes to the joint predication and therefore exactly which parts of the predication are supposed to have been lost as part of historical change is difficult to characterise. Furthermore, there is no documented evidence of such a historical development (cf. Bowern ). Since Jespersen’s original coinage, the term light verb has been adopted for analyses in a number of languages. Some (fairly) recent examples are Grimshaw and Mester’s () analysis of Japanese suru ‘do’ (N+V constructions), Rosen’s () analysis of Romance periphrastic causatives with ‘make’ (V+V), Mohanan’s () analysis of Hindi N+V complex predicates, and my own analysis of Urdu V+V complex predicates (Butt ). In these papers, the term complex predicate is used to designate a construction that involves two or more predicational elements (such as nouns, verbs, and adjectives) which predicate as a single unit, i.e. their arguments map onto a monoclausal syntactic structure. Complex predicates can also be found in other languages and have been written about by other authors than the ones cited above. However, the literature discussing these constructions involves a dizzying diversity of analyses and terminology. In descriptive grammars, the term compound verb tends to be favoured, but is generally inappropriate as the two predicational elements do not form lexical compounds by anybody’s definition of compound. Another term is composite predicate, which seems to be a reasonable alternative. However, complex/composite predicates are also sometimes referred to as serial verb constructions (SVC), the prototypical instantiation of which differs considerably in terms of syntax and semantics from that of the typical complex predicate, although the precise line of demarcation is difficult to draw (cf. Butt , Choi , Aikhenvald  ; see section .). Complex predicates are also often lumped together with control constructions (e.g. Huang () for Chinese ba and de), which are instances of one clause embedded in another, hence biclausal and hence actually very much unlike complex predicates, for which syntactic monoclausality is a hallmark (section ..). At the other extreme, complex predicates are often classified as a form of auxiliary construction with the light verb identified as a functional item along the lines of tense and aspect auxiliaries (e.g. Hacker  and Hook , , , for Hindi) or there is no distinction drawn between auxiliary constructions and complex predicates (e.g. Abeillé, Godard, and Sag () analyse both tense auxiliaries and causative faire constructions in French as complex predicates; Wurmbrand () sees both auxiliary constructions and complex predicates as a form of restructuring; generally Government and Binding (GB) and minimalist (MP) approaches draw no distinction between auxiliaries and light verbs,

50

Butt

treating both as an instance of raising). As argued in section ., this appears to be a fundamental misanalysis. Sorting through the various analyses, languages, and terms that have been proposed is not trivial and requires a great deal of careful and detailed syntactic work. This chapter aims at making a first contribution to the overall (probably book-length) task of identifying core characteristics of light verbs and providing solid syntactic and semantic analyses. In what follows, I thus attempt to draw a very sharp distinction between auxiliaries and light verbs, providing cross-linguistically relevant diagnostics along the way. The chapter first presents typical characteristics of light verbs (section .) and then establishes that light verbs are part of a syntactically monoclausal predication within a complex predicate (section ..). Section . argues further that light verbs constitute a separate syntactic class and section . takes a look at some available diachronic evidence before proposing an analysis in section . which ties light verbs very closely to their main verb counterparts and which sees them as elements which serve to modulate the main predication in a subtle manner. .

Typical characteristics of light verbs

My understanding of complex predicates and light verbs is necessarily coloured by the types of constructions found in South Asian languages. While I have worked mainly on Urdu, these constructions can be found in most of the South Asian languages (cf. Masica () on South Asia as a language area). Furthermore, the same types have also been identified in many other languages and language families, such as Romance, Bantu, Japanese, Korean, and Persian. ..

Light verbs in connection with complex predicates

Under my understanding (and as in e.g. Alsina, Bresnan, and Sells , Alsina , Mohanan ), the term complex predicate refers to any construction in which two or more predicational elements each contribute to a joint predication. Note that this is distinct from noun incorporation, in which an object (or other argument or adjunct) is drawn into the verbal predication to become part of that predication, but does not add anything else to the predication. That is, it moves in with the predicate, but it does not contribute anything other than itself to the joint household, so to speak. An example of noun incorporation in Hindi/Urdu is given in (), in which 

Note that Wurmbrand actually confuses the issue further by drawing parallels between German coherent verbs and Romance-type complex predicates. However, the two phenomena are syntactically and semantically quite different. In particular, German coherent verbs do not involve a unified predication (Predicate Composition), rather there are two separate domains of predication (see section .).

The light verb jungle: still hacking away

51

in one reading the object ‘horse’ has incorporated into the verb, thus modifying it and giving rise to the sense of a general activity of horse-selling (cf. Mohanan ). ()

aaniil ghoṛe bec-taa haaii Anil.M.NOM horse.M.PL sell-IMPF.M.SG be.PRES..SG ‘Anil sells horses./Anil does horse-selling.’ (Urdu)

In complex predicates, on the other hand, both parts of the predication contribute something. Complex predicates can encompass either morphological or syntactic elements. A typical example of morphological complex predication is that of morphological causativisation, as in (b), where the causative morpheme -vaa is at the very least contributing the causer ‘Nadya’ and the other arguments are coming from the main verb ‘cut’. ()

a.

yassiin=ne

paodaa

kaaṭ-aa

Yassin/M.SG =ERG

plant.M.NOM

cut-PERF.M.SG

‘Yassin cut the plant.’ (Urdu) b.

naadyaa=ne

yassiin=se

paodaa

kaṭ-vaa-yaa

NadyaF.SG =ERG Yassin.M.SG =INST plant.M.NOM CUT-Caus-PERF.M.SG ‘Nadya had the plant cut by Yassin.’ (Urdu)

In a comparison between Bantu and Romance, Alsina () and Alsina and Joshi () have shown that regardless of whether the complex predication is morphological or syntactic, the composition of arguments of both the predicational elements works along the same principles. Thus, in the permissive in (), it is the lexical item de ‘give’ that is the element which at the very least contributes the extra argument (in this case the permitter) to the joint predication, but the way in which the joint argument structure is arrived at can be modelled in exactly the same way as for the causative (see also Butt and King , Butt, King, and Ramchand ). ()

naadyaa=ne yassiin=ko paodaa kaṭ-ne dii-yaa Nadya.F.SG=ERG Yassin=INST plant.M.NOM cut-INF give-PERF.M.SG ‘Nadya let Yassin cut the plant.’ (Urdu)

The fact that () is an example of a complex predicate, namely a syntactically monoclausal predication consisting of two more predicational heads (see section ..) is established in Butt (). Other examples of typical complex predication are in () and (), namely Noun-Verb and Verb-Verb complex predicates, respectively. Beyond these, Urdu (and other languages) also contains Adj-V complex predicates such as ‘clean-do’ (not illustrated here; e.g. Mohanan ).

52

Butt

()

a.

naadyaa=ne kahaanii yaad k-ii Nadya.F.SG =ERG story.F.SG memory.F do-PERF.F.SG ‘Nadya remembered the story.’ (Urdu) b. naadyaa=ko kahaanii yaad aa-yii Nadya.F.SG=DAT story.F.SG memory.F come-PERF.F.SG ‘Nadya remembered the story (the memory of the story came to Nadya).’ (Urdu)

()

a.

naadyaa=ne xat likh lii-yaa Nadya.F.SG=ERG letter.M.NOM write take-PERF.M.SG ‘Nadya wrote a letter (completely).’ (Urdu)

b.

naadyaa=ne makaan banaa dii-yaa Nadya.F.SG=ERG house.M.NOM make give-PERF.M.SG ‘Nadya built a house (completely, for somebody else).’ (Urdu)

The light verb in the examples above is always the inflected one, but this is not necessarily the case cross-linguistically. In my view, the ability to carry tense/aspect information or be inflected is not a typical characteristic of light verbs. In the N-V complex predicates, the light verb acts as a verbaliser. That is, it is a very productive device for drawing predicates into the language and incorporating loan words into the verbal system (e.g. ‘phone-do’ for telephone). This is particularly crucial for a language such as Urdu, which only has a basic verb inventory of about  items. The light verb in this case is reminiscent of the role that verbalising derivational morphology plays in other languages (e.g. English -ify), though in Urdu, as in other languages with complex predicates, the light verbs are used to make a distinction between agentive and non-agentive actions, ‘do’ vs. ‘come’ in (). Also note that the argument ‘story’ is contributed to the joint predication by the noun, not by the light verb. In (), the light verb combines with something that is already a verb (historically a gerund; see Butt and Lahiri ) and generally affects the Aktionsart of the joint predication. In () the light verb renders the event bounded, but other subtle modifications such as benefactive readings, forcefulness, suddenness, or inception are also possible (Hook ). In this case it is difficult to see how the light verb contributes arguments to the joint predication, but it does (see section ..). The examples above show that light verbs are always part of a complex predicate. This complex predicate may range over different types and therefore exhibit differing syntactic and semantic properties. As a consequence, light verbs also do not all necessarily exhibit exactly the same syntactic properties – just as all auxiliaries or all lexical verbs are not alike, but can be divided into subclasses based on their differing syntactic behaviour, so do

The light verb jungle: still hacking away

53

light verbs constitute a cohesive class on the one hand, but fall into differing subclasses on the other hand. Note that the different types of light verbs found in Urdu can interact with one another, allowing for complex complex predications as in (), in which a N-V complex predicate is causativised and this combination becomes part of a V-V complex predicate, which is further combined with a permissive (see Butt, King, and Ramchand () for a full analysis of this example). ()

taaraa=ne amu=ko (bacce=se) haathii Tara.F.SG=ERG Amu.F.SG=DAT child.M.OBL=INST elephant.M.SG.NOM pinc kar-vaa le-ne dii-yaa pinch do-CAUS take-INF.OBL give-PERF.M.SG ‘Tara let Amu have the elephant pinched (by the child).’ (Urdu)

A detailed investigation of which kinds of complex predicates can interact with which other kinds of complex predicates remains to be undertaken, both in Urdu and in a cross-linguistic context. Butt and Ramchand () point out for Urdu that only certain combinations are licit. ..

Form identity to a full verb

A central characteristic of light verbs is that they are always form identical to a main verb of the language (Butt and Lahiri ). This has already been illustrated by the examples above. Even though the light verbs clearly do not have the same predicational content as their full/main verb counterparts, they are always exactly form identical to a full verb and inflect exactly like that full verb. This characteristic sets light verbs apart from auxiliaries in terms of historical change, as auxiliaries may be form identical to a full verb at the initial stages of reanalysis from verb to auxiliary, but then quickly tend to develop away from the original form of the full verb. Examples are the English preterite -d, which has been related to the verb do, or the Urdu future -g- in (), which until just a few hundred years ago used to be the independent lexical item ‘go’ (Butt and Lahiri ; see Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca  for further examples). ()

naadyaa=ko kahaanii yaad aa-ye-g-ii Nadya.F.SG=DAT story.F.SG memory.F come-.SG-FUT-F.SG ‘Nadya will remember the story (the memory of the story will come to Nadya).’ (Urdu)

Butt and Lahiri () therefore claim that light verbs are not part of the grammaticalisation cline that is often posited (Hopper and Traugott ; see Bowern () for a discussion of the state of the art with respect to this line of inquiry), but that instead light verb and full verb usages must

54

Butt

be drawn from the same underlying lexical entry, whose lexical information plays out in different ways depending on its syntactic environment. Indeed, as discussed in Butt and Lahiri () at some length and as summarised in section ., no evidence for continual reanalysis of a full verb form to a light verb and thence to an auxiliary can be identified. ..

Joint predication and monoclausality

As discussed in section .., light verbs are always part of a joint predication within a complex predicate. Indeed, it is this central characteristic that has rendered complex predication and the representation of light verbs a tough nut for syntactic theories. This is because a very fundamental assumption underlying all syntactic theories has been that the main verb is the predicational lynch-pin of the clause and that all other elements in the clause are either arguments or modifying elements of some sort. However, there was no sense that two or more predicational elements could come together to form a joint predication, with a jointly determined argument structure. A very simple solution is to assume that light verbs are predicationally empty, i.e., their function is simply to license the predication of a non-verbal element. For example, this is essentially the solution pursued by Grimshaw and Mester () for Japanese or Cattell () for English. However, light verbs do contribute to a joint predication in a systematic manner (this is true for both Japanese suru (Butt ) and English light verbs (Brinton and Akimoto ()). Approaches which seek to capture this systematic contribution of the light verb to the joint predication posit some kind of Argument Merger. Rosen (), for example, differentiates between light (empty), partial, and complete merger for restructuring verbs and causatives in Romance. Alsina (), Mohanan (), and Butt () respectively propose the notions of Predicate Composition, Argument Merger, and Argument Fusion in order to account for Romance and Hindi/Urdu. Another possible idea within generative syntax is that light verbs are actually instantiations of v (Adger : ). The idea of v goes back to Chomsky (), who introduced it for auxiliaries and modals. As used in current analyses within the Minimalist Program, v is a curious category: it could be interpreted as either a functional or a lexical category, or a mixture of both. Given the mixed nature of light verbs (some semantic information, but predicationally dependent), v would actually seem to be quite a good candidate for a light verb analysis (see Butt and Ramchand () for an articulation of this idea with respect to Urdu; analyses are also being worked out for Persian N-V complex predicates).  

For an early analysis of complex predication in Romance as Clause Union see Aissen and Perlmutter (). The relevant papers are currently under review.

The light verb jungle: still hacking away

55

Whichever analytical framework is chosen, the central characteristics of complex predication in connection with light verbs has to be modelled. For one, the form identity of light verbs to full verbs must be accounted for (this is taken up in section .). For another, the jointly determined, complex argument structure that represents a primary predication corresponding to a syntactically monoclausal structure must be represented. In order to illustrate precisely what I mean by the latter, I provide a concrete analysis in terms of Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG; Dalrymple ). As shown in Butt (), the permissive complex predicate in () contrasts with the superficially similar Urdu biclausal tell-construction as in () in terms of agreement, anaphora, and control. ()

naadyaa=ne

yassiin=ko [paodaa

kaṭ-ne=ko] kaah-aa

Nadya.F.SG= ERG Yassin=INST plant.M.NOM cut-INF=ACC say-PERF.M.SG ‘Nadya told Yassin to cut the plant.’ (Urdu)

In both the permissive and the tell-construction, there are two predicational elements. However, in the permissive, the two combine to form one syntactically monoclausal predication, as shown in (). This contrasts with the syntactically biclausal construction in (), in which evidence from agreement, anaphora, and control point towards the existence of an embedded subject and an embedded object. Thus, in () two predicational elements, ‘let/give’ and ‘cut’ combine to form a single predicational unit, a complex predicate. In (), on the other hand, the two verbs predicate separately, each linking to a separate syntactic domain, with a subject in each of these domains. ()

Monoclausal permissive GIVE/LET < agent goal

CUT < agent theme >> PRED

SUBJ

OBJgo

OBJ

TENSE

‘let-cut < ___ , ___ , ____ > ’ PRED

‘Nadya’

CASE

ERG

PRED

‘Yassin’

CASE

DAT

PRED

‘plant’

CASE

NOM

PAST

56

()

Butt

Biclausal tell-construction

TELL < agent goal theme > CUT < agent theme >

SUBJ

PRED

‘Nadya’

OBJgo

PRED

‘Yassin’

PRED

‘say < ___ , ___ , ___ >’ PRED

XCOMP

‘cut < ___ , ___ >’

SUBJ OBJ

PRED

‘plant’

Exactly how the correspondence between the a(rgument) structures and the syntactic representation happens is determined by a theory of Argument Merger in combination with a version of LFG’s linking theory. The details of the analysis are not relevant here (see Bresnan () and Dalrymple () for a general description and Butt () and Butt, King, and Ramchand () for a discussion of the phenomena at hand), the point of presenting the analyses is merely to drive home the idea that complex predication involves two or more predicational elements which predicate jointly by mapping their combined predicational content to a single monoclausal syntactic domain. It is not always easy to see that both parts of the complex predication are contributing independently to the argument structure. For example, the light verbs in examples such as in () never add to the overall valency of the predication. However, that the light verb does make a contribution to the overall joint predication in terms of argument structure in these cases as well becomes evident with examples as in () and (). For one, agentive light verbs like ‘take’ cannot ever be combined with unaccusative verbs such as ‘go’, as shown in (). For another, the light verbs determine the case of the subject. This is illustrated by the contrast between (a) and (b), where the agentive light verb ‘take’ triggers the ergative case on the subject, but a non-agentive verb does not. ()

a. naadyaa gir ga-yii Nadya.F.SG.NOM fall go-PERF.F.SG ‘Nadya fell (down).’ (Urdu) b. *naadyaa=ne gir lii-yaa Nadya.F.SG=ERG fall take-PERF.M.SG ‘Nadya fell (completely).’ (Urdu)

The light verb jungle: still hacking away

()

a. naadyaa=ne ro lii-yaa Nadya.F.SG=ERG cry take-PERF.M.SG ‘Nadya cried (has finished and did it on purpose).’ b. naadyaa ro paṛ-ii Nadya.F.SG.NOM cry fall-PERF.F.SG ‘Nadya fell to crying (involuntarily).’ (Urdu)

57

(Urdu)

A careful analysis of the complex predicates in () and () in terms of data from agreement, anaphora, and control (Butt ) confirms that these constructions are indeed monoclausal. Thus, this type of complex predicate also passes the test of a complex joint predication which corresponds to a monoclausal syntactic domain. Such tests for monoclausality are discussed in the next section. .. Establishing monoclausality Complex predicates differ syntactically from control or raising constructions as in () and (), which encompass two syntactically separate domains of predication, but where some arguments (her/she) are shared across the domains. () I ordered her to play soccer. () She seems to play soccer. One crucial step in the identification of complex predication therefore is the establishment of syntactic monoclausality. Whether a given structure is monoclausal or not can only be determined on the basis of languagedependent tests. That is to say, tests for monoclausality may vary across languages, depending on the internal structure and organisation of the language in question. Some of the earliest work on complex predication stems from analyses of Romance languages within Relational Grammar (RG). Aissen and Perlmutter () show that Clause Union (i.e. complex predication) in Spanish and Italian can be identified by phenomena such as clitic climbing: clitics ‘climb’ to the higher verb in complex predicates, but not in biclausal constructions, as shown in () and () for French. Other tests include passivisation and reflexivisation (see Rosen () for further discussion and tests, primarily for French and Italian). 

Note that within the class of monoclausal complex predicates, a further distinction can be made, namely between primary and secondary predication. The complex predicates examined in this chapter are all examples of primary predication. Standard examples of secondary monoclausal predication are furnished by resultatives in languages such as English, German, and Dutch: Paul painted the door green. Secondary predications such as resultatives do not involve light verbs as far as I can tell.

58

Butt

() a. Jean a fait partir Marie. Jean has made go Marie ‘Jean made Marie go.’ (French – Rosen : ) b. Jean l’a fait partir. Jean her has made go ‘Jean made her go.’ (French – Rosen : ) () a. Marie a entendu Pierre réciter les poèmes. Marie has listened Pierre recite the poems ‘Marie heard Pierre recite the poems.’ (French – Rosen : ) b. *Marie les a entendu Pierre réciter. Marie them has listened Pierre recite ‘Marie heard Pierre recite them.’ (French – Rosen : ) Korean is an SOV language that does not have clitic climbing (let alone pronominal clitics). It does, however, contain a number of constructions that look like V-V complex predicates. How can one establish that these constructions are indeed complex predicates? Choi () examines V-V constructions of the kind shown in () in terms of how they behave with respect to negative polarity items (NPI), negation, and the (non-)separability of the two verbs. () Chelswu-Ka namwunip-ul ssel-E chiw-ess-ta Chelswu-NOM leaves-ACC sweep-E clean-PAST-DECL ‘Chelswu has swept up the leaves.’ (Korean) In Korean, the NPI items anwu-to ‘nobody’ and an ‘not’ together mean ‘nobody’. These items must co-occur in the same clause. If they do not, the NPI meaning is not licensed and the sentence is ungrammatical, as shown in (). () *Chelswu-nun [anwu-to pam-ul ilk-ess-ta]-ko Chelswu-Top nobody chestnut-ACC eat-PAST-DECL-COMP an malha-ess-ta. NEG say-PAST-DECL ‘Chelswu did not say that nobody ate the chestnut.’ (Korean) In contrast, when the NPI items are distributed across the kind of V-V construction illustrated in (), the NPI reading is well-formed, indicating that the construction must be monoclausal and therefore a complex predicate. () anwu-to pam-ul an mek-E chiw-ess-ta. nobody chestnut-ACC NEG eat-E clean-PAST-DECL ‘Nobody (children) has eaten up the chestnut.’ (Korean)

The light verb jungle: still hacking away

59

The second (inflected) verb in the construction is the one that can be identified as a light verb, given its ‘diminished’ predicational impact. Again, this light verb is always form identical with a main verb in the language and has been glossed with the meaning of the main verb. The NPI test also works for Urdu (and Turkish). In addition, as already mentioned, Butt () shows that object agreement, anaphora, and control are good tests for monoclausality in Urdu. In sum, there are several possible tests for monoclausality, but these tests must be applied on a languageinternal basis. That is, a test like clitic climbing will not apply to languages without pronominal clitics, the Urdu object agreement test will not work for a language which does not allow object agreement, and the Korean NPI test will not work for a language that does not allow the separation of NPI items. The identification of complex predicates and light verbs therefore presupposes a very careful scrutiny of the syntax of a given language. . Light verbs as a separate syntactic class Light verbs are parts of complex predicates. While this fact has been recognised, many syntactic approaches chose to classify light verbs either as a type of auxiliary or as a main verb that works similarly to raising or control verbs such as order, tell, or seem. This section argues that light verbs should be recognised as a separate syntactic class. Or rather, that the syntactic properties of light verbs distinguish them from the syntactic distribution of auxiliaries as well as main verbs. Just as with monoclausality, language-particular syntactic factors must be taken into account in establishing this. The evidence presented in this section goes through some data from Northern Australian languages, Mandarin Chinese, and Urdu. .. Northern Australian Some Australian languages exhibit complex predicates which consist of a coverb or preverb and an inflecting verb. The coverb and inflecting verb can be shown to be part of a monoclausal complex predication (see Wilson () for Wagiman, Bowern () for Bardi, Schultze-Berndt () for Jaminjung). In the Northern Australian languages, the coverbs are drawn from an open class, do not inflect and in general seem to share characteristics with both adverbials and verbs. The inflecting verbs, on the other hand, are drawn from a closed class that is generally quite small (Bowern () lists a core class of about ten verbs). The inflecting verbs can be used to predicate as a main verb, but when they are used in combination with a coverb, their predicational content is light. An example from Jaminjung is shown in (), where the main predication is furnished by the coverb ‘race’.

60

Butt

() burdurdubba=biya ga-ngga ngayin thanthu race=now SG-go.PRES animal(ABS) DEM (ABS) ‘It is racing off now that animal.’ (Jaminjung – Schultze-Berndt, ) Besides their unique syntactic distribution, these inflecting verbs also play a unique semantic role within the language. As the examples in () and () show, the inflecting (light) verbs are able to influence the Aktionsart of the joint predication: while the coverb stays constant in each of these examples, the choice of the light verb modulates the event predication in a subtle way. ()

a. walthub ga-jga-ny inside SG-go-PAST ‘go in’ (Jaminjung – Schultze-Berndt ) b. walthub ga-rdba-ny inside SG-fall-PAST ‘get in’ (Jaminjung – Schultze-Berndt )

() a. bul ga-ruma-ny appear SG-come-PAST ‘appear’ (Jaminjung – Schultze-Berndt ) b. bul gani-ma appear SG-hit.PAST ‘appear (suddenly)’ (Jaminjung – Schultze-Berndt ) Bowern () provides a host of arguments that identify inflected verbs of this type in Bardi as light verbs of the type found in Urdu (Butt and Geuder ). Schultze-Berndt () further offers an analysis of these light verbs as classifiers of events. In (), for example, the coverb denotes the manner, while the light verb supplies the event predication. In (), the coverb supplies a path and the light verb supplies information about the type of motion on that path. The coverb in () denotes a result and the light verb supplies the cause. () buru ga-ruma-ny back SG-come-PAST ‘s/he came back’ (Jaminjung – Schultze-Berndt ) () ning burr-wa-na break.off PL:SG-bite-IMPF ‘They were biting something off.’ )

(Jaminjung – Schultze-Berndt

The light verb jungle: still hacking away

61

The available evidence from Northern Australian thus points to a distinct syntactic class of light verbs which serve to modulate or modify the joint event predication. Another such example comes from Mandarin Chinese, as is shown in the next section. ..

Mandarin Chinese

The discussion in this section is based on materials and insights taken from Scott () and on further joint work (Butt and Scott ), which takes a close look at Chinese directionals. As illustrated in (), the Mandarin directionals are drawn from a closed set of verbs of direction. Typical examples of usage, which are immediately reminiscent of the Australian examples in the previous section, are shown in (). ()

()

Directional etymons shang

ascend/up

hui

return/back

xia

descend/down

qi

rise

jin

enter/in

kai

open/apart

chut

exit/out

lai

come/hither

guo

cross/over

qu

go/thither

dao

reach/to

Examples of usage pao jin

run enter

‘to enter running’

na chu

take exit

‘to take/extract’

fang xia

put descend

‘to put down’

pa shang

climb ascend

‘to climb up’

tong guo

traverse cross

‘to go through/cross’

zhuan hui

turn return

‘to turn back/return’

lai dao

come reach

‘to arrive/come to’

zhan qi

stand rise

‘to stand up’

zuo kai

walk open

‘to walk away’

A cursory examination of the directional construction already reveals some of the hallmarks of light verbs identified previously: the second verb (the directional) is always form identical to a full verb in the language, but is not predicating as a full verb. This is illustrated with respect to ‘descend’ in ().

62

()

Butt

qing ni liu xia nide ming-pian please you leave descend your name card ‘Please leave your name card.’ (Mandarin Chinese)

Teasing apart the relevant data for Mandarin Chinese is quite tricky. However, a careful analysis shows that these directionals can have as many as four usages and that one of them aligns with light verbs cross-linguistically. Butt and Scott () concentrate on guo ‘cross’ as a case study. This verb can be used in four different ways. Example () illustrates the main verb use, () a verb second (V) directional use, and () an aspectual use (experiential perfect). ()

guo malu cross road ‘to cross the road’

(Mandarin Chinese)

() pao guo qu run cross go ‘to run across’ (Mandarin Chinese) ()

wo shuai duan guo tui I fall sever cross leg ‘I broke my leg once (but it has healed since).’

(Mandarin Chinese)

In addition to these three usages, a fourth one can be distinguished. On the surface, this light verb usage appears to be very similar to the directional V or the aspectual use in () and (). However, there are clearly identifiable syntactic and phonological differences. () wo chi guo le I eat cross CURR.REL.SIT. ‘I have eaten.’ (Mandarin Chinese) When guo is used as a main verb, it receives tone and is not subject to selectional restrictions. When it is used as a lexical V directional, as in (), tone is preferred but not obligatory, and the directional may take either a locative or a theme argument. The light use in (), on the other hand, disprefers tone, is not separable from the main verb (‘eat’), and cannot take a locative argument, only a theme. Finally, as a pure aspect marker in (), guo receives no tone and licenses no independent arguments. There are thus four distinct identifiable uses of guo and we again have a case of a syntactically distinct category which goes hand-in-hand with a distinct semantics.

The light verb jungle: still hacking away

63

.. Urdu The same conclusion, namely that light verbs must be acknowledged as a distinct syntactic category, can be reached in Urdu on the basis of yet a different set of criteria. Urdu is an SOV language with fairly free word order among constituents, but a rigid order within the verbal complex. As shown in (), the light verb fits into a distinct slot in the verbal complex and no other order is licit. () Main Verb (Light Verb) (Passive Auxiliary) (Progressive Auxiliary) (Tense Auxiliary) Like the other main members of the verbal complex, namely the passive, progressive, and ‘be’ auxiliaries, the light verbs are always optional and always independent syntactic elements. Unlike the auxiliaries, light verbs can be reduplicated. The contrast is illustrated by () vs. () (cf. FitzpatrickCole  for Bengali). so jaa-tii th-ii PRON..SG.NOM sleep go-IMPF.F.SG be.PAST-SG.F ‘She used to go to sleep.’ (Urdu) b. vo so jaa-tii vaatii th-ii PRON..SG.NOM sleep go-IMPF.F.SG go.REDUP be.PAST-SG.F ‘She used to keep going to sleep (at inopportune moments).’ (Urdu)

() a. vo

so rah-ii th-ii PRON..SG.NOM sleep PROG-F.SG be.PAST-SG.F ‘She was sleeping.’ (Urdu) b. *vo so rah-ii vaahii th-ii PRON..SG.NOM sleep PROG-F.SG PROG.REDUP be.PAST-SG.F ‘She was sleeping.’ (Urdu)

() a. vo

Another difference which sets light verbs apart from auxiliaries as well as main verbs is that light verbs exhibit subtle lexical semantic differences in terms of combinatorial possibilities with main verbs. These differences are not necessarily predictable (unlike, for example, the restriction that progressives tend to be incompatible with stative verbs). An example from Urdu is provided in (), an example from Mandarin Chinese in (). () a. naadyaa makaan banaa pa ṛ -ii Nadya.F.NOM house.M.NOM make fall-PERF.F.SG ‘Nadya fell to building a house.’ (Urdu)

64

Butt

b. ??naadyaa makaan banaa u ṭ h-ii Nadya.F.NOM house.M.NOM make rise-PERF.F.SG ‘Nadya rose to building a house.’ (Urdu) () a. guan diao/*shang shouyinji shut fall/ascend radio ‘Switch off the radio.’ (Mandarin Chinese) b. guan shang/? diao men shut ascend/fall door ‘Close the door.’ (Mandarin Chinese) In conclusion, in Urdu we again have a set of light verbs which can be identified by a number of distinct distributional properties (phonological, syntactic, semantic). Light verbs can thus clearly be established as a distinct syntactic category in a number of languages. As was the case with the tests for monoclausality, the relevant tests differed from language to language, but a close look at the language internal structure brought out very precise criteria for differentiating light verbs from main verbs or aspectual auxiliaries. Despite the distributional differences that set light verbs apart from main verbs and auxiliaries, they are always form identical to a main verb in the language. This fact still needs to be accounted for. Before attempting to do so in section ., the next section presents pertinent diachronic data. .

Light verbs and change

The previous sections have established that light verbs contribute to a semantically complex but syntactically monoclausal predication and that they form a syntactically distinct class. This section takes a look at some of the available diachronic evidence and at what it suggests about the relationship between main verbs, light verbs, and auxiliaries. A quick look through the literature on syntactic change with respect to light verbs reveals a dearth of relevant discussions, with the recent exception of Bowern (), who provides a fairly comprehensive survey. Most approaches have focused on auxiliaries and/or modals (e.g. Lightfoot , Plank , Warner , Denison , Roberts , Roberts and Roussou , ). Harris and Campbell (), for example, formulate the principle in (), which at first sight would appear to apply to light verbs. However, a closer inspection of the material cited in support of the principle shows that the data set only pertains to auxiliary formation. () The Heir-Apparent Principle (Harris and Campbell : ) When the two clauses are made one by diachronic processes, the main verb governs the syntax of the reflex clause.

The light verb jungle: still hacking away

65

One approach which takes light verbs into account explicitly is Grammaticalisation Theory. As shown in (), Hopper and Traugott (: ) include vector or light verbs as an optional stage on the grammaticalisation cline. () full verb > (vector verb) > auxiliary > clitic > affix The inclusion of light verbs is due to a study on Hindi and Marathi by Hook (, ) who analyses the light verbs as a stage in aspectogenesis which will ultimately give rise to a type of aspectual auxiliary (see also Hook () for a broader examination of the diachrony of light verbs in the South Asian context). However, there are several problems with this assumption. For one, rather than constituting a subclass of the existing auxiliaries, the light verbs interact with all of the other auxiliaries of the verbal paradigm (Butt and Geuder ). For another, the semantic contribution goes beyond that of the purely functional tense/aspect kind. While light verbs generally do signal some kind of boundedness or telicity or causation (crosslinguistically), they also go beyond that and signal volitionality, benefaction, forcefulness, surprise, etc. The degree to which they signal this differs from language to language, but this component always seems to be present (again, see Butt and Geuder () for more discussion). Furthermore, the notion of aspectogenesis runs counter to an observable diachronic fact, which is that light verbs always remain form identical to a main verb in the language. This is very much unlike what is found with auxiliaries (and modals to some extent), which start out as a version of a main verb (e.g. the English going future) but then quickly develop away from the main verb in form, function, and meaning (e.g. English past tense -d from do). This contrast is discussed in some detail in Butt and Lahiri () with respect to data from Urdu and Bengali ‘be’ and ‘go’ and is confirmed by the discussions in Brinton and Akimoto (), which examine the origin and use of English N-V complex predicates such as take a bath. The conclusion Traugott () reaches on the basis of the available evidence is that English N-V complex predicates have been native to the language at least since Old English (the furthest one can look back) and that though the middle ages saw a marked increase in their use, no other concomittant signs of grammaticalisation can be identified: the light verbs do not diminish in form (e.g. become auxiliaries or affixes) and they do not lead to the development of functional categories (Traugott  : ). Indeed, the overall system appears to be quite stable given that the number and type of light verbs involved remains relatively constant and given that their ranking in terms of frequency of use remains stable with respect to each other (e.g. give consistently comes third in terms of frequency of use since early modern English). As is cross-linguistically typical, the light 

The term vector verb is due to Pray () and has been applied to describe light verbs in South Asian languages.

66

Butt

verbs are shown to contribute aspectual nuances as well as other types of semantic information. For example, the use of give an answer as opposed to the simple verb answer appears to signal that the action was done deliberately (Traugott  : ). .. Tracing light verbs through the ages In order to drive the point home that light verbs do not appear to be subject to historical change in the same way that auxiliaries are, this section traces light verbs through some of the available historical evidence for Indo-Aryan. This language family has a historical record of about  years. The discussion on this section is based on Butt and Lahiri (), who investigate Urdu and Bengali V-V complex predicates and contrast the available diachronic data with that of auxiliaries based on ‘be’ and ‘go’ in the modern languages. There is no precise dating for Indo-Aryan. However, the oldest attested form of the language is thought to go back to  BCE. Vedic is generally dated until about  BCE. Epic and Classical Sanskrit fall into the time from  BCE to  CE. Together with Vedic, these are referred to as Old IndoAryan. Middle Indo-Aryan includes Pali (mainly preserved in the form of Buddhist texts), several Prakrit languages (which include non-standard dialects of Sanskrit), Apabhramśa, and inscriptions of the Emperor Aśoka (– BCE). The Middle Indo-Aryan period stretches from about  BCE to  CE. The languages of the period from then on are commonly referred to as New Indo-Aryan. As of  CE, distinct ancestors of the modern languages such as Old Hindi, Old Bengali, or Old Marathi are readily identifiable. It is generally agreed (e.g. Hook , Tikkanen , Hendriksen , Chatterji ) that the ancestral construction of the modern V-V complex predicate is the Sanskrit ‘gerund’ or ‘absolutive’ in -tvā(ya), or -ya/ yā. These suffixes served as derivational morphemes which resulted in an indeclinable participle (e.g. Whitney :–). In the more modern literature, this participle has also sometimes been referred to as a conjunctive participle (CP). The use of the -tvā participles was manifold and varied. Tikkanen () uses the constructed example in () to illustrate the various possible translations found in the literature with respect to the -tvā participle. () shows an actual example from Vedic (an older stage of the language). One of the uses Tikkanen lists is comparable with the modern complex predicate in that the literal meaning of ‘go’ is not expressed. ()

a. indram ārabhya cara Indra-ACC grasp-GD go-IMP.SG ‘Having taken hold of Indra, move!’ ‘Keep yourself to Indra!’ (Sanskrit – Tikkanen : )

The light verb jungle: still hacking away

b. ime

67

ta

indra te vayam PRON.DUAL DEM.PRON..SG Indra.VOC.SG PRON..SG.GEN PRON..PL.NOM puruṣṭuta ye tvārabhya carāmasi much-praise.PP.VOC.SG REL.PRON PRON..SG.ACC-grasp.GD go.PRES..PL ‘We here are yours, O ever-praised Indra, who wander about having taken hold of you/who constantly keep ourselves to you.’ (Vedic – Ṛgveda I..; Tikkanen : )

In contrast to Vedic and Sanskrit, which provide hints of a light verb use, but no conclusive evidence, complex predication is clearly identifiable in Middle Indo-Aryan (Hendriksen , Hook , , ). In particular, the Pali examples in () both involve the verb ‘give’ as a finite verb which combines with the participle of ‘make’. For both the sentences in () it would be strange to assume that the meaning should be rendered as: ‘having led her to the hermitage, having made a fire, he gave (it) (to her)’. Rather, the complex predicate benefactive reading given in the glosses is more appropriate. ()

a. assamapadaṃ ānetvā aggiṃ katvā adāsi hermitage.ACC lead.GD fire.ACC.SG make.GD give.IMPF..SG ‘… brought her to his hermitage and made a fire for her’ [‘having brought (her) to the hermitage, made a fire (for her)’] (Pali, Jataaka Tales, Sri Lanka – Hendriksen : ) b. daruni āharitvā aggiṃ katvā dassati sticks bring.GD fire.ACC.SG make.GD give.FUT..SG ‘Bringing wood he’ll make a fire (Benefactive use).’ (Pali – Trenckner : , cited by Hook : )

Turning to more modern times, examples of complex predicates can be found in Old Bengali in the Caryapad (– CE), which consists of forty-six complete songs and one incomplete song of six lines by twenty-four different poets. Here the finite verbs ‘take’ (a) and ‘give’ (b) cannot be interpreted in their main verb sense, but must rather be analysed as light verbs which signal completion, much as is done in the modern language. ()

a. cauṣathi koṭ ha gu ṇ -iā lehu sixty-four rooms count-GD take ‘count sixty-four rooms (for yourself)’ (Old Bengali, Caryapad  – Mojunder : ) b. bājule dila moha-kakhu bha ṇ -iā Bajula.OBL give.PAST..SG rooms of illusion count-GD ‘Bajula counted the rooms of illusion (for his disciple).’ (Old Bengali, Caryapad  – Mojunder : )

68

Butt

Examples from Old Hindi are illustrated by () and (). McGregor (: –) explicitly notes that the V-V constructions in (), which are found in Braj Bhaaṣaa prose from around  CE, were used much as in modern Hindi. ()

()

a. … cori letu hai steal.GD take.IMPF be.PRES..SG ‘… (he) steals’ (Old Hindi) b. kāḍhi lei pull out.GD take.PERF ‘(He) pulled out (with effort).’ (Old Hindi) c. samudrahiṃ naaa ṣ i jaata haiṃ ocean.OBJ cross.GD go.IMPF be.PRES./.PL ‘(They/We) cross oceans (completely).’ (Old Hindi) ḍ h ũ ḍẽ diye suhag kõ seek give husband DAT/ACC ‘seeking a husband’ (Old Urdu/Punjabi, Baba Farid (–), Verse )

Light verb constructions can thus be identified clearly and continually over thousands of years. As was observed for N-V complex predicates in English (Traugott ), the syntactic construction itself is relatively stable. While the overt form of the gerundive morphology has changed, the syntactic co-occurrence of a main predicate and an inflected light verb remains constant, as does the choice of light verbs involved (e.g. ‘go’, ‘give’, ‘take’). Just as in English, the light verb is always form identical to a main verb in the language. Light verbs thus appear to be historically stable, very much unlike what has been documented for auxiliaries. The available evidence from Indo-Aryan thus points to the idea that light verbs do not enter the grammaticalisation cline, i.e. they are not main verbs which have been reanalysed as light verbs and which are now prone to further reanalysis. In her cross-linguistic survey of the diachrony of complex predicates, Bowern (: ) also concludes that so far there has been no evidence that documents the grammaticalisation (or reanalysis) of an auxiliary from a light verb. Section . therefore explores an alternative notion which posits that light verbs are intimately connected to their main verb counterpart in the lexicon. They are so intimately connected that one can assume just one lexical entry which can give rise to both light and main verb meanings. In terms of the grammaticalisation cline, this idea plays out as shown in ().

The light verb jungle: still hacking away

69

() main verb > auxiliary > clitic > affix(es) light verb

Note that I assume one underlying lexical entry that can give rise to distinct syntactic elements. This is similar to the idea that deverbal nominalisation operates on the same lexical entry which gives rise to inflected main verbs, except that derivational morphology tends to be involved with nominalisation (but cf. zero nominalisation in English). In the case of light verbs, no derivational morphology is involved, rather the difference in syntax and semantic interpretation arises out of the complex predicate construction. Whether a given verb predicates as a light or as a main verb is determined by the syntactic environment (section .). In addition, as discussed in Butt and Lahiri (), we assume that auxiliaries are derived from the main verb, not the light verb. That is, we assume that light verbs are inert for the purposes of historical change. This idea accounts for the fact that a light verb always corresponds to a form identical main verb in the language and that light verb constructions do not give rise to auxiliaries and modals. .. The connection to preverbs/particles Before proceeding on to the final section discussing the lexical representation and semantics of light verbs, this section explores the relationship between light verbs and preverbs/particles. This issue is often raised in connection with South Asian light verbs, as the semantics that are described are reminiscent of the semantics associated with Germanic preverbs/particles like German auf in aufessen ‘eat up’ or English out as in throw out. Old Indo-Aryan employed a set of preverbs which in combination with the main verb gave rise to a complex range of meanings. These meanings are similar in nature to the contribution of the light verbs in V-V complex predicates and to that found with Germanic verb particles. () provides a fairly complete list of Sanskrit preverbs (see e.g. Whitney (: §) for a complete list with their basic meanings), () provides some examples of usage. ()



a. pariṇīya around.lead.GD ‘having led around’ (Sanskrit)

Light verbs may, however, be prone to lexicalisation or idiomaticisation along with the main predicate. This issue is also addressed in Brinton and Akimoto () where it is noted that some N-V complex predicates in English have been reanalysed as idioms.

70

Butt

b. vi-kṛ apart-do ‘scatter’ (Sanskrit) The modern Indo-Aryan languages, among them Urdu/Hindi and Bengali have lost these preverbs completely. Hook (, , ) and Hook and Pardeshi () furthermore document an increase in light verb use in South Asian languages since the Middle Ages. These two observations taken together raise the immediate question of whether these developments are related: could the more frequent use of V-V complex predicates in modern Indo-Aryan be tied to the loss of preverbs? ()

Sanskrit preverb

Rough meaning

ati

across, beyond, past, over, to excess

adhi

above, over, on, on to

anu

after, along, toward

antar

between, among, within

apa

away, forth, off

api

unto, close upon, on

abhi

to, unto, against (often with implied violence)

ava

down, off

ā

to, unto, at

ud

up, up forth, out

upa

to, unto, toward

ni

down, in, into

nis

out, forth

parā

to a distance, away, forth

pari

round about, around

pra

forward, onward, forth, fore

prati

in reversed direction, back to, back against, against, in return

vi

apart, asunder, away, out

sam

along, with, together

Deo () provides a partial answer to this question by tracing the development of preverbs in Indo-Aryan. She shows that in Vedic (the oldest form of the language), the preverbs are associated with canonical directional or adpositional meanings. However, for some preverbs, the meanings are less

The light verb jungle: still hacking away

71

transparent (non-compositional) and the use of these preverbs is associated with semantic notions of forcefulness, completion, inception, etc. This is immediately reminiscent of the semantics associated with the modern light verbs. In Sanskrit, the preverbs can be divided into two categories: those that have a literal prepositional (directional) semantics and those that have a non-transparent semantics. Interestingly enough, the former are all multisyllabic, while the latter are monosyllabic. This is consonant with general trends observed in grammaticalisation: forms which are less substantial are more prone to grammaticalisation. In Middle Indo-Aryan (Prakrit), the preverbs are reanalysed as either verbal prefixes or part of a monomorphemic root. There is a marked decline of preverbs which have a strictly directional or prepositional semantics. In the modern languages, the only surviving preverbs are those that have been reanalysed as a part of the verbal root. For the native speaker, these are not identifiable as separate preverbs: they simply appear to be a part of the root. Deo’s () study thus makes a plausible case for the idea that the use of light verbs increased as preverbs fell out of the language. An explicit connection between the semantics of light verbs and the semantics of preverbs/ particles is made by Ramchand (). .. Summary In sum, though there seems to be a correlation at least in Indo-Aryan between the demise of preverbs and preponderance of light verbs, the light verb construction, i.e. the possibility of forming complex predicates with light verbs, seems to be stable over the ages. Cross-linguistically, there is no attested evidence so far by which light verbs have evolved into auxiliaries. Indeed, unlike auxiliaries, light verbs are always form identical to the main verb they are related to. The next section attempts to posit an explanation for why this is so. .

The lexical semantics of light verbs

This chapter so far has surveyed what I see as central properties which must be accounted for in any analysis of light verbs. For one, a light verb is always form identical with a main verb in the language. This form identical light 

Note that the expression of causation also seems to be remarkably stable. The Urdu causative morpheme has undergone some phonological changes since Vedic, but other than its surface appearance, it has remained remarkably the same since Vedic (similar patterns with similar verb classes, etc.). In Latin, causation was expressed periphrastically and this is still the case in its Romance descendants. It would therefore also be interesting to conduct an in-depth cross-linguistic study of the diachrony of causative complex predicates, be they morphological or syntactic (periphrastic).

72

Butt

verb enters into a joint complex predication with an element that furnishes the main predicative content. The complex predication is syntactically monoclausal and the contribution of the light verb is not necessarily transparent. Light verbs are unlike main verbs in that they are dependent on another predicative element. That is, they seem to modulate or structure a given event predication, but not supply their own event. This modulation can be in terms of providing more information about the typical parts of an event: who did the causation, what the result was, whether the event was bounded or whether it was benefactive, sudden, agentive/volitional, accidental, etc. A light verb does not, however, situate the main event predication with respect to temporal or aspectual information. That is, it does not have the functionality of a tense or aspect auxiliary, which situates a given event with respect to speech and reference time. Light verbs also need to be differentiated from passive auxiliaries. In general, light verbs add information to an event predication. This stands in contrast to phenomena such as passives, reflexive or middles, which operate on an existing argument structure in such a way as to provide a different perspective on the participants of the events, i.e. express voice. Detailed argumentation on how complex predication differs from aspectual auxiliaries, modality, reflexivisation, or passivisation goes beyond the scope of this chapter. However, I believe that a careful look at the phenomena in languages will always show that light verbs have a very different syntactic distribution, semantic impact, and diachrony than aspectual and passive auxiliaries, modals, and reflexives. With respect to the diachrony, the observation is that light verbs are always form identical to a corresponding main verb in the language and that there is no attested instance of a light verb grammaticalising or being reanalysed further (though lexicalisation or idiomaticisation may occur). As argued in Butt and Lahiri (), this indicates that light verbs and their corresponding main verbs stand in a very tight relationship towards one another. Recall from the Introduction to this volume that one common way to view light verbs is that they are semantically bleached versions of main verbs. This implies a historical relationship in which one is derived from the other, or, at the very least, a synchronic derivative relationship. In contrast, what Butt and Lahiri () suggest is that the lexical specification of a handful of verbs (somewhere between five and twenty) cross-linguistically allows for a use as either a main verb or a light verb. Some common examples crosslinguistically are the verbs for ‘come’, ‘go’, ‘take’, ‘give’, ‘hit’, ‘throw’, ‘give’, ‘rise’, ‘fall’, and ‘do/make’. One can think of this set of verbs as passepartout: their lexical semantic specifications are so general that they can be used in a multitude of contexts, that is, they ‘fit’ many constellations. Concretely, Butt and Lahiri () posit one underlying underspecified lexical entry that gives rise to both main and light verb usages. Exactly how the lexical semantic information in this underspecified entry should be

The light verb jungle: still hacking away

73

coded is a tricky question, just as most research into the appropriate lexical semantic representations remains tricky. Light verbs do not predicate their own event; rather they hook onto another event predication and deploy their lexical content dependently. Much of the work around lexical semantics involves lexical semantic decomposition (e.g. Jackendoff ) and the postulation of sub-events (e.g., Hale and Keyser , Levin and Rappaport , Ramchand ). With respect to light verbs, given that they clearly do not instantiate a full event predication of their own and given that they often predicate about the causation or result (boundedness) of an event, one intuitive avenue of analysis is that light verbs correspond to, or predicate parts, of an event, i.e. subevents (e.g. Ritter and Rosen , Butt , Butt and Ramchand ). However, as Tantos () points out with respect to English light have as in John had his students walk out of class, analyses which work with event semantics in combination with lexical decomposition are problematic since languages do not seem to compute cleanly with respect to events and subevents. Tantos instead proposes to use Segmented Discourse Representation Theory’s (SDRT) notion of labelling certain segments of discourse and of clauses and then computing with these labels. He works this out concretely with respect to English light have, which has been analysed as a light verb by Ritter and Rosen (). Since English light have can give rise to both experiencer ( John had his dog die on him) and agentive ( John had his dog eat the mouse) readings, Tantos posits an underspecified lexical entry for have. This underspecified entry is then specified and disambiguated through an interaction with pertinent information within the clause and within the immediate discourse context . It would lead too far afield to provide details of Tantos’ analysis here, or to attempt to apply his ideas to the representation of light verbs crosslinguistically. In terms of this chapter, the following will have to suffice. Along with Butt and Lahiri (), I assume one underspecified underlying entry for light verbs and their main verb counterparts. The content of this entry will be not an argument structure, as is generally assumed (i.e. as in the representations in section ..), but a loose collection of information along the lines of Dowty’s () Proto-Role entailments. Sample entries are provided in () for ‘give’, ‘do’, and ‘fall’. ()

give Verb-stem agentive, some entity (concrete or abstract) is to be transferred to a recipient/goal do Verb-stem agentive activity, could involve some entity (concrete or abstract) fall Verb-stem non-agentive

In addition to the type of information in (), the verb entries are associated with world knowledge. That is, what a falling event usually entails,

74

Butt

namely that it is involitional, that it is sudden, that it is downward. Or what a giving event usually entails: that it is usually for the benefit of somebody (but not necessarily) and that it generally is a considered action (weighing the pros and cons). These further pieces of information may influence the argument structure in terms of what kinds of arguments are realised in the syntax. However, they are also likely to provide that extra bit of semantic predication which is the hallmark of light verbs as in (), namely the information whether a given action is sudden, benefactive, or the responsibility of the actor (cf. Butt and Geuder () for a case study with respect to ‘give’). And since it is information coming out of our world knowledge, it is also defeasible, i.e. not every predication with the light verb ‘give’, for example, will necessarily always have the same range of semantic connotations. When the verb enters the syntax as a main verb, it predicates as a full event with a full range of argument participants. These are determined by the collection of information associated with the verb stem, as in () (see Butt and Tantos () for such a model involving Petri Nets). When the verb enters the syntax as a light verb, i.e. is slotted into the distributional space for light verbs in a language, then its lexical semantic content must combine with a full event predication. That is, argument merger as outlined in section .. must take place, as well as a modulation of the main event semantics by the information coming from the light verb. Thus, depending on the syntactic role of the verb, the information contained in it is deployed differently. Not all verbs have such underspecified and flexible entries. Rather, as already mentioned, we assume that such verbal passe-partout are confined to a handful of verbs (somewhere between five and twenty). Interestingly, we have been able to show for German that such flexible verbs, which can give rise to both main and light verb uses, are also distinguished by a neural brain response that sets them apart from verbs which have no light verb counterpart (Briem et al. ). This is the case even when they are presented to subjects in isolation, i.e. kommen ‘come’ vs. rennen ‘run’. .

Conclusion

This chapter has surveyed a number of differing complex predicates and light verbs across languages. Complex predicates were defined as containing two or more predicational elements which jointly predicate within a monoclausal structure. The evidence for monoclausality was seen to be language dependent. Similarly, the chapter argued that light verbs must be acknowledged as a separate syntactic category cross-linguistically, but that the precise syntax of light verbs differs across languages. The category light verb must be established according to language-internal tests. The function of light verbs is to modulate the event predication of a main predicator in the clause. Different light verbs will do so in different ways and

The light verb jungle: still hacking away

75

some of the semantic contributions are quite subtle. This is in part because of the flexible interpretation of the underlying lexical semantics. The verbs which allow light verb readings have lexical semantic specifications that are of a very general nature. This allows them to appear in a wide variety of syntactic contexts. The idea that light verbs and their corresponding main verbs are derived from one and the same underlying representation accounts for the fact that light verbs are always form identical to a main verb counterpart in the language and that they are stable with respect to historical change. References Abeillé, Anne, Danièle Godard, and Ivan A. Sag. . Two Kinds of Composition in French Complex Predicates. In Erhard Hinrichs, Andreas Kathol, and Tsuneko Nakazawa (eds) Complex Predicates in Nonderivational Syntax, –. San Diego: Academic Press. Adger, D. . Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aikhenvald, Alexandra. . Serial Verb Constructions in Typological Perspective. In Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Typology, Alexandra Aikhenvald and R.M.W. Dixon (eds), –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aissen, Judith and David Perlmutter. . Clause Reduction in Spanish. In Studies in Relational Grammar , David Perlmutter (ed.), –. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Alsina, Alex. . The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Alsina, Alex, Joan Bresnan, and Peter Sells (eds). . Complex Predicates. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Alsina, Alex and Smita Joshi. . Parameters in Causative Constructions. In Papers from the th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, –. Bowern, Claire. . Bardi Verb Morphology in Historical Perspective. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. . The Diachrony of Complex Predicates. Diachronica , : –. Bresnan, Joan. . Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. Briem, Daniela, Britta Balliel, Brigitte Rockstroh, Miriam Butt, Sabine Schulte im Walde, and Ramin Assadollahi. . Distinct Processing of Function Verb Categories in the Human Brain. Brain Research :–. Brinton, Laurel J. and Minoji Akimoto (eds). . Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Butt, Miriam. . The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. . The Light Verb Jungle. In Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics, eds G. Aygen, C. Bowern, and C. Quinn, –. Volume , Papers from the GSAS/ Dudley House Workshop on Light Verbs. Butt, Miriam and Wilhelm Geuder. . On the (Semi)Lexical Status of Light Verbs. In Semilexical Categories: On the Content of Function Words and the

76

Butt

Function of Content Words, Norbert Corver and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Butt, Miriam, Tracy H. King, and Gillian Ramchand. . Complex Predication: Who Made the Child Pinch the Elephant? In Reality Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life, Linda Uyechi and Lian Hee Wee (eds). Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Butt, Miriam and Tracy H. King. . Restriction for Morphological Valency Alternations: The Urdu Causative. In Intelligent Linguistic Architectures: Variations on Themes by Ronald M. Kaplan, Miriam Butt, Mary Dalrymple, and Tracy Holloway King (eds), –. CSLI Publications. Butt, Miriam and Aditi Lahiri. . Historical Stability vs Historical Change. Unpublished ms. http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/home/butt/. Butt, Miriam and Gillian Ramchand. . Complex Aspectual Structure in Hindi/ Urdu. In The Syntax of Aspect, Nomi Ertishik-Shir and Tova Rappaport (eds), –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Butt, Miriam and Biljana Scott. . Chinese Directionals. Talk given as part of the Workshop Complex Predicates, Particles and Subevents, Konstanz, September, http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/home/butt/. Butt, Miriam and Alexandros Tantos. . Verbal Semantics via Petri Nets. In On-Line Proceedings of the LFG Conference, Miriam Butt and Tracy H. King (eds) CSLI Publications, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, http:// cslipublications.stanford. edu/LFG/. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. . The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Cattell, R. . Composite Predicates in English. Sydney: Academic Press Australia. Chao, Y.-R. . A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley, California: The University of California Press. Chatterji, S. K. . The Origin and Development of the Bengali Literature, vol. II. Calcutta: Do Mehra, Rupa of Co. ( edition). Choi, Seongsook. . Multiple Verb Constructions in Korean. Doctoral dissertation, University of Sussex. Chomsky, Noam. . Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Dalrymple, Mary. . Lexical Functional Grammar. New York: Academic Press. Davidson, Donald. . The Logical Form of Action Sentences. In The Logic of Decision and Action, N. Resher (ed.), –. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Reprinted in Davidson, Donald. . Essays on Actions and Events, –. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Denison, David. . English Historical Syntax: Verbal Constructions. London: Longman. Deo, Ashwini. . A Diachronic Perspective on Complex Predicates in IndoAryan. Talk given as part of the Workshop Complex Predicates, Particles and Subevents, Konstanz, September. Dowty, David. . Thematic Proto-roles and Argument Selection. Language , : –. Fitzpatrick-Cole, Jennifer. . The Prosodic Domain Hierarchy in Reduplication. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.

The light verb jungle: still hacking away

77

Grimshaw, Jane and Armin Mester. . Light Verbs and θ -Marking. Linguistic Inquiry  (): –. Hacker, Paul. . Zur Funktion einiger Hilfsverben im modernen Hindi. Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Hale, Kenneth and Jay Keyser. . Argument Structure. In The View from Building , Kenneth Hale and Jay Keyser (eds), –. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Harris, Alice C. and Lyle Campbell. . Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hendriksen, Hans. . Syntax of the Infinite Verb Forms of Pali. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard. Hook, Peter Edwin. . The Compound Verb in Hindi. Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies: The University of Michigan. . The Emergence of Perfective Aspect in Indo-Aryan Languages. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Elizabeth Traugott and B. Heine (eds), –. Amsterdam: Benjamins. . Aspectogenesis and the Compound Verb in Indo-Aryan. In Complex Predicates in South Asian Languages, ed. Manindra Verma, –. Delhi: Manohar Publishers & Distributors. . Where do Compound Verbs Come From? (And Where are They Going?). In The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, Peri Bhaskararao and K.V. Subbarao (eds), –. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth C. Traugott. . Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huang, Charles T.-J. . Complex Predicates in Control. In Control and Grammar, Richard Larson, Sabine Iatridou, and Utpal Lahiri (eds), –. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Jackendoff, Ray. . Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jespersen, Otto. . A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part VI, Morphology. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav. . Building Verb Meanings. In The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder (eds), –. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. Lightfoot, David. . Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Masica, Colin. . Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. McGregor, R.S. . The Language of Indrajit of Orchaa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mohanan, Tara. . Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. . Wordhood and Lexicality: Noun Incorporation in Hindi. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory (): –. Mojunder, Atindra. . Bengali Language Historical Grammar, Part II. Calcutta: K.L. Mukhopadhay. Plank, Frans. . The Modals Story Retold. Studies in Language  (): –.

78

Butt

Pray, Bruce. . Topics in Hindi-Urdu Grammar. Berkeley, CA: Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies. Ramchand, Gillian. . Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ritter, Elizabeth and Sara T. Rosen. . Deriving Causation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory : –. Roberts, Ian. . A Formal Account of Grammaticalisation in the History of Romance Futures. Folia Linguistica Historica : –. Roberts, Ian and Anna Roussou. . A Formal Approach to ‘Grammaticalization’. Linguistics (): –. . Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rosen, Sara. . Argument Structure and Complex Predicates. Doctoral dissertation, Brandeis University, Massachusetts. Schultze-Berndt, Eva. . Simple and Complex Verbs in Jaminjung: A Study of Event Categorisation in an Australian Language. MPI Series in Psycholinguistics. . Neither Noun nor Verb nor Particle. Talk given as part of the Workshop Complex Predicates, Particles and Subevents, Konstanz, September. Scott, Biljana. . Aspectogenesis and the Categorisation of Directionals in Chinese. Doctoral dissertation, Oxford University. Tantos, Alexandros. . Computing Events in Discourse: A Case Study Involving Light have. Doctoral dissertation, University of Konstanz. Tikkanen, Bertil. . The Sanskrit Gerund: A Synchronic, Diachronic and Typological Analysis. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society. Studia Orientalia. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. . A Historical Overview of Complex Predicates. In Collocational and Idiomatic Aspects of Composite Predicates in the History of English, Laurel J. Brinton and Minoji Akimoto (eds), –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Trenckner, V. . Pali Miscellany. London: Williams & Norgate. Warner, Anthony. . English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whitney, William D. . Sanskrit Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ninth Issue of the Second Edition (). Wilson, Stephen. . Coverbs and Complex Predicates in Wagiman. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Wurmbrand, Susanne. . Infinitives: Restructuring and Clause Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.



Events and serial verb constructions WILLIAM A. FOLEY

.

Introduction

Baker and Harvey (this volume) claim a fundamental distinction between two types of complex predicate constructions: coverb constructions, typically those involving a light verb, and serial verb constructions (henceforth SVCs) in terms of their respective expression of eventhood. They argue that while both coverb constructions and SVCs are monoclausal, they contrast in their event structure: coverb constructions express a single simple event, albeit one that may be semantically complex, while SVCs express multiple events. In this latter claim they disagree with an often stated view about SVCs, as summarised by Aikhenvald (: ): A serial verb construction (SVC) is a sequence of verbs which act together as a single predicate, without any overt marker of coordination, subordination or syntactic dependency of any other sort. Serial verb constructions describe what is conceptualised as a single event. While this chapter will ultimately support Baker and Harvey’s claim about SVCs in contrast to Aikhenvald’s, in our view not much progress can be made in understanding SVCs while one proceeds in any analysis with unexamined, vague, and undefined concepts like event, simple and multiple, and monoclausality. We will show that SVCs are in no sense a unified phenomenon, but manifest both different structural realisations and express diverse types of event structures, some as simple as a coverb construction and some much more complex. To describe such cross-linguistic variation, we will need both more precise structural notions than clausehood and more sophisticated semantic notions than a simple contrast between single and multiple events. But, first, to set the stage for our discussion, it is necessary to define what an SVC might be. Although our ultimate conclusion will be that there is no unified syntactic phenomenon that goes under this label, we need a starting point to delineate the kinds of constructions we will be discussing and which conventionally are termed SVCs. Comrie’s () summary of SVC 79

80

Foley

properties is particularly clear and succinct and seems a good place to start, although ultimately we will be deconstructing each of these: Comrie’s () summary of SVC properties: . The sequence of verbs in an SVC occurs within a single clause. . Either there is no marking of most verb categories (person–number, tense–aspect–mood, polarity, etc.) except on the main verb, or all verbs must have the same categories as the main verb. . The verbs in the SVC are interpreted as expressing a single event. Beyond this the SVC has two main functions: (a) to allow the expression of more arguments of the predicate; and (b) to allow the creation of new lexical items. We can illustrate the operation of these defining properties for SVCs by comparing the syntactic behavior of the SVC in (a) from Yimas, a Papuan language of New Guinea, with that of the related clause chaining construction (henceforth CCC) in (b): ()

a. arm-n kay i-ka-ak-mpi-wul water-OBL canoe VIII SG VIII SG O-SG A-push-SEQ-put.in ‘I pushed the canoe down into the water.’ b. kay ak-mpi i-ka-wul arm-n canoe VIII SG push-SEQ VIII SG O-SG A-put.in water-OBL ‘I pushed the canoe and put it in the water.’

(a) is an SVC (in fact, it is a single grammatical word, see the arguments in Foley (:–)): the pronominal agreement affixes must precede the sequence of verbs in the SVC and the tense–aspect–mood suffixes (here the Ø allomorph of -r PERF) must follow. In this example, in which the events denoted by the verb roots are in a temporal relationship of sequence, they are linked by the suffix -mpi SEQ ; if the events denoted were simultaneous, the verb roots would be simply juxtaposed. Other than -mpi, nothing can separate the verb roots linked together in an SVC. Example (b) is a CCC; as in all CCCs, the final verb in the chain carries marking for tense–aspect–mood (again the Ø allomorph of -r PERF) and the pronominal agreement prefixes for the core grammatical relations, even though, as in this case, an NP agreed with is in a preceding medial clause (kay ‘canoe’ is linked to the agreement prefix i- VIII SG O). The verbs in medial clauses of CCCs have reduced inflectional possibilities, in Yimas typically just -mpi SEQ. The verbs in CCCs can have intervening material, for example the NP arm-n water-OBL in (a), but this is strictly prohibited for SVCs (b):

Events and serial verb constructions

()

81

a. kay ak-mpi arm-n i-ka-wul canoe VIII SG push-SEQ water-OBL VIII SG O-SG A-put.in ‘I pushed the canoe and put it in the water.’ b. *kay canoe VIII SG

i-ka-ak-mpi arm-n wul VIII SG O-SG A-push-SEQ water-OBL put.in

Verbal inflectional categories like imperative formation also show differential behavior in SVCs and CCCs. In SVCs, there is a single prefix for imperative which precedes the verbal concatenation and another which follows it (a) (note that agreement for objects is realised by suffixes, not prefixes, in imperative verb forms). Splitting an SVC marked for imperative by interleaving material is ungrammatical (b); the SVC must remain indivisible. Marking each verb root separately for imperative is also impossible in an SVC; to do so results in a sequence of coordinated full clauses (c). In a CCC only the final verb carries marking for imperative, although the scope of the command is also over the medial clause (d). ()

a. arm-n water-OBL

kay

ŋaŋk-ak-mpi-wut-ɲa-i

canoe VIII SG

IMP DL-push-SEQ-put.in-IMP-VIII SG O

‘You two push the canoe down into the water!’ b. *kay canoe VIII SG c. arm-n

naŋk-ak

arm-n

wut-ɲa-i

IMP DL-push

water-OBL

put.in-IMP-VIII SG O

kay

naŋk-ak-na-i

water-OBL canoe VIII SG

IMP DL-push-IMP-VIII SG

O

naŋk-wut-ɲa-i IMP DL-put.in-IMP-VIII SG

O

‘You two push the canoe and then put it in the water!’ d. kay yawra-mpi arm-n canoe VIII SG pick.up-SEQ water-OBL naŋk-wut-ɲa-i IMP DL-put.in-IMP-VIII SG O ‘You two pick up the canoe and put it into the water!’

.

Events and the problems posed by SVCs

So far, so good; we seem to have a paradigmatic case in (a) of an SVC in the terms of Comrie’s properties: single clausehood (indeed, single grammatical

82

Foley

word), shared verbal inflectional categories, single eventhood. But in what sense does (a) express a single event? In the prototypical case, ak-mpi-wul‘push down (into the water)’ refers to one (or more commonly, multiple) actor(s) causing a canoe to move linearly along the ground away from the high ground of the riverbank toward the lower level of the river itself, so that it descends down the edge of the riverbank and comes to float on the water of the river. As we can see from this description, the action is anything but simple (as are most events denoted by a verb root in a language), so on what grounds can we call this a single event? Consider as a starting point Gentner and Boroditsky’s () notion of the Division of Dominance. They argue that two principles guide children in the acquisition of meaning for words: cognitive dominance, in which the nature of human perceptual engagement with the world presents items to which words as labels are largely unproblematically attached; and linguistic dominance, in which the world does not offer salient perceptual bits for labelling and where the language being acquired has a major say in the learning of meanings for words. The acquisition of concrete nouns, e.g. dog, is driven by cognitive dominance. Regardless of wider Quinean (, ) worries about the ontologies held by different speech communities behind the meaning of this word, it is a fair bet that all human languages have a term for ‘dog’ and that the core meaning for it is essentially the same (Berlin ). This is because the salient perceptual features for the animal referred to by the noun stand out clearly in human engagement with them. This is not to claim that in English or any other language ‘dog’ is not a semantically complex notion; merely that wider cognitive constraints play a determining role in ensuring that they will be bundled together in exactly this lexeme. But this would not hold for the meaning of the English word although, the acquisition of which is guided by linguistic dominance. There is nothing straightforward in human perceptual engagement with the world that corresponds to this word, and English speakers learn its meaning and usage because their language requires them to do so. Indeed, if the language doesn’t, such as Papuan languages like Yimas or Watam, it is not even obvious how to translate although, a complex periphrastic circumlocution being the best that can be mustered. Figure . (Gentner and Boroditsky : ) presents a summary of the different word types according to the Division of Dominance parameters. An important point to note about Figure . is the midpoint position of the class of verbs. Whatever is denoted by verbs – actions, states, processes – they do not have perceptual properties of separability and spatial-temporal continuity – in a word, Gentner and Boroditsky’s concept of individuation – that lie behind the meanings of nouns. Actions, states, processes do not exist apart from the entities that instantiate them; they cannot be easily individuated. Barking cannot be separated from the dog which is barking; nor does barking have any spatial-temporal continuity should the dog cease to exist. It is this lack of individuation or the inherent relationality of verbs which

Events and serial verb constructions

83

Division of Dominance

← Cognitive dominance

linguistic dominance

→

closed class

→

← open class

proper names

concrete nouns

kinship terms & other relational systems

Ida

dog spoon

grandmother uncle

verbs

skate enter

spatial prepositions

on over

determiners conjunctions

the and

Figure .: Gentner and Boroditsky’s (: ) Division of Dominance

distinguishes them from nouns; in a word, their predicativity. It is not that nouns are semantically simple and verbs complex; both are complex, but verbs differ from nouns in that they entail arguments, participants prototypically doing or undergoing an event or being in a state. While nouns like dog are often analysed in formal semantics as predicates with an argument structure, the arguments are the individual or set of individuals which belong to the class defined by the noun. The situation with verbs denoting events, like kill, is very different; the members of its argument structure are the doer and undergoer of the event denoted by the verb, not an individual or even set of individuals of the event type denoted by it. The semantic complexity of verbs, then, is of a different character than that of nouns. This is clearly reflected in the types of frameworks proposed to analyse this complexity, specifically predicate decomposition as exemplified by Baker and Harvey (this volume), building on work of Jackendoff (), Hovav Rappaport and Levin (), Levin and Rappaport (), Foley and Van Valin (), and Van Valin and La Polla (). Predicate decomposition is a schematic breaking down of the meaning of a verb denoting an event into a set of atomic predicates which define its sub-events, such as in Baker and Harvey (this volume ()–()). The atomic predicates which denote the sub-events are the functions whose own argument structures ultimately project the argument structure of the overall event denoted by the verb, e.g. the first argument of CAUSE in Baker and Harvey’s formulation is the actor of the overall event. See Levin and Hovav Rappaport () for a clear and

84

Foley

exemplary exposition of predicate decomposition approaches to the representation of verbal meanings and the types of constraints these approaches impose on the range of meanings that can be lexicalised in a monomorphemic verb and the types of argument structures possible. The point of this chapter is not to quibble with such approaches. They are clearly very valuable and have yielded many important insights into the organisation of the verbal lexicon in diverse languages. There is no doubt that there are robust and widespread constraints on the possible meanings bundled into monomorphemic verbs and their argument structures. Yet it is also clear that verbal inventories as a result of the effect of the principle of linguistic dominance show greater cross-linguistic variability than nominal ones. There are languages such as Kuman or Kalam with around just a hundred verb roots; there are no reported languages with only a hundred or so nominal roots. All languages, for instance, have a root for ‘dog’, but by no means do all have a root or arguably even a lexical entry for ‘kill’. Just how the tangled unindividuated stream of events gets reported in inventories or sequences of linguistic expressions, prototypically verbs, is subject to a great deal of cross-linguistic variation, an effect of the principle of linguistic dominance. Again, this is not to deny that there are also robust universal cognitive constraints operative here, which we will see exemplified in the following sections, but they do underdetermine the result to a much greater extent than with the category of concrete nouns, for example. Formulas like ()–() of Baker and Harvey do provide central insights into what can be lexicalised as a given verb root in a language. But the modality is vital here, can, not must, and it is the goal of this chapter to explore some of the cross-linguistic parameters of variation in how the event structures represented by ()–() of Baker and Harvey can be realised, demonstrating how SVCs and even CCCs can be alternatives to monomorphemic verb roots. To illustrate this point, consider the differing exponents of ‘kill’ across four New Guinea languages. As it provides a common ground for comparison, consider Hovav Rappoport and Levin’s () semantic representation for this verb through Predicate Composition: () [[x ACT <MANNER> CAUSE [BECOME [ y ]]]] The meaning is clearly semantically complex: ‘someone/something does some action in a particular way that causes someone/something to become dead’, involving two actions, those denoted by ACT<MANNER>, and CAUSE, a process, BECOME, and a state, DEAD. However, Yimas, like English, expresses this all in a monomorphemic verb root: ()

namot numpran na-mpu-tu-t pig SG SG O-PL A-kill- PERF man PL ‘The men killed the pig.’

Events and serial verb constructions

85

Numbami, an Austronesian language of the Morobe region of Papua New Guinea, uses an SVC (Bradshaw ): ()

kolapa i-lapa bola boy  SG R-hit pig ‘The boy killed the pig.’

uni dead

Numbami separately realises the causing event denoted by ACT<MANNER> in () with -lapa ‘hit’ and the resulting state with uni ‘dead’. The notion of CAUSE between the two is an implicature of the SVC, i.e. the meaning of the construction, but not realised by a lexical item. The meaning of -lapa ‘hit’ is grammaticalised here; () denotes any act of killing, whether by clubbing, stabbing, or shooting, and is not restricted to causing events with a specific manner of action, so we can reasonably claim that this sequence represents a lexicalisation for ‘kill’, albeit one in an SVC rather than a monomorphemic verb root as in Yimas, but still a unique lexical item. This claim, however, does not hold for Watam, another Papuan language, very distantly related to Yimas. Any of the following six expressions will translate the meaning of ‘kill’, depending on the manner of the action done which causes the death: ()

a. rughit

minikdie

b. arigshoot

minikdie

c. rutki- minikslash die

d. rutki- yakslash cut.open

e. waksever

f.

minikdie

modo

minikdie

minikdie

In Watam, ‘kill’ is always expressed in an SVC involving overt verbs for the manner of the causing event and for the resulting change of state, minik- ‘die’. But there is no set lexicalised SVC to express this notion: different manners of killing are denoted by varying choices of the verbs for the manner of the causing event, not unlike English they speared/knifed/stabbed/hacked him to death. These collocations cannot plausibly be claimed to be fixed lexicalisations as in the Numbami case, for they can be further expanded in yet more specific SVCs, as in (d) or (): () arigshoot

turka- minikpierce die

When the speaker wishes to omit mention of the specific manner of force employed in the causing event, for example when the causing event does not fit one of these, as in ‘kill with poison’, the generic verb of action mo- ‘do’ can be used. But this is just one more SVC expressing ‘kill’, not a more basic

86

Foley

or even lexicalised form for this: mo- minik- ‘do die’ is no more basic an SVC than arig- minik- ‘shoot die’. Note that in English we have the following alternative expressions: ()

a. They speared him to death b. They killed him with a spear

The first parallels the Watam SVC, with the main verb expressing the manner of action of the causing event and the PP the resulting state (this is probably a family of expressions all related to put to death); the second lexicalises the whole complex event of killing, causing act and resulting state, but puts the manner of the act in the form of a PP realising the instrument. In Watam only the first option is possible (R indicates realis): () a. min ma ŋg(a)-argi-r  PL  SG FOC-shoot-R ‘They shot him to death.’

minik-ri die-PAST

b. *?min oɲjaŋ ma ŋga-mo-r  PL arrow  SG FOC-do-R ‘They killed him with an arrow.’

minik-ri die-PAST

(b) is ungrammatical because a more specific lexical verb root (a) is available. These data strongly argue that mo- minik- ‘do die’ is not a more basic expression for ‘kill’, of which the other SVCs in () are specific expansions. There is no lexical item ‘kill’ in Watam; specific SVCs are used to denote distinct types of killing. Given the expandability exemplified by (d) and (), there is no fixed sequence of lexemes covering the semantic range of ‘kill’ either, but rather strings productively produced by syntactic rules. While these Watam SVCs are straightforwardly monoclausal (to be defined more precisely below), fitting Comrie’s property , their event structure is much more problematic. Are they denoting single events, as Comrie’s point  asserts? The fact that the causing event can itself be complex, as in (d) and () (and theoretically can be further extended) suggests otherwise. A binary SVC like (a) and a ternary like (d) behave differently under negation: () a. ba-(a)rigNEG-shoot

minik-tap die-NEG

b. *ba-rutki- yakNEG-slash cut.open

minik-tap die-NEG

c. ba-rutkiNEG-slash

ba-minik-tap NEG-die-NEG

yakcut.open

Events and serial verb constructions

87

Binary SVCs for ‘kill’, with just a single causing action and the resulting state, can be negated by circumfixal negation: the negative prefix ba- prefixed to the first verb and the negative tense suffix -tap/-rap suffixed to the second. This is definitely not possible for a ternary SVC like (d). In these SVCs, ba- is prefixed to the first verb, but it must also be prefixed to the last verb, this last in combination with the negative suffix -tap. This indicates that, while both types may be monoclausal, the relations that hold among the verbs in the two types may not be the same, and the difference, we would argue, resides in the event relations. In the binary SVCs, we have a straightforward expression for (), a causing event and its intended overall stereotypical result. But in the ternary SVC under discussion, we have two causing actions, the second of which is a deeper, more localised, action on the body resulting from the first action, and it is clearly the effect of the second action which results in the death: one slashes at someone with a machete and cuts them open with it and consequently the person dies. Note that yak- ‘cut open’ is a transitive verb of action like rutki- ‘slash’, not an intransitive process verb like minik- die’; i.e. it does not mean ‘become cut open’. What we have here is a coordination of causing events, where the second is a more localised and causal event that follows from the first. Even putting aside the evidence from behaviour under negation, it is hard to see what grounds there are for claiming that these coordinated events are single events. While Watam challenges Comrie’s property  about SVCs, their expression of single events, the final language of this section, Mangap Mbula (Bugenhagen ), another Austronesian of the Morobe region of Papua New Guinea fairly closely related to Numbami, problematises issues around property  on monoclausality. In this language, ‘kill’ is necessarily expressed in an overtly conjoined structure: () a. ti-pun-i ma  PL-hit-SG O ‘They killed him.’

i-meete  SG-die

(a) cannot mean ‘they hit him and he died’; no overt pronoun ni ‘he.she. it’ is permissible following ma. Contrasting with (a), there is a verb compound formed from these two roots which means ‘diminish, take away’; compare this with the Numbami example in (): () b. i-pun-meete tomtom mbura-n SG-hit-die person strength-PL POSS ‘He took the people’s strength away.’ In an early work, Bugenhagen () gives ‘kill’ as a meaning of this compound as well, but in the final complete grammar (Bugenhagen ), he

88

Foley

specifically does not, and in fact explicitly says that a structure like (a) with ma is the proper way to translate ‘kill’. Clauses linked by ma are the normal general way to express cause–effect relationships between clauses in Mangap Mbula: () c. zin ti-pun-i ma PL PL-hit-SG O ‘They hit him and so he fled.’

i-ko SG-flee

Mangap Mbula has two conjunctions ma and mi, which could be described as tighter versus looser respectively, as in this example: ()

to-na i-ko mi i-miili ma then-TOP  SG-flee  SG-return ‘After that, he fled back to the village.’

i-mar kar  SG-come village

The translation here reflects a simultaneous temporal relationship between the act of fleeing and that of returning, i.e. ‘flee back’. If one wishes to say ‘fled and then came back’, with a significant time delay between the two events, the conjunction used would have to be to ‘and then’ rather than mi. The conjunction ma has a strong implicative force as opposed to mi; one can flee some place without having to return somewhere, but returning to a place generally entails coming to it. Note that the relationship between -miili ‘return’ and -mar ‘come’ mediated by ma, MOTION plus PATH, is typical of what would be expressed by SVCs in many languages; both -miili ‘return’ and -mar ‘come’ share the same endpoint place argument, the place arrived at, but -ko ‘flee’ does not, nor does it require an endpoint place. It does, though, require an origin place argument, a place fled from. But not all uses of ma are implicative in this way: () a. aŋ-kam Aibike ma am-la mokleene SG-get PN PL EXCL-go garden ‘I took Aibike with me to the garden.’ (note the change of verb agreement here; very atypical of SVCs, but expected in conjoined clauses) b. zin ti-ziburru pa yok ma PL PL-catch.crayfish OBL water ‘They were catching crayfish and heading inland.’

ti-le-la PL-enter-go

Example (a) cannot be translated as ‘I got Aibike and we went to the garden’, nor (b) as ‘they were catching crayfish and they were heading inland’; both of these would require the conjunction mi. Verbs in Mangab Mbula typically require subject agreement as in (), but overt pronouns niamru ‘we

Events and serial verb constructions

89

(DL) (EXCL)’, and zin ‘they’ are not permissible here. They would be acceptable if the conjunction ma was replaced with mi. The conjunction ma also conjoins nouns in formulaic NPs, demonstrating its doubtless status as a conjunction: ti ma suga ‘tea and sugar’, zoŋ ma yaŋ ‘sun and rain’, namaana ma kumbuunu ‘hands and legs’. On the other hand, these clause sequences linked with ma do exhibit one common property associated with SVCs: shared scope of negation: () Keke i-pun ŋge ma i-meete som Keke  SG-hit pig  SG-die NEG ‘Keke didn’t kill the pig.’ (note that som NEG has scope over both conjuncts) The negative particle som is always clause final in Mangap Mbula, as in many Oceanic languages of New Guinea, and its scope must move leftward into the clause conjoined with ma before it (if we wanted the scope of the negative to remain in its clause, i.e. to assert ‘Keke hit the pig but it didn’t die’, the conjunctions mi or more contrastively tamen ‘however, in spite of that’ would be used). Though this looks like the shared negative polarity of SVCs illustrated in the Watam examples in (), this may be deceptive. Spreading negative scope is a widespread feature of CCCs as well. In many New Guinea languages with CCCs, the negative occurs in the final clause, from which its scope spreads leftwards to the preceding medial clauses (Reesink ). In some languages this is limited to clauses sharing the same subjects, but in other languages there is no such restriction. English shows much the same phenomenon, but in the opposite direction; conjoined clauses with the shared tense specification and a zero anaphoric subject in the second clause, a close analogue of a CCC, exhibit negative spreading rightwards (a), but this is blocked if an overt subject occurs in the second clause, even if its referent is the same as the subject of the first clause: () a. I didn’t hit the child and drive on (NEG scope over both clauses/VPs) b. I didn’t hit the child and I drove on (NEG scope over first clause) Consequently, the behaviour of negative scope with ma is no evidence against a conjoined clause analysis of (). This seems to be a type of CCC, albeit one in which the clauses are knitted together more closely than in a simple juxtaposition, the effect of a contrast between ma and mi. Let us summarise the point of this discussion, a consideration of how ‘kill’, whose meaning is represented by (), is expressed in four languages of New Guinea. It is expressed as a monomorphemic verb root in Yimas, a lexicalised SVC in Numbami, a range of SVCs, productively produced and expandable, in Watam, and a CCC in Mangap Mbula. In the terms

90

Foley

of Baker and Harvey’s typology of options for mapping from a semantic notion of events to the structural notion of clause (their Figure . is reproduced here as ()): () a.

Types of LCS syntax relations

[ Event ] [ ]Word

c.

[ Eventi ]

b.

[ Event ]

[[ ] Wdi [ Eventj ]...

Lexical Conceptual Structure

[ ] Wdj ]Clause [Eventn ]

[ [ ] Wdi ]Clausei [[ ]Wdi ]Clausej..[[ ]Wdi ]Clausen d.

[ Eventi ][Eventj ][Eventk ]...[Eventn ] [[ ]Wdi [ ]Wdj [ ]Wdk..[ ]Wdn] Clause

Syntax

Lexical Conceptual Structure Syntax

Lexical Conceptual Structure

Syntax

Yimas corresponds to type a; Numbami possibly to type b; Mangap Mbula to type c; and Watam to type d. But do we really want to claim that the event structure of ‘kill’ is as different as these four types suggest? If so, then () is obviously not an adequate semantic representation of its meaning. One possible move in the face of this objection is to restrict () to languages of types a and b. But then we have immediate and obvious problems of interlanguage translation. Do we really want to claim that the meaning of ‘kill’ is radically different in Mangap Mbula from Yimas? We think not. Whatever the semantic structure of ‘kill’ is, it is the same in all four languages, and in none of them is it a simple event. There are undoubtedly semantic constraints on what can be realised in a monomorphemic lexical verb root, what can be an SVC (though examples below from Watam indicate they must be pretty weak) and what must be coordinated, but our knowledge in this area is woefully insufficient to allow us simply to read off from the formal cross-linguistic variation in the data, semantic notions like simple or complex eventhood. As the contrast in productivity and expandability of SVCs in Numbami and Watam demonstrates, these should not be taken as a unified phenomenon, either semantically or structurally. Although both types are monoclausal, Watam SVCs unquestionably denote complex multiple events, consisting of sequences of events with internal relations of cause and effect, a possibility not countenanced by Numbami SVCs. In this way, Watam SVCs

Events and serial verb constructions

91

approach the semantic properties of CCCs. On the other hand, Mangap Mbula CCCs with ma are much more restricted semantically than Watam SVCs, and, in fact, rather parallel to SVCs in its sister language Numbami. Indeed, Mangap Mbula example () is as simple (or complex, depending on how one looks at it) as the Numbami SVC in (). Thus, to really get a handle on the typology summarised in (), we need to explore the limits of both what can be compressed into a single clause – and, in turn, the hazy boundary in Papuan languages between SVCs and CCCs – and what counts as an single event, albeit complex, versus what counts as multiple events. In the next two sections, we will look at each of these questions in greater detail. .

Clauses and compression

We have been using the terms ‘clause’, ‘monoclausality’, and ‘clause chains’ to this point without definition, and in order to progress much further, we need to be more explicit. To replace the vague term ‘clause’, we now introduce a distinction between the categories IP and S (Bresnan ). IP is an endocentric phrasal category projected by its head, finite verb inflectional categories like tense, mood, or illocutionary force; an IP can be taken roughly as equivalent to a finite clause. An S is a non-projective exocentric category; as such it lacks a head. Prototypically, an S constituent contains a predicate and its arguments and adjuncts. Its contrast with IP means that S is nonfinite; in fact, the most straightforward way to understand it is as a non-finite or small clause. We can reinterpret what has been analysed as a CCC as a sequence of conjoined S constituents (i.e. non-finite clauses) functioning as the complement of the I head that projects the IP, as in (): (18)

IP I' S S

(XP)n

I

S. . . .

V

(XP)n

S

(XP)n

V

TNS MOOD IF V

Note that this explains the typical pattern of stripped down medial verbs versus a fully inflected final verb in CCCs: the final verb is simply the bearer of the finite verbal inflectional features that constitute the I head projecting the IP, as in this Watam example () and its corresponding structure in (): () namtiŋ un nakan i boy pot big a

mbo OBL

ŋg(a)-aok-or-o endau nik FOC-put.inside-R-V house inside

92

Foley

g-idbuku-r atki-ri FOC-take.inside-R put-PAST ‘The boy put (it, a frog) inside a big pot and took it and put it inside the house.’ (20)

IP S

I


S PP

NP N

PP

NP

N

A

I

S

P

V

NP

V P

V

V

N

D

namti un nakan i mbo child pot big a OBL

g(a)-aok-or-o endau nik g-idbuku-r atki-ri FOC-put.inside-R-V house inside FOC-take.inside-R put-PAST

The contrast between IP and S requires a revision of Baker and Harvey’s typology of semantics to structure mapping in (). Their type c needs to be separated into two types, depending on whether the syntactic units involved are S (CCCs) or IP (standard full clausal coordination) as in (): (21) (a) [Eventi ]

[Eventj ]...

[ [ ]Wdi ]Si

[[ ]Wdi ]Sj...

(b) [Eventi ]

[Eventj ]...

[ [ ]Wdi ]IPi

[[ ]Wdi ]IPj...

[Eventn ] [[ ]Wdi ]Sn [Eventn ] [[ ]Wdi ]IPn

Lexical Conceptual Structure

Syntax

Lexical Conceptual Structure

Syntax

Furthermore, the evidence from Mangap Mbula in examples such as () suggests a new type which they had not considered: when the event is spread over more than one S constituent within a single IP: (22)

[

[ Event ]

[ [ ] Wdi ] Si

[[ ]Wdi ]Sj ...

Lexical Conceptual structure

[[ ]Wdi ]Sn ]IP

Syntax

Events and serial verb constructions

93

One constraint we could draw out from () is that a unitary event can never be realised in multiple IPs, but can be spread out over multiple S constituents. This claim tallies well with Bohnemeyer et al.’s () argument for a Macro Event Property which constrains what types of syntactic structures can be construed as expressing a unitary event. In essence, the Macro Event Property requires that temporal operators, of whatever type – adjuncts, adverbial clauses or tense affixes – have scope over all component sub-events within the overall unitary event. As tense is the prototype I head which projects IPs, there is a close correlation between the structural domain over which the Macro Event Property must hold and the category IP; we leave it to future research to explore further the ramifications of this correlation. () is possible because the typical verb-final typology of Papuan languages plus the normal heavy ellipsis of presupposed NP arguments results in CCCs often looking indistinguishable from SVCs. Note that if we delete the XPs from (), how do we know whether () or () is the correct structure: CCC with Ø NPs IP (23) I


S S

I V

V

V

SVC

V IP

(24)

I


S

V I V

V

V

The surface homophony in many cases between SVCs and CCCs leads to an overlap between these in many Papuan languages. This does not mean we cannot distinguish them, as we shall see below, but it is often the case that the same types of event structures can be realized alternatively as either an SVC or a CCC. It is patently not the case that we can claim with confidence that CCCs and SVCs always differ in event structure, multiple versus single events respectively. Consider the following lines drawn from a Yimas text:

94

Foley

() m-um

mnta NR DIST-I PL then

pu-n-tay-mpi-kwalca-k PL O- SG A-see-SEQ-rise-IRR

awkura-mpi pu-n-api-k man-an collect-SEQ  PL O- SG A-put.inside-IRR cult.house-OBL ‘Then he saw them and took off and collected them and put them inside his (male) cult house.’ ma-m ma other-I PL other

ŋarŋ mnta  day removed then

pu-ŋkl-mampi-wampaki-k  PL O- PC A-again-throw-IRR ‘Another day, they sent out some more people.’ m-um NR DIST-I PL

pu-n-mampi-awkura-mpi-api-k  PL O- SG A-again-collect-SEQ-put.inside-IRR

paympan eagle V SG ‘Again he, the eagle, collected them and put them inside.’ Consider the two instances of ‘collect and put inside’ (marked in bold) spread over three sentences. In the first token, this sequence of events is expressed in a CCC. This is indicated by the marking of the tense -k IRR and the pronominal agreement affixes on the second verb api- ‘put inside’, and the stripped down verb awkura- ‘collect’ before it, marked merely with the suffix -mpi SEQ. The second token, found in the final sentence, is an SVC, clearly indicated by the pronominal prefixes preceding the sequence of both verb roots, which are juxtaposed with the sequential suffix -mpi. Note that the CCC and the SVC here look very similar: what distinguishes them is the location of the pronominal agreement affixes (although there are other tests which can be used to do so, some illustrated in section .). The real question here is why use a SVC in the second token when a CCC was used in the first. Clearly we do not want to argue that it is a semantic difference in eventhood; it is the sequence of events of collecting and putting inside in both cases. The crucial difference is the presence of mampi- ‘again’ in the second token, the SVC. This is an incorporated adverbial (Foley ), one which is treated like a bound affix. In order to modify both the events of collecting and putting inside, as clearly intended here, the SVC is essential; if a CCC was used, mampi- ‘again’ would only modify the verb root to which it was attached. To modify both in a CCC, it would need to be repeated on both verb roots in each S of the CCC, but this is unnecessarily prolix when the SVC choice is available, and in any case, via a Gricean

Events and serial verb constructions

95

Maxim of Manner, such phrasing would implicate that an unusual situation holds (Levinson ), which is clearly not meant here. In this example the SVC is simply mandated structurally, by the grammatical resources available in the language. It says nothing about the way the events are to be construed as single or multiple. The event structure is clearly the same in both instances. Generally, however, we can set up a paradigm of Yimas SVCs and CCCs in terms of the types of meanings of event relationships that they do prototypically denote: () a. narm pu-tpul-kamprak-r-akn skin VII SG  PL S-hit-break-PERF- SG D ‘They hit and broke his skin.’ b. mparŋkat ya-n-park-mpi-kapik-mpi-wark-t branch V PL V PL O- SG A-split-SEQ-break-SEQ-tie-PERF ‘He split the branches, broke them and tied then together.’ c. kaprak-mpi yaŋi-ɲan na-mp-ayŋ cut.up-SEQ pot VIII SG-OBL V SG O- DL A-put inside ‘Having cut (it) up, they put (it) in a pot.’ d. tmal kray-mpi ya-kay-am-wat amtra sun V SG dry-SEQ V PL O- PL A-eat-HAB food V PL ‘The sun having dried it, we always eat the food.’ Here is a paradigmatic opposition of syntactic compression tied to an intuitive notion of event compactness. (a) is an SVC with two verb roots simply juxtaposed. The meaning is very specific: a very close cause–effect relationship between the two events denoted by the verb roots. The effected result must follow directly and immediately after the causing event: no period of time can separate the spans of the causing event and the resulting state, and the linking suffix -mpi SEQ is prohibited here. Now consider (b), also an SVC, but this time the roots are linked by the affix -mpi SEQ , which in sharp contrast to (a) is obligatory here. Unlike (a), no necessary cause– effect relationship holds between the verb roots in this SVC; the events just follow one another in time. Still, certain constraints must hold: all events denoted by the verb roots in the SVC must be done by the same actor (n-  SG A) and happen to the same object (mparŋkat ‘branches’), and any time delay between the sequential events must be relatively fleeting. Any spatial or temporal modifiers must hold of all events denoted by the verb roots in the SVC. Finally, consider the CCC examples (c, d). Note that while in (c), the two verbs share the same actor and object (although the Oblique NP is only a constituent of the second S constituent in the chain), this is not

96

Foley

true of (d), which has distinct actors. There is no need of shared spatial or temporal modifiers in Yimas CCCs. Further, there can be a very considerable gap in time between the event expressed in one S constituent in the CCC and that in the next, as in (d). As the representation of () entails, the only crucial interdependency is one of tense; only the verb of the final S constituent is inflected for tense, but this absolute tense specification holds for all the S constituents in the chain. While morphologically much simpler than its very distant relative Yimas, when it come to SVCs, Watam is actually rather more elaborate. At first blush this is somewhat surprising. Yimas, like unrelated Kalam (Pawley and Lane ), has a rather small, almost closed class of verbal roots. Given the principle of Division of Dominance and the role of linguistic dominance in the acquisition of verbs, widespread use of SVCs in Yimas to describe events is hardly surprising: there is simply such a limited stock of core verb roots that concatenation in SVCs is mandated for expressibility. But Watam is by no means so lexically deficient in verb roots; it has many hundreds of them, some with surprisingly specific meanings, such as mermero- ‘move in an S-shaped movement along the ground (like a snake) or wave a firestick in the air to draw geometrical shapes, typically loops (like American kids do with sparklers during th of July celebrations)’! In spite of this fact, Watam discourse is awash with SVCs, of more types and of greater elaboration than those of Yimas. Yimas SVCs very rarely exceed three verb roots; Watam SVCs of five verb roots are common. Watam SVCs and CCCs are formally very similar. Non-final verbs in SVCs and those of medial S constituents in CCCs are only marked for status, by -r for Realis and ø/mbe for IRRealis. SVCs do not constitute single words in Watam, unlike Yimas (there is a true class of compound verbs in Watam distinct from SVCs, as determined by being subject to word level phonological rules). Again, with the very extensive ellipsis of presupposed NPs, CCCs and SVCs often look formally alike. But there are three features which do distinguish CCCs from SVCs. First, the final verbs of medial S constituents in CCCs may be suffixed with the utterance internal pre-pause echo vowel; such an echo vowel is never permitted inside an SVC: () a. un an ajuna ŋg(a)-irki-r-i pot PROX straight FOC-go.down-R-V wakar ŋga-pka-r-a un burburu-ri ground FOC-throw-R-V pot shatter-PAST ‘The pot went straight down, hit the ground and shattered.’ b. ma markum ŋga-rugu-r-(*u) minik-ri  SG pig FOC-hit-R-(*V) die-PAST ‘He clubbed the pig to death.’

Events and serial verb constructions

97

Second, verbs in CCCs can individually take the FOCus prefix ŋga-, as in (a). In SVCs, only the first verb may be prefixed with this, as in (b) and (): ()

nomgai or ŋga-soki-r uŋgu-r apuk-ri crocodile leg FOC-hold-R pull-R swallow-PAST ‘The crocodile grabbed (it, a chicken) by the leg, pulled (it) and swallowed (it).’

Any SVC internal position of ŋga- FOC is ungrammatical: ()

*or soki-r uŋgu-r ŋg(a)-apuk-ri leg hold-R pull-R FOC-swallow-PST

Finally, verbs in medial S constituents are marked by a distinctive falling pitch (S-final pitch), not as low and not over such a large pitch range as those of final S constituents (e.g. IP-final pitch), but quite distinct nonetheless. Verbs within SVCs have no such fall in pitch: all are spoken with roughly the same pitch except the last, which takes on the distinctive falling pitch of the end of an S or IP. We noted above that Yimas SVCs were in paradigmatic opposition with CCCs, with an SVC typically expressing a closer integration of events occurring in a sequence than the corresponding CCC. The same holds true for Watam, but, given both the fact that Watam SVCs are separate words rather than a single polysynthetic word and that they are more extensive, a greater delicacy of structure and its relationship to the unfolding sequence of events can be discerned in Watam. Consider the SVC in (a) and its corresponding CCC in (b): () a. min ma mo ndo-r aŋgi-r agiga-r PL SG OBJ see-R get-R take.up-R rug-ur minik-ri hit-R die-PAST ‘They saw him, got him, carried him up and beat him to death.’ b. min ma mo ndo-r-o aŋgi-r agiga-r-a  PL  SG DAT see-R-V get-R take.up-R-V rugu-r minik-ri hit-R die-PAST They saw him, got him and took him up, and beat him to death.’ The SVC is composed of five verbs, but the CCC contains only three conjoined S constituents; note each verb of (a) cannot govern its own S in

98

Foley

the CCC paraphrase. In particular, the SVCs aŋgi- agiga- ‘get and take up’ and rug- minik- ‘beat to death’ may not be torn asunder and put into separate S constituents. In fact, to do so results in an ungrammatical string, as in (b). What is required in Mangap Mbula to express this event, as a CCC, is proscribed in Watam. Certain types of event sequence relations in Watam require SVCs; others simply permit it. The constraints on what is allowed do seem particularly weak in this language, as (a) indicates. But where SVCs are required corresponds to prototypical uses of SVCs crosslinguistically, for instance, causing action with immediately resulting state, or motion plus path followed, or simultaneous events performed by the same actor. These event types are exactly those expressed by the simplest SVC types in Yimas, bare juxtaposition of verb roots (a). Watam differs from Yimas in permitting much more complex SVCs of the type exemplified by (a), within which substructures of the types corresponding to (a) can be concatenated, a possibility Yimas simply will not countenance; a fact related no doubt to the tightly integrated polysynthetic word structure of Yimas SVCs. We can represent the basic structure of the SVC in (a) as (), adopting a modified version of the Baker and Harvey typology: (31)

Semantics

Syntax

[Event]

[ndo-] 'see'

[Event]

[Event]

[sub-event] [sub-event]

[sub-event] [sub-event]

[ [a gi-] 'get'

[agiga-] ] 'take.up'

[ [rug-] 'hit'

[minik-] ] 'die'

Each full event may correspond to an S constituent in a CCC paraphrase, but the sub-events cannot. Of course, the Macro Event Property defined in terms of the verbal inflection tense will hold for the whole five verb concatenation in either an SVC or a CCC because both constructions are dominated by a single IP node. But a question still remains: why would a speaker use (a) in preference to (b) and vice versa? Because of the freedom and extent of Watam SVCs this is not easy to answer. There do not seem to be obvious structural forces at work in this largely analytical language, parallel to the polysynthetic profile of Yimas responsible for (). For Watam the answer seems mainly textual and discoursal. An SVC like (a) strongly highlights the idea that the events follow each other in rapid succession; no spatial or temporal modifiers can occur between the verbs in the SVC or modify any of them independently. This again illustrates the pragmatic Gricean heuristic principles: simple description, stereotypical exemplification, e.g. rapid sequence of events. This rapid sequence is not highlighted in (b); while the events could unfold as such, the description does not force such

Events and serial verb constructions

99

an interpretation, indeed it invites one to consider an alternative reading of perhaps some delay, and indeed independent spatial or temporal modification of each S constituent is perfectly possible here. But there is still another, perhaps more important, factor. Looking at the distribution of complex SVCs such as (a) across a range of narrative texts, it is very striking that they typically occur in the final S constituent of a CCC. Even if medial S constituents contain SVCs (as they commonly do, see (b)), they are normally simpler than those found in the final S. This is because the final S expresses the main point, the most highlighted, foregrounded event of the whole sentence. Consequently if there is a string of interrelated sequential events that the speaker wishes to highlight, the ‘punchline’, we might say, of the sentence, then an SVC is the ideal way to do so. This is not to claim that medial S constituents are backgrounded; they are not, in Watam or in Yimas. Truly backgrounded information is best expressed in subordinated clauses. But the binary foregrounded–backgrounded distinction is insufficient for our purposes here. Events described in the final S are more important, more highlighted, than those expressed in the medials that lead up to them: that is why they are expressed in a final S and not in yet another medial one. In a sense, they are the climax of the sentence, and, if complex, what better way to present them than in an SVC. .

Event sequences in types of SVCs

Our discussion of the event structure of (a), represented in (), was an entrée to this section in which we will investigate the substructure of complex event descriptions in SVCs in Watam. We will probe a few types of SVCs with various grammatical tests to see how they behave. As will become clear, not all Watam SVCs are created equal. Some are SVCs pure and simple, and no other structural realisation is possible. Others are SVCs by convenience, we might say; structural probing will reveal them to have much weaker syntactic integration than the types of absolutely prescribed SVCs. This distinction roughly coincides with one proposed by Van Staden and Reesink (), which they termed component versus narrative serialisation. They noted that while component serialisation was present in all the languages they surveyed in the Indonesia/New Guinea region and identified as having SVCs, narrative serialisation was essentially restricted to Papuan languages. This is undoubtedly due to the overlap in both form and meaning between SVCs and CCCs in these languages. Let us start with the Watam equivalent to the Yimas example in (a): ()

yak kor uŋg-ur irik-ri canoe pull-R go.down-PAST SG ‘I pulled the canoe into the water.’

100

Foley

The SVC behaves as a cohesive unit in non-finite nominalisations like (): ()

yak [ kor uŋ irik ] -na to SG canoe pull go.down-POSS enough ‘I am able to pull the canoe into the water.’

When we form an imperative version of this SVC, it is formed by simple juxtaposition of the verb roots; the suffix -mbe used for irrealis verbs in medial S constituents in CCCs is ungrammatical: () a. kor uŋ irik canoe pull go.down ‘Pull the canoe into the water!’ b. *kor uŋ-(m)be canoe pull-IRR

irik go.down

While polysynthetic Yimas has a number of verbal inflections to mark aspect, more analytic Watam uses a range of verbal affixes and specialised verbs in SVCs for this function. In particular, progressive is marked by a circumfix ma-. . .-tak, while perfective uses mamai- ‘finish’ in an SVC: () a. yak kor uŋg-ur ma-irik-tak SG canoe pull-R PROG-go.down-PROG ‘I’m pulling the canoe into the water.’ b. yak kor uŋg-ur irki-r mamai-r SG canoe pull-R go.down-R finish-PERF ‘I finished pulling the canoe into the water.’ Note that the progressive affixation occurs on the final verb of the SVC, but its scope extends over both verbs; similarly, while the perfective verb is the final verb in the SVC, all preceding verbs are within its scope. No alternative construal is possible. If, for instance, one wishes to say ‘I pulled the canoe and it’s now going down into the water’, a complex sentence would be required, with the first clause most likely subordinate: ()

yak kor uŋ-rape, ma-irik-tak SG canoe pull-SUBD PROG-go.down-PROG ‘Me having pulled the canoe, (it’s) going down into the water.’

The behaviour of negation is tricky in Watam SVCs, as it is in many serialising languages. Negation is indicated by the circumfix ba-. . .-tap/rap.

Events and serial verb constructions

101

This may not be spread over both verbs, but occurs on the final verb, with the first verb bearing simply the prefix ba- or nothing: () a. yak kor ba-uŋg-ur ba-irik-tap SG canoe NEG-pull-R NEG-go.down-NEG ‘I didn’t pull the canoe into the water.’ b. yak kor uŋg-ur ba-irik-tap SG canoe pull-R NEG-go.down-NEG ‘I didn’t pull the canoe into the water.’ However, this constraint does not seem to hold for all SVC types; in particular, for cause–effect pairs, split negative morphology does seen possible, as in this textual example: ()

namak yaoŋ an ma na ba-wandai-r eye good PROX SG POSS NEG-wash-R ‘(He) didn’t wash this good eye of his clean.’

wiski-rap clean-NEG

Turning to a more complex ternary SVC, consider (): ()

namot i yor i aŋgi-r pika-r irki-ri man a egg a get-R throw-R go.down-PAST ‘A man got an egg and threw it down.’

Again the SVC behaves as a cohesive unit in non-finite nominalisation: ()

namot i [ yor i aŋgi pika irik- ]-na man a egg a get throw go.down-POSS ‘A man is able to get an egg and throw it down.’

to enough

In contrast to (), the elements in this SVC behave differentially under imperative formation: ()

yor

i

aŋgi-mbe

pika-(*mbe)

egg a get-IRR throw-IRR ‘Get an egg and throw it down!’

irik go.down

The first verb in the SVC aŋgi- ‘get’ must occur with the irrealis suffix for medial verbs in CCCs -mbe, while the middle verb pika- ‘throw’ cannot. In other words, when the SVC in () is subjected to imperative formation, the first verb must revert to being within its own S constituent in a CCC, while the second cannot, but must remain in an SVC with irik- ‘go down’. This indicates that the semantic relationship between pika- ‘throw’ and irik- ‘go down’ is closer – sub-events of manner of motion plus path in one unitary

102

Foley

event – but that aŋgi- ‘get’ is more weakly integrated, simply a preceding event in the unfolding sequence, as in (): (42)

Semantics

[Event]

[Event]

[sub-event]

Syntax

[a gi-] 'get'

[ [pika-] 'throw'

[sub-event]

[irik-] ] 'go.down'

The behaviour under negation supports this analysis. The SVC can be negated as a whole: in this case, the negative circumfix will be on the final verb and the first verb will bear ba- or no affixation; the middle verb may not carry any affixation at all: () a. namot i yor i ba-(a)ŋgi-r pika-r ba-irik-tap Man a egg a NEG-get-R throw-R NEG-go.down-NEG ‘A man didn’t get an egg and throw it down.’ b. namot i yor i aŋgi-r pika-r ba-irik-tap man a egg a get-R throw-R NEG-go.down-NEG ‘A man didn’t get an egg and throw it down.’ If the middle verb does bear the negative prefix ba-, this forces a reading in which the negative only has scope over the final two verbs in the SVC; the first verb must remain positive in polarity: () namot i yor i aŋgi-r ba-pika-r ba-irik-tap man a egg a get-R NEG-throw-R NEG-go.down-NEG ‘A man got an egg but didn’t throw it down.’ () contradicts Comrie’s Property : here all the verbs in the SVC do not agree in polarity (nor, as an aside, do verbs in SVCs necessarily agree in person–number marking or aspect; a number of contrary examples have been reported from languages in the Pacific (Crowley ); SVCs, of course, must agree in tense–mood, as these are I head categories projecting the maximally dominating IP node. The reason () is possible is that the negation only holds of the second major event of the event sequence expressed by the SVC, as schematised in (). Scope of negation is not structurally driven in Watam, as it is in Yimas. It cannot be described as sentential or phrasal or word level, because there is no obvious constituent structure of () that includes the second two, but excludes the first. Rather it seems sensitive to event structure: its scope can be any or all of the major events in the top tier of the event structure sequence of (), and the relative placement of the negative affixes reflects this.

Events and serial verb constructions

103

Now consider another ternary SVC of a slightly different type in (): ()

namot tau da-gwe-r witki-r amb-ri man sugarcane FOC-bite-R tear-R eat-PAST ‘The man bit the sugarcane off and ate it.’

Again the SVC straightforwardly occurs in a non-finite nominalisation: ()

namtiŋ [ tau da-gwe witki am ]-na boy sugarcane FOC-bite tear eat-POSS ‘The boy is able to bite off the sugarcane and eat it.’

to enough

But when we apply the imperative test, we find the first two verbs grouped together against the last: () a.

tau da-gwe witki-mbe am sugarcane FOC-bite tear-IRR eat ‘Bite the sugarcane off and eat it.’

b. *tau da-gwe-mbe sugarcane FOC-bite-IRR c. *tau da-gwe sugarcane FOC-bite

witki tear

witki tear

am eat

am eat

Again this is explained in terms of the event structure described in (): the first two verbs describe a cause-resulting state relationship, bite and be torn off, which, as we saw above, must be realised as an SVC in Watam, so that a CCC option is not available here. On the other hand, the action of am‘eat’ just follows in an expected sequence from the previous event, a weaker semantic relationship, and hence this verb is forced into its own S constituent in a CCC under imperative formation. The event structure of () can be diagrammed as (): (48)

Semantics

[Event]

[sub-event]

Syntax

[ [gwe-] 'bite'

[Event]

[sub-event]

[witki-] ] 'tear'

[am-] 'eat'

Unfortunately, the evidence from negation is inconclusive here: either arrangement of the negative affixation results in a reading of the entire SVC being negated:

104

Foley

() a. namot tau ba-gwe-r witk-r ba-(a)m-tap man sugarcane NEG-bite-R tear-R NEG-eat-NEG ‘The man didn’t bite the sugarcane off and eat it.’ b. namot tau gwe-r witki-r ba-(a)m-tap man sugarcane bite-R tear-R NEG-eat-NEG ‘The man didn’t bite the sugarcane off and eat it.’ This is because of the basic principle of the language that negation must be marked on the final verb with the negative circumfix (see () and ()), often in combination with the prefix ba- on the initial verb. So if we want to force a reading in which only the final verb of an SVC is negated, e.g. the second full event in (), then a CCC is necessary: ()

namot tau da-gwe-r witki-r-i, (ma) ba-(a)m-tap man sugarcane FOC-bite-R tear-R-V SG NEG-eat-NEG ‘The man bit the sugarcane off, but (he) didn’t eat it.’

Unlike some other languages such as Barai (Olson ), which apparently allow verbs in SVCs to have differing specifications for aspect, Watam does not generally permit this: aspectual markers must have scope over the whole SVC: () a. namot tau da-gwe-r witki-r amb-ar mamai-r man sugarcane FOC-bite-R tear-R eat-R finish-PERF ‘The man finished biting off the sugarcane and eating it.’ b. namot tau da-gwe-r witki-r amb-ar yoro-r man sugarcane FOC-bite-R tear-R eat-R COMPL-PERF ‘The man bit off the sugarcane and ate all of it.’ yoro- is an aspectual verb which indicates that the event has gone to completion with the object being totally affected by it. Most Papuan languages have this aspect category, which we gloss as completive. The one exception to this generalisation about the scope of aspect concerns the progressive: ()

namot tau da-gwe-r witki-r ma-(a)m-tak man sugarcane FOC-bite-R tear-r PROG-eat-PROG ‘The man bit off the sugarcane and is eating it.’

In this case the progressive aspect only has scope over the act of eating, not the whole SVC. If we wish to force a reading in which the man is currently engaged in biting off sugarcane and eating it, we would simply affix the final verb with the present tense suffix -ta, which as a tense I inflection must have scope over the whole SVC:

Events and serial verb constructions

()

105

namot tau da-gwe-r witki-r am-ta man sugarcane FOC-bite-R tear-R eat-PRES ‘The man is biting the sugarcane off and eating it.’

When negation is applied to an aspectual verb, the negative circumfix attaches to it, as the final verb, and no negative affixes are permitted to occur on any of the preceding verbs: ()

namot tau da-gwe-r witki-r amb-ar ba-mamai-rap man sugarcane FOC-bite-R tear-R eat-R NEG-finish-NEG ‘The man didn’t finish biting off the sugarcane and eating it.’

This, of course, is entirely to be expected. As () and its translation exemplify, it is the aspectual verb which is being negated, not the other events in the SVC. They are asserted to have occurred: i.e. the man did bite the sugarcane and eat it; he just didn’t finish doing that. For a final brief example, consider this quaternary SVC: ()

ma tatariki-r nopai-r iri-r SG yell-R swim-R come-R ‘He yelled, swam over and came ashore.’

ga-ri go.up-PAST

Applying a new test, it is interesting to see where one can and cannot insert overt subject pronouns; the presence of an overt subject pronoun establishes the first verb as being in its own separate S constituent: ()

ma tatariki-r (ma) nopai-r iri-r (*ma) ga-ri SG yell-R SG swim-R come-R SG go.up-PAST ‘He yelled, (he) swam over and came ashore.’

This establishes that the first verb in the SVC of () is more weakly linked to the rest, as it can occur in its own S in a CCC. Behaviour under imperative formation confirms this: ()

tatariki-mbe nopai iri-mbe ga yell-IRR swim come-IRR go.up ‘Yell and swim over and come ashore!’

Interestingly, although a subject pronoun is proscribed there, under imperative formation, the -mbe suffix is obligatory between iri- ‘come’ and ga- ‘go up’. It is prohibited between nopai- ‘swim’ and iri- ‘come’. This indicates that these last two form a required SVC of manner of motion plus path that cannot be broken up, like previous examples () and (), while the other two verbs are more weakly linked in a relationship of sequence, which in an imperative construction forces them to revert to distinct S constituents within a CCC. The event structure of () can be represented as:

106 (58)

Foley Semantics

[Event]

[Event]

[sub-event]

Syntax

[tatariki-] 'yell'

[ [nopai-] 'swim'

[Event]

[sub-event]

[iri-] ]

[ga-]

'come'

'go.up'

Given the conflicting evidence from subject pronoun insertion and imperative formation, () is probably not a perfect representation of the event sequence of (). It treats the relationship of the initial and final verbs to the middle pair alike, but the rejection of subject pronoun insertion before the final verb indicates that its relationship to the middle pair is somewhat different from that of the first verb. Indeed, the final verb bears a rather strong, albeit non-binding, implicature to the middle pair: if one swims toward some place on land, then it can reasonably be expected that one will come ashore. But if one yells, there clearly can be no expectation that one will jump in the water and start swimming toward some place. Behaviour under negation confirms that the event relations are not entirely equivalent: () a. ma tatariki-r ba-nopai-r iri-r ba-ga-tap SG yell-R NEG-swim-R come-R NEG-go.up-NEG ‘He yelled, but didn’t swim over and come ashore.’ b. ma tatariki-r nopai-r iri-r ba-ga-tap SG yell-R swim-R come-R NEG-go.up-NEG ‘He didn’t yell, swim over, and come ashore.’ (a) is the expected example in which the scope of negation is over the final two events of (), but not the first. Example (b), with the negative only realised on the final verb in the SVC, can only be felicitously read as having scope over the entire SVC, all three events described by it, as with (b). Again to force a restriction of negation to the final event, minimally a CCC would be needed (a), but, given the denial of the normal implicature of coming ashore, more likely a rather more emphatic construction using two juxtaposed IPs, i.e. full clausal coordination, would be used: ()

a. ma tatariki-r nopai-r iri-r-i, ba-ga-tap SG yell-R swim-R come-R-V NEG-go.up-NEG ‘He yelled and swam over, and didn’t come ashore.’ b. ma SG

tatariki-r yell-R

nopai-r swim-R

iri-r, come-PERF

Events and serial verb constructions

107

karir (ma) ba-ga-tap but SG NEG-go.up-NEG ‘He yelled and swam over, but (he) didn’t come ashore.’ . Conclusion Gentner and Boroditsky’s () proposal of the Division of Dominance and the consequent important role of linguistic dominance in the acquisition of verb meanings leads us to expect very significant cross-linguistic differences in their semantics. While all languages plausibly have a word for ‘dog’ with essentially equivalent meanings, this is not true for ‘kill’. As we saw in section ., ‘kill’ is expressed in a variety of differing ways, from a monomorphemic verb root in Yimas to a CCC in Mangap Mbula. Both Numbami and Watam uses SVCs to express ‘kill’, but in quite distinct ways. The Numbami candidate is a complex, albeit fixed expression, a good candidate for a lexical item. But the Watam SVCs are often flexible and expandable expressions; they are a family of constructions, not lexical items. Hence, the Numbami and Watam SVCs are, strictly speaking, not comparable. The surface similarity of being SVCs hides deeper differences. SVCs are a number of different things that simply look alike structurally, but on deeper probing turn out to exhibit very divergent properties. None of Comrie’s properties of SVCs turn out to hold of all SVCs investigated in this chapter save monoclausality, but that criterion is clearly not sufficient, as many constructions are realised in single S constituents, but are not SVCs. Are there any universal defining properties of SVCs? Probably not, although the term may still prove useful as a convenient descriptive label like reduplication. And this variation holds within languages. Our closer look at Watam SVCs in section . shows significant differences in their behaviour, so that even to talk of a Watam SVC is somewhat of a misnomer: some are paraphrasable in CCCs, some are not; some require the scope of negation to include all elements, some do not; some allow subject pronoun insertion, some do not, etc. But when we look more closely at the meanings of the different types of SVCs, we find that those whose unity is inviolable correspond to the most prototypical SVCs in other languages, and commonly describe events that are realised as monomorphemic verbs or verb plus satellite structures in Talmy’s () typology of macro-events, such as causing action and resulting state or manner of motion plus path. This strongly suggests that the principle of cognitive dominance and hence robust universal constraints such as those discussed in Baker and Harvey (this volume) also play an important role in the semantics of events, as we might expect, given Gentner and Boroditsky’s () midpoint positioning of the class of verbs in their scale of the Division of Dominance. It is exactly the perceptual/ cognitive relations which most interest humans, e.g. causation and motion,

108

Foley

which must be realised in an SVC in Watam. Language-specific facts cast through the principle of linguistic dominance stipulate that the realisation of events expressing cause–effect or motion–path in Watam are SVCs, and open expandable SVCs at that, rather than monomorphemic verb roots like kill or enter. But the fact that such event types cannot be expressed in CCCs is due to wider, presumably cognitive, constraints on how an event can be expressed: sub-events of a single, albeit complex, event cannot be spread over distinct S-constituents in Watam. But they can be in Mangap Mbula. But even there sub-events of a single, but complex, event must be expressed in S constituents linked with the close conjunction ma, rather than the weaker less implicative mi. In both Watam and Mangap Mbula, sub-events of complex, but nonetheless coherent and overall unitary, events must be expressed in syntactically more compact structures than those available to sequences of distinct events. Similar constraints apply in the two languages, though the linguistic realisations differ. So, in a nutshell, in the domain of the structure of events, cognitive dominance proposes, but linguistic dominance disposes. References Aikhenvald, A. . Serial Verb Constructions in Typological Perspective. In Aikhenvald, A. and Dixon, R. (eds) Serial Verb Constructions: A Crosslinguistic Typology, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baker, B. and Harvey, M. This volume. Complex Predicate Formation. Berlin, B. . Ethnobiological Classification. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bohnemeyer, J., Enfield, N., Essegbey, J., Ibarretxe, I., Kita, S., Luebke, F., and Ameka, F. . Principles of Event Encoding: The Case of Motion Events. Language : –. Bradshaw, J. . Subject Relationships Within Serial Verb Constructions in Numbami and Jabêm. Oceanic Linguistics : –. Bresnan, J. . Lexical-Functional Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Bugenhagen, R. . Agentivity and Iconicity in Mangap-Mbula. In Harlow, R and Hooper, R. (eds) VICAL : Oceanic Languages; Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, –. Auckland: Linguistic Society of New Zealand. . A Grammar of Mangap-Mbula: An Austronesian Language of Papua New Guinea. Pacific Linguistics C-. Comrie, B. . Serial Verbs in Haruai (Papua New Guinea) and Their Theoretical Implications. In Bouscaren, J., Franckel, J., and Robert, S. (eds) Langues et langage: Problèmes et raisonnement en linguistique, mélanges offerts à Antoine Culioli, –. Paris: University Presses of France. Crowley, T. . Serial Verbs in Oceanic: A Descriptive Typology. Oxford University Press. Foley, W. . The Yimas Language of New Guinea. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Events and serial verb constructions

109

Foley, W. and Van Valin, R. . Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gentner, D. and Boroditsky, L. . Individuation, Relativity and Early Word Learning. In Bowerman, M. and Levinson, S. (eds.) Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hovav Rappaport, M. and Levin, B. . Building Verb Meanings. In Butt, M. and Geuder, W. (eds) The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, –. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Jackendoff, R. . Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. . Argument Realization. Cambridge University Press. Levinson, S. . Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Olson, M. . Barai Clause Junctures. PhD dissertation, Australian National University. Pawley, A. and Lane, J. . From Event Sequence to Grammar: Serial Verb Constructions in Kalam. In Siewierska, A. and Song, J. (eds) Case, Typology and Grammar, –. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Quine, W. . Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press. Reesink, G. . Being Negative can be Positive. In Huttar, G. and Gregerson, K. (eds) Pragmatics in Non-Western Perspective, –. Arlington, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Talmy, L. . Toward a Cognitive Semantics (two volumes). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Van Staden, M. and Reesink, G. . A Functional Approach to Verb Serialization. Paper presented at the Ninth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Canberra. Van Valin, R. and La Polla, R. . Syntax: Meaning, Structure, Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5

Cotemporal serial verb constructions White Hmong NERIDA JARKEY

.

Introduction

White Hmong is minority language spoken in Mainland Southeast Asia, belonging to the Miao-Yao language family. It is an analytic, isolating language, and generally monosyllabic, with some multi-syllabic words due to compounding and borrowing. Syllable structure is predominantly CV, with each syllable bearing one of seven phonemic tones, represented in the Romanised orthography by a syllable-final consonant letter. The order of core constituents is generally AVO for transitive clauses and SV for intransitive clauses. Constituent order codes the syntactic function of core arguments. Topical elements can be fronted and noun phrases that are recoverable from the context are often omitted. Head modifier order is predominant, with a few significant exceptions (for example, possessives precede nouns). Nouns are not marked for number; they co-occur with noun classifiers that assist in signalling definiteness and specificity. Like many other languages of the Southeast Asian region, Hmong is rich in complex predicates involving serial verb constructions (SVCs). As explained by Baker and Harvey (this volume), SVCs are monoclausal but multi-predicational. That is, they involve two or more distinct predicating morphemes, linked together in a single clause by virtue of the fact that they share one or more argument positions through coindexation. SVCs are thus significantly different from merger constructions, also introduced in Chapter  and discussed extensively in this volume. According to Baker and Harvey’s analysis (see also Wilson ), while both of these types of complex verb construction are monoclausal, merger constructions 



I am ever grateful to those who have helped me learn Hmong, especially Cua Lee, her husband Sao and brother-in-law Yeng, and her dear son William. I would also like to express my gratitude to Bob Dixon and Sasha Aikhenvald for inviting me as a Visiting Fellow to the Research Centre for Linguistic Typology, La Trobe University, during which time I wrote the first draft of this chapter. Many thanks also to Mark Harvey and Mengistu Amberber for thoughtful comments on my first draft, and to Mark and an anonymous reviewer for further, very helpful comments. Where S is the single argument of an intransitive verb, A is the subject of a transitive verb, and O is the other argument of a transitive verb (see Dixon : –).

110

Cotemporal SVCs in White Hmong

111

involve the fusion of the Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS) of two predicates, resulting in a single LCS, and thus a single predicate. Because the predicates in SVCs are linked by the coindexation of arguments rather than by fusion, they maintain their status as separate predicates with independent LCSs. The Hmong data discussed in this chapter address an interesting and important issue concerning Baker and Harvey’s analysis of these ‘two quite distinct ways of combining predicate information within monoclausal structures’, that is, merger constructions and SVCs. This issue relates to the clear-cut distinction Baker and Harvey draw between single events (expressed by the merger construction and by monomorphemic predicates) and multiple events (which, they argue, are expressed not only by multiple predicates realised by multiple clauses, but also by the multi-predicational but monoclausal structure of SVCs). Baker and Harvey thus explicitly reject the view that ‘[s]erial verb constructions describe what is conceptualised as a single event’ (Aikhenvald : ). This is a view, however, that is widely and convincingly argued by scholars working on a broad range of typologically distinct languages in which SVCs occur (e.g. Aikhenvald : –; Bruce : ; Durie : ; Enfield a; Jarkey : – et passim, ; Pawley ). In this chapter, I suggest that the issue is, to some extent at least, a difference of approach, resulting in a different use of terminology, rather than a genuine disagreement. I attempt to clarify the terminology below, and go on to show that the Hmong data presented throughout this chapter support the notion that SVCs do, indeed, convey what is conceptualised by speakers as a single ‘event’, in spite of the fact that they clearly involve more than one predicate. I focus in particular on one SVC type in Hmong – Cotemporal SVCs – and explain how the multiple predicates in these constructions function, together with other devices, to portray events in the detailed and elaborate ways that are highly valued by speakers and writers in this language. . The notion of ‘event’ Baker and Harvey’s use of the word ‘event’ is defined by the formal constraints on what can be expressed by the single lexical conceptual structure of a single predicate, either a coverb construction or a monomorphemic predicate. Given this definition, it is, indeed, quite reasonable to argue that SVCs involve more than one ‘event’, because they involve more than one predicate. This sense of the word will be referred to here, as in Baker and Harvey, as a ‘simplex event’. Proponents of the notion that SVCs describe a single ‘event’, however, do not use the term in this way at all. Their focus is not on the formal constraints on what can be expressed within a single predicate universally, but rather has tended to be on the language-specific constraints on what is

112

Jarkey

construed, and thus presented, as a single event, in a particular utterance type. This sense of the word is referred to here as a ‘conceptual event’. A ‘conceptual event’ is both a cognitive and a cultural construct. It is a cognitive construct in that it is a means by which we deal with our temporal experiences as a metaphor of the way we deal with our physical experiences. Just as we classify our physical world into discrete entities, so we classify our temporal world into discrete events. At the same time, a conceptual event is also a cultural construct in that, while our common cognitive make-up results in significant commonalities in what can constitute an event token across languages, cultural differences can result in variation with regard to precisely what are considered the salient boundaries of eventhood in some cases. (See, in particular, Section .. for discussion and examples from Hmong.) Bohnemeyer et al. (: ) point out that events (that is, conceptual events) have mereological structures: both parts of events and combinations of events can themselves be considered instances of events (see also Zachs and Tversky ). Thus, an identical extra-linguistic stimulus might be packaged as a single event in one syntactic construction in one context, but packaged as more than one event in another syntactic construction in a different context. These authors assume that the packaging of extra-linguistic stimuli into discrete events relates to a speaker’s construal of their temporal properties: properties such as their beginning and end, their duration, and their occurrence relative to other ‘events’ (p. ). They propose a universal semantic test for identifying what is conceptualised and thus packaged as a single event in any language: the ‘Macro Event Property’ (MEP). The MEP is: a property of constructions that assesses the event construal they convey – specifically, the ‘tightness of packaging’ of subevents in the construction. A construction has the MEP if temporal operations such as time adverbials, temporal clauses, and tenses necessarily have scope over all subevents encoded by the construction. (p. ) SVCs in Hmong all have the MEP. This results from the nature of the syntactic relationship between the predicates and arguments in the construction, which is well described in the terms of the theory of the layered structure of the clause, developed in Olson (), and Foley and Olson (), and further refined within the framework of Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) by Foley and Van Valin (), Van Valin (, ), and Van Valin and LaPolla (). According to this theory, a clause consists of three ‘layers’: the ‘nucleus’ (the predicate); the ‘core’ (the nucleus plus the core arguments), and the ‘clause’ as a whole (the nucleus and the core, plus additional, non-core (peripheral) arguments, including beneficiaries, outer locatives, and temporal expressions such as time adverbs, etc.). Each layer of the

Cotemporal SVCs in White Hmong

113

clause can be modified by certain semantic ‘operators’: aspect, for example, has scope only over the nucleus; deontic modals over the core; and tense, epistemic modals, evidentials, and illocutionary force over the entire clause. SVCs in Hmong involve the simple juxtaposition of two or more tokens of either the nuclear or the core layer within a single clause. In addition to sharing at least one core argument, the predicates also share all non-core arguments, including time expressions, and all core and peripheral operators including deontic modality, tense, epistemic modality, evidentiality, and illocutionary force. The fact that both the peripheral-layer time expressions and the peripheral operator of tense are shared confirms that these constructions possess the MEP. Furthermore, the sharing of the core layer operators (deontic modal concepts such as the desire, obligation, intention, or ability of the actor) indicates that the packaging involved in SVCs in Hmong is even tighter than in the case of a construction that has the MEP alone. With one exception involving nuclear juncture (see ..), SVC types in Hmong all involve a special type of ‘core cosubordination’ in the terms of RRG. The term ‘cosubordinate’ is used in this theoretical framework to refer to a linkage type in which neither junct is embedded as an argument of the other, but in which the juncts are, nevertheless, dependent on each other by virtue of the fact that they share all operators at the level of juncture (Van Valin ). The term ‘core’ linkage indicates that the point of linkage is within the core – that is, there must be at least one shared core argument. Cross-linguistically, core cosubordination usually involves the linkage of two clauses, each potentially able to bring its own peripheral elements (e.g. location or time expressions) into the construction. However, SVCs of the types that occur in Hmong are cases of a special kind of core cosubordination, in which bare cores rather than full clauses are linked, with a single periphery (see also Jarkey : ). Examples of juxtaposed verbs expressing a sequential relationship – included under the term SVCs in some analyses (e.g. Sebba ) – would be instances of regular core cosubordination rather than of this special type. They would clearly not have the MEP. This type of juxtaposition does not occur in Hmong, and is not regarded as a serial verb construction in this analysis. If our definition of ‘event’ is tied to the predicate, we come up with the notion of a ‘simplex event’ used by Baker and Harvey. This notion stands in opposition to the ‘complex events’ that occur in all multi-predicate structures, whether they be SVCs or multiple clauses. It is reminiscent of the Aristotelian alignment of the proposition with the verb (Givon : –, regarding Pawley ). On the other hand, if our definition of ‘event’ relates to the cognitive and cultural construction of the temporal world, we arrive at the notion of a ‘conceptual event’. This notion is not constrained by the number of predicates involved. It is, however, limited to predicates that share temporal properties – properties such as their beginning and end, their duration, and their occurrence relative to other ‘events’ – within a single

114

Jarkey

clause. In this sense, the multi-predicate, monoclausal structures involved in SVCs are, indeed, closer to single predicate clauses than to multiple predicates realised by multiple clauses. . The expression of a ‘conceptual event’ with more than one ‘simplex event’ in Hmong This clarification of the distinction between a ‘simplex event’ and a ‘conceptual event’ raises a further important question: In what circumstances is more than one ‘simplex event’ used to express a single ‘conceptual event’? Elsewhere ( Jarkey , ), I have shown that, in the case of White Hmong, this can be related to a tendency for single verbs not to express high levels of transitivity, either structurally, in the sense of the number of core arguments introduced, or semantically, in the sense of ‘the effectiveness with which an action takes place’ (Hopper and Thompson : ). For example, structurally, there are no three place predicates in Hmong. That is, there is no verb that can simultaneously introduce both a Theme argument and a Recipient argument into the clause (akin to a structure like he sent me a book in English) without support such as that of a serial verb construction (Jarkey : –). The kind of SVC used for this purpose in Hmong is described briefly in .. below, and is referred to in this analysis as a Disposal SVC (following the traditional use of the term ‘disposal’ for a somewhat similar construction in Mandarin (see Li and Thompson : –)). When it comes to the notion of semantic transitivity, even verbs that would be thought of as very high on the transitivity scale in many languages do not seem to be quite as high on the scale in Hmong. For example, the notion of affect is rarely encoded unambiguously in verbs that express impingement in this language. To ensure that a verb such as ‘shoot’ or ‘cut’ is interpreted as successful, a second verb expressing the resulting change in the O argument is generally added to the clause. This SVC type is referred to here as a Pivotal SVC (see .. below). Another strategy for indicating successful impingement is to use a Disposal SVC (..), indicating the way in which the O argument is destroyed, consumed, or relinquished. Semantic transitivity is also raised by the use of SVCs in the case of telic predicates, like ‘sew a skirt’ or ‘go to market’, in Hmong. Although predicates like these imply an intrinsic terminal point or goal, the attainment of that goal cannot be assumed in Hmong, even when the verb is used in the past tense. A further telic achievement verb, such as ‘get’ or ‘arrive’, must be included in an Attainment SVC to ensure this interpretation (see .. 

Further evidence in support of closer alignment of SVCs with single predicate clauses than with multi-clause structures comes from Givon’s () study of the pause probabilities between words within single predicate clauses, between the components of SVCs, and between the components of multiple clauses.

Cotemporal SVCs in White Hmong

115

below). Similar observations have been made about other languages of the Asian area (Chinese (Smith, ), Japanese (Ikegami, , )), and in these languages, too, it is often the case that a serial verb construction or other multi-verb construction is used to raise the transitivity sufficiently to express successful impingement or attainment of a goal. In this chapter, I introduce the discussion of another factor that is clearly relevant, in the case of Hmong at least, to the expression of a single ‘conceptual event’ with multiple ‘simplex events’. This factor is the preference that speakers of this language have for the detailed and elaborate portrayal of events. The focus of the chapter is on an SVC type in Hmong that strongly supports this kind of portrayal: the Cotemporal SVC type (see .. below). When telic motion verbs occur in Cotemporal SVCs, they function to introduce noun phrases and locative phrases expressing path information – source, route, and goal – into the clause, as well as to provide deictic information. However, there is another major function of this common SVC type in Hmong that has not been widely discussed before: that of teasing out the details of the process and manner of events involving motion, stance, and atelic action. The use of multiple predicates to achieve this function enhances the rich and intricate depiction of events much favoured in this language. This is explained and illustrated in section . of this chapter, after an overview of all SVC types in section .. .

Types of serial verb constructions in White Hmong

We can identify four distinct types of SVC in White Hmong on the basis of two key structural criteria: first, the coindexation relations that hold between the predicates, and second, the order of the predicates and arguments. These four types are described in this analysis as Cotemporal, Disposal, Pivotal, and Attainment SVCs. The analysis of these four types presented in this section is a summary and refinement of the one presented in Jarkey (). This summary serves to contextualise the further discussion of Cotemporal SVCs, which is the focus of this chapter. A word about the nature of some of the O arguments that can occur is helpful, before we begin to examine the various types of SVCs in White Hmong. Some motion and stance verbs in this language (e.g. mus ‘go’, pw ‘lie’) take O arguments that function as core (‘inner’) locatives, indicating the location, route, source, or goal of the subject of the verb. These O arguments can take the form of noun phrases that express place: proper nouns such as Thai teb ‘Thailand’ and common nouns such as khw ‘market’. Alternatively they can be locative phrases, composed of a ‘spatial deictic’ followed by a noun phrase (Jarkey : – and : –; Ratliff ). ‘Spatial deictics’ are not prepositions; they do not signal the role of the noun phrase in relation to the verb. They are a closed class of morphemes

116

Jarkey

in Hmong that indicate some salient aspect of the spatial properties of the noun phrase they precede, in relation to the speaker or to the perspective that the speaker chooses to adopt. Examples include ntawm ‘place nearby’, pem ‘place up’, nram ‘place down’, tim ‘place across’, and hauv ‘place inside’. When combined with verbs that take core locative arguments, it is thus the meaning of the verb, not the meaning of the spatial deictic, that results in the interpretation of the semantic role of the O argument: mus ntawm khw (go place.nearby market) ‘go [to] market (nearby)’ not ‘go near the market’; mus tim khw (go place.across market) ‘go [to] market (across there)’ not ‘go across the market’. .. Cotemporal serial verb constructions (S/A = S/A) Both transitive and intransitive verbs can co-occur in a single Cotemporal SVC in Hmong. This SVC type involves coindexation of the subject argument of all verbs – A if the verbs are transitive and S if the verbs are intransitive. The fact that this core argument is shared, and that the O arguments of transitive verbs readily intervene between the verbs in this construction, indicates that the juncture is at the core level. The fact that deontic modality operators have scope over both juncts indicates that they involve core cosubordination (see examples (), (), and ()). This structure is symbolised in () and illustrated in (). Verbs in the serial construction are underlined, as are their nearest equivalents (not necessarily verbs) in the English translations. () ()

A/S V (O) V (O) V (O) … cov hmoob hla dej na.koom dim hauv COLLCLF Hmong cross river Mekong escape inside nplog.teb mus thai.teb Laos go Thailand ‘The Hmong escaped from Laos to Thailand over the Mekong River.’

Example () shows a Cotemporal SVC involving three motion verbs – hla ‘cross’, dim ‘escape’, and mus ‘go’ – each one introducing a separate argument – route, source, and goal respectively – of a single motion event – that is, a single ‘conceptual event’ – undertaken by the subject cov hmoob ‘the Hmong’. This sentence cannot be interpreted as a sequence of ‘conceptual events’, nor even a sequence of ‘simplex events’. None of these facets of the event ‘precedes’ or ‘follows’ another; instead the crossing of the river is precisely what constitutes the escape from Laos and the journey to Thailand. The non-iconic ordering of the verbs (expressing route, then source, then goal) lends support to this point. In the most common type of Cotemporal SVC, all verbs are motion verbs, as in example () (see .. below for further examples). Next in frequency

Cotemporal SVCs in White Hmong

117

are those that involve a combination of action and motion verbs (associated motion (..)), or action and stance verbs (associated stance (..)). The use of a serial construction to express cotemporal actions is fairly rare and is highly constrained, but does occur (..). .. Disposal serial verb constructions (A = A; O = O) In Disposal SVCs in Hmong, all verbs must be transitive and both subject and object arguments are coindexed. The object intervenes between the verbs, indicating that this SVC type involves core level juncture. Deontic modals have scope over both cores, so the relationship is core cosubordinate (see Jarkey : –). In (), the coindexed arguments are highlighted and in () the serialised verbs are underlined. ()

A V O V V …

()

tus

tsov tom liab noj CLF tiger bite monkey eat ‘The tiger gobbled up some monkeys.’

Verbs in this SVC type tend to be fairly high on the scale of semantic transitivity (Hopper and Thompson ), indicating how the subject sets out to manipulate or affect the object. Quite often, this initial verb describes an action, such as tom ‘bite’ in (), that is intended to impinge in some significant way on the object. Even so, as mentioned above, such a verb is not necessarily interpreted as fully effective without the support of the other verb(s) in the construction. The second and subsequent verbs raise the transitivity of the clause by describing how the subject subsequently destroys or consumes the object (as in noj ‘eat’ in ()), or at the very least, relinquishes it. This sense of ‘disposal’ is exploited in Hmong as a way of introducing both a theme and a recipient argument simultaneously into a clause. The verb xa ‘send’, for example, is supported by the verb pub ‘give’, in example (): ()

nws xa ib qho khoom pub kuv SG send one CLF goods give SG ‘He sent some things to me.’

Sequences of three or more verbs sometimes occur in the disposal construction: ()

muab hlaws pov throw.away take burntr ‘Burn [it] up completely.’

tseg abandon

118

..

Jarkey

Pivotal serial verb constructions (O = S)

In Pivotal SVCs only two verbs occur; the first is transitive and the second, intransitive. Coindexation involves just one argument: the object of the first verb is, simultaneously, the subject of the second. This argument appears between the two verbs, showing that the juncture is at the core level. Once again, the scope of deontic modals over both juncts tells us that core cosubordination is involved (Jarkey : –). The ‘pivotal’ role of the coindexed argument is symbolised in (). An example of the construction is shown in (). ()

A V O→S V

()

lawv tua liab tuag PL shoot monkey die ‘They shot some monkeys dead.’

The first verb in a Pivotal SVC is always fairly high in semantic transitivity, and is often an impingement verb such as tua ‘shoot’ in (). Even so, as explained in section ., without the support of the other verb in the SVC, a verb such as this would not necessarily be understood to be fully effective. It is the second verb that ensures this more highly transitive interpretation. The semantic relationship between the two verbs is one of direct causation. Thus the second verb describes a change brought about in the coindexed noun phrase as a direct result of the action described by the first verb. This may be a change of state (as in tuag ‘die’ in ()), a change of location, or the inception of an intransitive action (as in ()). ()

nws ntaus tus dev khiav SG hit CLF dog run ‘She hit the dog [and it] ran away.’

kiag completely

.. Attainment serial verb constructions (A = A; O = O) Attainment SVCs are like Pivotal SVCs in that they involve only two verbs. Structurally, these verbs are both transitive. The subject is always coindexed, as is the object. Thus, the Attainment SVC also has something in common with the Disposal SVC, in that it involves two coindexed arguments, both with the same role with respect to each verb. This SVC type differs significantly from all others, however, in that the two verbs must appear contiguously. The shared object cannot intervene between them, indicating that the level of juncture is nuclear. Scope tests suggest that nuclear coordination is involved (Jarkey : –). The structure is symbolised in () and exemplified in (), (), and (). ()

A/S V V (O)

Cotemporal SVCs in White Hmong

119

Table . Coindexation of arguments in SVC types Cotemporal

NP

Disposal Pivotal Attainment

()

V

(NP)

V

NP

V

NP

V

NP

V

NP

V

NP

V

V

(NP)

nws xaws tau SG sew get ‘She sewed this skirt.’

daim CLF

tiab skirt

no this

()

lawv mus txog tom khw lawm PL go arrive over.there market PERF ‘They have arrived at the market.’

()

kuv nrhiav tau SG search.for get ‘I found my ring.’

kuv nti SG CLF

nplhaib ring

The first verb in the Attainment SVC must have some kind of goal. It is often a telic verb, which has an intrinsic goal, like xaws ‘sew’ in () and mus ‘go’ in (). It may also be an atelic verb whose object represents an extrinsic goal, such as nrhiav ‘search for’ in () or raws ‘chase’. The second verb is always a telic achievement, like tau ‘get’ in () and () and txog ‘arrive’ in (). It indicates that the subject has successfully ‘attained’ the goal of the first verb. This relationship between the two verbs can be thought of as an aspectual one, and so the fact that the verbs appear contiguously in this tightly integrated, nuclear structure is not at all surprising. In all cases, the SVC serves to raise the level of semantic transitivity. Table . shows the differences between the coindexation of arguments in these four main SVC types in Hmong. Coindexed arguments are highlighted. For the purposes of this representation, each construction is shown with just two verbs, and arguments are represented as noun phrases (NPs), even though locative phrase core arguments can also occur. In three of these four SVC types – Disposal, Pivotal, and Attainment – the first verb is structurally transitive but the second serves to raise the level of semantic transitivity, asserting the effectiveness with which this action takes place in relation to the object. In a Disposal SVC, the second verb describes how the subject destroys, consumes, or relinquishes the object, in a Pivotal SVC, it portrays the way in which the subject changes object, and in an Attainment SVC, how the subject attains a goal, whether intrinsic or

120

Jarkey

extrinsic, in relation to the object. The use of more than one ‘simplex event’ to express a single ‘conceptual event’ in these SVC types is clearly related to this function of transitivity raising. The factor that licences the occurrence of more than one ‘simplex event’ in the expression of a single ‘conceptual event’ in the case of Cotemporal SVCs is, however, somewhat different. In this case, it is related to the description of actions that are fairly low, not high, in semantic transitivity. The multiple verbs that appear in these constructions function not to express the effective transfer of an action in relation to an object, but rather to portray the action of the subject in detail, providing colour and elaboration to the description of the event. .

Cotemporal serial verb constructions

As noted above, both transitive and intransitive verbs can co-occur in Cotemporal SVCs, and all verbs share a common subject argument (A/S). This SVC type expresses cotemporal motion (as described in ..), associated motion and action (..), associated stance and action (..) and, in a very limited way, cotemporal action (..). Within this one broad SVC type, we can see a considerable range in terms of the verb types and combinations that can occur. What these various combinations have in common, however, is not only that the component elements occur cotemporally, but also that they each function to draw attention to what the subject – the shared argument – does, and how s/he does it. Unlike other SVC types in the language, the interest is not on what the subject achieves or attains, nor on how the subject affects or changes the object. Instead, the focus is entirely on the subject’s action – teasing out the details of its spatial location, path, extent, and orientation, its manner, its duration, and its process. Not surprisingly, then, we find that verbs in Cotemporal SVCs often themselves lexically encode information about location, direction, and manner and, even if structurally transitive, are not particularly high on the scale of semantic transitivity. Furthermore, within the bounds of their occurrence within a single clause, the verbs are fairly loosely aligned, allowing the O argument (a noun phrase or locative phrase) of any verb to appear directly after it, and adverbial expressions to be scattered liberally between the verbs. These adverbial expressions tend to express manner and duration, in keeping with the focus of the constructions as a whole on the detail of the process involved. ..

Cotemporal motion SVCs

Bohnemeyer et al. () build on Talmy’s theory of ‘lexicalisation patterns’ and examine the characteristics of complex motion events in which a

Cotemporal SVCs in White Hmong

121

Table . Verb types and ordering in cotemporal motion SVCs Manner of motion

Motion with respect to ground

Atelic

Atelic & Telic

Telic

. Route

. Source

. ‘Return’

. Goal

raws ‘chase’ taug ‘follow (s.t. stationary) lawv ‘follow s.t moving’ hla ‘cross/ pass’ dhau ‘pass through’ nce ‘ascend’ nqis ‘descend’ ncig ‘encircle’

tawm ‘leave’ dim ‘escape’ sawv ‘get up/rise’ thim ‘retreat’ poob ‘fall’

rov ‘return’

mus ‘go’ tuaj ‘come’ los ‘come home’

. Transport

. Manner of motion

coj ‘take (s.o) along’ cab ‘lead’ thauj ‘transport/ give a ride’ nqa ‘carry’ ris ‘carry on back’ kwv ‘carry on shoulders’

ya ‘fly’ dhia ‘jump, dance’ nkag ‘crawl’ tig ‘turn around’ khiav ‘run’ mus kev ‘walk’

‘figure’ moves in relation to a number of referential ‘grounds’ (Talmy , ) in a range of genetically and typologically distinct languages. Their focus is on the kinds of ‘path’ functions (departing from a ‘source’, passing along a ‘route’, arriving at a ‘goal’) that can be syntactically combined in a single construction that has the macro-event property. They conclude that languages that allow maximally dense packaging, with all ‘path’ functions able to be incorporated into a single MEP construction, ‘are either satellite-framed [in] Talmy’s typology, or they have SERIAL VERB or MULTIVERB constructions that permit combinations of multiple location-changedenoting verb phrases in single macro-event expressions’ (Bohnemeyer et al. : ). SVCs expressing cotemporal motion in Hmong are an excellent example of such ‘maximally dense packaging’ in motion events. They allow a wide range of motion verb types to occur together in a single clause, at least in part as a strategy for expressing path functions. There are, however, strict constraints on the order in which these verbs appear, as shown in Table .. Sentences can be constructed in which all six of these slots are filled, but in natural text no more than three verbs generally occur together in a single Cotemporal SVC. Examples () to () illustrate how these verbs are used in the order indicated in Table . and how O arguments, in the form of

122

Jarkey

noun phrases and locative phrases, as well as adverbs, can intervene between the verbs. In some examples, reduplication of one verb takes place, or more than one SVC type or other kinds of juxtaposed verbs occur together, resulting in sentences with more than three predicates. In all the examples below, only the verbs in the Cotemporal SVC are underlined. The number below each of these verbs indicates its type, in accordance with the numbering in Table .: [] transport, [] manner of motion, [] route, [] source, [] ‘return’, and [] goal. () nws coj SG take.along

me.nyuam

khiav

khiav tuaj

child

run

run

come

[]

[]

[] [] ‘She fled, bringing her children along.’ () …nws txawm tig SG

then

rov

qab

los

rau tom

teb

lawm

turn.around return back

come

to

field

PERF

[]

[]

[]

over.there

‘… then he turned (and) came back to the fields.’

()

thov request

nce rov ascend return [] [] ‘Please come back up …’

() cov

Hmoob xav

COLLCLFHmong

hla

dej

tuaj … come []

Na.Koom dim

want cross river Mekong []

hauv

Nplog.teb mus

escape inside Laos

go

[]

[]

Thailand Thia.teb ‘The Hmong wanted to escape from Laos to Thailand over the Mekong River.’

()

…yuav.tau rov mus quib lub qhov.rooj should return go open CLF door [] [] ‘… should go back to open the door again.’

dua again

The last two examples illustrate the fact that deontic modals – xav ‘want’ in () and yauv tau ‘should’ in () – have scope over all verbs in a serial verb construction of this type. If the shared subject argument were repeated between the verbs, or if a pause intervened, the scope of the modal would

Cotemporal SVCs in White Hmong

123

no longer extend over more than one junct. The fact that it does extend over all juncts in these examples confirms the claim that they are in a core cosubordinate relationship. In all of examples () to () we can see that, regardless of which verbs appear in a particular Cotemporal Motion SVC, the order of the verbs is consistent with that presented in Table .. First come the atelic verbs: transport verbs like nqa ‘carry’ and manner of motion verbs such as ya ‘fly’. These verbs cannot by themselves take route, source, or goal arguments. Following these are the route verbs, some of which are atelic – such as raws ‘chase’ and taug ‘follow something stationary’ – and others – including hla ‘cross’ and ncig ‘encircle’ – which are telic. Next come source verbs such as tawm ‘leave’ and dim ‘escape’, which are telic, and finally the goal verbs, mus ‘go’, tuaj ‘come’, and los ‘come home’. Like source verbs, these are all telic. It is possible for more than one verb from a single category to occur within one Contemporal Motion SVC. When two route verbs occur, example () shows that an atelic verb such as taug ‘follow something stationary’ will precede a telic verb such as nqis ‘descend’. ()

…taug taug dej nqis hav mus follow follow water descend valley go ‘… follow the river down the valley (away).’

The examples above show that a key ordering principle in Cotemporal Motion SVCs is that atelic verbs precede telic verbs. If the order of motion verbs is reversed, and a telic motion verb precedes an atelic one, a purpose rather than a cotemporal interpretation results (Jarkey : –). While these Cotemporal Motion SVCs in Hmong clearly serve to introduce path functions, they also elaborate on the motion event in other ways. A range of adverbial expressions can occur in a Cotemporal Motion SVC. These sometimes appear before all the verbs, but more often intervene between them. The adverb qab ‘back’ is extremely common, very frequently appearing with the verb rov ‘return’, as shown in example (). Manner adverbs also appear, often in reduplicated form. Adverbial expressions are highlighted in italics in examples () to (). ()

ces

lub

CONJ CLF

nraus ntawd thiaj maj.mam

poob rov

drum that

fall

so

slowly

qab

los

return back come

txog … arrive

‘And so then the drum fell slowly back to the earth.’

()

tus CLF

kwv

txawm nqes

young.brother then

descend

nthab

tsuag

tsuag

storage.platform quickly quickly

los … come

‘The younger brother then came down very quickly (from) the storage platform …’

124

()

Jarkey …tus pog

laus

CLF

grandma old

puv

lub

no

taug

kev

this

follow path

ncig

mus-mus los-los go-go

come-come encircle

tsev.khw

fill CLF market ‘… this old woman followed the path here and there all around the market.’

In () the manner adverb maj mam ‘slowly’ appears before the entire SVC, while in () tsuag ‘quickly’ is reduplicated between the route verb nqes ‘descend’ and the goal verb los ‘come’. In (), the derived adverbial expression mus-mus los-los (literally ‘go-go come-come’) meaning ‘here and there’ occurs between the two route verbs taug ‘follow a stationary object’ and ncig ‘encircle’. Another type of adverbial expressing manner that can appear between the elements in these SVCs is a construction called a ‘two-word expressive’. This form of elaborate language utilises sound symbolism, including iconic morphotoneme combinations, to convey expressive meanings (Ratliff : ff.). As noted in section ., tone is symbolised by a syllable-final consonant letter in this orthography. Notice the repetitive tones and consonants in the two-word expressives, italicised below: ()

…tus me.nyuam mob raws.plab CLF

child

sick diarrhoea

tom

tsev.dej

over.there

bathroom

uas

yeej

khiav

khawv.khuav mus

rau

REL

defeat

run

energetically

to

go

‘… a child sick with diarrhoea who cannot make it to the bathroom on time.’

[lit.‘… a child sick with diarrhoea which defeats running energetically off to the bathroom.’] ()

ces niag tsov txawm nce kig.kuag kig.kuag and.then great tiger then ascend growling growling ‘Then that ol’ tiger went up growling [and] growling.’

mus go

Cotemporal Motion SVCs involving just two verbs sometimes appear back to back, creating a four-word sequence of the form ABAC or ABCB – one of a number of four-word patterns involving repetition, and considered to add elegance and balance to the language (see section ..). In example (), khiav mus ‘run go’ is followed directly by khiav los ‘run come’, resulting in the pattern ABAC. ()

neeg

khiav

people run

mus

khiav

los

go

run

come set.up

teeb

rooj

teeb

khoom li

ub li

no

table set.up produce like that like this

‘People ran here and there, setting up tables [and] setting up produce all over the place.’

Notice that the ABAC pattern of the repeated Cotemporal Motion SVC is reflected in the pattern of both of the following elements: teeb rooj teeb khoom ‘set up tables set up produce’ and li ub li no ‘like that like this’.

Cotemporal SVCs in White Hmong

125

The repetition of the entire Cotemporal SVC, like all the various adverbial, colourful, and repetitive expressions above, functions to draw attention to the manner and process of the motion event. It is yet another strategy used with this SVC type to flesh out the action of the subject in a vivid and detailed way. .. Associated motion and action SVCs (Cotemporal Motion and Action) Cotemporal SVCs that express simultaneous motion and action in Hmong are a variation of the Cotemporal Motion SVC type described in .. above. In this sub-type of Cotemporal SVC, an action verb appears instead of a manner of motion verb (in position  in Table .) to express a different kind of information about the ‘manner’ of the motion event. Like manner of motion verbs, action verbs in this construction are always atelic; they express activities such as haus ‘drink, smoke’, tham ‘chat’, and qw ‘shout’. As in Cotemporal Motion SVCs, the atelic verbs always precede the telic verbs. ()

ces

nplej thiab pob.kws qw zom.zaws los CONJ rice and corn shout together come.home ‘And then the rice and the corn came home, all shouting at once.’

()

hnub peb nas.tsuag fawb hnyuj.hnyo mus txog day three rat search.about softly go arrive ‘On the third day a rat went searching softly about all the way there.’

()

…nqa ib lub yeeb.thooj haus puj.pauv carry one CLF pipe inhale puff.puff ‘… bringing a pipe along, puffing on it’

tuaj come

Example () shows clearly that Associated Motion and Action SVCs are simply a variant of the Cotemporal Motion type, the action verb haus ‘drink, inhale’ appearing between the atelic transport verb nqa ‘carry’ and the telic goal verb tuaj ‘come’, in just the same position as a manner of motion verb would appear in a Cotemporal Motion SVC. As seen in the examples above, both O arguments and adverbial elements readily intervene between the verbs in Associated Motion SVCs, just as they do in Cotemporal Motion SVCs. The appearance of an adverb after the action verb in an Associated Motion SVC seems, in fact, to be the rule rather than the exception; notice the very common occurrence in these SVCs of a two-word expressive adverb describing some aspect of the process of the action verb such as its manner. Examples above include zom zaws ‘all

126

Jarkey

together’, hnyuj hnyo ‘softly’, and puj pauv ‘puff puff’. An adverb expressing duration of time (such as ib hmo ‘all night long’) can also occur, clearly with scope over all verbs in the construction: () …ces

cov

and.then

COLLCLF

Khuaj

coj

lawv maub

Khua

take.along PL

grope

ib

hmo mus …

one night go

‘… and then the Khua people took them along, groping (through the jungle) all night long …’

As with Cotemporal Motion SVCs (see example () above), Associated Motion SVCs sometimes appear back to back, creating a four-word sequence of the form ABAC or ABCB. In () the verbs maub mus nrhiav mus ‘grope go search go’ form an ABCB pattern: ()

…ces ho yuav maub mus nrhiav mus noj dua and.then then will grope go search go eat again ‘…and then [it] will go groping [and] searching [in order to] eat again.’

Again, the effect is similar to that of the adverbial expressions, vividly drawing attention to the manner in which the action and motion event is played out over time. ..

Associated posture SVCs (Cotemporal Stance and Action)

As well as co-occurring with verbs of motion, action verbs can also occur in a Cotemporal SVC with a state predicate expressing stance. These SVCs involve just the two elements – stance and action – the action component appearing second. The action verbs in these SVCs are mostly atelic, but can be telic (as in () below). They are invariably low on the scale of semantic transitivity. ()

peb

mam

li

zaum.tsaws

sib

tham

SG so like sit RECIP chat ‘So we sit chatting with each other about …’ ()

txog … about

…thaum chim siab nyuaj siab xav zaum.tsaws when angry liver difficult liver want sit ‘…when (I) feel angry and upset, (I) want to sit crying …’

() tiam.sis, vim but

neeg

ho

txawj

sawv.ntsug

because humans then be.able stand

lawv

ob

txhais tes

PL

two

CLF

hand

los

ua

ub

ua no …

CONJ

do that do this

quaj … cry

mus.kev, txawj walk

siv

be.able use

Cotemporal SVCs in White Hmong

127

‘However, because humans were able to walk standing, [we] could use our hands to do this and that …’

Like Cotemporal SVCs involving motion, those involving stance and action are clearly instances of core cosubordination. This analysis is supported by the scope of the deontic modal operators xav ‘want’ and txawj ‘be able’ over both verbs in examples () and () respectively. Another stative predicate, nyob ‘be located, stay’ is included in this analysis along with the stance verbs that occur in this SVC type. Although it does not actually indicate a particular posture adopted by the subject, it enters into the same construction with an action verb following. () no this

ces

tus

kwv

txawm nyob

ntawm ntug dej

CONJ

CLF

young.brother

then

nearby

Txiv.Nraug.Ntsuag txawm mus suav the.orphan.boy

then

go

stay suav

tos

edge water wait

ntses

count count fish

‘And so then the younger brother stayed at the edge of the stream waiting. The Orphan Boy went to count the fish.’

As in Cotemporal Motion SVCs (..) and Associated Motion SVCs (..), a variety of elements can intervene between the predicates in an Associated Posture SVC. These include the O argument of the state predicate (indicating the location of the subject), as shown in () above and () below, and adverbial elements such as duration expressions, as in (). () nws sawv.ntsug ntawm qhov.cub SG stand nearby kitchen ‘She stood in the kitchen cooking.’

ua make

() …sawv.ntsug ib hnub tsuj

cov

av

COLLCLF

earth stone

stand

one day

step.on

ua

rau

Tub.Ntsuag ko.taw

make

to

PN

foot

mob

heev

hurt

very

mov noj rice eat pob.zeb

tawv

tawv

hard

hard

‘… standing all day stepping on hard stony ground made Tu Nzua’s feet hurt a lot.’

The use of the state verb with the action verb in this sub-type of Cotemporal SVCs functions to increase the sense of the action unfolding



This construction needs to be distinguished from another construction involving nyob ‘be located, stay’, in which nyob and the noun phrase or locative phrase it introduces appears after another verb or verb phrase to indicate the location of the entire event (Jarkey : –).

128

Jarkey

over time, adding both detail and a strong sense of duration to the event described. .. Cotemporal actions Cotemporal Action SVCs are the least productive of all SVC types in Hmong. While it is conceivable that new combinations could be introduced, they are highly constrained, expressing combinations of actions that are limited to culturally ‘recognizable event types’ (Durie, : ). As Aikhenvald (: –) explains: This is somewhat similar to how the ‘name-worthiness’ of an activity provides a reason for nominal and verbal lexical compounds: for instance, in English, compounds like mountain-climbing or berry-picking are coined as names of recognizable activities. As shown above, Cotemporal Motion SVCs and Associated Motion and Action SVCs that involve just two verbs are sometimes partially reduplicated, to create a sequence of the form ABAC (e.g. khiav mus khiav los (run go run come) ‘run about everywhere’ in example ()) or ABCB (e.g. maub mus nrhiav mus (grope go search go) ‘go groping and searching around’ in example ()). Similar patterns expressing two actions also occur, as shown in example (), repeated here as (), with the action rather than the motion verbs underlined. ()

neeg

khiav

people run

mus

khiav los

go

run

teeb

rooj

teeb

come set.up table set.up

khoom

li ub li

produce like that like

no this

‘People ran here and there, setting up tables [and] setting up produce all over the place.’

As mentioned above, the ABAC pattern of the Cotemporal Action SVC in this example mirrors that of the Cotemporal Motion SVC before it and of the adverbial expression after it. This repetitive patterning works beautifully to depict the liveliness and business of the market place in this example. Further examples involving partial reduplication with action verbs are shown in () to (), all of the form ABAC. ()

tua nas tua noog shoot rodent shoot bird ‘hunt small game’

()

npaj mov prepare rice ‘prepare food’

npaj prepare

zaub vegetables

Cotemporal SVCs in White Hmong

()

ua noj ua do eat do ‘make a living’

129

haus drink

From one point of view, sequences such as these could be analysed as SVCs involving cotemporal actions. From another, they can be viewed as examples of a type of aesthetic construction that occurs commonly in Hmong and in a number of other languages of Mainland Southeast Asia, sometimes called ‘elaborate expressions’ (e.g. Matisoff ), and referred to in Hmong as lus ua txwm ‘paired words’ ( Johns and Strecker ). These expressions are made up of a balanced group of four words in which the first and third element, and the second and fourth element, are either identical to each other or share a common meaning and often also a common sound. In spite of being regarded as somewhat elegant and aesthetic, they are by no means the preserve of poetic or stylised language, but very much a part of everyday speech in White Hmong. Paired word sequences are not always based on verbs as in the examples above. Sequences based on nouns are also common (e.g. khwv iab khwv daw (toil bitter toil salty) ‘arduous toil’; Johns and Strecker  : ). For this reason if no other, they clearly need to be described independently of Cotemporal SVCs, even though the two constructions can be thought of as overlapping in many instances when verbs and their objects are involved. An effect quite similar to a paired word expression occurs when a Cotemporal SVC involving two actions is fully reduplicated, resulting in an ABAB pattern, as in () below. () ces Ntxawm dhia loo and

jump

PN

cem

hais.tias …

scold

COMP

los

INTENS CONJ

nres hauv

plawv quaj

cem quaj

stop inside

middle cry scold cry

‘And Nzeu leapt up and stood in the middle, crying [and] scolding [and] crying [and] scolding, saying …’

Cotemporal action verbs also appear unreduplicated, but accompanied by a paired word adverbial expression, as in example (). ()

yuav

pom tej me.nyuam quaj

dhia

will

see

jump to

COLLCLF child

yam

ub

yam

no

thing

there

thing

here

cry

rau

ub

rau

there to

no

xav

here want

tau get

‘[You] will see children crying [and] stamping all over the place, wanting to have this [and] that.’

130

Jarkey

Even in examples like this one, in which a Cotemporal Action SVC involves no repetition or reduplication, and so bears no structural similarity to paired words, it shares two common elements with paired words. Firstly, the actions combined in these sequences must be strongly and commonly associated with one another. A combination such as that in () – quaj dhia (cry jump) ‘cry [and] jump, throw a tantrum’ – is certainly strongly and commonly associated with the behaviour of young children. Secondly, like paired word expressions involving action verbs, Cotemporal Action SVCs describe actions which, while not always exactly simultaneous, are still broadly cotemporal. They cannot be interpreted as occurring in a simple sequence. One can imagine the children either crying and stamping together or else alternating rapidly between the two. In this example, the bedlam of the situation is graphically portrayed not only by the Cotemporal Action SVC quaj dhia ‘cry jump’ and its accompanying paired word adverbial rau ub rau no ‘to there to here’, but also by another paired word adverbial in the following, juxtaposed clause, yam ub yam no ‘thing there thing here’. All of the examples above depict the actions described in an intense and lively way. This is exactly what we would expect of Cotemporal Action SVCs, given the clear function of other types of Cotemporal SVCs: to draw out the detail of the manner and duration of the process involved. Furthermore, it is precisely the two common elements mentioned above – the frequent association of the two actions and their cotemporal occurrence – that license multiple actions to be viewed as a single ‘conceptual’ event and thus allow them to occur together within a single clause in this language. Both of these elements are evident in examples (), (), and () below. ()

kuv mam zov ntsia koj SG so.then guard watch SG ‘So then I’ll watch over you going.’

mus go

()

luag mus da.dej ua.si los yus txaj.txaj.muag … others go bathe play CONJ INDEF.PRON be.embarrassed ‘Others go to swim (and) play but you are embarrassed …’

()

nws dhia tshov qeej SG jump blow bamboo.pipes ‘He dances (while) playing the pipes.’

In (), the actions ‘guard (and) watch’ can be easily seen to meet the criteria for combination; these two actions are very commonly associated with one another and, in a sense, the second might be thought of simply as an elaboration of the meaning expressed by the first. The actions in (), ‘swim (and) play’ are actions that are often strongly associated in cultures in which

Cotemporal SVCs in White Hmong

131

water play is a common recreational activity. The inclusion of the second verb ua si ‘play’ in this sequence clearly serves to enliven the description of the action described by the first verb da dej ‘swim, bathe’. The final example, () above, links two actions that might not be thought of as frequently collocated in another context, but which, again, are very much part of the same ‘conceptual event’ in Hmong culture. When a performer plays the qeej ‘bamboo pipes’, an integral part of the performance is the way in which he sways his body and lifts his feet to the rhythm of the music (Jarkey : –). The use of the first verb dhia ‘jump, stamp, dance’ along with the phrase tshov qeej ‘blow the pipes’, brings vividly to mind the details of the action involved. A pair of actions less commonly associated in Hmong culture, such as dhia mloog nkauj ‘dance listen song’ is odd and not likely to occur; although easily thought of as potentially occurring cotemporally, this combination has none of the familiarity, nor the intensity, necessary to be expressed in a Cotemporal Action SVC. Some of the situations exemplified above may be seen as universally stereotypical events, others less so. However, because of the strong association of these actions in Hmong culture, it is appropriate to conceive of them as together portraying one ‘conceptual event’ in the Hmong language (Aikhenvald : –; Bruce ; Diller : –, –; Durie ; Enfield a, b; Pawley ). Their semantic connection is reinforced by their syntactic integration in a core cosubordinate, serial relationship within a single clause, as demonstrated by the scope of the modal operator txawj ‘be able’ in (). ()

nws txawj dhia tshov qeej SG be.able dance blow bamboo.pipes ‘He is able to dance (while) playing the pipes.’

. Conclusion We are dealing here with what is broadly one SVC type: all the examples discussed in section . of this chapter express cotemporal components of one ‘conceptual event’, all are alike in that the subject (A/S) is the coindexed argument, and all involve a core cosubordinate, serial relation between the predicates. Within this single, broad SVC type, we can still see considerable variation with regard to the range of verb types, the combinations that can occur, and the kinds of meanings conveyed. Despite their diversity and their breadth of meaning, one key function is shared by all Cotemporal SVCs in White Hmong, a function that is much more significant than simply expressing motions, states, or actions that cooccur in time and that are attributable to a single subject. That function is to focus attention on the process of what the subject does and how s/he does it. Cotemporal SVCs use many verbs that are low in semantic transitivity – verbs

132

Jarkey

that describe the detail of the action itself rather than what effect that action has. These SVCs combine multiple ‘simplex events’ in order to tease apart the various aspects of a single ‘conceptual event’. They appear together with other strategies, such as the use of adverbial expressions, repetition, reduplication, and paired words, all of which function to draw out the details of the process, direction, manner, and duration of an action and to portray that action in a lively and vivid way. References Aikhenvald, A.Y. . Serial Verb Constructions in Typological Perspective. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds) Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Typology, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bohnemeyer, J., Enfield, N.J., Essegbey, J., Ibarretxe-Antuañano, I., Kita, S., Lüpke, F., and Ameka, F.K. . Principles of Event Segmentation in Language: The Case of Motion Events. Language. , : –. Bruce, L. . Serialization: From Syntax to Lexicon. Studies in Language. , : –. Diller, A. V. N. . Thai Serial Verbs: Cohesion and Culture. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds) Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Typology, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dixon, R. M. W. . Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Durie, M. . Grammatical Structures in Verb Serialization. In Alsina, A., Bresnan, J., and Sells, P. (eds) Complex Predicates, –. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Enfield, N. J. a. Functions of ‘give’ and ‘take’ in Lao Complex Predicates. In Bauer, R. S. (ed.) Collected Papers on Southeast Asian and Pacific Languages, –. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. b. Cultural Logic and Syntactic Productivity: Associated Posture Constructions in Lao. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Culture and Grammar, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. c. Semantics and Combinatorics of ‘sit’, ‘stand’, and ‘lie’ in Lao. In Newman, J. (ed.) The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing, and Lying, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Foley, W. A. and Olson, M. . Clausehood and Verb Serialisation. In Nichols, J. and Woodbury, A. C. (eds) Grammar Inside and Outside the Clause, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foley, W. A. and Van Valin, R. D. . Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Givón, T. . Serial Verbs and the Mental Reality of ‘event’: Grammatical vs Cognitive Packaging. In Heine, B. and Traugott, E. (eds) Approaches to Grammaticalization, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hopper, P. and Thompson S. A. . Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language. , : –.

Cotemporal SVCs in White Hmong

133

Ikegami, Y. . Activity-Accomplishment-Achievement: A Language That Can’t Say, ‘I burned it, but it didn’t burn’ and one that can. In Essays in Honor of Rulon S. Wells. Trier: LAUT Series A, –. . What Does it Mean for a Language to Have No Singular-Plural Distinction? Noun-verb Homology and its Typological Implication. In Geiger, R. A. and Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (eds) Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language, –. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Jarkey, N. . Serial Verbs in White Hmong: A Functional Approach. PhD dissertation, University of Sydney. . Process and Goal in White Hmong. In Tapp, N. and Lee, G. Y. (eds) The Hmong of Australia: Culture and Diaspora, –. Canberra: Pandanus Books. . Complement Clauses and Complementation Strategy in White Hmong. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, A. Y. (eds) Complementation: A Crosslinguistic Typology, –. New York: Oxford University Press. Johns, B. and Strecker, D. . Aesthetic language in White Hmong. In Downing, B. T. and Olney, D. P. (eds) The Hmong in the West: Observations and Reports, –. Minneapolis: Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota. Li, C. N. and Thompson, S. A. . Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. Matisoff, J. A. . The Grammar of Lahu. University of California Publications in Linguistics . Berkeley: University of California Press. Olson, M. . Barai Clause Junctures. PhD dissertation, Australian National University. Pawley, A. . Encoding Events in Kalam and English: Different Logics for Reporting Experience. In Tomlin, R. (ed) Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ratliff, M. . The Influence of Geographical Change on Grammar: The Case of Hmong Spatial Deictics. Paper Presented at the rd International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics, Arlington, University of Texas. . Meaningful Tone: A Study of Tonal Morphology in Compounds, Form Classes, and Expressive Phrases in White Hmong (Monograph Series on Southeast Asia, Special Report No. ). DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University, Center for Southeast Asian Studies. Sebba, M. . The Syntax of Serial Verbs: An Investigation into Serialisation in Sranan and Other Languages (Creole Language Library ). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Smith, C. S. . Event types in Mandarin. Linguistics : –. Talmy, L. . Lexicalization patterns. In Shopen, T. (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . Towards a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Van Valin, R. D. Jr. . Pragmatics, Island Phenomena, and Linguistic Competence. Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory. Chicago Linguistic Society , : –. University of Chicago.

134

Jarkey

. A Synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin, R. D. Jr. (ed.) Advances in Role and Reference Grammar, –. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamin. . Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van Valin, R. D. Jr. and LaPolla, R. J. . Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambrige: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, S. . Coverbs and Complex Predicates in Wagiman. Stanford, CA: CSLI. Zachs, J. and Tversky, B. . Event Structure in Perception and Conception. Psychological Bulletin , : –.

6

Activity incorporates in some Athabaskan languages K ER EN R IC E

In work on complex predicates, there is general agreement that the term can be defined as below. [T]he term complex predicate is used to designate a construction that involves two or more predicational elements (such as nouns, verbs, and adjectives) which predicate as a single element, i.e. their arguments map onto a monoclausal syntactic structure. (Butt, this volume.)

I examine a type of complex predicate, the activity incorporate construction, in two Athabaskan languages of Alaska, United States, Ahtna and Koyukon. This construction, shown in (), has the meaning ‘do X while Y-ing’. In (), the verb stem, the final element of the verb, is italicised: it generally translates as ‘X’ of ‘do X while Y-ing’. The activity incorporate, a verbal prefix, is bolded: it is ‘Y’ of ‘do X while Y-ing’. ()



Koyukon (Jetté and Jones ) sel-he-ghe-d-o-l-de ɬ shout-PL.S-qualifier-qualifier-progressive-l voice/valence-plural go ‘They are going along shouting.’ () ze ɬ-, sel- ‘shouting, noise, howling’ () b. Ahtna (Kari ) ɬu-sel-d-a-l-de ɬ around-shout-qualifier-progressive-l voice/valence-plural go

a.

I follow the orthography of the sources. Note the following: gh = voiced velar fricative, kk = voiceless aspirated uvular stop, gg = voiceless unaspirated uvular stop, nh = voiceless nasal; ’ = glottal stop, glottalisation of previous consonant; u = low back round reduced vowel. In the examples, the incorporate is bolded and the stem in italics. I use the following abbreviations: SG = singular, PL = plural, S = subject, DO = direct object, OO = oblique object. Page numbers from the source are included following translations. ‘G’ indicates gender, ‘O’ a direct object, and ‘P’ a postpositional object. The verbal morphophonemics is complex, and there is often not an obvious relationship between the underlying and surface forms. Note that there is no masculine/feminine distinction, and I follow the sources in their translations of third person subjects.

135

136

Rice

‘They (mosquitoes) are whining about.’ () sel ‘shouting’  The activity incorporate construction shares many properties with the serial verb construction (e.g. Aikhenvald , Baker and Harvey this volume); however, rather than two verbs it involves a verbal element, the verb stem, and a nominal element, the incorporate. In this chapter I examine properties of the activity incorporate construction as a whole as well as the properties of each of the major pieces within it. I begin with a brief tutorial on the structure of the verb word in these languages. .

Some background

The verb word in Athabaskan languages is notable for its complexity. A schematic representation is given in (), with pieces that are of concern to this chapter in bold. ()

preverb-incorporate-quantifier-pronominal-qualifier-aspect-subjectvoice/valence-verb stem

The version of the verb word in () is simplified compared to the schema in Kari () for Ahtna and Jetté and Jones () for Koyukon, but it is sufficient for our purposes here; see the sources for details. Starting at the right edge, the verb stem carries the main meaning of the verb word. Voice/ valence markers, called classifiers in the Athabaskan literature, can be lexicalised, occurring as part of the basic lexical entry, and they play important productive functions, indicating transitivity/causativity (I use the term transitivity) and middle marking; the productive functions are of importance here. First person singular and second person subjects occur before voice/ valence. These are preceded by elements that provide aspectual information; see section ... and ... Qualifiers may be productive, indicating noun gender classes and aspectual information such as inceptivity and conativity, or they may be lexicalised as part of the basic lexical entry of the verb word. Pronominals include direct objects and first person plural and third person plural subjects. Quantifiers mark habituality and distributivity. Incorporates include nouns that indicate subjects, direct objects, and obliques, and a set of these is the focus of this chapter. Preverbs represent concepts such as direction, location, and relation. In the Athabaskan literature, the lexical representation of the verb word is called the ‘verb theme’: I use the term ‘(basic) lexical entry’. The lexical entry includes a root and a lexicalised voice/valence marker (which may be null, Ø), and can include other lexicalised material such as qualifiers and preverbs where these occur in every verb word constructed on the particular lexical entry. For instance, the lexical entry of ‘scream, yell, shriek, cry out; whistle,

Activity incorporates in some Athabaskan languages

137

horn sounds’ in Koyukon consists simply of a null voice/valence marker (Ø) and a root: Ø+kk’ok (Jette and Jones: ); that of ‘be alive, move, twitch, have a spasm’ has a lexicalised qualifier (ghe) as well as the voice/valence marker (Ø) and the root (no): ghe+Ø+no (p. ). The entry ‘heal’ (p. ) also includes a lexicalised preverb (no) as well as a voice/valence marker (D) and the root: no#D+neek (where ‘#’ indicates a boundary type). The pieces of the lexical entry must always occur in any verb words that are formed on it. This can be seen with the entry, ne+(D)+t’ukk ‘singular flies’ (p. ). A few verb words that are built on this entry are given in (), with the qualifier ne and the verb stem, t’ukk, highlighted. ()

naat’ukk ts’aanaat’ukk nonot’ukk

‘It arrived flying.’ () ‘It flew out.’ (preverb: ts’aa ‘out into the open’) ‘It flew down.’ (preverb: no ‘down’)

Roots are obligatorily suffixed, forming a stem, and, unless otherwise noted, I refer to the verb stem in this chapter rather than to the root. There is debate in the Athabaskan literature about whether what I am calling the verb word is a morphological or a syntactic construct, and I abstract away from this controversy, noting that the verb word is clearly a unit from a phonological perspective. It occurs on its own; other words cannot intervene within it; most elements within the verb word do not, in general, appear as independent words. Overall there is productivity in verb word formation, part of what makes a syntactic analysis of the verb word possible. Verb stems and preverbs combine productively, subject to semantic restrictions (see Kari (, ) on Ahtna and Axelrod () on Koyukon for detailed discussion). The morpheme span that includes the qualifiers, aspect, subject, and voice/valence combine with each other to make the underlying morphology quite opaque from the surface perspective, but there is general agreement in the literature on morpheme identification. There are constructions within the languages that can be considered to be complex predicates, and I present some here as an introduction to the languages. Ahtna material is from Kari () and Koyukon material from Jetté and Jones (). I do not fully gloss examples here, but focus on parts that are relevant to the complex predicate. The verb stem is italicised, and the other part of the complex predicate bolded. In (), complex predicates formed through the addition of the causative voice/valence marker ( ɬ ) are illustrated. ()

Causatives a. Koyukon too de-l-tsuhtl water qualifier-voice/valence-splash

138

Rice

‘The water is making a splashing sound.’ () too de- ɬ -tsuhtl water qualifier-causative voice/valence-splash ‘S/he is causing the water to make a splashing sound.’ () b. Ahtna nen’ ghi-ghi-na’ earth qualifier-aspect-move ‘The earth is shaking.’ () ɬts’ii ts’abaeli d-ghe- ɬ -naa wind tree qualifier-aspect-causative voice/valence-move ‘Wind is moving the trees.’ () The examples in () represent another kind of complex predicate, one formed with middle marking. This has two forms, l or d, depending on a variety of conditions that are not relevant at this point. The examples below illustrate passives. ()

Middle: low elaboration (d, l ) a. Koyukon ya-l-aa-tl-ghaanh . DO-qualifier-aspect-voice/valence-kill singular object ‘He killed it/him, he beat him up.’ () l-aa-l-ghaanh qualifier-aspect-l voice/valence-kill singular object ‘He got killed; he is aching all over from overexertion.’ () b. Ahtna i-ghi-ghaan . DO -aspect-make plural objects ‘S/he made them.’ () a-d-ghaan aspect-d voice/valence-make plural objects ‘They were made.’ ()

There are a large number of preverbs in these languages, and they too enter into complex predicates with the verb stem. A few examples are given in (), from Koyukon. ()

a.

no-ghee-’onh ‘S/he handled, moved, carried compact O down.’ () no-ghee-yo ‘S/he came down (from upstairs, down off something).’ ()

Activity incorporates in some Athabaskan languages

b. ho-le-’onh ho-l-yo

139

‘S/he carried compact O up a slope.’ () ‘S/he went up (to the top of) the bank.’ ()

Two preverbs are illustrated in (), no ‘down’ (a) and ho ‘up a slope, to the top’ (b), combined with two verb stems, ‘onh ‘handle compact object’ and yo ‘singular go’. The preverbs require different aspect markers, gh with no ‘down’ (a) and l with ho ‘up a slope, to the top’ (b), overriding the aspect marker (n) that would occur if no preverb or other aspect-affecting material were present (see Axelrod  and Kari ). The examples in () through () involve complex predicates in one way or another. First, they are comprised of two (or more) predicational elements – a verb (the verb stem) and a productive voice/valence marker, a verb and a preverb. The morphosyntactic structure is monoclausal, with a single marking for arguments and aspect within the verb word. The goal in the remainder of this chapter is to examine a different type of complex predicate, the activity incorporate construction, illustrated in (). In this construction, a noun representing certain types of activities is incorporated into a verb word where the verb stem is drawn from classes of verbs that involve motion and body stance. The article is structured as follows. Section . introduces the activity incorporate construction, considering the construction as a whole, and sections .–. address restrictions of the incorporate and restrictions on the incorporator. Section . examines some other incorporate constructions. Section . concludes. . The activity incorporate construction as a complex predicate ..

Introduction

As discussed above, some Athabaskan languages have a construction that I call the activity incorporate construction with the meaning ‘do X while Y-ing’, where the events specified by X and Y are simultaneous and carried out by the same subject. The construction is noted by Jetté in his monumental writings on Koyukon: Combined-Action Verbs. These express the simultaneous performing of two actions: that of going, rendered by the verb, and another performed while going, and rendered by an accidental [i.e. an incorporate; KR] prefix. (Jules Jetté; cited from Jetté and Jones (: ))

Examples in this chapter come from two languages, Ahtna and Koyukon, with a focus on Koyukon, and unlabelled data is from Koyukon. All material is drawn from the excellent dictionaries of these languages, Kari () for Ahtna and Jetté and Jones () for Koyukon. These dictionaries are carefully done with systematic checking for productivity; however it is important to note that all material is from dictionaries and thus any

140

Rice

conclusions about absence of structures must be regarded as conjectural. The work illustrates what is possible with dictionaries, and also the restrictions on such work. I begin with a discussion of the properties of the activity incorporate construction as a whole, and then examine the types of verbs that occur in the construction, followed by discussion of the activity incorporates. I refer to the verb component variably as verb stem or as verb, recognising the complexities present in lexical entries, discussed in section .. Further, given that there is generally other information present besides just the verb stem, the inflection, and the activity incorporate, I refer to the verb word minus the activity incorporate as the verb frame or the incorporating frame. .. Morphological trappings Before addressing the activity incorporate construction as a complex predicate, some morphological trappings of the construction need to be identified. First, a prefix ghe (~gh) often occurs in this construction. This morpheme is identified by Kari (), following Jetté (), as a qualifier that does not have an identifiable meaning associated with it. It can be seen in the Koyukon examples in (), simply glossed ‘qualifier’. Jetté and Jones (: ), on Koyukon, list this morpheme as part of the activity incorporate construction in the dictionary entry, INC#(ghe)+de+le+ ‘derived intransitive with incorporate of oral noise’ (p. ), where ‘INC’ identifies the incorporate, ‘(ghe)’ the qualifier under discussion, ‘de’ a qualifier, and ‘le’ the voice/valence marker (the latter two are discussed immediately below). The contribution of the qualifier ghe, if any, is not clear, and I do not discuss it further. Second, in both languages the construction generally occurs with a second qualifier, this one of the form de (~d ). It is called a gender marker in the dictionaries; in Rice (a) I call it a noun class marker and in this chapter I gloss it ‘qualifier’. Kari ( : ) on Ahtna and Kari ( : xciii) on Koyukon note the existence of active gender systems in these languages, where gender prefixes indicate the subject of an intransitive and the object of a transitive. The gender prefix d refers to, among other things, words, songs, stories, news, and names (Jetté and Jones  : ), and it occurs in many examples of the activity incorporate construction. It too is visible in the examples in (). See the dictionaries and Rice () for discussion. Finally, the construction occurs with a voice/valence prefix of the form l or le. In the examples in () and (a) above, this is glossed as l voice/valence. This element is used productively to mark a middle of a transitivised verb. Jetté and Jones (: ) list it as a required part of the activity incorporate construction in Koyukon. See section .. for discussion of voice/ valence.

Activity incorporates in some Athabaskan languages

..

141

Properties of complex predicates

In this section I address properties of the activity incorporate construction that suggest that it is a complex predicate as defined above. ... Argument structure Complex predicates exhibit the argument structure of a single clause, and, in terms of argument structure, the activity incorporate construction has a single marking for subject. While the verb word contains two predicational elements, the verb stem and the activity incorporate, the subject functions as subject of both. Thus, verb words with translations such as ‘I walked in singing’ exist, as in (), while those such as ‘I walked in while you were singing’ are not expressed with this construction but are periphrastic in form. ... Aspect The activity incorporate construction has a single marking for aspect, associated with properties of the verb frame rather than the incorporate. To discuss this property of the construction, a brief introduction to the aspect system is required. Aspect is marked in various ways throughout the verb word of an Athabaskan language: the form of the stem is related to aspect, there are prefixes that indicate a range of aspectual information, and prefixes such as preverbs and quantifiers play a role in the aspect system. A verb word that includes an activity incorporate has the aspectual marking that would be there even if the activity incorporate were absent. The examples in () illustrate this. In (a), the verb word is perfective, with a marker n that indicates that it is an achievement. (b) is also perfective, also with n. The presence of n is determined by the preverb, a postposition do ‘entering an opening in, blocking the opening of’. The major difference between (a) and (b) is that the verb word in (b) includes an activity incorporate (k’eleek ‘singing’) that is not present in (a). In addition, the verb stems differ, but this difference is not relevant to the question at hand. The complex morphophonemics make it difficult to see easily exactly what is going on: what is important is that the aspectual information is not affected by the presence of the activity incorporate. ()

a.

ye-do-nee-yo .OO-entering-aspect-singular go ‘He entered.’ () b. ye-do-k’eleek-he-ghe-d-aa-l-daatl .OO-entering -singing-.PL.S-qualifier-qualifier-aspect-l voice/valence-plural go ‘They came in singing.’ ()

The examples in () parallel those in (). The major difference between (a) and (b) is that (b) has an incorporate, dlukk ‘laugh’. Abstracting away

142

Rice

from the morphology that accompanies the activity incorporate construction (section .. – the qualifier ghe, the qualifier d, voice/valence l ), these are identical, with the same stem and aspect, visible as le before the stem in (a), but obscured by the morphophonemics in (b). () a. le-do b. dlukk-ghedaadle-do

‘He is sitting, he is staying.’ () ‘He is sitting down laughing.’ ()

... Phonological status as a single word A third indication of the status of the activity incorporate construction as a complex predicate is the phonological status of the verb word as a single word. While there are proposals in the Athabaskan literature that the level of the verb as a word is not appropriate from a morphosyntactic perspective (see, for instance, Speas (), Jelinek and Willie (), Rice (a), Rice and Saxon () for various versions of a syntactic analysis for different languages of the family), there is agreement that from the phonological perspective the verb word is a single unit. Proposals for richer internal structure for the verb word treat it as a single clause, with more than one verbal element (e.g. verb stem, voice/valence) but not more than a single sentence. Sentential material cannot intervene between pieces of the verb word. For example, conjunctions are found in both Ahtna and Koyukon, but they do not occur word-internally. Two Koyukon conjunctions are illustrated in (); while these carry the meaning that two events are simultaneous, as in the activity incorporate construction, they never appear within the verb word, but rather conjoin independent clauses. ()

a.

ts’en’ ‘and, as, and so, simultaneously, having, being, because of’ ‘the conjunction should be used to connect verbs expressing co-existent actions’ (Jules Jetté, cited in Jetté and Jones (: )) b. dehuyeekk’e ‘simultaneously, at the same time as, just as’ ()

The above properties suggest the complex predicate status of the activity incorporate construction. Both the verb stem and the incorporate are predicational, but the construction in which they appear is monoclausal. ..

Summary: complex predicate properties

In summary, the activity incorporate construction has properties of a complex predicate by Butt’s definition (this volume). First, it involves two major 

It is interesting that neither dictionary has a category of complementiser, although complementisers have been identified in other languages of the family.

Activity incorporates in some Athabaskan languages

143

predicational elements, a verb and a noun. Second, it is monoclausal, with a single subject and single marking of situation aspect, determined by the verb frame. Both pieces of the construction carry restrictions in terms of the semantic classes of items allowed. The activity incorporate construction is asymmetric, with the stem restricted to verbs of motion and body stance (and locution; see section .), and the incorporate restricted to verbs of oral activity; see the following sections. In section ., I examine the verb stem, or the incorporating frame. . Properties of the incorporating frame The incorporating frame consists of a verb stem and other morphological material that makes up the verb word, as discussed in section .. In this section I examine characteristics of the verb stem. .. Verb stem classes Two major classes of verbs serve as incorporators, motion and body stance verbs. These are light verbs, providing information about motion and body position, with further semantic content supplied by other material in the verb word. A number of examples of the activity incorporate construction are given below, organised by incorporating frame. The incorporated noun is on the first line, with a verb word that includes the incorporate on the second line. Examples involving verbs of motion from Koyukon are given in () and from Ahtna in (). Morpheme-by-morpheme translations are relatively rough. ()

Verbs of motion as incorporator: Koyukon a. k’eleek ‘sing, song’ () k’eleek-ghe-d-o-l-kkaa ɬ song-qualifier-qualifier-progressive-l voice/valence-paddle ‘He is paddling along singing.’ () b. he-k’eleek-ghe-daa-ghe-ge-kkaa ɬ upstream-song-qualifier-qualifier-progressive-.SG.S.l voice/valence-paddle ‘I sing while canoeing upstream.’ () c. sel ‘shouting, noise, howling’ () sel-ghe-z-o-l-de ɬ shouting-qualifier-.PL.S-progressive-l voice/valence-plural go ‘We are going along shouting.’ () d. yoyeesk ‘whistling, whistle (sound)’ () yoyeesk-ghe-d-o-l-ho ɬ whistle-qualifier-qualifier-progressive-l voice/valence-singular go

144

()

Rice

‘He is walking along whistling.’ () e. kkenaa ‘word, talking, speech’ () kkenaa-ghe-d-o-l-ho ɬ talk-qualifier-qualifier-progressive-l voice/valence-singular go ‘He is walking and talking.’ () Verbs of motion as incorporator: Ahtna (Kari ) a. c’udyiis ‘whistle’ () na-c’udyiis-de-l-yaa back-whistle-qualifier-l voice/valence-singular go ‘He returned whistling.’ () b. ko ɬ dogh ‘he is making a potlatch speech’ () ɬ u-hdogh-d-a-l-yaa ɬ around-potlatch speech-qualifier-progressive-l voice valence-singular go ‘He is walking around while making a potlatch speech.’ () c. i’dliis, c’eliis ‘song’ () i’dliis-h-d-a-l-de ɬ song-.PL.S-qualifier-progressive-l voice/valence-plural go ‘They are going along singing.’ () d. duut ‘chattering sound, call of sandhill crane’ () ɬ u-duut-d-a-l-de ɬ around-chatter-qualifier-progressive-l voice/valence-plural go ‘They (flock of geese, cranes) are going about honking, chattering.’ () e. neke-duut-d-a-l-de ɬ circle-chatter-qualifier-progressive-l voice/valence-plural go ‘They (cranes) are flying in a circle calling.’ () f. sel, se ɬ ‘shout, shouting’ () ɬ u-sel-d-a-l-de ɬ around-shout-qualifier-progressive-l voice/valence-plural go ‘They (mosquitoes) are whining about.’ () g. dzuuggi ti-se ɬ -d-ghe-l-ggaac princess out-shout-qualifier-aspect-l voice/valence-singular go ‘The princess ran out shouting.’ () Verbs of body stance are possible incorporators, as in () and ().

Activity incorporates in some Athabaskan languages

()

()

145

Verbs of body stance: Koyukon a. dlukk ‘laughter, smile’ () dlukk-ghe-daa-dle-do laugh-qualifier-qualifier/aspect-l voice/valence-singular sit ‘He is sitting down laughing.’ () b. tsegh, tseh ‘crying, weeping, tears, grief’ () tsegh-ghe-daa-dle-do crying-qualifier-qualifier/aspect-l voice/valence-singular sit ‘She is sitting down crying; he sits weeping.’ (, ) c. k’onh ‘eating’ () k’onh-ghe-daa-dle-do eating-qualifier-qualifier/aspect-l voice/valence-singular sit ‘She is staying and eating.’ () Verbs of body stance: Ahtna tsagh, tsax ‘crying’ () y-a-tsagh-da-gha-l-da’ OO-for-cry-qualifier-aspect-l voice/valence-sit, perfective ‘He stayed mourning for him.’ ()

Verbs of motion and body stance, light verbs, are the core classes that serve as incorporating frame in the activity incorporate construction. In addition, verbs of locution serve as incorporator; see section . on this and other cases that resemble the activity incorporate construction but do not share the full range of properties of this construction. The restrictions on the verb are similar to those found in many languages with serial verbs; see for instance, Aikhenvald () and section . for discussion. ..

Transitivity

The verb stem in the activity incorporate construction is lexically intransitive. This is perhaps surprising with motion verbs, as transitive verbs exist in this category, the so-called classificatory verbs found across the family, or verbs of handling. Like going verbs, handling verbs are light in terms of meaning, specifying the type of object under consideration, with information about the manner of handling coming from other pieces of the verb word. No examples appear in the dictionaries of handling verbs with an activity incorporate. Thus, verb words such as ‘s/he laughingly handed me things’ or ‘s/he cried carrying the baby around’ are not found in the activity incorporate construction in the dictionaries. In addition, transitivised verbs built on lexically intransitive verbs of motion and body stance do not occur

146

Rice

in the construction. For instance, intransitive verbs ‘sit’ and ‘go’ can be transitivised through the use of the transitiviser voice/valence marker ɬ (with a predictable allomorph tl ). In the Koyukon examples in () and (), the (a) form is intransitive, with inflection for aspect, and the (b) form includes the transitiviser. Note that the transitiviser has allomorphs tl (b) and ɬ (b). () a. b. () a. b.

le-do ‘He is sitting, staying.’ () yee-tl-do ‘He is causing her to sit, stay, he is keeping him.’ nee-yo ‘He arrived, came.’ () yeenee- ɬ -yo ‘He arrived walking him, made him walk.’ ()

I have found no examples of such a verb with an activity incorporate in the dictionaries. See section .. for discussion. ..

Properties of the subject

Based on the examples in the dictionaries, the subject of the activity incorporate construction is human or a dog. .. Summary: the incorporating frame Incorporating verbs are light verbs drawn from intransitive verbs of motion and body stance and, based on the corpus, have higher animate, normally human, subjects. . Properties of incorporates Just as the incorporating verb is restricted in the activity incorporate construction, so too is the incorporate. Incorporates are drawn from the class of oral activities, and include words with translations like ‘sing’, ‘laugh’, ‘cry’, ‘talk’, ‘whistle’, ‘call’, ‘chatter’, ‘bark’, ‘shriek’, and ‘eat’. In this section I examine properties of the incorporate. I first show that the activity incorporate is a noun related by a type of conversion process to an activity verb. I then show that activity nouns are not formed from verbs of other aspectual classes. Following this I discuss restrictions on activity nouns: they are conversions from intransitive or detransitivised verbs of oral activity with agentive subjects. .. Lexical category of the incorporate Activity incorporates are lexically nouns, as discussed in Rice (). There are a number of sources of evidence for this analysis. First, many activity incorporates are used as nouns independently, as in the examples in () from Koyukon.

Activity incorporates in some Athabaskan languages

()

147

a. k’onh aade dzaan k’e-ghee-yo eating without day unspecified DO.aspect-singular go ‘He went all day without eating.’ () b. dlukk kk’e naa-l-’onh laugh like qualifier-aspect-compact object is in position ‘He is smiling, he has a smile on his face; he looks like he is going to laugh.’ (, ) c. k’eleek yen’ehedeeleeyh song . PL.S sing ‘They are singing a song.’ () d. tseh ts’e dohudaanee’onh crying to  went verbally ‘She turned to crying.’ [lit.‘she went [verbally] to grief’] ()

Second, activity incorporates appear as subjects and objects in incorporating constructions. In (), tseh ‘crying’ is an incorporated subject. The verb stem, -taanh, is a classificatory stem, involving handling of an animate object, and the voice/valence marker, ɬ, marks the transitivity. () a. haa-tseh-ye-d-ee- ɬ -taanh away-crying-.DO-qualifier-aspect-ɬ voice/valence-handle animate ‘She went away crying’ [lit. crying took her away] (–) The examples in () have the transitive nen ‘move sg. compact O quickly, throw compact O’ (p. ); the stem form is perfective. ‘O’ is a device used to indicate transitivity, and the incorporate is a direct object. ()

ts’aa-kkenaa-daa-n-ee- ɬ -nenh out into open-word-qualifier-qualifier-aspect- ɬ voice/ valence-move singular compact O ‘She spoke sharply to him, jumped at him.’ [lit. ‘threw words at him’] () b. ho-dlukk-de-ghee- ɬ -nenh up and out-laugh-qualifier-aspect- ɬ voice/valence-move singular compact O ‘He laughed out, chuckled.’ [lit. ‘threw a laugh out’] () a. ye-ts’e OO-to

One further example is given in (). This verb word is built on a lexically transitive verb O+G+Ø+ggotl ‘rip, tear, jerk, pull, yank O abruptly’ (p. ) (‘G’ indicates that the verb allows marking for gender).

148

()

Rice

no-yooyeesk-do-de-ggotl ‘He whistled loudly.’ ()

This example has d voice/valence, or middle marking. It is not clear why some of the others have d while others do not, but this takes us beyond the scope of this chapter. Continuing with the properties of activity incorporates as nouns, the nouns can be possessed, with a suffix -e’. Possession is indicated by a hyphen before the stem. () k’eleek, -k’eleeg-e’ -zel-e’

‘song, incantation, chant’ () ‘shouting, noise, howling’ ()

The properties discussed above indicate that the activity incorporate is a noun: it is related to independent nouns, it serves as a subject and object incorporate, it has a possessed form. In the next section, we will see that while the activity incorporates relate to verb forms, there is not a systematic morphological relationship between them. ..

Relationship of activity incorporates to verb stems

Activity incorporates usually are related to verb stems. However, there is no straightforward relationship between the form of the activity incorporate and that of the verb stem. A number of verb stems are formed on a single root, determined by aspectual properties. See Kari () and Axelrod () and the dictionaries for details. In comparing the form of activity incorporates with the form of roots and stems, no systematic formal relationship between them is found. Some activity incorporates are identical to the root and some to the verb stem that is called the durative imperfective, while some are different from either. The list in () gives Koyukon roots, durative imperfective forms, and activity incorporates. Some nouns have prefixes in addition to the stem; these are separated from the stem by a hyphen to facilitate comparisons. ()

root durative imperfective noun dlukk dlukk dlukk yeesk yeesk tlaa tlaa



yo-yeesk ye-tlaa

‘laugh, smile widely’ / ‘smile, laughter’ (–) ‘whistle’ () ‘bark’ / ‘barking’ ()

Ahtna is similar to Koyukon. For instance, the incorporate tsagh ‘cry’ is identical to the durative imperfective, as is the stem of the incorporate c’udyiis ‘whistle’. However, there are differences with ‘laugh’ (root, durative imperfective dlok’; incorporate dlo’, dlok), ‘sing’ (root, durative imperfective lii; incorporate c’eliis, i’dliis), and ‘talk’ (durative imperfective yaes ~ naes; incorporate hnae, hne).

Activity incorporates in some Athabaskan languages

tsaah

tsaah/tseh

hon lee

honh lee

yo zee ɬ

– –

149

tseh

‘cry, weep, mourn, lament’ / ‘crying, weeping, tears, grief’ (–) k’-onh ‘eat’ / ‘eating’ () k’e-leek ‘sing’ / ‘song, incantation, chant’ (–) kkenaa ‘talk’ / ‘word’ () ze ɬ ‘shout, yell, holler, call out, yelp, go shouting’ / ‘shouting, noise, howling’ (–)

Activity incorporates often share the root or the durative imperfective stem form with the related verb, as seen in (). However, this is not always the case, as is evident in the last three lines. There is not a clear unique synchronic morphological relationship between the verb stem and the form of the activity incorporate, and, while it is noted in the Athabaskan literature that a single root can often form both a verb stem and a noun stem, I know of no attempts to identify a systematic relationship between them. Historically, activity incorporates derive from verb stems. For instance, Jetté and Jones (: ) note of the incorporate kkenaa ‘word, talking, speech’ that it is ‘a unique noun’ that derives from the verb theme he+ne+Ø+(y)o° ‘sg. talks’, with the ne prefix appearing as a stem-initial consonant. They note of k’onh ‘eating’ that it derives from the verb k’e+onh ‘eat’, again indicating that the noun form derives from the verb. Nominalisation of this sort, a type of conversion, is not synchronically productive. A first indication of this comes from the lack of a systematic relationship in form between the verb and noun stems. Further indications that this conversion is not productive, but rather that the forms are lexically listed, are examined in following sections. .. Aspectual restrictions on activity incorporates Activity incorporate nouns are related to verbs drawn from what Kari calls the operative verb theme category and, occasionally, the onomatopoetic verb theme category. Axelrod (: ) defines operative verb themes as referring to activities that take place over a period of time or to activities done as a means of employment, giving ‘to pick berries’, ‘to pluck feathers’, ‘to cry’, and ‘to rain’ as examples; she defines the onomatopoetic verb theme category as ‘the production of a sound or noise generated by an object, instrument, or animal’ (p. ). Verb theme categories are semantic groupings of verbs with shared formal and semantic characteristics. A particular verb theme, or lexical entry, is assigned to a verb theme category based on its aspectual patterns and derivational potential, among other characteristics; see Kari () and Axelrod () for detailed discussion.

150

Rice

In Rice (a), I argue that verb theme categories can be thought of as what is more commonly known in the linguistic literature as situation aspect classes. While there is controversy in the literature about whether the verb theme categories are based in situation aspect (see, for instance, Smith (), Rice (a), and Wilhelm () for different perspectives), there is agreement that there are verb classes, each with overall coherent morphological and semantic characteristics that relate to aspect, although with some fuzziness. In the following discussion, I assume that the verb theme categories represent situation aspect classes and examine the activity (operative), accomplishment (conversive), and achievement (motion) classes, showing that while nouns related to activities can often be incorporated into the construction under discussion, nouns related to accomplishments and achievements are not incorporable in this construction. I set aside the onomatopoetic verbs for lack of full information, although they represent activities based on various criteria. More specifically, I examine cases where there is a noun/verb pair of the sort examined so far, where the verb is drawn from the different situation aspect classes. While activities and accomplishments often have pairs, only activities occur in this construction. ... The incorporation of activities As discussed above, activity incorporates are nouns, often with a related verb form. The Koyukon verb stems in () above are of the activity class, in the sense defined above. While many activities are like those in (), with incorporated forms, there are also activities that do not appear to have an incorporated form. I return to a discussion of what type of activities can be incorporated in section ... ... The absence of accomplishments as activity incorporates Just as many activity situation aspect verbs have related noun forms, so do many accomplishments. However, unlike activities, accomplishment-related nouns are absent as incorporates in the construction under discussion. The Koyukon verbs in () are accomplishments (Kari’s conversive verb theme category). The first line is a verb entry, with its meaning, and the second line the related noun. The final morpheme in the verb entry is the root. Preceding it is a lexicalised voice/valence marker, and, in (d), the possibility of a gender marker (recall that ‘G’ indicates that the verb can take a gender marker). I choose these items for two reasons. First, there is a related noun stem. Second, they have meanings that one could imagine would be possible in the construction under discussion, namely an event that occurs simultaneously with the event or state specified by the main verb. On the third line, we see that either there is no incorporated form listed (a, b, c) or the form of the incorporate (d).

Activity incorporates in some Athabaskan languages

151

() Accomplishments in Koyukon a. verb: Ø+tson’ ‘to defecate, have bowel movement’ () noun: tson’, -tsone’ ‘excrement, faeces, dung’ () no listed incorporate b. verb: D+doots ‘defecate, have small hard faeces’ () noun: doots ‘dung, small dry faeces, droppings of rabbit, moose, porcupine’ () no listed incorporate c. verb: Ø+lets ‘to urinate, pee’ () noun: ɬ ets, -ledze’ ‘urine’ () no listed incorporate d. verb: G+D+ten ‘freeze, become chilled, numb with cold’ () noun: ten ‘ice’ (found in compounds) () incorporate: tenh’ While the accomplishment-related nouns do not appear in the activity incorporate construction, a similar meaning, involving simultaneous activities, is achieved in other ways. Consider the following examples, the first built on the lexical entry Ø+tson’ in (a) and the second involving an incorporate related to ‘freeze’ in (d). () hukkaadaanee-tson’ hu -kkaa

‘He defecated all over the place, floor.’ () ‘all over the place’

The stem in () is tson’, with any sense of movement conveyed through a preverb, the postposition kkaa ‘all over’, with an object hu, indicating what is translated as ‘place’. () hebe-no-tenh’-ee-de-daatl .PL.OO-iterative-ice-aspect-voice/valence-plural go ‘They returned thoroughly chilled.’ [(lit. ‘ice went back with them’] () In (), the verb stem is daatl ‘plural go’. The incorporate tenh’ is the subject, and hebe is a third person plural oblique object that translates as the subject in English. In both dictionaries, nouns are found that relate to accomplishments, and they may appear as incorporates. However, they represent entities rather than events, and do not occur in the activity incorporate construction. It is interesting to note that the dictionaries treat nouns related to accomplishments differently than activity incorporates in how they are listed; while the reasons underlying this choice are not presented in the dictionaries, the

152

Rice

different patternings likely form part of the justification for different types of listings. ... The absence of achievements Just as accomplishments fail to occur in the activity incorporate construction, so too do achievements. Unlike accomplishments, achievements do not, in general, have nominal or incorporated forms. ... Aspectual restrictions: summary The nouns that appear in the activity incorporate construction relate to activity verbs (hence the name of the construction); while nouns related to accomplishments exist, they are not found in this construction even if there is a plausible meaning. .. Transitivity restrictions In this section I examine constraints on transitivity of activity incorporates. Both intransitive and transitive activity verbs exist, but only intransitive activity verbs have corresponding activity incorporates. In the presentation of data, I follow the format in the dictionaries, with boundary types (#, +) included. The final morpheme is the root, preceded by a lexicalised voice/ valence marker. Material to the left of that is part of the basic lexical entry of the verb. Recall that the abbreviation ‘P’ indicates an object of a postposition and ‘O’ indicates transitivity, or the presence of a direct object. Intransitive activity verbs with activity incorporate counterparts are listed in (). () Intransitive activities (Koyukon) a. Ø+tsaah b. Ø+zee ɬ

‘cry, weep, mourn, lament’ () ‘shout, yell, holler, call out, yelp, go shouting’ () c. yoo#de+ ɬ +yeesk ‘whistle’ () d. (ne#)k’e+Ø+dlukk ‘laugh, smile widely’ () (note k’e lexicalised indefinite object) e. P+e#de+Ø+lee ‘sing P’ ()

Some of these items require comment. The prefix k’e, in ‘laugh, smile widely’, indicates an indefinite or unspecified argument, in this case a direct object (see Jetté and Jones () and Thompson () for discussion). This prefix is lexicalised with certain verbs, as in ‘laugh, smile widely’. While with most verbs, this prefix provides one option for expressing a direct object, with this verb it is always present; no other object is possible. In ‘sing’, there is an oblique object, symbolised by ‘P’. This is often the prefix k’e, making a more literal translation ‘sing something’.

Activity incorporates in some Athabaskan languages

153

Transitive activities also occur in these languages, as in the Koyukon examples in (). Related nouns are included when one is listed in the dictionary. () transitive activities (Koyukon): a. O+D+noon ‘drink’ () b. O+Ø+zes ‘sip, drink (hot liquid, alcoholic beverage)’ () c. O+G+Ø+kk’us ‘chew, gnaw O (hard, resistant substance such as dry fish or gum), chew gummy O’ () d. O+G+Ø+ghos ‘chew, gnaw (hard) O’ () e. O+G+ ɬ +ts’oots’ ‘suck on O (food, candy, thumb)’ () f. O+G+Ø+tl’ootl ‘suck, lick O with sucking, smooching sound, draw on, siphon, vacuum O (with pipe, straw, bone)’ () g. O+ ɬ +ts’eesh ‘scrape and stretch O (wet skin)’ () h. O+de+ne++zenh ‘slice, score, cut O (especially fish) with knife’ () i. O+G+Ø+ghon ‘make pl. O, kill, beat up pl. O’ () j. O+oo+ne+Ø+(h)aa ‘pick O (berries, spruce gum, pitch)’ () k. O+G++k’uts ‘pluck O (feathers, hair, grass)’ () l. O+oo+G+Ø+kkat ‘buy O, pay for O, obtain O by trade’ () m. O+G+ ɬ +tson ‘sniff, smell O’ () tsaanh, -tsaanh ‘scent, odor, aroma’ () n. O+ ɬ +ggoo ɬ k ‘scale O (fish)’ () ggo ɬ k ‘fish scales’ o. O+de+ ɬ +lon ‘tan O (skin), work O (wet hide) to soften it’ (–) k’elaah ‘skin tanning’ p. O+G+ ɬ +zook ‘take, handle pl. O, marry O (pl. women), comb (hair)’ () tleezook, -tlezooge’ ‘headdress made of a band with upstanding feathers, wooden comb’ (tlee ‘head’ + zook ‘comb’, –) () q. O+G+Ø+luh ‘scrape, rake O, smooth O by scraping’ () ‘bone or iron scraper for smaller skins (that bek’eelugh-e with which we scrape something)’ ()

154

Rice

These transitive activities sometimes have related stem nouns ( m–p), but they do not have related incorporate forms listed in the dictionary. Some of the nouns are entities (m, n, p), rather than events, while the activity incorporates represent events; see below on (). The different patterning of nouns related to transitive and intransitive activities suggests that incorporates in the activity incorporate construction are further delimited in that they are based on intransitive activities. An apparent exception exists to this generalisation about transitivity, given in (). (a) is a verb form, ‘eat’, (b) the related activity noun form, ‘eating’, and (c) shows this noun as an incorporate in the activity incorporate construction. () a. verb form: O+G+Ø+(h)on ‘eat O, go while eating O’ () form with another object k’egheehon’ ‘He ate something; he ate a meal.’ () b. noun form, incorporate: k’onh ‘eating’ () c. k’onh-ghe-d-aa-dle-do eating-qualifier-qualifier-aspect-l voice/valence-verb stem ‘She is staying and eating.’ () derived from k’e+onh ‘eat’ (indefinite object + eat) The verb on which k’onh ‘eating’ is formed is transitive, as indicated by ‘O’ in (a). There is discussion in the dictionary about the use of the indefinite object k’e, introduced briefly above. Jetté makes the following remark, cited in Jetté and Jones (: –): It represents an object, or subject which it is not desired to mention, or which would be needless to express and is quite extensively used … Its adjunction, as object, to a transitive verb, forms the corresponding intransitive, or ‘inclusive’, as k’esonh I eat (intr.) from esonh I eat (trans).

Jetté thus treats this morpheme as a detransitiviser; see also Thompson (). There is a difference between the verb ‘laugh’ in (d) that always occurs with this morpheme and those referred to in the quote in that in examples such as () the verb can occur without k’e and with a specific direct object. The noun k’onh ‘eating’ is lexicalised, indicating an activity, and as such can appear in the activity incorporate construction. In the activity verbs in (), only one, (o), has a similar related nominal form, with k’e included. The presence of k’onh ‘eating’ suggests that transitive activity verbs with unspecified objects – representing generalised activities – may be, potentially, nominalisable. However, as discussed earlier, conversion-type nom-

Activity incorporates in some Athabaskan languages

155

inalisation is not productive. Rather productive nominalisation involves a suffix, -e, as in in (). () a. O+G+Ø+luh bek’eelugh-e b. leggunh leggun-e

‘scrape, rake O, smooth O by scraping’ () ‘bone or iron scraper for smaller skins’ (that with which we scrape something) () ‘it (food) dried up, he is skinny, emaciated’ () ‘dried fish’ (that which is dried) ()

Productive nominalisation is not based on the kind of conversion of a stem found with the activity incorporates discussed in ... If nominals similar to k’onh were productively formed, one might imagine that they could be used in the activity incorporate construction, subject to further constraints discussed in section ... To summarise, noun counterparts of intransitive activity verbs may be incorporable; counterparts of transitive activity verbs are not incorporable. The one noun related to a transitive activity that is incorporable in the activity incorporate construction contains the unspecified object k’e as part of the lexicalised noun, a morpheme that functions as a detransitiviser. .. Subject restrictions So far we have seen that the activity incorporate construction occurs with nouns related to activity predicates that are intransitive. An additional constraint concerns the thematic role of the subject of the activity incorporate in this construction. Verb forms of incorporable activities have agentive subjects. Activity verbs with non-agentive subjects do not generally have incorporated forms. () shows Koyukon activity verbs with non-agentive subjects. These do not have an incorporated form in the dictionaries, although with (b) a meaning is imaginable (e.g. go around being itchy). () Activity verbs with non-agentive subjects a. G+ ɬ +get ‘rot, become rotten, have sores’ () no incorporated form given b. G+Ø+gus ‘be itchy, tingly, prickly, ticklish’ () ghee-gus ‘he was itchy, ticklish’ no incorporated form given 

In Ahtna productive nominalisations are formed with a suffix –(y)i: uk’e’sc’aayan-i ‘table’ (that on which we eat, ); kasighiɬ’aa-yi ‘seal’ (that which has its head sticking up, ); uyii c’udelyiis-i ‘whistle’ (that in which there is a whistling noise, ).

156

Rice

Some activity verbs with non-agentive subjects have noun counterparts, but they do not occur in the activity incorporate construction. An example is given in (). (a) is an activity verb; (b) is its incorporated form. Note that the noun konh ‘rain’ is a subject, in a different relationship with the verb than the activity incorporates. () a. ɬ +kon ‘rain’  eɬ-konh ‘It is raining’; gheeɬ-kon’, gheeɬ-konh ‘It was raining’ () b. he-konh-ne-ghee-detl ‘big raindrops, scattered rain fell’ () no-konh-te-hoyh ‘It is raining hard, coming down in sheets’ () To summarise, nominal counterparts of intransitive activities with agentive subjects are potentially incorporable in the activity incorporate construction, while those with non-agentive subjects are not. .. Further restrictions on activities: oral activities The incorporates in the construction under study have the following characteristics: they are lexicalised nouns that relate to intransitive or detransitivised activity verbs with agentive subjects. In this section I further examine intransitive activities with agentive subjects in order to highlight an additional restriction, one that is likely obvious from the examples above: not only are activity incorporates related to intransitive activity verbs, but they are a restricted set semantically. The incorporates relate to oral activities – for instance, ‘sing’, ‘laugh’, ‘shout’, ‘cry’, ‘whistle’, ‘potlatch speech’, ‘chatter’, ‘bark’, ‘eating’. Other intransitive activities do not appear to have incorporates that appear in this construction, as illustrated below. Some additional intransitive activity verbs with nominal counterparts are given in (). These nouns are not attested in the activity incorporate construction. ()

a. verb Ø+zaah noun saakk b. verb k’e+le+dzeets

c.

‘spit, drool’ () ‘saliva, spittle’ ‘dance fast native dance, to dance (any non-native dance)’ () noun k’edzes ‘a dance, dancing’ () verb so#de+le+tseeyh ‘be happy, gregarious, to look good’ () noun sots’eeyh ‘joy, happiness, gladness’

While the nouns in () are related to intransitive activity verbs, they are not shown in the activity incorporate construction in the dictionaries. These nouns differ from activity incorporates in one of two ways: the noun is an

Activity incorporates in some Athabaskan languages

157

entity rather than an event (a), or the noun does not involve an oral activity (b, c). One might ask if it is possible to convey the general meaning of the activity incorporate construction – simultaneous activities carried out by the same subject – in other ways. There is a construction where the activity occurs as the stem of the verb word, there is not an incorporate, nor is there a verb of motion, but instead motion is indicated through the use of preverbs. Some examples are given in (). () a. ye-do-k’e-e-l-dzeets b. kk’o-k’e-e-deeyh c. k’e+le+lun’ ye-do-k’e-e-l-lun’ tlee-k’e-e-l-lun’

‘She came in dancing.’ () ‘he is going about while eating’ () ‘go acting crazy, drunk, erratic’ () ‘he came in acting crazy, hyperactive, drunk’ () ‘he went out acting crazy’ ()

(a) is built on k’e+le+dzeets ‘dance’. The preverb, the postposition do ‘entering’, conveys the motion. In (b), the stem is -deeyh, a form of the verb stem ‘eat’ (Jetté and Jones (: ) note the irregularity of this verb form), with motion conveyed by the preverb kk’o, called perambulative in the literature, indicating motion around and about, in various directions, in no fixed direction (p. ). (c) is similar, with motion marked by a preverb, the postposition do ‘entering’ in one example and the preverb tlee ‘out’ in the other. In addition, a similar meaning can be expressed by a construction with an incorporate as subject, together with a classificatory verb stem. The example in () involves the stem -taayh, the progressive form of ‘handle animate object’ with the subject sots’eeyh ‘happiness’, an incorporate. () kk’o-sots’eeyh-ye-e- ɬ -taayh perambulative-happiness-.DO-progressive-ɬ voice/valence-handle animate ‘He is going around very happy.’ [lit. ‘happiness carries him around’] () Thus, while the use of the activity incorporate construction is limited, other possibilities exist for expressing that two activities are carried out simultaneously by the same subject. Returning to verbs of oral activity, given the absence of a productive relationship between the verb and noun form, it is not surprising to find that verbs in the oral activity class do not always have incorporate counterparts. The Koyukon examples in () are intransitive oral activity verbs without an activity noun counterpart in the dictionary. 

The Ahtna cognate ts’uux can occur incorporated; see the example in (b).

158

Rice

() a. Ø+ts’ookk ‘scream, squeal, screech, shriek’ () b. hu+Ø+ts’eet ‘tell a lie, make a false statement (either deliberately or by mistake)’ () Further, given the existence of the noun k’onh ‘eating’, one might expect similarly formed nouns for some of the verbs in (); for instance, one might expect that ‘drinking’ could be formed in a parallel way, but no such noun is given in the dictionaries. In addition, there are verbs of oral activity with related nouns where those nouns do not occur in the activity incorporate construction. For instance, in Ahtna a noun kos ‘cough’ exists (p. ), related to the verb d+l+kos ‘cough’ (p. ), but no incorporated form is listed, and no examples of this noun in the activity incorporate construction are shown. A different case involves the Koyukon noun saak ‘saliva, spittle’, related to Ø+zaah ‘spit, drool’ and the root zaakk ‘spit’ (p. ). This noun is not shown in the dictionary as occurring in the activity incorporate construction, although it has an incorporated form and can appear as an object. However, while the noun is a stem noun of the type found as activity incorporates, as the activity incorporates are, its semantics is different from that of the activity incorporate: as noted above, it represents an entity, the object of the spitting, rather than the act of spitting. Given this semantics, it is to be expected that it cannot occur in the activity incorporate construction. To summarise, the activity incorporate construction involves a noun of oral activity and a verb stem of motion or body stance. The events specified by the verb and the activity noun are carried out simultaneously. The activity incorporates are related to activity verbs by a type of non-productive conversion, and they are lexically listed. ..

Grammatical role of incorporate

In this section I discuss the grammatical role of the incorporate in the activity incorporate construction by examining voice/valence marking in the activity incorporate construction. The voice/valence element that is found in the construction, l, is used productively to express a middle of a transitivised form, as introduced in section . (see Arce-Arenales, et al. (), Thompson (), and Rice (b) on middles). (a) is an intransitive verb, (b) a transitive formed on the intransitive, with the transitive marker ɬ , and (c) a middle form, a reflexive, built on (b), with the surface voice/ valence marker l. The voice/valence markers are bolded in these forms. () a. intransitive nee-yo ‘He arrived, came.’ () b. transitive yee-nee- ɬ -yo ‘He arrived walking him, he made him walk (instead of riding in a vehicle).’ ()

Activity incorporates in some Athabaskan languages

c.

middle of transitive hok’e-d-o-l-ho ɬ

159

‘He is making himself walk.’

Similar examples are shown in () through (), with a lexically intransitive verb ((a) forms), a causative/transitive ((b) forms), and a middle of the transitive ((c) forms). These middles are reflexives of some sort, either direct reflexives (, ) or self-benefactives (). () a. b. c. () a. b.

dee-kk’onh yedee- ɬ -kk’onh hodee-l-kk’onh le-do yee-tl-do

c. () a.

eeyet hok’edeedle-do le-t’aa

b. ye-tl-t’aa c. nelaan yenhedee-l-t’aa ɬ

‘It ignited, it caught on fire.’ () ‘He burned it.’ ‘He burned himself, he burned up.’ ‘He is sitting, he is staying.’ () ‘He is causing her to sit, stay, he is keeping him.’ ‘He allows himself to stay there.’ ‘It fried, roasted; softened in the sun, heat.’ () ‘He roasted it, fried it.’ ‘They are all cooking meat for themselves.’

These examples show that middles built on ɬ transitives have surface voice/ valence l, indicating transitivity and middle marking. As noted in section .., the activity incorporate construction occurs with l voice/valence. As discussed in section .., the activity incorporate construction is built on a lexically intransitive verb of motion or body stance. The presence of the transitiving part of the voice/valence marker suggests that the activity incorporate construction itself is in fact transitivised from an intransitive lexical entry, with the activity incorporate a direct object, and the middle marking piece of the voice/valence marker perhaps due to shared event properties. Thus the activity incorporate construction is transitive, built from an intransitive lexical entry, with the activity incorporate filling the role of the direct object. No other direct object is possible (e.g. a verb like (b) with an activity incorporate as well, meaning something like ‘walk him singing’ is not possible because there are two direct objects). The analysis of the activity incorporate as a direct object provides an account for the observation that the incorporating frame must be intransitive (section ..). As noted in the previous paragraph, only a single direct object is possible. Recall from section .. that lexically transitive motion class verbs exist. As noted in section .., these verbs, called classificatory, place restrictions on the type of object possible. For instance, the Koyukon basic lexical entry O+G+ɬ+kooɬ ‘carry flat, flexible, fabric-like object’ (p. ) demands that the object be flat and flexible; the entry O+ɬ +taa ‘handle,

160

Rice

carry singular animate object (living or dead)’ (p. ) requires an animate object; the entry O+G+Ø+ton ‘carry rigid, elongated, stick-like object’ (p. ) requires a rigid object; and so on. Thus, while lexically transitive verbs of the motion class exist, they require a direct object that meets semantic restrictions imposed by their lexical entry, and the activity incorporates do not meet these restrictions. The activity incorporate construction occurs with only a limited set of verbal categories as possible incorporating frames, verbs of motion and verbs of stance, and thus transitive verbs of other categories are not possible candidates for the incorporating frame. Since there can be only one direct object, it is not possible to create the activity incorporate construction with a lexically transitive motion verb, as the verbs in the appropriate category place demands on the object. Verb words such as ‘carry animate object singing’ or ‘carry flat fabric-like object crying’ are thus not possible. . Other incorporation constructions In this section I consider briefly structures that are similar to the activity incorporate construction in some ways but differ in others. First are cases where an activity incorporate is present, but the semantics of the construction differs from that of the activity incorporate construction as discussed so far. Recall that Jetté introduced the term ‘combined action’ for the simultaneous performing of two actions. In a different type of case with an activity incorporate, the incorporate further defines the action specified by a verb of locution. () Verbs of locution: Koyukon a. yetlaa ‘barking’ () ɬ eekaa yetlaa-de-l-ghus dog bark-qualifier-.S-l voice/valence-holler ‘The dogs are barking, are making a clamor barking.’ (, ) b. se ɬ ‘shouting, noise, howling’ () se ɬ -he-do-l-ghos shout-.PL.S-qualifier/aspect-l voice/valence-holler ‘They were shouting.’ () () Verbs of locution: Ahtna a. tsagh, tsax ‘crying’ () tsax-d-o-l-ghos cry-qualifier-.PL.S-l voice/valence-make noise ‘You pl. are crying.’ () cf. del-ghos ‘They are having fun, shouting.’ ()

Activity incorporates in some Athabaskan languages

161

b. ts’uux ‘shriek’ () da-ts’uux-gh-a-l-yae ɬ above-shriek-qualifier-aspect-l voice/valence-talk ‘They (baby birds) are sitting up above shrieking.’ () While with verbs of motion and body stance, two simultaneous activities are expressed, with verbs of locution, there is a single activity, with the incorporate providing more detailed information about the type of locutionary act. This construction further differs from the activity incorporate construction in that the qualifier gh is not present in Koyukon. In addition, while it has the voice/valence marker l, as in the activity incorporate construction, this is the marker that is lexically part of the verb with the verb found in most of the examples, and thus it is not possible to tell if it is present because of its lexicalised status or because of the construction. However, the example in (b) also has l, and this verb has null voice/valence lexically, suggesting that the use of l voice/valence is productive with the locutionary verb as incorporator. Another example is found in the Koyukon dictionary of a verb word with an incorporate with this type of meaning. Jetté and Jones identify a motion stem ggok ‘sg, dual runs’. There is a progressive form gguyhtl, the form that serves as an incorporate: ()

a. gguyhtl ‘running’ () b. gguyhtl-h-o- ɬ -de ɬ tl running-PL-progressive-voice/valence-PL. go ‘They are running along, they are racing.’ (, )

This example is similar to those with locution verbs: the incorporate delineates the type of going, not a distinct simultaneous activity. In addition, the qualifier gh is not present. Finally, this verb word has a different voice/ valence marker than occurs in the activity incorporate construction, ɬ rather than l. I have translated the stem as ‘plural go’, after Jetté and Jones. There is an identical verb theme which Jetté and Jones (: ) translate as ‘plural objects move independently, fall’, and it can be transitivised, meaning ‘throw plural O, handle pl. O quickly’. Perhaps this example means ‘they are handling the run’ or something similar. (The third trapping that is found in the activity incorporate construction, the prefix d, is not expected since this incorporate is not an oral activity (see section ..).) A further type of incorporation exists that is worthy of mention, with a meaning similar to that of the activity incorporate construction, but distinct other properties. This type is illustrated in (), with the incorporated noun geɬtl ‘hook’.

162

Rice

() a. taa-ge ɬ tl-’e-tl-do water-hook-aspect-voice/valence-singular, dual sits, stays, dwells ‘She is sitting angling, fishing.’ (, ) b. taa-ge ɬ tl-’e-tl-taanh water-hook-aspect-voice/valence-singular, dual reclines, lies down ‘He is lying down fishing with a hook; He is reclining, relaxing while fishing with a hook and line.’ (, ) Like the activity incorporates, these examples indicate simultaneous events. They are composed of a body stance verb and an incorporate. The examples are distinct from the activity incorporate construction in that they lack the gh qualifier that is common in the activity incorporate construction and they have the voice/valence marker ɬ rather than l. The forms discussed in this section are similar to the activity incorporate construction in some ways, with an incorporate that provides information about an event, one that is either simultaneous with the event specified by the verb (activity incorporate construction, ()) or elaborates on the event specified by the verb (). The activity incorporate construction is distinct from the others in meaning in some cases, as well as the morphological trappings that accompany the construction. Further study of forms such as those discussed in this section is in order. .

The activity incorporate construction in the complex predicate typology

Having described the Koyukon and Ahtna activity incorporate construction, I now address the construction in terms of the typology of complex predicates. Baker and Harvey (this volume) propose two types of complex predicate constructions, a merger structure and a coindexation structure. As described by Baker and Harvey, merger involves a combination of predicates yielding a construction with the range of aspectual structures found in monomorphemic predicates, and they group merger constructions and monomorphemic predicates together as simplex event constructions. The constraints involved in simplex event constructions are aspectual, with major predicate functions (CAUSE, BECOME, MOVE, BE) occurring only once in the construction. Complex predicates such as ‘be sitting laughing’ and ‘go 

These verb words differ from the activity incorporate construction in another way. Usually a preverb forms a semantic unit with the stem (e.g. in a verb word such as na-c’uudyiis- del-yaa ‘He returned whistling’, or ɬ u-hdogh-d-a-l-yaa ɬ ‘He is walking around while making a potlatch speech’, the preverb (na ‘back’, ɬ u ‘around’) and the verb stem (yaa, yaa ɬ ‘go’) are a unit semantically). In ‘sit hooking’ and ‘lie hooking’ in (), the preverb taa ‘in water’ (Jetté and Jones : ) refers to the position of the hook rather than to where the subject of the verb is positioned.

Activity incorporates in some Athabaskan languages

163

along singing’ are not possible simplex event structures. Thus, the activity incorporate construction of Ahtna and Koyukon, with two events specified, is not a merger structure. The alternative structure proposed by Baker and Harvey is a coindexation structure. Coindexation constructions are multi-predicate constructions and not subject to the constraints that exist on simplex constructions. The Ahtna and Koyukon constructions are coindexation structures, and in general have properties of these, with the verb stem being one predicate and the activity incorporate the second. One type of coindexation structure is the serial verb construction, and the activity incorporate construction is similar to the serial verb construction in some ways. In work on the typology of serial verbs, Aikhenvald (: ) outlines a number of properties of such constructions. She says: A serial verb construction (SVC) is a sequence of verbs which act together as a single predicate, without any overt marker of coordination, subordination, or syntactic dependency of any other sort. Serial verb constructions describe what is conceptualized as a single event. They are monoclausal; their intonational properties are the same as those of a monoverbal clause, and they have just one tense, aspect, and polarity value. SVCs may also share core and other arguments. Each component of an SVC must be able to occur on its own.

The activity incorporate construction bears parallels to the serial verb construction: there is no overt marker of coordination, subordination, or syntactic dependency (section ...); the events are conceptualised as a single event in that simultaneity is an important characteristic of the construction; the construction is monoclausal, with phonological properties of a single phonological word (section ...); there is one marking for subject and aspect (sections ..., ...). The components can appear on their own, with one a verb and the other a noun. The construction is similar to a serial verb construction in other ways. Many languages have what Aikhenvald (: , –) calls an asymmetrical serial verb construction, a construction in which one of the verbs is from a grammatically or semantically restricted class (e.g. a motion or posture verb). This contrasts with a symmetrical serial verb construction where the verbs are from semantically and grammatically unrestricted classes. Asymmetrical constructions, Aikhenvald says, ‘denote a single event described by the verb from a non-restricted class. The verb from a closed class provides a modification specification: it is often a motion or posture verb expressing direction’ p. ). The activity incorporate construction is asymmetrical, with the verb of the motion or posture class and the noun of the class of oral activities. Both the verb and the noun are restricted, but in different ways. The construction differs from a serial verb construction in several ways. Most obviously is the fact that it does not involve two verbs, but a verb and

164

Rice

a noun. This has interesting consequences that differentiate the serial verb construction and the activity incorporate construction. Aikhenvald notes that in asymmetrical serial verb constructions, the ‘minor’ verb is from a closed class and the ‘major’ verb is from an open class and functions as the head of the construction, determining the transitivity of the construction as a whole (: ). This is not true of the construction under study. First, the minor verb counterpart is the head, and the major verb counterpart is a noun. Aikhenvald notes a tendency, in asymmetrical constructions, for the minor verb to undergo grammaticalisation in a variety of ways, developing into tense/aspect and mode, directionals, and adpositions, among others (pp. –). This has not occurred in the Athabaskan family. This can be attributed to the fact that, while the activity incorporate construction resembles the serial verb construction, it is composed of a verb and a noun. The verb is a light verb in content, but it nevertheless is the sole verb, and is retained as such, without another obvious candidate to be the head. The constraints on the serial verb construction are similar to those in other languages. First, as Aikhenvald discusses (: ), the most frequent verbs in a serial verb construction involve basic verbs of motion, posture, and stance. Thus, the verbs of the activity incorporate construction reflect a cross-linguistic tendency in the similar serial verb construction. In terms of the nouns, Aikhenvald (p. ) notes ‘combining verbs into an SVC may turn out to be unacceptable if they do not match a “recognizable event-type”’ and serial verb constructions ‘must relate only events which are somehow conceived as notably more commonly associated together in experience or those events which form a culturally important concatenation of events’. The choice of incorporates of oral activity as the major verb in a serial verb construction is common cross-linguistically, and thus it is not surprising that this restriction is found in the languages under study. The absence of some potential possibilities – for instance, forms such as ‘walk drinking’ and ‘go coughing’, might be due to difficulties of performing such events simultaneously, and may, perhaps, be attributable to cultural reasons. For instance, Jetté and Jones (: ) list a noun ‘sneezing’. Jetté and Jones (: ), citing Jetté, note the following of sneezing in Koyukon: ‘Sneezing is very decidedly ominous. From the left nostril, it is an ill omen … But from the right nostril, it is a presage of food and plenty.’ While one can imagine ‘entering sneezing’ or ‘sitting sneezing’, perhaps sneezing while engaged in something else is not seen as a recognisable event sub-type by speakers of Koyukon. Alternatively, this verb may not be considered to be a very good example of oral activity, so it might be ruled out by the constraints discussed earlier. . Summary and conclusion The activity incorporate construction is a complex predicate involving a verb and an incorporated noun of oral activity. The construction forms

Activity incorporates in some Athabaskan languages

165

a type of coindexation structure in the Baker and Harvey typology, with constraints on the predicates similar to those found on serial verb constructions in many languages. The incorporating frame, or verb, is a light verb that indicates motion or stance. The incorporated element, an activity noun formed by a non-productive conversion process, is restricted in that it relates to an intransitive predicate of oral activity. The combination of these is one that is likely to be of the relevance that Aikhenvald argues to characterise a serial verb construction. The study is based on dictionaries, and shows both the strengths of the dictionaries, and the limitations, particularly in determining just what absence means, and whether it has to do with formal constraints or lack of plausibility under real-world and cultural conditions. In a recent study on serial verb constructions in Lakota, a Siouan language of North America, de Reuse observes that heavily polysynthetic language families, including Athabascan, do not ‘need verb serialization much, since its functions can be carried out by affixation’ (: ). While the activity incorporate construction is not a serial verb construction, it is similar, and it is thus interesting that it exists at all, given de Reuse’s claim, since, as we have seen, there are alternative strategies available to express a meaning similar to that found in this construction.

This work is funded by the Canada Research Chair in Linguistics and Aboriginal Studies to Keren Rice. Thank you to Mengistu Amberber, Brett Baker, Henry Davis, and Mark Harvey for helpful comments, and to the participants at the conference for feedback.

References Aikhenvald, A. Y. . Serial Verb Constructions in Typological Perspective. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds) Serial Verb Constructions; A Crosslinguistic Typology, –. Oxford University Press. Arce-Arenales, M., Axelrod, M., and Fox, B. . Active Voice and Middle Diathesis: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. In Fox, B and Hopper, P. (eds) Voice: Form and Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Axelrod, M. . The Semantics of Time: Aspectual Categorization in Koyukon Athabaskan. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Baker, B. and Harvey, M., this volume. Complex Predicate Formation. Butt, M., this volume. The Light Verb Jungle: Still Hacking Away. de Reuse, W. . Serial Verbs in Lakota (Siouan). In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds) Serial Verb Constructions. A Ccross Linguistic Typology, –. Oxford University Press. Jelinek, E. and Willie, M. . Psych Verbs in Navajo. In Jelinek, E., Midgette, S., Rice, K., and Saxon, L. (eds) Athabaskan Language Studies. Essays in Honor of Robert W. Young. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

166

Rice

Jetté, J. . On the Language of the Ten’a. Microfilm AL:–, JOPA, Foley Library, Gonzaga University. Jetté, J. and Jones, E. . Koyukon Athabaskan Dictionary. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center. Kari, J. . Athabaskan Verb Theme Categories: Ahtna. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center Research Papers no. . . Ahtna Athabaskan Dictionary. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center. . Summary of the Contents and Other Conventions of the KAD. In Jules J. and Jones, E. Koyukon Athabaskan Dictionary xci–xciv. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center. Rice, K. a. Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope. Word Formation in the Athapaskan Verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. b. Voice and Valency in the Athapaskan family. In Dixon, R. M. W and Aikhenvald, A. Y. (eds) Case Studies in Transitivity, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . On the Evolution of Activity Incorporates in Athapaskan Languages. Diachronica : –. Rice, K. and Saxon, L. . Comparative Athapaskan Syntax: Arguments and Projections. In Guglielmo, C. and Kayne, R. (eds) Handbook of Comparative Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, C. . Aspectual Categories in Navajo. International Journal of American Linguistics : –. Speas, M. . Phrase Structure in Natural Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Thompson, C. . The Low Topicality Prefix k’i- in Koyukon. Studies in Language :  –. . The Na-Dene Middle Voice: An Impersonal Source of the D-element. International Journal of American Linguistics ,: –. Wilhelm, A. . Telicity and Durativity: A Study of Aspect in Dene Suɬiné (Chipewyan) and German. New York: Routledge.

7

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core* MARY LAUGHREN

. Introduction The morphosyntactic, semantic, and phonological properties of Warlpiri verbs have been investigated by a number of scholars including Hale (, ), Hale, Laughren, and Simpson (), Harvey and Baker (), Laughren (, ), Legate (, , ), Levin (), Nash (, ), Reimer (, , ), and Simpson (, ). This study will focus on that part of the verbal complex which I will refer to as the ‘thematic core’. It minimally consists of a thematic verb (V) which may be augmented by a non-inflecting preverbal (PV) element of a class which, following Nash , I will refer to as ‘lexical’: [(PVlexical])=V], or by PVs derived from other phrasal categories. I will argue that the thematic core of the larger verbal constituent ‘maps onto’ an event structure which represents * This work was supported by The University of Queensland Special Studies Program . The opportunity to collect additional Warlpiri data came from fieldwork support from ARC Linkage Grant LP . This study had the benefit of feedback on preliminary presentations to the Workshop on Complex Predication and the Coverb Construction at the Annual Meeting of the Australian Linguistic Society in July , in a Linguistics Seminar at Macquarie University in October , and at the Australian Languages Workshop, University of Sydney (Pearl Beach) in March . Thanks also to the very helpful feedback from an anonymous reviewer and the editors of this volume. This investigation would not be possible without the contribution of over  Warlpiri speakers to the documentation of their language over the past  years, and to the many linguists who have pooled their collective findings. I would like to dedicate this chapter to the memory of the late Professor Ken Hale who first inspired me to think more deeply about Warlpiri verbs all those years ago and to the late Kay Napaljarri Ross who devoted countless hours over some  years trying to help me to recognise their many faces. Shortcomings in the account given here are of my making.  Warlpiri is an Australian language spoken in the Tanami Desert region of the Northern Territory. The data is taken from the collection of Warlpiri oral and written texts compiled as part of the Warlpiri Dictionary Project, which includes Professor Ken Hale’s extensive collection of Warlpiri fieldnotes. It also includes data from the Warlpiri Dictionary (Laughren et al. ) and from fieldwork carried out by Laughren –. An extensive bibliography of linguistic studies on Warlpiri can be found at the website maintained by David Nash: www.anu.edu.au/linguistics/nash/aust/wlp/wlp-lx-ref.html.  The verbal lexicon of Warlpiri is limited to around  verb stems (Nash ). As would be expected, the meanings associated with Warlpiri thematic verbs are more general than their translation equivalents in languages such as English with its thousands of basic verbs. Finer shades of meaning are expressed by PVs.

167

168

Laughren

its predicate argument structure (PAS) and its Aktionsart properties. This study investigates the relationship between the PV and V forms which instantiate the thematic core, from the perspective of their individual and combined contribution to the underlying event structure. It also compares the event structure of ‘heavy verbs’ (HV) with their ‘light verb’ (LV) homophones, and also with synonymous PV-LV complex verbs. A question addressed in a number of relatively recent studies of similar complex verbs in a wide range of languages including Persian (e.g. KarimiDoostan , Megerdoomian , Folli, Harley, and Karimi , Goldberg , Ghomeshi and Massam  inter alia), Malagasy and Tagalog (e.g. Travis a, b, ), is whether the complex predicates are formed in the lexicon in a distinct word-formation component, or whether they are formed in the syntax. Like their Persian counterparts, Warlpiri complex verbs present a mix of idiosyncratic form to meaning mapping and systematic form–meaning associations. They also show evidence of syntactic independence between the PV and V such that each element is visible to syntactic processes they may participate in independently of the other. I will argue for a level of lexical event structure or L-Syntax in the sense of Hale and Keyser (, ), distinct from that of S-Syntax structure. An S-Syntax representation may map onto more than one event structure, e.g. intransitive monadic stance verbs may be mapped onto a causative event structure or a stative one; only those semantic elements of event structure which map onto elements of syntactic structure are treated as entailments, whereas elements of a predicate’s event structure which are not mapped onto elements of syntactic structure can only be interpreted as being presupposed. As documented for other languages, Warlpiri distinguishes predicates which express resultant states, such as rdilyki ‘broken’ which presupposes a change of a state brought about by some external cause, from those such as ngurrju ‘good’, which just express a state without presupposing it to be the result of a process of CHANGE. Both rdilyki and ngurrju nominals may combine with a verb to form a complex PV-V verb that expresses both CHANGE STATE or CAUSE CHANGE OF STATE events. However, the role of the verbs which combine with each type of predicative PV is different. In the case of rdilyki type PVs, the CAUSE CHANGE OF STATE event structure is part of the lexical entry of the PV, and the role of the lexical thematic V which combines with the PV is to express particular components of this eventive L-Structure, such as CHANGE or CAUSE CHANGE which are mapped onto the syntactic structure underpinning the surface PV-V constituent. The ngurrju type PVs, on the other hand, only project a stative L-Structure. This stative structure may be embedded in an aspectually dynamic eventive structure. The verbs which typically mark the mapping between the eventive L-Structure and and S-Structure are drawn from 

The analysis of other complex verb phenomena such as Germanic verb plus particle combinations have engendered similar debate (e.g. see chapters in Dehé et al. (eds) ).

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

169

a set of syntactic dependent light verbs. Thus Warlpiri distinguishes between lexical Vs which actualise CHANGE and CAUSE CHANGE functions in the event structure of a ‘result of change’ predicate, and syntactic LVs which map onto S-Structure positions corresponding to an aspectually dynamic event structure which incorporates that of a stative nominal. My analysis of the Warlpiri data presented in this chapter is more in line with the analysis of similar PV-V complex verbs in modern Persian given by Karimi-Doostan (), who places their formation partially in the L-Syntax and partially in the S-Syntax, as opposed to the more recent analyses of Megerdoomian () and Folli, Harley, and Karimi () who argue that complex verb formation is syntactic with surface forms the result of the mapping of phonological forms onto components of syntactic structure in a spellout phase. By rolling Hale and Keyser’s L-Syntax into a single S-Syntax component, the ability to account for mismatches between syntactic and semantic structure disappear and the price to be paid is a more and more elaborate syntactic representation which may still fail to capture syntactically relevant semantic contrasts. This study concentrates on complex verbs (and their simplex HV synonyms) which express a notion of change: change of stance, change of location, and change of state. Both inchoative and corresponding causative complex verbs are investigated. The exploration of a range of lexicalisation patterns (in the sense of Talmy ) found in both semi-productive and productive PV-LV combinations reveals evidence for distinctions in cause event type: ‘external’ ( John stood the vase on the table) versus ‘internal’ ( John stood up) (see Levin and Rappoport Hovav ( and ) for a detailed discussion of this distinction), and ‘eventive’ ( John hammered it flat) versus ‘situational’ (The sun burned it black) cause. The latter distinction, I will argue, is aspectual. Aspectual properties have been shown to be crucial to an understanding of the syntax of predicate argument stucture as reviewed by Arad (), and they play a crucial role in the formation of complex verbs (Folli, Harley, and Karimi a, Megerdoomian , Travis a). Warlpiri PV-LV combinations are sensitive to whether the end state expressed by the PV is momentary or enduring, or whether the PV itself presupposes a change of state in some entity or not. As in Persian complex verbs, the Warlpiri thematic V marks the argument structure of the complex verb with the strict division between transitive and intransitive verb forms seen with HVs also applying to LVs. 

Megerdoomian () argues for a unitary ‘agent’ subject of the cause predicate while Arad () distinguishes these two types of causing arguments. Arad calls our eventive cause ‘agentive’ and our situational cause ‘eventive’. I would argue that while this distinction must be made in L-Structure, it does not need to be made at S-Structure. The inability, for example, to interpret an instrumental phrase with a situational cause as opposed to an event one, would derive from the differing L-Structures, not from their intrinsic underlying S-Structure.

170

Laughren

Some studies of complex verbs consisting of a PV and V treat the V as uniformly ‘light’. The Warlpiri data show a continuum from HV to LV. Verbs which only seem to express the rather abstract predicates such as CHANGE and CAUSE need to be distinguished from those which express additional ‘manner’ features of both the CAUSE and CHANGE event. And these lexical thematic verbs must be distinguished from syntactic thematic verbs. Some verbs, I will argue, only check Aktionsart features within the thematic core structure. Among these are simplex ‘stance’ verbs in their copula use with syntactically independent nominal predicates. As stated already, I assume a level of event structure or conceptual structure (Jackendoff , Laughren , Levin and Rappaport , , , Pustejovsky , , inter alia) which is independent of particular syntactic categories. I also assume that the mapping between event structure and syntactic structure is constrained by properties of syntactic categories. Languages, including Warlpiri, may differ in the type of syntactic category – nominal, verbal, adjectival – which maps onto components of the same event structure. The event structure acts as a locus for the expression of syntactically relevant meaning components – an interface between the full semantic representation and its syntactic expression. The event structure I propose follows a long tradition of predicate decomposition. It also incorporates the Aktionsart features which underpin the Vendler () type classification. As well as interacting with clause-level aspectual features, it has been claimed that these lower-level Aktionsart features play an important role cross-linguistically in the mapping between semantic and syntactic representations (e.g. Pustejovsky , Ramchand , Tenny , , chapters in Tenny and Pustejovksy a, Van Valin , among others). In the event structure I propose, the relationship between a predicate and its ‘subject’ argument is mediated by Aktionsart features: the subject argument is in the specifier position of an Aktionsart phrase (AKTP) whose complement is the relevant predicate phrase (PredP) governed by the features in the head of the AKTP. The subject matter canvassed in this chapter will be presented in the following way. Section . sets out some of the basic facts about the morphological and syntactic properties of Warlpiri verbs – or more precisely, verbal complexes, establishing the criteria for distinguishing the ‘thematic core’ from the rest 

Travis (a) proposes an Aspect Phrase between her VP (equivalent to vP in minimalism literature) and VP structure which represents a conjunction of semantic and syntactic properties in a single structure reminiscent of the Generative Semantics tradition. Megerdoomian () takes this further in arguing for a number of aspect heads within the verbal projection (which involves more than one verbal head), such that an aspect phrase links each verb phrase to the one above it. My approach is a little different in that I am assuming that the relationship between an argument and its predicate is mediated by an aspectual head, such that the argument is in the specifier position of the Aktionsart (or VP internal aspect) phrase. Hoeskstra () explored the relation between Aktionsart and predication in his study of resultative predicates and causative constructions. Some of his insights inform this study.

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

171

of the verbal complex. Section . investigates the relationships between the elements which make up the ‘thematic core’ of verbal constituents, limiting the study to a stance/location/state predicate in the scope of CHANGE and CAUSE functions. Sets of verbal constituents with varying degrees of form–meaning transparency and productivity are examined. Section . proposes a representation of the event structure expressed by the simplex and complex verb forms seen in section ., and shows how this event structure relates to the semantic properties of verbal, nominal, and postpositional predicates. Section . discusses some syntactic properties of the PV-V complexes discussed in previous sections, showing a contrast between compound PV-V structures and phrasal ones. A summary of findings is presented in section .. .

Structure of Warlpiri verbal complex

Before launching into a discussion of the interaction between the semantic and morphosyntactic properties of Warlpiri verbs, it is important to set out some basic facts about their formal properties and to distinguish between different types of verbs which may be found in a single verbal constituent. .. Inflecting verb What I refer to as a verb in this paper is a member of a closed class of bound morphemes which may host a suffix which marks tense or mood contrasts thus creating a finite inflected verb, or which may host a suffix which derives non-finite stems: infinitive (VINF) and participial (PRT). Verb stems fall into one of  main conjugation classes according to the formal properties of the set of inflectional and derivational suffixes they host. The minimal stems (or roots) of conjugation , , and a verbs are polysyllabic, while conjugation b, , and  verbs have monosyllabic stems. Conjugation  verb roots belong to two paradigms (a and b) depending on their stem form: stem = root+nja in a, stem = root in b. By comparison with the other conjugations, each of the conjugation  paradigms is defective. Warlpiri has no default conjugation akin to English ‘weak’ verbs or French er verbs. Nor is there any synchronic process of conversion or ‘zero’ derivation to create verbs from other word or stem classes. There is no productive verb formation, only productive complex verb formation involving the association of a non-verbal PV with a V. Partial verbal paradigms in () to () illustrate some of these formal properties of Warlpiri verbs.   

A noun may also be derived from a verbal stem by application of the nomic suffix (similar to English -er derived nouns) (see Nash ). This parallels the behaviour of certain cognate verbs reconstructed in non-Pama-Nyungan Arnhemland languages by Green () (see also Alpher, Evans, and Harvey ). The full range of Warlpiri verbal inflections classified into conjugation paradigms is given in Appendix .

172

()

()





Laughren

Conjugation  verb forms: karri-

‘stand’

bound stem = root

karri-

‘stand-PRT’

uninflected bound stem (participle PRT)

karri

‘stand-NPST’

uninflected word

karri-mi

‘stand-NPST’

inflected word

karri-nja-

‘stand-INF’

inflected bound stem (infinitive VINF)

karri-nya

‘stand-PRSTV’

inflected word (presentative)

karri-ja

‘stand-PST’

inflected word

karri-ji

‘stand-FUT’

inflected word

karri-ya

‘stand-IMP’

inflected word

karri-yarla

‘stand-IRR’

inflected word

Conjugation  verb forms: paka-

‘hit’

bound stem = root

paka-rni-

‘hit-PRT’

inflected bound stem

paka-rni

‘hit-NPST’

inflected word

paka-rni-nja-

‘hit-INF’

inflected bound stem

paka-rni-nya

‘hit-PRSTV’

inflected word

paka-rnu

‘hit-PST’

inflected word

paka-ku

‘hit-FUT’

Inflected word

paka-ka

‘hit-IMP’

inflected word

paka-karla

‘hit-IRR’

inflected word

Abbreviations used in glossing Warlpiri examples:  = FIRST PERSON,  = SECOND PERSON,  = THIRD PERSON, ALLAT = ALLATIVE, ANAPH = ANAPHOR, AUX = AUXILIARY, CS = CHANGED STATE, DAT = DATIVE, DIR = DIRECTIONAL, DU = DUAL, ERG = ERGATIVE, EXCL = EXCLUSIVE, FUT = FUTURE, IMP = IMPERATIVE, IMPF = IMPERFECTIVE, INCEP = INCEPTIVE, INCH = INCHOATIVE, INCL = INCLUSIVE, INF = INFINITIVE, IRR = IRREALIS, LOC = LOCATIVE, NPST = NON-PAST, O = OBJECT, PL = PLURAL, PR = PRIOR STATE, PRS = PRESENT, PRSTV = PRESENTATIVE, PRT = PARTICIPLE, PST = PAST, PURPD = PURPOSEFUL DISPLACEMENT, REFL = REFLEXIVE, S = SUBJECT, SG = SINGULAR, SS = SAME STATE, SUBJCOMP = SUBJECTIVE COMPLEMENTIZER, VINF = INFINITIVAL VERB.

The inflected and uninflected non-past forms for conjugation  verbs seem to be in free variation in all dialects. The inflected -mi form derives from an historic potential or future form maintained in Warlmanpa (Nash ).

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

()

173

a. Conjugation a verb forms: yi.nja-

‘go & give’

bound stem

yi.nja-ni-

‘go & give-PRT’

inflected bound stem

yi.nja-ni

‘go & give-NPST’

inflected word

yi.nja-ni-nja-

‘go & give-INF’

inflected bound stem

yi.nja-nu

‘go & give-PST’

inflected word

yi.nja-nku

‘go & give-FUT’

inflected word

yi.nja-nka

‘go & give-IMP’

inflected word

yi.nja-nka.rla

‘go & give-IRR’

inflected word

(No PRESENTATIVE form) b.

Conjugation b verb forms:

(No PARTICIPLE form) yi/yu-

‘give’

bound stem = root

yi-nyi

‘give-NPST’

inflected word

yi-nja-

‘give-INF’

inflected bound stem

yu-ngu

‘give-PST’

inflected word

yu-ngku

‘give-FUT’

inflected word

yu-ngka

‘give-IMP’

inflected word

yu-ngka.rla

‘give-IRR’

inflected word

yu.nga-nya

‘give-PRSTV

inflected word

For all verbs, with the exception of conjugation b forms, the bound participle form is phonologically equivalent to the non-past form, and constitutes the infinitive stem. In the polysyllabic root conjugations  and , and in conjugation  (with its sole member, nga- ‘eat/drink’), the participial form also constitutes the stem for the presentative inflection (used in similar contexts to the English There VERBS xNP, There xPRON VERBS). Monosyllabic root conjugations b and , on the other hand, have distinctive presentative forms involving the historically augmented stems, e.g. yu.nga- ‘give’ b and ya.na- ‘go’ , which host the presentative suffix nya. The non-finite VINF and PRT forms which constitute the stems of inflected verbs are in complementary distribution. The PRT serves as the stem for inflections such as ‘presentative’ (PRSTV) and ‘infinitive’ (INF) and hosts the 

The full stop/period in yi.nja and elsewhere marks an etymological morpheme boundary which is synchronically inactive.

174

Laughren

defective inceptive aspectual verb -nji(na)-. The VINF, on the other hand, behaves like a nominal stem. It may host postpositions and/or case-marking suffixes. As we will see in section . it may also function as a PV with both thematic and aspectual verbs. .. Thematic verbs versus aspectual verbs Thematic verbs express argument-taking predicates and once inflected may constitute what I will refer to as an independent HV as seen in (a–c), or as a LV in (a’–c’). () a.

karri -

STAND (x)

a′.

pata-karri

b.

paka-

HIT (x,y)

b′.

rdilyki-paka- HIT & BREAK(x,y)

c.

yi- ~ yu-

GIVE (x,y,z)

c′.

pina-yi~yu-

FALL(x) SHOW, TEACH (x,y,z)

In (a′–c′) the thematic LVs contribute to the expression of argumenttaking predicates along with a non-inflecting preverbal constituent (PV), forming a morphologically (and syntactically) complex verbal thematic core. As seen in the studies of Persian PV-LV combinations referred to in section ., the LV marks the argument structure or valency of the complex predicate. The examples in () show that homophonous and semantically related HV and LVs have the same valency even though they may differ in other elements of their meaning. As we will see in sections . and ., the meaning contribution of an LV tends to differ more from its HV counterpart in intransitive PV-V combinations, than in transitive ones. Aspectual verbs combine with a thematic or another aspectual verb in either its VINF or PRT form as determined by the aspectual verb. Aspectual verbs do not express argument-taking predicates; they serve to modify mainly spatio-temporal properties of the situation or event denoted by the thematic core of the verbal constituent they are part of. Unlike the rather selective relationship between a PV and thematic verb within the thematic core, the combination of a thematic verb with an aspectual verb is totally productive.





Inceptive -nji- is the only Warlpiri verb to have retained the formal distinction between a perfective (unmarked) and imperfective (marked by a stem augmenting suffix -na) verb form retained in all other languages of the Ngumpin-Yapa group (McConvell and Laughren ) as a productive part of their verbal morphology. This verb is also defective and the failure of its inflectional paradigm to match that of any other verb has led me to place it in a sixth conjugation (Appendix , Table B). In Lander River Warlpiri (Willowra), pina-yinyi ‘teach, show’ and yinyi ‘give’ both have three arguments, but they express them differently: NPSUBJ show NPDO PPINST (like English ‘X furnish Y with Z’); NPSUBJ give NPDO NPIOdat.

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

175

Two of the Warlpiri aspectual verbs, ya- and parnka-, are homophonous with thematic HV counterparts, ya- ‘go, leave’ illustrated in (a, e) and parnka- ‘move rapidly’. When used as an aspectual verb, -ya- must combine with the VINF form of the immediately preceding verb and it expresses a notion that I label as ‘path’. It may infer associated motion (VERB while moving along), or a progressive aspect (VERBING through time) or it may infer a linear spatial configuration of multiple entities (VERB arrayed along a path) (see Simpson ). Another aspectual verb is the inceptive -nji- (go and VERB) which has no thematic verb homophone. This inceptive verb must be suffixed to the participial form of the immediately preceding verb, be it thematic as in (b, d) or aspectual as in (e). Note that (e) contains both the aspectual ‘path’ verb ya- and the inceptive nji-. The ‘purposeful displacement’ aspectual verb parnka- is like aspectual ya- in that it encliticises to the VINF form of the preceding verb as shown in (f). ()

a. b.

karri-nja-] = ya-ni stand-INF] =PATH-NPST

‘stand along’

karri-]- nji-ni stand(PRT)]-INCEP-NPST

‘go and stand’

c. paka-rninja-] = ya-ni hit-INF] = PATH-NPST

‘hit along’

d. paka-rni-]- nji-ni hit-PRT] –INCEP-NPST

‘go and hit’

e. f.

paka-rninja-]= ya-ni]- nji-ni hit-INF] = PATH-PRT]-INCEP-NPST ma-ninja=parnka-ja get-INF]=PURPD-PST

‘go and hit along’ ‘went expressly to get (something)’

The VINF and PRT verb forms are never free-standing; they must be incorporated into a larger constituent. In complex verbal constituents such as those in (), it is the final or rightmost verb which inflects to mark finite or non-finite properties; the other verb forms are invariant. This structure is of course analogous (although as a mirror image) to the English complex of auxiliary verb(s) and lexical verb in which only the initial or leftmost verb may inflect for tense values while the form of each following verb is determined by the category of the preceding verb. The thematic verb is always the first verb in a Warlpiri verbal complex. 

As when person goes out hunting for game, more than one act of animal killing (= ‘striking’) typically occurs – person goes and kills one animal then continues along and kills another and so on.

176

Laughren

The contrast between ‘-’ and ‘=’ in () represents the contrast in the formal relationship between the VINF and following verb and the PRT and following verb. While no element may intervene between the PRT and inceptive nji-, as shown by (d, f), the relationship between the VINF and following verb is much looser: they may be separated by directional enclitics (DIR) and/ or by the auxiliary (AUX) complex of tense/aspect morpheme and pronominal clitics (Hale, Laughren, and Simpson , Laughren ) as shown in (b, e). ()

a. b.

luwa-rninja=ya-ni=rra pelt-INF=PATH-NPST=THITHER

ka AUX:PRS

luwa-rninja=rra ya-ni ka pelt-INF=thither PATH-NPST AUX:PRS ‘It (e.g. lightning) is striking (it) as it moves away (from speaker).’

c. luwa-rni-nji-ni =rra ka pelt-PRT-INCP-NPST = THITHER AUX:PRS ‘(He) is going off to shoot.’ d.

*luwa-rni=rra -nji-ni pelt-PRT= thither-INCP-NPST

ka AUX:PRS

e. wari-rninja=rra ka ya-ni coil_around-INF=THITHER AUX: PRS go:PROG-NPST ‘(It) is coiling around (it) as it moves away.’ f.

*wari-rni coil_around-PRT

ka AUX:PRS

-nji-ni -INCP-NPST

.. Independent verbs versus dependent verbs While most LVs are homophonous with independent HVs, there is also a small subset of verb forms which only operate as LVs. These are dependent light verbs. Aspectual verbs are always dependent verbs even though they may be homophonous with heavy and/or light thematic verbs, e.g. ya-ni, parnka. Thematic ya- operates as an HV in (a), while aspectual LV -ya- figures in (b). In (c) aspectual LV -ya-ni combines with thematic HV ya-ninja in its VINF form. In (d) -ya- operates as a thematic LV in combination with the invariant lexical PV tarda. 

Directional deictic enclitics are =rra ‘thither’, =rni ‘hither’ and =mpa ‘across, by’.

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

()

a.

Ya-ni ka=lu.

177

‘They go.’

(Independent thematic HV)

‘They are standing along.’

(Dependent aspectual LV)

go-NPST AUX=PL.S b. Karri-nja=ya-ni ka-lu.

stand-INF=PATH-NPST AUX=PL.S c. Ya-ni.nja=ya-ni ka=lu. ‘They are going along.’ go-INF=PATH-NPSTAUX=PL.S d. Tarda=ya-ni ka =lu.

(Thematic HV= Aspectual LV)

‘They are landing/sitting.’ (Dependant thematic LV)

PV=go-NPST AUX=PL.S

Thematic verbs fall into both classes: independent and dependent. Independent verbs used with a PV may be semantically ‘heavy’ or ‘light’. Dependent verbs are always semantically ‘light’. The ‘productive’ dependent LVs -jarri- and ma- in (a, b) express only the Aktionsart and PAS properties of the complex predicate. It is the preverbal nominal predicate wiri ‘big’ which expresses the state of affairs; the dependent LVs signal that this state of affairs is to be interpreted as the result of CHANGE, and the contrasting forms mark whether a causing event is entailed (i.e. with -ma-) or not (i.e. with -jarri). Unlike the English verbs get and make as used in the phrasal constructions translating (a, b), neither jarri- nor ma- has a corresponding independent HV form. These ‘syntactic’ verbs – or verbalisers – map directly onto syntactic ‘heads’ and do not project an intrinsic lexical event structure. ()

a. Wiri-jarri-ja

‘(It) got bigger.’

(PV-Dependent verb)

‘(It/he/she) made (it) bigger.’

(PV-Dependent verb)

big-INCH-PST b. Wiri-ma-nu. big-CAUSE-PST

..

c.

*jarri-ja

d.

# ma-nu.

Verbal constituent

... Thematic structure The minimal or simplex verbal constituent consists of one inflected thematic HV such as ya-ni in (a) or the verbs in (a–c). A thematic LV may be 



Warlpiri independent ma- verb ‘get, obtain, pick up’ may be the historical source of the independent verb. Both are conjugation  verbs and mark transitive predicates. For convenience’ sake I label these verbs as inchoative and causative, but these ‘meanings’ are not a direct property of these verbs. The meaning derives from the combination of the Aktionsart features of the PV with the requirement that PV-V thematic core must be dynamic, and the PAS, signalled by the LV form. (d) is grammatical interpreted as HV meaning ‘get/pick up-PST’ (He/she/it got (it)).

178

Laughren

augmented by a non-inflecting preverbal element as in (a'–c'). The PV in (a'–c') belongs, along with the thematic verb it combines with, to the thematic core of the complex verbal constituent. The thematic core is the obligatory ‘inner’ part of the thematic structure component of a verbal complex; this thematic structure component may be augmented by outer modifiying elements in what I call the thematic periphery. The class of PV exemplified in (a') and in () was classified by Nash () as ‘lexical’ because it tends to combine with a thematic LV in an operation of limited productivity and semantic transparency. Nash () also distinguishes a limited class of what he calls ‘semi-productive’ PVs including the non-productive negative kanginy(pa) ‘fail to perceive’, which forms a semantically opaque complex verb with the thematic LV pinyi in (a), or modifies a PVlexical=V complex in (b). ()

a. kanginy-pinyi b. kanginy-[purda-nyanyi] c. purda-nyanyi d. nyanyi e. parlu-pinyi f. milya-pinyi g. pinyi

‘fail to recognise’ ‘fail to hear’ ‘hear, listen to’ ‘see, look at, find, look for’ ‘see, look at, find’ ‘recognise’ ≠ ‘perceive’ (= ‘strike, hit, bite, sting, attack’)

Used as an independent HV as in (g), pinyi cannot denote an act of perception; its typical interpretation is as a dyadic ‘impact-by-contact’ verb as indicated by the list of English glosses in parentheses in (g), although it also has a semantically ‘lighter’ do/make interpretation in certain contexts not discussed herein. It is only the presence of one of a small set of lexical PVs such as kanginy-, milya, and parlu with which pinyi forms a complex verbal constituent in (a, e, f) which results in the formation of a complex verb denoting an act of perception. The contribution of pinyi to (a, e, f) is to provide a legitimate V host for the expression of tense/mood inflection, while it also signals that the PV-pinyi complex verb expresses a transitive 

 

I retain Nash’s use of the term ‘lexical’ PV without wanting to claim that this class of PVs necessarily combines with a LV in the lexicon as opposed to the syntactic component. Nash () also used this term to distinguish basic PVs from derived forms. As will be shown in section ., both ‘basic’ and derived PVs show the same syntactic behaviour with respect to the LV they combine with. As Nash’s classification of PVs is well known in Warlpiri linguistics, I retain its use. I consider kanginy to also belong to the ‘lexical’ PV class. As an independent verb as in (g), pinyi is semantically quite ‘light’ compared with other ‘impact-by-contact’ verbs which encode specific information about the nature of the impact. This will be pursued in section ..

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

179

two-place predicate. It is kanginy- which forces the ‘fail to perceive’ meaning in (a). In (b) it is the PV purda- which serves to specify the type of perception act, while the V nyanyi expresses a general notion of ‘perception’ in combination with the PV, although as an independent HV in (d) nyanyi has the narrower interpretation ‘perceive with sight/eye’. The PV’s parlu and milya – like kanginy in combination with pinyi – express the ‘perception’ element of meaning, while pinyi indicates the transitive properties of the complex predicate. The PV-LV combinations which form the thematic core of a verbal complex vary along a productivity scale from being ‘fixed’ expressions to wholely productive. Similarly they also range along a semantic transparency scale from opaque to transparent where the meaning of the complex constituent derives in a straightforward way from the sum of the meaning associated with each part. We can distinguish two types of PV which combine with a LV to form the thematic core: underived or basic PVs which belong to Nash’s ‘lexical’ and ‘semi-productive’ PV classes, and derived PVs. Examples of both types will be examined in sections .–.. ... Thematic periphery The thematic core of a verbal constituent may be further augmented and modified by a closed set of ‘outer’ non-inflecting preverbal or coverbal words which Nash () places in one of three distinct classes: quantificational, adverbial, and dative adjunct. These sit outside of the inner thematic core as shown in (). ()

PVquantificational = PVadverbial = PVdative adjunct = [PVsemi-productive = [PVlexical = [V-]]] PERIPHERY OF THEMATIC STRUCTURE [THEMATIC CORE]

As noted by Nash (), the association of outer PVs is totally productive, whereas the relationship between the inner ‘lexical’ and ‘semi-productive’ PVs and the inflecting verb is restricted semantically, morphologically, syntactically, and phonologically. PVs in the thematic core are distinguished syntactically from the three types of PV found in the thematic periphery: (i) PV in thematic core may not be postposed to the thematic V; PV in thematic periphery may be pre- or postposed to the thematic V;  

In () all verbs are in their non-past (NPST) form which is also their citation form. Hale (), Nash (), Simpson (), and Simpson and Bresnan () clearly show that different syntactic relationships are set up between non-verbal constituents associated with the lower VP than with adjunct dative/applicative constituents associated with the upper VP, especially in terms of pronominal agreement and control structures.

180

Laughren

(ii) order of PVs within the thematic core is fixed; order of PV in the thematic periphery is variable. The complex verbal constituents in () illustrate the varying order of peripheral PVs relative to each other and to the (strictly ordered) thematic core contained inside square brackets. ()

a.

muku= [ yiily-nga-] rnu jurnta

PVquantificational=[PVlexical-V-] INFL PVdative adjunct

‘used up all on (someone)’ b.

muku=jurnta= [walku-jarri-] ja

PVquantificational=PVdative adjunct=[PVlexical-V-] INFL

‘all ran out on’ c.

[ yiily-nga- ] rnu muku

[PVlexical-V-] INFL PVquantificational

‘used up all’ d.

yarda=pina= [ ya- ] nu

PVquantificational=PVadverbial=[V-] INFL

‘go back again’ e.

jurnta= [tarda-ya- ] nu pina

PVdative adjunct

=[V-] INFL PVadverbial

‘sat/landed back away (from)’

In a finite clause, the thematic core, represented by the lower verbal constituent (VC) in Figure , along with the outer PVs in the higher VC in Figure ., lie within the scope of verbal inflectional categories – tense and mood – and in turn in the scope of a directional clitic which indicates the spatial orientation of the event or situation expressed by the rest of the complex verbal constituent relative to the speaker (Nash , Laughren ). Figure . shows a structure in which the deictic Directional Phrase (DIRP) dominates a three-part structure: inflectional (either with finite or non-finite values), aspectual, and thematic. The thematic core of the verbal constituent expresses the complex of predicate argument relations which are represented in the hierarchical event structures proposed in section .. In Figure ., I use the symbol VC (verbal constituent) rather than VP as a 





Many inner PVs have two allomorphs, a consonant final root form (e.g. kanginy) which cannot constitute an independent phonological word, and an augmented root-pa form (e.g. kanginypa) which can enter a looser phrasal relationship with the following verb; some adverbial PVs have similar dual forms. The word-like adverbial PV can be postposed to the verb unlike inner word-like PVs (see further discussion in section .). Directional clitics may only be hosted by an element of the verbal constituent (dominated by upper VC in Figure .), but there is some variation in its placement as illustrated by (i)–(iv), in which the adverbial PV or the V may host rra ‘thither’ irrespective of the relative order of PV and V (see Laughren () for more details). i. Pina ya-nu=rra. back go-PST=thither ii. Yanu=rra pina. iii. Pina=rra ya-nu. iv. Ya-nu pina=rra. ‘Went back (away from speaker’s location).’ No Voice Phrase is included in Figure . because voice alternations (passive, antipassive, middle, etc.) are not found in finite clauses. I don’t exclude, however, the possibility that Voice may play a part in Warlpiri verbal and clausal grammar.

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

181

Spatial deixis structure

DI R P

MoodP Inflectional structure TenseP IncepP (-nji) PathP (-ya-)

Aspectual structure

PurpDisP (-parnka-)

VC2 ((PVs), VC1-)

Thematic & Aktionsart structure

Thematic periphery

VC1 ((PV), V-) Thematic core

Figure . Morphosyntactic structure of the Warlpiri inflected verbal constituent (finite).

theory-neutral term for a constituent to be interpreted as a place-holder for the phrasal categories which dominate the ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ components of thematic structure realised within the verbal complex. I am assuming that the surface ordering of inflectional morphemes, which presents the mirror image of the scopal relationships shown in Figure ., derives through successive checking of features in each immediately c-commanding inflectional head. Phrasal constituents move into specifier positions as features are checked. The morphologically complex verbal constituent in () illustrates the structure in Figure . in which the thematic material is embedded in the aspectual (Purposive Displacement, Path, Inceptive) and inflectional (Tense, Mood) structures. () [[[[[Pina- [ pata- [karri-nja]]] -ya-ni] -nji] -ni] -rra] back-down-stand-INF-PATH-PRT-INCP-NPST-THITHER [DIR [ INFL[[ASPECT [THEMATIC STRUCTUREPVADV [THEMATIC COREPVLEX-[LV-INF]]] LV-PRT]-LV] T/M] DIR] ‘falling as (it) moves back (where it came from)’ (e.g. of rain) Alternative analyses of the surface structure of the verbal complex in (), which allow for the variant positions of the PV constituents, will be

182

Laughren

entertained when I return to a discussion of the morphosyntactic properties of the complex verbal constituent in section .. The main focus of this study is on the event structure of verbs of CHANGE, both causative and inchoative, expressed by the thematic core elements represented by the lower VC in Figure .. Phonological reflexes of the arguments in the corresponding event structure are not present in the surface verbal constituent, which is not to deny the presence of argument positions within the syntactic structure represented by the VC constituents in Figure .. In finite clauses, arguments are realised as pronominal enclitics in the higher AUX constituent headed by functional categories marking clausal aspect and tense, as opposed to the verbal aspectual and inflectional categories represented in Figure .. The values associated with the AUX functional categories must be compatible with the values associated with the corresponding lower verbal inflectional categories, and with the predicate argument structure defined in the thematic structure of the verbal complex. Modal features are expressed in COMP. COMP and AUX morphemes form a word-like constituent. Additional properties of arguments may be expressed by syntactically optional nominal phrases linked by case to a particular argument position. These case phrases may be in any position relative to the inflected verbal constituent represented by Figure ., hence the much discussed free word order of Warlpiri (e.g. Hale , Jelinek , Laughren , Legate , Nash , Simpson ). . Meaning–form mapping within the inner thematic core This section examines a series of thematic core structures corresponding to either V, VINF-V, or PVlex-V. My aim is to determine the respective roles of each constituent, starting with complex verbs in which an infinitival verb form (VINF) functions as a PV in combination with a following V. In section .., I compare stative uses of STANCE verbs with their CHANGE STANCE and CAUSE CHANGE STANCE counterparts. In section .., I compare these with CHANGE OF LOCATION V and PV-V constituents. I return in section .. to STANCE predicates and compare PV-V forms with the VINF-V and V forms seen in section .. and with the PV-V CHANGE LOCATION verbs. ..

VINF -V

verbal complex

The first class of predicates I examine feature ‘stance’ verbs. Consider the data in ().  

INF indicates the infinitival verbal inflection, whereas VINF indicates a verb form consisting of a stem and the infinitival suffix -nja. These ‘stance’ verbs correspond to a subset of Levin’s English ‘verbs of spatial configuration’ (Levin ).

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

() a.

183

[karri ]-mi

(stand-NPST)

‘stand, stop’ (x)

b.

[karri-nja- [ pardi]]-mi

(stand-INF-rise-NPST)

‘stand up, arise’ (x)

c.

[karri-nja-[ yirra]] -rni

(stand-INF-put-NPST)

‘put in standing position’ (x,y)

d.

[karri-nja]-parnka -mi

(stand-INF-run-NPST)

‘go purposefully to stand’ (x)

e.

[karri-nja]-ya-ni

(stand-INF-go-NPST)

‘stand along’ (x) 

In (a–e) the thematic core of the verbal constituent falls within the outermost square brackets. The HV karri in (a) is directly inflected for tense and heads a verbal projection, whereas in its VINF form in (b–c) it constitutes a derived PV which combines with the underscored thematic V. These thematic Vs mark the contrast in predicate argument structure (PAS) associated with each of these verbal constituents. In (d, e) the HV karri- in its VINF form constitutes the thematic core. The inflected aspectual verbs, parnkaand ya-, are outside the thematic core as indicated by their non-enclosure in square brackets – they freely associate with the thematic core and make no contribution to its PAS. These aspectual verbs express event modifying aspectual values: ‘purposeful displacement’ in (d) and ‘path’ in (e). ... Thematic versus aspectual verbs One may ask whether the dichotomy between thematic and aspectual domains is as clear-cut as presented thus far. For example, (a) is aspectually ambiguous. While Warlpiri verbs do not express individual-level stative predicates (Hale , Simpson ), karri- has several possible interpretations, as set out in (), in which ‘>’ is to be read as ‘changes to’. Only one of these readings corresponds to a stage-level predicate. ()

  

karri(a) stage-level predicate [be in standing position (x)] ‘stand’ (b) negative achievement predicate with polar opposite presupposition (underlined): [move (x) > (NOT move (x)) & (be standing(x))] (=cease/not continue to move & come to be in standing position) ‘halt, come to a standstill, stop’

The sequence of INF-PATH /-nja-ya-/ is pronounced with long [a:] due to elision of /y/, e.g. /k’arrinj’aani/. From () onwards no distinction will be made between different types of constituentinternal morpheme boundaries, marking all with a hyphen, unless otherwise indicated. The meanings of karri- set out in () are not exhaustive. The ‘copula’ use of stance verbs is discussed in section ..

184

Laughren

(c)

negative stage-level predicate: NOT [(NOT move (x)) & (stand (x)) > move (x) & NOT stand (x)] (=continue to/not cease to stand; not change from stationary standing position) ‘remain standing, stay, wait’

For clarity of exposition, it is useful to distinguish syntactic aspect from lexical aspect or Aktionsart (Tenny and Pustejovsky b). I will use (verbal) aspect for the semantic properties marked by the aspectual verbs briefly discussed in section ., and Aktionsart for the aspectual properties integral to the verbal thematic core. This distinction is useful even though Aktionsart features interact with syntactic aspectual categories in ways that have been extensively documented in other languages. For example, the addition of a ‘path’ aspectual verb to a semelfactive as opposed to an achievement predicate produces different interpretations, i.e. iterative sub-events as opposed to durative event, while the addition of an inceptive verb forces an homogenous predicate to be viewed as a succession of stages, focusing on the initiation stage. Unlike other ‘stance’ HVs such as nguna- ‘lie’, nyina- ‘sit’, parntarri- ‘crouch over’, which express an additional positive achievement reading, ‘x come to be in a lying/sitting/crouching position’ [NOT lie/sit/crouch (x) > lie/sit/ crouch (x)], karri- does not permit this reading even where embedded under an  INCEP verb or an imperative mood. To express a positive achievement reading ‘move into a standing position’ karri- combines with a ‘path’ or ‘change location’ verb pardi- ‘rise’, with the resultant stance expressed by the de-infinitival PV karrinja as in (b). The verb pardi- in (b) is not a pure ‘change’ verb as it also expresses semantic information about the nature of the PATH (upwards) travelled by (part of) x (relative to other parts of x) in order to achieve a standing position. We can compare pardi- ‘move upwards/out of’ in (b) with wanti‘move downwards/into’ in (b) to see the expression of this semantic contrast of the PATH orientation, an observation we will return to in section ... While nguna- ‘lie’ (like nyina- ‘sit’) may be ambiguous between stage-level predicate (constituting with its argument a situation in my terminology) and achievement (event involving a change of stance/position), this ambiguity can be resolved by a complex construction parallel to that seen in (b) (stance INF-path V). Interestingly, the compound pattern for the change of stance reading seen in (b) and (b) is rarely employed with nyina- ‘sit’, although I have also recorded nyina-nja-wanti ‘sit down’.  

With respect to Warlpiri, verbal aspect is distinct from clausal aspect expressed by auxiliary morphemes in finite clauses. Warlpiri stance verbs nyina- ‘sit’ and nguna ‘lie’ differ from neighbouring Western Desert language simplex stance verbs which do not allow a positive achievement meaning; they must form compounds with a ‘change of location’ verb, e.g. Ngaanyajarra nyina ‘be seated’, nyina-kati ‘come to be seated’; ngarri ‘be lying’, ngarri-kati ‘lie down’ (Glass and Hackett ). Note that ‘move into standing position’ paka- is distinct from ‘be standing, stop, wait’ ngara. (Levin and Rappaport () comment on the variation in lexical forms for this class of verbs cross-linguistically.)

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

185

() a.

nguna ‘be in lying position’/‘come to be in lying position’/‘continue to lie’ b. nguna-nja- [wanti] -mi ‘move into lying position, typically by downward movement’ c. nguna-nja- [ yirra] -rni ‘cause to come to be in lying position’

The interpretation of the VINF stance verb preposed to the transitive ‘put’ verb yirra-rni in (c) and (c) embeds the achievement ‘change of stance’ within the structure projected by the CAUSE predicate expressed by yirra-rni (see Carter () for a relevant discussion of the relationship between CAUSE and CHANGE). The expression of the semantic relationship between the preverbal VINF and the finite verb in (b–c) and (b–c) is fairly transparent. These combinations of VINF-V are also productive; the infinitive stance verb expresses the resultative complement of the CHANGE predicate expressed by verbs pardi- in (b) and wanti- in (b), or of the CAUSE CHANGE predicate complex expressed by yirra-rni ‘put’ in (c) and (c). In (b) and (b) the change of stance is internally controlled, whereas in (c) and (c) it is externally controlled. ... Contrasting properties of HV and LV homophones The HV wanti- ‘fall’ is not a hypernym of the complex ngunanja-wanti in (b). As an independent verb, wanti- ‘fall’ (move downwards under force of gravity) contrasts with jiti- ‘descend, climb down/out of’ (move downwards under one’s control). Although ngunanja-wanti in (b) typically denotes an event in which some entity moves into a lying position under its own control while independent wanti- does not imply controlled motion, but rather presupposes some unnamed external cause, ngunanjajiti- (containing the controlled downward motion verb jiti-) is not used as a synonym for (b). The verb pardi- ‘rise’ exhibits the same behaviour; as a non-control directed motion HV it contrasts with the controlled directed motion HV warrka-rni ‘climb up, get (up) into’. In (b) (and in many other INF-pardi complex verbs), pardi functions within a controlled motion PV-LV (where the de-infinitival PV expresses the end stance). 

 

 

The stance verb parntarri- ‘crouch over’ may also combine with –wanti to express the nguna- ‘lie’, parntarri- may express both ‘be in

CHANGE STANCE meaning, although, like STANCE’ and ‘CHANGE STANCE’ meanings.

Independent yirra-rni means ‘x cause y to come to be at some location’ and also ‘x keep y at a location’; similarly ngunanja-yirrarni can also mean ‘cause to continue to lie at’. In preserving the CHANGE component in the scope of CAUSE I agree with Levin and Rappaport () and Megerdoomian () and disagree with Folli, Harley, and Karimi (), who argue for the non-existence of a CHANGE event in the scope of a CAUSE predicate. Finnish (Pylkkänen ) has overt ‘cause’ and ‘change’ morphemes in verbal complexes. PV-wanti complex verbs such as yakarl-wanti ‘duck down’ also express internally caused change of stance/location events. This notion of control is extensively discussed by Hoekstra (), Levin and Rappaport Hovav (), and Smith (), inter alia.

186

Laughren

As previously documented for Warlpiri, and for other languages, the relationship between form and meaning for an independent HV and its homophonous dependent LV counterpart may differ, as in these cases. One of our tasks is to discern in which cases the control element is present and in which it is not, and how it should be represented. While signalling a change of stance involving directed motion (‘up’ vs. ‘down’) in VINF-V complex verbs, pardi and wanti also signal that the change is not externally caused – there is no event external to the change event which acts as the cause of change – a feature of ‘achievements’ as opposed to ‘accomplishments’ in Vendler’s () terms. By contrast, the presence of the V yirrarni in the VINF-V complex in (c) and (c) signals an external causing event distinct from the change event, but information about the nature of the cause event is not encoded. These VINF-yirrarni forms express ‘accomplishments’. The VINF stance predicates in (b, c) behave like lexical PVs and not like outer periphery adverbial PVs such as warru in (c, d) – syntactically and semantically. The VINF cannot be postposed to the inflected verb as in (a, b), whereas an adverbial PV may be preposed (c) or postposed (d) to the inflected verb. ()

a. *pardi-mi nguna-nja b. *wanti-mi nguna-nja c. warru nguna-mi d. nguna-mi warru

cf. (b) cf. (b) ‘lie around’ ‘lie around’

While (c, d) refer to a situation in which an entity is in a lying stance while also being in the spatial configuration expressed by the PV warru (i.e. be around AND be in lying configuration) , (b) [karri-nja- [ pardi ]] -mi (stand-INF-rise-NPSJ) ‘stand up’, cannot refer to a standing type of rising (e.g. ≠ move upwards while in a standing position), nor does (b) refer to simultaneous lying and falling (e.g. ≠ move downwards while in a lying/ horizontal position). As shown by the outer adverbial PV warru in (c, d), outer PVs modify the situation or event expressed by the inner thematic core (represented by the independent HV nguna-mi ‘lie’ in (c, d)) whereas, inner thematic core PVs express the end state of some process of change. The event structure of CHANGE OF STANCE predicates seems to parallel that of CHANGE OF LOCATION predicates. In section .. we will 



Given the ability of outer preverbs to occupy pre- or post-verbal positions, coverb might seem a better term for them. However I will continue to use the term ‘preverb’ for all of these non-inflecting elements which lie within the orbit of the thematic verb, since it is well established in the Warlpirist literature. These notions can be expressed in biclausal structures, e.g. [nguna-nja-karra] ka wanti [lit. [lie-INF-SUBJCOMP] AUX:PRS fall:NPST] ‘he falls while lying’ (Hale , Laughren , Simpson and Bresnan ).

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

examine some PV-V combinations which express predicates.

187

CHANGE OF LOCATION

.. Semantically transparent PV lexical-LV complex verbs Consider the contrasting pair of complex verbal constituents in () which have the structure PVlexicalLVthematic and again in () where the thematic core elements are in the scope of the aspectual LV -ya-. () a.

pata-[karri ] -mi

‘fall, drop’ (x) (synonymous with [wanti ] -mi)

down-stand-NPST b.

pata-[kiji ] -rni

‘throw down; (make) drop’ (x,y)

down-throw-NPST

() a. b.

pata-[karri-nja]-ya-ni

‘fall (while going ) along’ (x) / ‘be falling (x)’

pata-[kiji-rninja]-ya-ni

‘throw down/ drop (while going) along’ (x,y)

The relationship between the lexical PV pata in () and () and the following thematic LV karri/kiji- is less semantically transparent and productive than the VINF-LV combinations in () and (), although the morphosyntactic construction is basically of the same type. Clearly (a) is not a type of ‘standing’ stance; the role of the LV karri is mainly syntactic. It marks the monadic diathesis of the complex verb, and formally contrasts with dyadic kiji-rni in (b), which marks a causative predicate. Recall that the HV karri, as the sole member of the thematic core, as in (a), cannot express a positive CHANGE STANCE (‘move into standing position’) meaning, so it seems surprising that in the complex constituent in (a) and (a) the LV karri expresses this CHANGE OF LOCATION meaning. In fact (a) cannot have a stative reading such as ‘be down, as a result of falling’. It is the PV pata which indicates the change of location along a path whose endpoint is lower than the starting point. We conclude then that the CHANGE OF LOCATION meaning with its dynamic Aktionsart feature derives from the PV (a) and (a). The PV pata has not been recorded as an independent predicate of the nominal category. The role of the LVs karri and kiji- is to indicate the mapping of event structure components of the CHANGE LOCATION and CAUSE CHANGE OF LOCATION event structures onto syntactic structure projected by verbal categories. 



Even if LV karri in (a) and (a) has a more general meaning like existential or locational ‘be’ associated with its cognate in other Ngumpin-Yapa languages as observed by Nash (), this does not explain its use as a ‘change’ verb in these CVs. Pata may have been borrowed from a Western Desert language in which it is a verb root. Pintupi pata-ngara- ( pata-stand) ‘fall’ (Hansen and Hansen : ) but zero-derived transitive pata-lku ( pata-FUT) ‘shake out’. The transitive pata-lku in Ngaanyatjarra is glossed ‘drop’ and ‘spread out on (ground/bed)’ (Glass and Hackett : ).

188

Laughren

Pata-karri in (a) is synonymous with the HV wanti ‘fall’. Ideally, whatever semantic representation we have for the complex verbal constituent pata-karri we want to apply to the HV wanti for the relevant range of senses, even though the surface morphosyntactic properties of each differs. Unlike pardi and wanti, which express a directed path, ‘upwards’ versus ‘downwards’, whether used as HV or LV, the LV karri can be used in a PV-V structure which expresses either upward (e.g. rduyu-karri ‘rise (of dust, smoke, fog)’ or downward movement (as in the case of patakarri). These directional components of meaning derive from the PV predicate, not from the verbal predicate in these cases. Unlike pardi and wanti (as opposed to yirrarni ) in examples in () and () which express direction of movement and indicate a monadic PAS, karri in (a) and (a) (as opposed to kiji- in (b) and (b)), only signals the monadic PAS expressing the CHANGE LOCATION component of event structure associated with pata. The complex pata-kiji- ‘drop, throw down’ in (b) can be viewed as a semantically restricted version of independent V kiji- ‘throw’, which denotes an event type which involves some entity in an action which results in a change of location of some other entity to a location distinct from that of the causing entity (compare with take/bring), with pata specifying that the end point of the trajectory is lower than the starting point. The argument-taking properties of the complex pata-kiji- are marked by the LV kiji-, while the PV pata designates specific properties of the PATH travelled by the moving entity. Unlike an adverbial PV such as warru in (c, d), but like the VINF PV seen in section .., pata cannot be postposed to the verb and hence belongs within the verb’s thematic core. Note also that its semantic interpretation is limited to specifying the relative location of some entity resulting from a change of location. Pata cannot be interpreted in combination with karri or kiji- to mean something like x stand/be down or x throw y while y is down. Thus it seems that thematic aspectual – or Aktionsart – features must be part of the semantic, and also syntactic, representation of such PV-LV complexes (see Megerdoomian () and Travis (a, b, ) for proposals along these lines). Examples (a, b) parallel those in (d, e) in which the thematic core is placed within the scope of an overt aspectual verb (‘path’ ya-ni in (e) and (a, b); ‘purposeful displacement’ parnka in (d)). These aspectual verbs 

While the Warlpiri pata-kijirni combination may seem analogous to the English V + particle combination throw down, the former lacks the full semantic transparency of the latter. While throw down contrasts in meaning with put down, place down, etc., in Warlpiri, the manner contrast between the simplex verbs yirrarni ‘put’ and kijirni ‘throw’ is neutralised, with kijirni being the lexically specified V to combine with pata. There are many transitive PV-V combinations in which yirrarni does contrast with kijirni in the expression of manner, but this is not one of them.

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

189

play no part in expressing the predicate argument properties of the complex, although they interact with the Aktionsart features of the thematic core and hence indirectly affect predicate entailments. The verb contrast in (a, b) is semi-productive; pairs where PV-karri entails a ‘change of location’ (presupposing but not specifying externally caused movement) while –kiji- or yirra- express ‘externally caused movement along path’ are not rare (see Appendix  for further examples). In (a) karri shares the CHANGE LOCATION meaning with the LV pardi ‘rise’ in the complex verbal constituent in (b) and wanti ‘fall’ in (b), but karri does not specify the orientation of the relevant PATH unlike pardi and wanti which do (both in complex PV-V and simplex V usage). Recall that while the VINFstance-pardi/wanti constituents express self-controlled change of stance, pata-karri expresses uncontrolled (or externally caused) change of location. Even relatively ‘transparent’ PV-V combinations such as those in () and () may appear semantically idiosyncratic, but only in the sense that LV karri in (a) and (a) does not express the same range of meanings as HV karri in (a–e). The limited productivity of these PV-V combinations contrasts with the free association of outer adverbial PVs with the thematic core (whether constituted by a HV or a PV-LV) and their predictable compositional meanings. However, contrasting pairs of PV-karri (change location) and PV-kiji-/yirra- (cause change of location) do form a semantically coherent subset of ‘semi-productive’ change location verbs in which the verb signals which components of event structure are projected onto syntactic structure. Although pata-karri and the HV wanti- are synonymous, the combination *ngunanja-[pata-karri] is not allowable as a synonym of ngunanjawanti (b) ‘lie down’. As discussed already, HV wanti- and LV wanti in complex verbs with preverbal stance VINF are not semantically equivalent: pata-karri is a synonym of the former, but not of the latter, which forms a predicate with an internal controlling cause. There is also a structural reason for the unacceptability of *ngunanja-[pata-karri]. As a derived PV, VINF is only found in the immediate preverbal position within the thematic core, even though VINF may be separated from either a thematic or aspectual V by AUX and directional enclitic as seen in section . and section .. 

Other spatial adverbial PVs include pina ‘back, again’; jaala ‘to and fro’; wapirdi/nganjini ‘on arrival’ (see Nash ). Adverbial PVs must be distinguished from the ‘adverbial’ use of nominal phrases which are case-marked (Ergative or Absolutive depending on the scope of the adverb and the diathesis of the verb in its clause) and which may occupy any position within a clause. Unlike adverbial PVs, adverbial nominals are not part of the verbal constituent represented in Figure .. They constitute case-marked NPs which may occupy any position in a clause relative to the verbal complex; their scope is indicated by their case.

190

Laughren

.. PV-V ‘stance’ predicates Unlike the VINF-V change of stance verbs discussed in .., the complex verbs in (a, b) are made up of synchronically unproductive PVlexical-V combinations. (a, b) express some of the same meanings as that expressed by the HV in (c), as discussed briefly in section .... [tarda-ya] -ni ‘sit’ (x) 

a'. [[tarda] -yirra] -rni ‘put in sitting position’

b.

[ pirri-ma] -ni ‘sit’ (x)

b'. [[ pirrily]-yirra] -rni ‘put in sitting position’

c.

[nyina] -mi ‘sit’ (x)

c'. [[nyina-nja] -yirra] -rni ‘put in sitting position’

() a.

The data in () suggest that it may be somewhat problematic to specify which element of the complex verb, PV or LV, determines the valency of the verbal complex. In (c) the HV nyina- expresses the monadic predicates ‘be seated; come to be seated/perched/landed; be/stay in process of sitting’, hence it seems reasonable to conclude that the verb not only expresses the meaning of this monadic predicate since the addition of a CAUSE event predicate which presupposes a dyadic structure must be overtly marked by the addition of the ‘put’ LV yirra- to the PV derived from the stance VINF nyina-nja as in (c'), a pattern already seen with the stance verbs karri ‘stand’ and nguna ‘lie’ in () and (). The PV-LV forms in (a, b) appear to express the same meaning as the HV nyina in (c) and have the same valency; however they contain different LVs. As a HV, ya-ni ‘go/come’ is a monadic thematic CHANGE OF LOCATION verb, but in (a) dependent thematic LV -ya-ni does not mean ‘go’; in fact while the CHANGE OF STANCE reading ‘become seated’ is possible, so is the ‘negative achievement’ non-change reading or internally controlled cause reading ‘maintain self in seated stance’. In (a) both the thematic and Aktionsart properties appear to derive from the combination of the PV and the LV; the LV -ya-ni marks this predicate as monadic ‘sit’, since it contrasts with dyadic yirra-rni in (a′) expressing the external ‘cause to sit’ verb. In (b), we find an LV ma-ni which is homophonous with the dyadic transitive LV seen in (b) (to be examined in more detail in section ...). However in the synchronically semi-productive combination with the PV pirri in (b), -ma-ni fails to mark a dyadic argument structure; pirri-ma-ni 

 

Tarda-yani is used mainly in the Willowra Lander River dialect as the ‘normal’ verb for ‘be, sit, perch, land, wait, stay’. Interestingly, tarda-yani and pirri-mani do not have the full range of meanings associated by simplex nyina (see ...). Pirrily-yirrarni is not a commonly used verb. It has been recorded from a single speaker in the Warlpiri corpus, so for most speakers the causative counterpart of pirri-mani is (c′). The Warlpiri dictionary (Laughren et al. ) identifies at least six mani LVs distinguished by their meaning and diathesis; -mani LV of sound emission is always monadic/intransitive while most other mani LVs form dyadic/transitive predicates. However, in addition to some monadic change stance verbs, LV-mani is also found in semelfactive complex verbs of ‘light emission’, such as maarr-mani ‘flash’, mirirl(ki)-mani ‘glisten, glint’.

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

191

is monadic. For most Warlpiri speakers there is no corresponding ‘cause to sit’ verb of the form pirri-LV, however, the verb pirrily-yirrarni ‘seat someone’ does occur in the Warlpiri corpus. PVs pirri and pirrily are likely to be etymologically related, although the addition of ly to a root does not reflect a productive morphological pattern in Warlpiri. However, there is diachronic evidence for CVCV vs. CVCVly- PV variants in Warlpiri. Given the set of synonyms in (a–c), one might expect that ‘causative’ verbs could be formed on the nyinanja-yirra- pattern, where the stance verb in its VINF form acts as a PV which combines with the dyadic causative verb yirra-. However such forms are not found – perhaps blocked by the presence of PV-yirra- forms, e.g. *[tarda-yaninja]-yirra-, *[pirri-maninja]yirra-. This may seem like a collocational restriction on this particular verb, which would pertain to a level of vocabulary insertion or spellout, and not to the semantic–syntactic interface. However, as I will argue in section ., the LV yirra- introduces an external cause to a change predicate without an internal cause. The monadic complex verbs in (a, b) always project an internal cause argument, while the HV nyina, may or may not. The spatial configuration of an inanimate entity can be expressed by nyina but not by pirri-mani or tarda-yani without presupposing a change of stance. However the dyadic verbs in (a′–c′) only project an external cause and suppress any internal cause. Yirra- is associated with the CHANGE function as well as the higher CAUSE function, hence it is not possible to have another ‘change’ verb associated with the same event structure position. ..

Argument structure and verb selection

Warlpiri independent verbs are either transitive (in the sense that they licence an ergative case-marked subject NP) or intransitive (having an unmarked absolutive case NP subject), except for a pair of synonymous ‘burn/cook’ verbs janka and kampa and some special kinship register verb forms discussed by Laughren (). In the contrasting pairs of inchoative and causative PV-V pairs seen so far, the same strict dichotomy holds. However, the picture is not always so straightforward. Let’s now consider the data in (). () a. b. c.



[nyunjurl-ya-ni] ‘spit curse at/on’ (x,y) spit-go-NPST [nyunjurl-ya-ninja]-ya-ni ‘spit curse at/on along’ (x,y) spit-go-INF-PATH-NPST nyinypa kiji-rni / kiji-rni nyinypa ‘spit’ [‘lit. spit propel/throw’] spit:ABS throw-NPST / throw-NPST spit:ABS

See Appendix , Table C for other examples of monadic stance PV-mani verbs.

192

Laughren

While ya- as both HV and thematic LV typically marks a monadic predicate as discussed in relation to (a), in the complex verbal constituent in (a, b) it fails to do so. The verb nyunjurl-ya- ‘put curse on’ is dyadic and transitive. (b) illustrates the combination of two ya- LVs where the first in its VINF form yaninja is thematic, and the second (inflected) V ya-ni is aspectual. The PV nyunjurl- is etymologically related to the noun nyuny(pa)/ nyiny(pa) ‘spit’, but the meaning of the thematic core PV-LV complex in (a, b) is unexpected, because of the mismatch between its valency and that of the LV. The complex verb nyunjurl-ya- contrasts with (c), which consists of two independent phrasal constituents: nyinypa ‘spit, saliva’ which is the absolutive cased direct object NP of the inflected HV kiji-rni. These constituents may occupy any position relative to each other within the same finite clause. However nyunjurl-ya- in (a, b) does not provide serious counterevidence to the claim that the valency associated with a complex verb is marked by the LV. This exceptional transitive complex verb with the LV ya- is likely to have been borrowed from neighbouring and genetically close Warlmanpa, in which the ‘put’ verb is ya(n)-, which combines with PVs to form complex verbs (David Nash , personal communication). While Warlmanpa ya(n)- is a second conjugation verb (Nash ) in that language, monosyllabic verbs can only belong to conjugations  to  in Warlpiri; the presence of stem final n would signal a conjugation  verb leading to the incorporation of a verb homophonous with conjugation  -ya- ‘go’ in all its forms. Whatever the etymology of ya- in (a, b), this PV-V combination is exceptional. Another unexpected PV-LV combination is the intransitive juurl-pinyi ‘jump, leap, hop’ since pinyi as an HV is transitive and typically combines with a PV to form a transitive complex verb. This verb only operates as an internally caused change of spatial configuration verb, but even in this use the presence of pinyi seems exceptional by comparison with its use in other PV-LV forms as seen in () and in the forms to be discussed in section ... . Event structure and the thematic core Ideally the representation of the semantic properties expressed by the thematic core of verbal constituents should capture their Aktionsart and argument-taking properties as well as how subpredicates combine to create the complex predicate we intuitively associate with a simple or complex verbal constituent. In this section I will sketch out a representation of 

In a finite clause, the transitive subject NP is marked by an overt ergative case suffix while an intransitive subject or direct object NP is not overtly case-marked. Pronominal enclitics have distinct subject and non-subject forms. Third person (singular) subject or direct object has no overt enclitic form (Hale , ).

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

193

the semantic properties common to a number of predicates which express STATES, CHANGE OF STATE, and CAUSE CHANGE OF STATE, as an event structure or conceptual structure (in the tradition of Hale and Keyser , , Jackendoff , , Laughren , , Levin and Rappaport , Levin and Rappaport Hovav , , , inter alia). The event structure I propose identifies argument-taking predicates and Aktionsart features; the latter playing a crucial role in the argument-predicate relationship. .. Stance verbs reviewed Let us return to examples of stance verbs seen in () and (), repeated here as () and (). ()

a.

[karri]-mi ‘stand, stop, stay’ (x) stand-NPST b. [karri-nja- [pardi]] -mi ‘stand up, arise’ (x) stand-INF-rise-NPST c. [karri-nja-[yirra]] -rni ‘put in standing position’ (x,y) stand-INF-put-NPST

() a. nguna

‘be in lying position/come to be in lying lie.NPST position/continue to lie’ (x) b. [nguna-nja- [wanti]] ‘move into lying position, typically by lie-INF-fall.NPST downward movement’ (x) c. [nguna-nja- [yirra]] -rni ‘cause to come to be/cause to stay in lying lie-INF-put-NPST position’ (x,y)

Only one of the semantic representations associated with karri in (a) is associated with karri-nja ‘stand-INF’ in (b, c), i.e. the stative ‘be in STANDING stance’. Similarly for nguna-nja ‘lie-INF’ in (b, c). The ‘event’ structure underlying the stative predicate is shown in Figure ., in which a Predicate Phrase (PredP) (unspecified for syntactic category) is in the scope of Aktionsart features, (+/–stage and +/–dur(ative)) associated with the head of an Aktionsart Phrase (AKTP). The ‘subject’ argument of the PredP is in the Specifier position of the AKTP. In (b, c) and (b, c) the stance situation is interpreted as the ‘endstate’ of a CHANGE of stance. We can represent the meaning of (b) as an 

My approach to the interaction between Aktionsart and PAS properties is like that of Borer (), who argues that argument positions in syntactic structure are identified as specifiers of aspectual phrases.

194

Laughren SITUATION AKTP1 AKT
Xi AKT +/– stage +/– dur

Predicate1 α

STANCE LOCATION STATE

Figure . Event structure of stative predicate

AKTP3

(Negative)

Xi

ACHIEVEMENT

CHANGEP

AKT +/– dyn AKTP2 AKT


Xi AKT +/– dyn +/– stage +/– dur

CHANGE

AKTP1 AKT


¬Predicate1 α Xi STANCE LOCATION STATE

AKT – dyn +/– stage +/– dur

SITUATION

Predicate1 α STANCE LOCATION STATE

SITUATION

Figure . Event structure of ‘change’ predicate

event involving change from one situation to its opposite situation: NOT in STANDING stance (xi) CHANGE TO in STANDING stance (xi). As shown in Figure ., the CHANGE predicate is a relationship between two situations mediated by Aktionsart features. While the Aktionsart feature governing the PredP in each of the ‘situations’ involving the same argument may be –dyn(amic), the feature governing the CHANGEP can be either +dyn or –dyn (depending on the scope of negation). The argument represented by X undergoes a change of stance (location or state) such that the predicate holding of it in the post-change situation is presupposed to have not held

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

195

CAUSEP (ACHIEVEMENT) Xi CAUSE (Negative) AKTP3 (ACHIEVEMENT) Xi

CHANGEP

Fig. 7.3 'Change' event

Figure . Internally controlled cause change event

of X prior to the change. As we will see, meanings associated with identical forms may vary as a result of different scopes given to negation in these structures. A CHANGE OF STANCE resulting from an action initiated and controlled by the entity which changes stance is expressed by the combination of VINFpardi in (b). This contrasts with (c), in which the change of stance results from an action involving the ‘undergoer’ which is initiated by an entity other than the undergoer. As discussed by Levin and Rappaport Hovav () with respect to English ‘verbs of spatial configuration’, independent Warlpiri verbs like karri in (a) and nguna in (a) may be associated with a semantic representation in which some self-controlling entity maintains self in the spatial configuration designated by the verb, as represented in Figure . where the change event is negated (X cause self NOT change from sitting situation to non-sitting situation); or they may be associated with a stative representation in which some entity or being happens to be in a specific spatial configuration and hence not in the scope of a ‘change’ function (as shown in Figure .). The verb nguna in (a) may also be interpreted in the same way as (b), where the change of stance to the ‘lying’ position is internally caused as represented in Figure .. In (c) and (c) the role of causal agent of the change of stance event is distinct from the role of undergoer of that change. The presence of yirra ‘put’ in the complex verb entails a causing event or situation which permits the projection of an ‘agent’ argument in addition to the projection of an ‘undergoer’ argument. In Figure ., the Y argument is represented as the specifier of the AKTP that dominates the CauseP. The value of the +/–dyn feature in the head of this AKTP indicates whether the cause is a dynamic event as in John burnt 

This is similar to Pustejovky’s ‘transition’ between states of affairs or situations in which predicates with polar values hold of the same entity (Pustejovky , ).

196

Laughren

AKTP5 (ACCOMPLISHMENT) Yj

CAUSEP AKT +/– dyn AKTP4 (EVENT/SITUATION) Yj

AKT +/– dyn +/– dur

PREDP CAUSE (Negative)

AKTP3 (ACHIEVEMENT) Xi

AKT

CHANGEP

Fig. 7.3 'Change' event

Figure . Externally caused change event

the toast (i.e. John did something involving the toast which resulted in toast becoming burnt) or a non-dynamic situation involving some relationship between the ‘agent of change’ and the ‘undergoer of change’, as in The sun burnt John (i.e. John became burnt as a result of contact with the sun which has burning properties). These constructions have different syntactic properties, e.g. the ability to license an instrument phrase, which correspond to differences in Aktionsart features which define the relationship between the ‘cause’ function and the ‘change’ function and consequently between the ‘agent’ and ‘theme/undergoer’ roles. X and Y are variables associated with thematic roles determined by the Aktionsart properties governing the predicate they c-command; they inherit these thematic or ‘event’ roles as a function of the predicates which hold of them and also of the Aktionsart features which mediate the relationship between an argument position and a predicate, as shown in Figures .–.. The contrast between a self-controlling or internal cause and a nonself-controlling or external cause is indicated by the contrast between the individual X argument in the specifier of the CAUSE function, as shown in Figure ., and the AKTP argument in the same position in Figure .. When the ‘cause’ is a situation or event then the Predicate Phrase which expresses this event must be in the scope of aspectual features (as opposed to the individual defining pronominal features associated with the position filled by X in Figure .). What clearly distinguishes these internal cause self-controlling ‘agents’ as in verbs like tarda-ya- ‘X sit, sit down, remain seated’ from their external cause counterparts such as nyinanja-yirra- ‘Y sit X down’ is the absence of a causing event distinct from the actual event of moving from non-seated to seated, or the situation in which one is seated.

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

197

The internal causing agent is represented in Figure . by X raised from its position in the CHANGE event (Spec, AKTP) to the Specifier of the CAUSEP. On the other hand, the external causing agent Y associated with complex verbs such as nyinanja-yirra- moves from its original position as the Specifer of the causing event phrase represented by the AKTP in Figure . to the Specifier position in AKTP. Y must move into this higher specifier position to check the AKT feature [+/–dyn] in the head of AKTP which determines its interpretation as a participant in a causal ‘situation’ or a causal ‘event’. It must also move to be in a c-commanding position relative to X, in the specifier of the lower AKTP. I have claimed that the relationship between an argument and a predicate is mediated by an Aktionsart head. This head has features traditionally associated with Aktionsart such as +/– dynamic, +/– durative, +/–stage. Some Aktionsart properties may derive from the relational structure linking predicates. The feature telic would seem to be of this sort; a stative predicate can be viewed as providing a boundary or endpoint for some ‘transition’ or process of ‘change’. These features are syntactically active (as well as semantically) in that they interact with features associated with inflectional heads within the clausal structure, as well as with the determiner structure of argument expressions and with temporal expressions and so on. A full examination of the syntactically relevant functions of AKT features is beyond the scope of this study. Only those aspects that impinge on the selection of verb forms in PV-V structures expressing CHANGE and CAUSE functions are addressed in this study. ... Morphosyntactic reflexes of contrasting event structures The predicate in the stative Aktionsart phrase (AKTP) in Figure ., may be expressed by a constituent made up of a stance HV stem (e.g. nyina, karri, nguna, parntarri) and its corresponding VINF form, or a PV root (e.g. pata-, pirri-, tarda-), or a N[ominal] (to be discussed in section ..). The CHANGE event structure shown in Figure . is only mapped onto a constituent containing V, whether HV (e.g. nyina, nguna) or PVlexical/VINF-V constituents (e.g. pata-karri, tarda-ya-, pirri-ma-, ngunanja-wanti, karrinja-pardi). A subset of these HV and PV-V forms may also map onto the internal CAUSE event structure in Figure .. However, the verb forms which map onto the complex EXTERNAL CAUSE event structure in Figure . are distinct from those which map onto the other event structures (unlike a permitted English pattern which allows some identical ‘causative’ and ‘non-causative’ forms). The CHANGE and CAUSE functions are only expressed by verbal constituents, whether HV or PV-LV forms. ... Negation in the change stance event structure The structure in Figure ., as well as representing the ‘change STATE/ STANCE/LOCATION’ event which may be expressed by a simplex or complex verbal constituent, also allows us to represent the ‘halt’ and ‘stay’ meanings expressed by stance verbs. A negative operator must have scope over the presupposed prior predicate if the lower result of change predicate is

198

Laughren

positive as in (b); where a negative operator has scope over the lower resultant, another negative has scope over the CHANGE event structure as in (c). Synonymous verbs may express all three semantic representations given as (a–c). Only nyina-, however, may express the spatial configuration which is not internally caused or maintained, as in (a) which maps onto the structure shown in Figure .. Apart from nyinanja-wanti ‘sit down’ in (b), which only maps onto the structure in Figure . in which the resultant situation is not negated, the other three verbs (nyina, tarda-ya- and pirri-ma-) may map onto Figure . with either pattern of negation. Unlike a verb such as wanti ‘fall’ or its complex verb synonym pata-karri which map onto the structure in Figure ., the verbs tarda-ya- and pirri-ma- always presuppose internal control over the change event as shown in Figure .. This requirement does not limit them to animate subjects, since an aeroplane can be said to pirri-ma- or tarda-ya- in the sense of (b), since it moves to the landed position under the control of its own engine. However, these verbal constituents cannot be used of a leaf or some other object which falls to the ground due to external forces over which it has no control. ()

nyina-, nyinanja-wanti, tarda-ya-ni, pirri-ma-ni ‘sit’ a.

seated (x)

SITUATION

‘be in seated position’

nyina-

b.

CAUSE

(x, (NOT seated (x)) > seated (x))

EVENT

‘assume seated position’ (sit, perch, land)

nyina-, nyinanja-wanti, tarda-ya-, pirri-ma-

c.

NOT CAUSE

NegEVENT ‘not change from seated position’ (stay, wait, remain seated, sit)

(x, (seated (x) > NOT seated (x)))

nyina-, tarda-ya-, pirri-ma-

The verb karri- ‘stand’ can be associated with the semantic representations in (a–c). () karri- ‘stand’ a.

standing (x)

SITUATION

‘be in standing position’

b.

NOT CAUSE

(x, (standing (x) > NOT standing (x)))

NegEVENT

‘stay, wait, continue to stand’

c.

CAUSE

EVENT

‘halt, stop’

NOT 

(x, (moving (x) > moving (x)))

The meanings of karri shown in (b, c) may also be expressed by the complex verb jupukarri.

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

199

As both an independent or dependent verb, yirra- ‘put’ expresses the event complex in Figure ., where some ‘agent’ Y engages in some action or is in some situation involving a ‘theme’ X which causes X to change (or not to change) its stance or location. The contrast between (a) and (b) can be expressed by the presence or absence of a negative operator over the CHANGE event as shown in Figure .. () yirra-rni ‘put, keep’ a. b.

Cause (EVENT/SITUATION (y), change location (x))

COMPLEX

Cause (EVENT/SITUATION (y), not change location (x))

COMPLEX

‘put’

EVENT

NegEVENT

‘retain, keep at, detain’ (cf. (c) and (c)).

The subject of yirra- has the role of external causer of the change of location of the theme, or of its failure to change location. The EXTERNAL CAUSE in (b) may be a situation in which the existence of the external causer (y) relative to the undergoer (x) is sufficient to prevent a change of location, e.g. Ngapa-ngku=nganpa yirra-rnu (rain-ERG=PL.EX.OBJ put-PST) ‘The rain made us stay put’. As discussed in section ., when yirra- is used with an VINF stance verb, the subject of the VINF-yirra- complex verb is understood as referring to the participant in an unspecified event or situation which causes the change of stance and whose role in the complex event is distinct from that of the participant which undergoes or fails to undergo a change of location or stance. The ‘logical’ subject of the stance VINF is interpreted as an entity which changes stance, due to the manipulation of some external agent. Monadic stance verbs fall into at least two classes: internally caused stance verbs and not internally caused stance verbs (in the sense of Levin and Rappaport Hovav ()). The latter (no internal cause) fall into Levin’s () ‘verbs of existence’ class. Interestingly, only the simplex HVs operate as stative ‘no internal cause’ or ‘existence’ verbs as shown in Table ., as well as operating as (negative) ‘achievement’ verbs. The data in Table . reinforce the observations made in section ., that the PV/VINF-yirra- ‘cause change of stance’ verb only expresses an externally caused change of stance. However, the PV-V combinations which express an internally caused change of stance cannot be expressed as PV-VINF preverbal elements in combination with the ‘put’ causative verb yirra-, e.g. *[tarda-yaninja] -yirra-. While wardu-karri ‘lie prone’ may refer to an act of self-manipulated change of stance or a self-maintained stance, a reflexive clause using dyadic wardu-yirra- is typically used of people prostrating themselves over the coffin of a deceased relative, thus

200

Laughren

Table .. Stance and spatial configuration verbs English gloss

be in configuration (internal cause)

be in configuration (no internal cause)

change into configuration (internal cause)

change into/ remain in configuration (external cause)

sit

nyina

nyina

nyina; nyinanja-wanti

nyinanjayirrarni

tarda-yani

tarda-yirrarni

tarda-yani

pirri-mani

(pirrily-yirrarni)

stand

pirri-mani karri

karri

karrinja-pardi

karrinja-yirrarni

lie

nguna

nguna

nguna; ngunanja-wanti

ngunanjayirrarni

crouch over

parntarri

parntarri

parntarrinjawanti

parntarrinjayirrarni

squat

mirdi. jirrpijirrpinyina

mirdi.jirrpijirrpiwanti

mirdi.jirrpijirrpiyirrarni

kneel

mirdi. pirrjipirrjimani

mirdi.pirrjipirrjimani

mirdi.pirrjipirrjiyirrarni

lie prone

wardu-karri

wardu-karri

wardu-yirrarni

forcing the external causer role and the changer of stance role to be linked to the same referent via syntactic binding. .. Change of state verbs ... Enduring changed state Warlpiri has a set of ‘impaired integrity’ nominal predicates which include rdilyki ‘broken’, larra ‘split, torn’, rdiirr(pa) ‘busted’, and rdilypirr(pa) ‘perforated’, which belong to a larger set of ‘result of change’ stative predicates. These nominals combine as a PV with the monadic LV such as ya- ‘go’, in order to express a CHANGE STATE event: e.g. x break/split/burst etc. These same denominal PVs combine with a dyadic LV, e.g. pinyi, to express a dyadic CAUSE CHANGE event complex. This class of nominal (and PV) predicate presupposes a former ‘whole’ (unimpaired) state of its argument. Thus its event structure is not that of a simple situation as shown in Figure ., but rather like that of Figure ., where the entailed situation is presupposed to 

The contrast between the syntactic reflexive construction with wardu-yirrarni and the intransitive wardu-karri marks the same contrast of focus on the causing event as opposed to the resultant stance as is expressed by the contrast between the English ‘They prostrated themselves over the coffin’ versus ‘They lay prostrate on the coffin’.

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

201

be the result of a CHANGE from a former situation where the predicate does not hold. Stage-level nominal predicates such as rdilyki ‘broken’ contrast with individual nominal predicates such as a colour-denoting terms, e.g. tiri-tiri ‘red’, whose meaning representation does not (although it can) presuppose a former state of being of some entity without that colour property. Colour predicates are typically non-dynamic individual-level predicates, although they may be used as stage-level predicates. While the use of yani and pinyi with denominal ‘impaired integrity’ PVs such as rdilyki form a semantically transparent constituent, this pattern of complex verb formation appears to be only partially productive. Other change state nominal predicates such as pukulyu ‘rotten, putrid, bad (typically of meat)’ or yurnmi ‘ripe, cooked’, which we might expect, on semantic grounds, to fall into the rdilyki class do not. As a preverb expressing a changed state in a PV-LV verbal constituent, pukulyu and yurnmi follow the productive ‘default’ pattern which involves the dependent LV jarri and causative LV mani seen in () and to be reexamined in section .... CHANGE OF STATE verbs with impaired integrity predicates are typical achievements since they involve an instantaneous transition between being unimpaired and being impaired. The resultant state of impairment can be conceived as ongoing (+durative). Why do these ‘impaired integrity’ predicates contrast with verbs of change involving predicates such as pukulyu ‘rotten’ and yurnmi ‘ripe, cooked’? What seems to differentiate these classes of nominal predicate (i.e. rdilyki type versus the pukulyu type) is that the rdilyki type is associated with an event structure involving a presupposed EXTERNAL CAUSE CHANGE function whereas the pukulyu predicate is not. Levin and Rappaport Hovav () argued that ‘break’ verbs in their intransitive form presupposed an external cause in their meaning representation which was not projected into their syntactic representation. In languages such as English and French, ‘break’ predicates are typically verbal as in (a), while ‘ripe’ predicates are typically adjectival as in (a), each with contrasting Aktionsart properties. While in French (and other Romance languages), intransitive active ‘break’ verbs are expressed by the reflexive intransitive construction with the auxiliary être as in (b), the transitive causative construction involves the simple verb form and the avoir auxiliary verb. On the other hand, the inchoative ‘ripen’ is expressed by a non-reflexive verb form as in (b), as befits an unergative ‘activity’ predicate while the causative sentence in (c) has the same surface form as causative ‘break’ in (c), past participle of a lexical verb with the accusative assigning auxiliary avoir. However, while casser ‘break’ allows either an eventive or situational cause, mûrir ‘ripen’ only allows a situational cause (i.e. relationship between sun and apple) within the simple or non-periphrastic VP. An eventive cause can only be expressed by introducing the verb faire which takes the expression of the ‘ripening’ event as its infinitival complement.

202

Laughren

() a.

Le verre est cassé. ‘The glass is broken.’ b. Le verre s’est cassé. the glass REFL is broken ‘The glass broke.’ c. Jean/le vent a cassé le verre. ‘John/the wind has broken the glass.’

() a.

La pomme est mûre. ‘The apple is ripe.’ b. La pomme a mûri. ‘The apple has ripened’ c. Le soleil*Jean a mûri la pomme. ‘The sun/*John has ripened the apple’ ‘The sun has ripened the apple.’ (≠ John has ripened the apple.) d. Jean a fait mûrir la pomme. John has made ripen the apple ‘John has ripened the apple.’

In Warlpiri, both rdilyki ‘broken’ predicates and yurnmi ‘ripe’ predicates are nominal. However, in addition to their selection of different LVs to form complex inchoative and causative predicates, rdilyki nominals display other syntactic properties which align them with dynamic verbal predicates as opposed to stative nominal predicates such as yurnmi. A Warlpiri verb may be converted into a resultant state predicate by putting it (in its VINF form) into a phrase headed by the postposition warnu as illustrated in (c), in which the complex verb rdilyki- [vinfkati-rni-nja] forms a resultant state predicate headed by -warnu. Interestingly, nominal ‘eventive’ predicates of the rdilyki class may also be directly suffixed by warnu as in (b, d) to create a resultant state predicate. By comparison with the bare nominal predicate rdilyki in (a), the warnu form focuses not just on the resultant state but signals it as the product of some event – fully specified in (c) but not in (b or d). () a.

Kurlarda yali ka nguna rdilyki. spear that AUX:PRS lie:NPST broken ‘That spear is (lying) broken.’ b. Kapi=rna ngurrju-ma-ni yali=ji kurlarda rdilyki-warnu. FUT=SG.S good-CAUS-NPST that=TOP spear broken-result ‘I’ll fix that (having been) broken spear.’

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

203

c.

Kurlarda yali ka nguna rdilyki-kati-rninja-warnu. spear that AUX:PRS lie.NPST broken-run_over-result ‘That spear is (lying) having been run over and broken.’ d. Kurlarda yali ka nguna rdilyki-warnu. spear that AUX:PRS lie.NPST broken-result ‘That spear is (lying) (having been) broken.’ By contrast, non-eventive predicates including yurnmi and pukulyu cannot be used in the resultative warnu construction, as seen in (b). Only the verbal forms with jarri or -mani may be governed by -warnu, as shown in (c). () a.

Miyi nyampu ka nguna yurnmi. vegetable_food this AUX:PRS lie.NPST ripe ‘This food is (lying) ripe.’ b. Kapi=rna nga-rni miyi nyampu=ju yurnmi/*yurnmi-warnu. FUT=SG.S eat-NPST food this=TOP ripe/ripe-RESULT ‘I will eat this ripe fruit.’ c. Kapi=rna nga-rni miyi nyampu=ju yurnmi-jarri-nja-warnu/ FUT=SG.S eat-NPST food this=TOP ripe-INCH-INF-RESULT/ ‘I will eat this ripened fruit (which has become ripe/ yurnmi-ma-ninja-warnu ripe- CAUS-INF-RESULT. been made to become ripe).’

The addition of LV ya-ni ‘go’ to a PV derived from an impaired state rdilyki nominal as in (a) actualises the event structure in Figure ., in that the change of state is now entailed, rather than just presupposed. The addition of V-pinyi to the rdilyki type PV exemplified by rdilykipungu ‘broke’ in (b, c) signals that the distinct ‘agent’ and ‘undergoer’ roles defined in the specifier position of their respective A KTPs in the event complex shown in Figure . are mapped onto positions in syntactic structure. As this analysis would predict, the only way of expressing an internal causer reading meaning that ‘x causes its own breaking’, equivalent to ‘x causes/maintains its own sitting/standing/lying’ (Table ., column ), has to be by syntactic binding in a reflexive construction as in (b), where both the ‘agent’ and ‘theme/patient’ roles have the same referent. () a.

Kurdu waku rdilyki-ya-nu. child arm broken-GO-PST ‘The child broke (his) arm.’ = ‘The child’s arm broke.’

204

Laughren

b. Kurdu-ngku=nyanu waku rdilyki-pu-ngu. child-ERG=ANAPH arm broken-CAUSE-PST ‘The child broke (his own) arm.’ (as in deliberate act) c. Kurdu-ngku waku rdilyki-pu-ngu. child-ERG arm broken-CAUSE-PST ‘The childi broke his/her*i/j arm.’ (someone else’s arm) These change of state verbs contrast then with the intransitive stance verbs which may express an event structure in which the CAUSING EVENT is an integral component of the CHANGE STANCE event, that is the internal causation interpretation. The nature of the causing event entailed by rdilyki-pinyi is not encoded, as opposed to rdilyki-katirni ‘break-apply_downward_pressure_to’ in (c), in which the nature of the causing event is specified. In this sense, pinyi in (b, c) is a semantically ‘light’ verb; it expresses the cause function and licenses the syntactic projection of the ‘agent’ argument. The role of yani and pinyi as LVs is to signal how much of the event structure of eventive rdilyki predicates is projected into the syntactic structure: CHANGE function, or CAUSE and CHANGE. However LVs yani and pinyi as in () differ from the default syntactic inchoative -jarri and causative -mani discussed in section .... These verbalisers do not express an event structure associated with a nominal or PV predicate which presupposes a CHANGE and/or CAUSE CHANGE function; rather these dependent LVs are directly associated with those elements of event structure which transform a stative predicate (of the type shown in Figure .) into a dynamic one: achievement or accomplishment. They combine with the stative event structure of the nominal predicate they combine with to create a more complex event structure. ... ‘Default’ change and cause verbs As pointed out by Hale () and Simpson (), Warlpiri verbs express dynamic predicates, which include stage-level predicates but exclude individual-level predicates (Carlson , Kratzer ). Complex verbs expressing CHANGE OF STATE may be formed by taking a stative nominal predicate which expresses an ‘individual-level’ or ‘stage-level’ predicate and combining it as a PV with a dependent LV jarri which expresses a change in some entity from not having the property denoted by the denominal PV to having it. The PV is interpreted as expressing the resultant situation, which is in the scope of the CHANGE function, as shown in Figure .. The LV jarri marks this change of event structure from ‘state’ to achievement’, as shown in (a, b). 

Stative nominal predicates may be derived from verbs. Individual-level predicates are encoded as nominals, as are some stage predicates. Most nominal predicates can function as either type.

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

205

Notice, however, that PV-jarri verbs which express a change in some attribute of some entity do not encode an internally caused or controlled change of state. Nor do they permit a self-maintained-in-state-of-having attribute interpretation (akin to the maintain-self-in-stance meaning associated with the stance verbs we have discussed). In (a, b), the transition from a situation in which a predicate does not hold of x to one where it does hold, can be viewed as a process when in the scope of the aspectual LV -yani ‘path’. This aspectual use of -yani is different from that of thematic yani, which forms achievement predicates with the ‘break’ denominal PVs such as rdilyki-yani, where the transition is not a process. () a. Kuyu ka [pukulyu-jarri-nja]-ya-ni. meat AUX:PRS bad-INCH-INF-PATH-NPST ‘The meat is going bad.’ b. Wati ka [ngurrju-jarri-nja]-ya-ni. man AUX:PRS good-INCH-INF-PATH-NPST ‘The man is getting better/becoming good.’ PV-mani CHANGE STATE verbs, which pair with PV-jarri CHANGE verbs, must project a structure with an external cause argument position in addition to an internal theme argument, since the cause event must be distinct from the change event. Notice that like the PV-yirrarni and PV-pinyi expressions of a cause function, the PV-mani verbs in () fail to specify any manner feature of the cause event, other than the involvement of an agent and an undergoer. () a. Kuyu ka [pukulyu-ma-ninja]-ya-ni jirri-ngki. meat AUX:PRS bad-CAUS-INF-PATH-NPST maggot-ERG ‘Maggots are making the meat go bad.’ b. Wati ka [ngurrju-ma-ninja]-ya-ni nyanguwaji-rli. man AUX:PRS good-CAUS-INF-PATH-NPST doctor-ERG ‘The doctor is making the man better.’ c. Mangarri-rli ka wati [ngurrju-ma-ninja]-ya-ni. food-ERG AUX:PRS man good-CAUS-INF-PATH-NPST ‘Food is making the man better.’ Unlike the LV involved in change stance complex verbs, neither the inchoative nor causative dependent verbs can combine with a VINF preverbal item: *nyina-nja-mani ≠ nyina-nja-yirrarni ‘cause to be seated’; *nyina-njajarri ≠ nyina ‘come to be seated’. Given the range of preverbal elements both -jarri and -mani may combine with, this restriction might seem rather surprising. Even more so as jarri and mani productively create complex CHANGE predicates by combining with various complex phrasal preverbal elements. The VINF, however, does not constitute the right sort of phrasal category,

206

Laughren

perhaps because it retains its +dynamic Aktionsart feature. To combine with jarri or mani, VINF must be embedded in a functional projection such as a postposition phrase (PP), e.g. [wangka-nja-ku-wangka-nja-ku]-ma-ni ([speak-INF-PURPOSIVE] [speak-INF-PURPOSIVE]-ma-NPST) ‘make to speak’. These reduplicated VINF-ku preverbal constructions are limited to -mani, and the VINF is derived from an internally caused speech verb, wangka ‘speak’, yula ‘cry’. These verbs are associated with an external causer which brings about a distinct event with an internally controlling cause. PVs derived from a PP predicate may combine with either jarri or -mani to form a complex verb such as [walya-kurra]-jarri ([earth-ALLAT]-jarri) ‘to land’ or [walya-kurra]-mani ([earth-ALLAT]-mani) ‘make to land’. These verbs may have either a CHANGE LOCATION interpretation ‘to land/make to land’ or a CHANGE STATE one, ‘become earth/make to become earth’, where the state is an individual predicate. This latter meaning can also be expressed without the use of the allative, by deriving the PV from the NP. Both the PV-yani/-pinyi and PV-jarri/-mani verbs express a change to a state of affairs which is typically understood to be potentially enduring or ongoing. In Figure . this is represented by the choice of the + value for the feature [dur(ative)] in the head of the Aktionsart phrase AKTP, which immediately contains the stative predicate. However some states are merely transitory, and hence [–durative]. ... Transitory change of state predicates Another type of change of state is expressed by PV-V combinations such as kinyirr-ngarni or julurr-ngarni ‘give a start, be startled, involuntarily jump/ move with fright’. The event structure associated with these verbs is similar to that shown in Figure . since an external cause event is presupposed as the trigger for the change of state in the undergoer. However, no agent of cause is syntactically projected. Thus PV-ngarni verbs of this type behave like rdilyki-yani ‘break’ verbs with a PV predicate which presupposes an externally caused change of state, although it is not syntactically projected. However, whereas the resultant state with rdilyki preverbs is [+durative], with kinyirr- type PVs it is [–durative]. The dyadic transitive counterpart of these PV-ngarni verbs, where the agent of the external cause event is syntactically projected, is formed by dependent PV-jirrirni. Unlike the PV elements in the PV-yani/-pinyi and PV-jarri/-mani verbs, which may express a stative predicate ‘x is in STATE’, 



jarri and mani are also used to derive non-telic activity predicates which are not discussed herein. A full investigation of the role of these verbalisers must be the topic of another study. Despite allowing an N or PP as PV, these verbs do not derive PVs with complex NPs, e.g. *walya wiri-kirra-jarri/mani (earth big-ALLAT-jarri/mani) ≠ ‘(make to) come to be on big ground’, *karnta wiri-jarri/mani (woman big-jarri/mani) ≠ ‘turn into a big woman’. Reduplicated PVs are permitted.

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core Table .

CHANGE

STATE type

207

of state and CAUSE change of state dependent verbs CHANGE

into [+dur]

state

CHANGE

into [+dur] impaired state

CHANGE

into [–dur] state

External cause of change not projected

-jarri ( pukulyu-jarri ‘become rotten, rot’)

-yani (rdilyki-yani ‘break’)

-ngarni (kinyirr-ngarni ‘be startled’)

External cause of change projected

-mani (pukulyumani ‘make rotten, rot’)

-pinyi (rdilyki-pinyi ‘break’)

-jirrirni (kinyirr-jirrirni ‘startle’)

lexical PVs such as kinyirr and julurr do not form independent stative predicates. They only express a momentary non-durative transition from one state to another followed by a cancellation or cessation of the momentarily acquired state. That is, the state entered into as a result of some external cause is presupposed to be quickly reversed or changed, and can only be expressed by a PV predicate incorporated into a verbal constituent which can express this aspectually dynamic event. Table . summarises the types of stative, change state, and cause change state verbal constituents investigated in our study so far. ..

Nominal predicates

Nominal predicates may be used in verbless clauses with an aorist (inherent individual-level predicate) or present time (stage-level predicate) interpretation as in (a), but must be associated with a verb if inflectional features (TAM) are to be expressed. Typically a stance verb serves as a sort of default stative ‘light’ verb in an ‘inflected’ clause, as in (b, c). Its role is syntactic rather than thematic in this sense. It checks functional features in a verbal complex (Figure .), but does not constitute the main predicate. The presence of the stative verb and the subsequent projection of the verbal complex permits restrictions over the truth conditions of the associated nominal predicate; its truth may be restricted to a period of time relative to the time of the utterance, or modified by modal features. Although in (b, c) the stance verb is not the primary thematic predicate, the choice of stance verb is determined by the spatial configuration or some relevant property of the entity referred to by the subject of the nominal predicate. Importantly, the 



The momentary status of these PV-ngarni/jirrirni verbs might suggest that they should be classed as semelfactive in contrast with the achievement verbs such as rdilyki-yani/pinyi ‘break’ (Smith ) However, Smith excludes all ‘change’ predicates from her semelfactive class and they pattern aspectually with ‘break’ verbs rather than with true semelfactives such as ‘flash’ maarr-mani. See Dixon () for data on copula verbs in Australian languages.

208

Laughren

choice of copula verb is not determined by the nominal predicate, unlike the relationship between a thematic PV predicate and the LV it associates with to form a complex verbal predicate. () a. Kuyu pukulyu/ngurrju/linji/yurnmi/wanka/wiri. meat bad/good/dry/ripe/raw/big ‘(The) meat (is) bad/good/dry/ripe/raw/big.’ b. Kuyu ka pukulyu/ngurrju/linji nguna/*karri. meat AUX:PRS bad/good/dry lie/*stand ‘The meat is (=lies) bad/good/dry.’ c. Kuyu=lpa pukulyu/ngurrju/linji nguna-ja/*nyina-ja. meat=AUX:IMPF bad/good/dry lie-PST/*sit-PST ‘The meat was (lying) bad/good/dry.’ d. *Kuyu ka pukulyu-nguna/ngurrju-nguna/linji-nguna. meat AUX:PRS bad-lie/good-lie/dry-lie ‘≠The meat is (=lies) bad/good/dry.’ ‘≠The meat lies badly/well/dryly.’ The nominal predicate cannot be expressed as a PV within the verbal constituent, hence the ungrammaticality of (d) with either the predicate of ‘meat’ or modifier of ‘lie’ interpretations. This behaviour of the stative nominal predicates in (a–d) contrasts with the PV-LV forms in () and (), in which the nominal predicate is converted to a PV which forms part of the thematic core of the complex verbal constituent. I propose that the copula use of stance verbs is basically aspectual in the sense that the stance verb maps onto the syntactic category which matches the head of the AKTP which governs an empty predicate (PredP) position. The external NP predicate is linked to this position by case agreement, in the same way that nominal predicates are linked to argument positions in the verbal complex. This structure is shown in Figure .. The selectional restrictions imposed by the subject on the verb operate in the usual way, since they are in a Specifier–Head relationship within the stative AKTP. If in (b, c) the verb nguna were the main predicate, then it would have to map onto the PredP position in the AKTP shown in Figure .. The nominal predicates could not also be mapped onto this position – either directly or indirectly via case-marking. The only possible interpretation of the nominal  



Pukulyu translates ‘bad’ in the sense of ‘rotten’, ‘decayed’. With different intonation and underlying syntactic structure, (a) can be a complex NP meaning ‘bad/good/dry/cooked/raw/big meat’, in which the qualifying nominal is used attributively as a non-dynamic individual-level predicate. (b) with karri and (c) with nyina-ja are acceptable where kuyu is interpreted as ‘animal’ rather than ‘meat’.

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

209

AKTP1 AKT
Xi AKT +/– stage + dur karri nyinanguna parntarri …

PredicateP

unfilled predicate position

NP

Case agreement

Figure . Copula verb and nominal predicate

predicates would be ‘adverbial’, modifying the manner of lying (nguna), or as an attribute or predicate directly related to the subject, e.g. ‘rotten/good/ dry meat was lying (there)’ or ‘the meat was lying there being rotten/good/ dry’. This ‘secondary predicate’ interpretation of the nominal predicate is not represented by the structure in Figure ., in which the verb is not predicative but aspectual and the NP is the primary predicate. As primary predicate, why can’t the predicative NP be directly associated with PredP in the AKTP and then form a PV-V constituent with nguna? The failure of *ngurrju-nguna in (d) as either a stative ‘be good’ or dynamic ‘become good’ complex predicate contrasts with the complex verbal constituents PV-jarri in (a, b), in which the PV is derived from an NP predicate which can only be interpreted as being in the scope of a dynamic predication, and hence associated with the PredP in event structure. As mentioned already, it is only the simplex HV stance verbs which can operate as copula verbs, not the complex ‘stance’ verbs such as tarda-yani or pirri-mani. As we saw, these verbs are associated with a CHANGE function while the PV is associated with PredP. Given that the PVs such as tarda and pirri are associated with the PredP, it is not possible to also link a nominal predicate into that position. Only simple verbs have the capacity to map onto the head of AKTP, and it is simple stance verbs which may check the [–dynamic] feature. Where a stance verb is the main predicate then it maps onto PredP as well as checking the governing AKT with its subject argument as Specifier of AKTP, as in Figure .. In a change stance interpretation, the verb maps onto PredP and also checks AKTP and the CHANGE function in the same way as complex verbs. While denominal PVs cannot incorporate into a stance predicate meaning ‘be PV’ as seen in (d), lexical PVs are found in PV-V stance constituents which express the predicate expressed by the PV, e.g. lamurr-nyina ‘be

210

Laughren

round’, liirl-nyina ‘be white/shinny’, purlurn-nyina ‘be bulging/prominent’, luurl-nyina ‘be raised (of surface)’, pirlpirl-nguna ‘lie scattered’, waralykarri ‘hang/dangle’, jaa-karri ‘be agape’, as pertaining to the referent of the verb’s subject. These verbs do not entail a change of state, though they may presuppose one. Unlike the denominal PVs of the rdilyki ‘broken’ and ngurrju ‘good’ classes, these PVs do not also function as nominal predicates. Nominal predicates are derived from these PV roots by the suffixation of a predicative nominal formative -pari, e.g. liirl-pari ‘shiny, whitened’, luurlpari ‘raised’, etc. These PVs only form a predicative constituent if either incorporated as PV into a PV-V structure, or as the root of a -pari nominal. While a nominal such as kardirri ‘white’ may form an independent predicate which cannot be incorporated as PV in a PV-V constituent with a stative stance verb, synonymous liirl- ‘white’ may do so. Once converted to a nominal predicate, liirlpari ‘white’ can no longer serve as PV, e.g. *liirlpari-nguna. The distinction between liirl-, and jaa- PV forms on the one hand, and nominal predicates ngurrju, linji, and kardirri on the other, is syntactic. Just what features underlie this syntactic distinction is unclear. ..

Aspectual enclitics

Nominal predicates in verbless clauses such as (a) may have an individual-level or stage-level reading. However this ambiguity can be dispelled, as shown in (a–d), by the use of aspectual enclitics: ‘individual-level’ is marked by =puka or =pirdinypa, while ‘stage-level’ is marked by a member of a set of enclitics =lku ‘changed state’, =wiyi ‘former state’, and =juku ‘unchanged state’. () a. Kuyu nyampu pukulyu=pirdinypa/puka. ‘This meat (is the) rotten (one).’ b. Kuyu nyampu pukulyu=lku. ‘This meat (is) now rotten.’ (NOT rotten (meat) > rotten (meat)) c. Kuyu nyampu ngurrju=wiyi. ‘This meat (was) good before.’ (good (meat) > NOT good (meat)) d. Kuyu nyampu ngurrju=juku. ‘This meat is still good.’ (NOT ((good (meat) > NOT good (meat)))) It is evident that the interpretation of (b–c) fits the CHANGE event schema in Figure . with the same variation in the scopal operations of negation that we saw in the ‘event’ readings of stance verbs discussed in section ...  

The contrast in syntactic behaviour between lexical PV predicates and nominal predicates requires further research. These enclitics may also be hosted by verbal predicates over which they have scope.

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

211

However, despite the interpretation of the predicative NPs in (b–d) relying on this CHANGE event structure, these NP predicates cannot be expressed within the morphosyntactic schema of the verbal complex in Figure .. To be linked to the verbal complex, either the NP is incorporated as a PV into the thematic verbal core headed by the inchoative jarri or the causative -mani, as seen in () and (), or it is associated via case with the complex headed by a ‘copula’ verb as discussed in section ... ..

The resultative construction

As already seen, the ‘impaired integrity’ PVs such as rdilyki ‘broken’, larra ‘split, torn’, rdiirr(pa) ‘busted’, rdilyirr(pa) ‘perforated’, etc. have homophonous nominal counterparts. The aspectual interpretation of these terms rests on a semantic schema in which the impaired integrity state is viewed as the result of some externally caused change in the material integrity of the entity it holds of. Other predicative nominals do not presuppose this semantic ‘cause change’ schema, although, as seen in section .., they may be placed within an inchoative or causative construction associated with ‘syntactic’ LVs such as jarri and -mani, or may be in the scope of an aspectual enclitic, such as those discussed in section .. which forces the property they designate to be viewed as the result of change, or holding prior to change, or holding in the absence of change. Impaired integrity nominals differ from other predicative nominals with respect to their ability to incorporate as PVs into the thematic core headed by a verb (other than the ‘default’ inchoative jarri and causative mani), where they are interpreted as resultant states. The verb they combine with may specify the nature of the change event or of the causing event. Nominal predicates which don’t presuppose this CAUSE CHANGE schema cannot be incorporated into a thematic core with a verb which specifies either the change or the cause event. These contrasting behaviours of nominal predicates are demonstrated by examples in () and (). () a.

Wati-ngki ka paka-rni kuturu ngurrju-karda. man-ERG AUX:PRS chop/hit-NPST club good-transl ‘The man is chopping the club to make it better.’ b. *Wati-ngki ka ngurrju-paka-rni kuturu. man-ERG AUX:PRS good-chop/hit-NPST club ≠ ‘The man is chopping the club to make it better.’/≠ ‘[…] is chopping the club well’.

() a.

Wati-ngki ka rdilyki-paka-rni man-ERG AUX:PRS broken-chop/hit-NPST ‘The man is breaking the club by chopping it.’

kuturu. club

212

Laughren

b. Yarla-pama-rlu ka parrka rdilypirr-yarlki-rni. yam-grub-ERG AUX:PRS leaf perforated -bite-NPST ‘Yam-grubs bite holes (in) the leaves.’ c. Rdilypirrpa ka muku yarlki-rni watiya rdilypirrpa-karda, hole AUX:PRS PV:ALL bite-NPST tree perforated-TRANSL ‘It bites holes in the whole tree to make it (full of) holes kuja=ka=rla marlaja=lku linji-jarri. COMP=AUX:PRES-DAT RELATED _ TO = CS dry-INCH:NPST which then dies (=dries) as a result of its (action).’ We have already seen in section .. that impaired integrity nominal predicates such as rdilyki combine as PV with a verb to form CHANGE STATE (PV-yani) and CAUSE CHANGE STATE (PV-pinyi) complex verbs, whereas other nominal predicates unassociated with this presupposed CAUSE-CHANGE event structure form inchoative and causative PV-LV complexes with other ‘light’ verbs. In section .. we also saw how rdilyki nominals are verb-like in forming resultant state predicates with -warnu, whereas other nominal predicates do not. In (a), rdilyki in combination with the verb paka-rni ‘chop, hit’ expresses the resultant state (as we’ve seen it do in combination with LV pinyi), while paka-rni expresses features of the external causing event (man chops the club). The verb paka-rni can be replaced by any transitive verb which can be interpreted as a ‘causing event’ and the referent of the direct object of the verb is also the entity which undergoes the change of state. A parallel example is given in (b) with the PV rdilypirr ‘perforated’ and the V yarlkirni ‘bite’. To be interpreted as a ‘causing event’ the verb must have the right semantic features. For example, a transitive perception verb cannot combine with a rdilyki PV to create a complex predicate meaning ‘see/hear/smell/touch and break’ (e.g. *rdilyki-nyanyi [lit. broken-see/look]), even though Warlpiri perception verbs have both stative (e.g. ‘see’) and activity (e.g. ‘look’, ‘watch’) interpretations. Perception verbs, unlike ‘impact’ verbs such as pakarni ‘hit’ and yarlkirni ‘bite’, fail to project an event structure which can be the eventive ‘subject’ of a CAUSE predicate in the representation in Figure .. On the other hand, if we take a nominal predicate from the non-rdilyki class, such as ngurrju ‘good’ in (b), and treat it as a PV with an eventive verb such as paka-rni, the PV fails to be interpreted as a resultant state brought about by the event expressed by the verb it combines with. In order to express this idea, the nominal end-state predicate is embedded in   

In Warlpiri plants are not said ‘to die’. They are said to ‘become dry’. Similarly, one does not ‘kill’ a tree. Nyanyi ‘see, look at/for, watch’, purda-nyanyi ‘hear, listen to’, parnti-nyanyi ‘smell, smell out/for’. etc. How to capture these event structure differences is not clear, but it would seem to derive from contrasting Aktionsart features.

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

213

a constituent headed by karda; this forces a potential resultant state interpretation as in (a). However, the karda constituent cannot be incorporated into the verb (*ngurrju-karda-pakarni). NP karda never becomes part of the ‘thematic core’ of a verbal constituent, even though it appears to map onto the same semantic change event structure as the PV rdilyki. However, the NP-karda constituent which operates as an independent phrase outside the verbal constituent does not presuppose an external CAUSE, it is purely inchoative. The event structure of the NP-karda phrase is equivalent to the CHANGE state event in Figure . which excludes the CAUSE predicate; karda maps onto the CHANGE predicate which selects a situation as a changed state of affairs. Thus the presence of karda forces a dynamic interpretation of a basically stative predicate. However, unlike the PV rdilyki in (a), which entails that the club comes to be broken (by some external force specified by the verb pakarni), the ngurrju-karda phrase in (a) does not entail that the club becomes good/better. This may be the intended or possible outcome, but the change of state is not necessarily entailed. Thus the event structure associated with the NP-karda phrase is linked to the event structure of the verb by another functional head which is the locus of a modal ‘goal’ or ‘possible outcome’ feature. The event structure of the verbal constituent and that of the -karda constituent are not linked such that if the verbal predicate is entailed, then the NP predicate is automatically entailed (or vice versa); nor are they linked at the level of surface morphosyntactic structure, since the NP-karda phrase is not incorporated into the verbal constituent. Sentence (c) provides an example of a rdilyki nominal embedded in a -karda phrase: rdilypirrpa-karda (perforated-karda) ‘to become perforated’ used as an adjunct to the structure projected by the HV yarlkirni ‘bite’. Notice that in the PV-LV rdilypirr-yarlkirni (‘perforate-bite’) in (b), the PV consists of the root (rdilypirr), whereas the nominal rdilypirripa (root-pa) is used in (c), both as an independent absolutive NP meaning ‘hole/perforation’ and as an NP in the karda-headed phrase, with the predicative ‘with hole, holey, holed, perforated’ meaning. A rdilyki type N/PV presupposes as part of its meaning a change in the material integrity of the entity it is predicated of; thus its semantic representation includes the CHANGE event complex schema in Figure . as part of its presuppositonal structure. By incorporating the PV into the inner thematic core of the verbal constituent headed by ya-, the presuppositional structure is syntactically realised. The verb ya- as in (a) does not introduce the change schema into the event structure but signals its mapping into the syntactic structure, as -ya- must be the spellout of some verbal feature associated with the head of a verbal projection; the PV-LV constituent encodes an event (change of state), not just a resultant state, as in (b) and also in (c), where the absolutive NP rdilyki is external to the verbal constituent nguna ‘lie’. 

Simpson () refers to -karda as the ‘translative’, following the nomenclature of a similar Finnish suffix.

214

() a. Karli rdilyki-ya-nu. boomerang broken-GO-PST ‘The boomerang broke.’ b. Karli rdilyki. ‘The boomerang is broken.’ c. Karli ka rdilyki boomerang AUX:PRES broken ‘The boomerang is lying broken.’

Laughren

nguna. (*rdilyki-nguna) lie-NPST

Although an impaired integrity NP presupposes a change of state, rdilyki in (a, b) cannot operate as an independent predicative nominal with a change of state event interpretation. () a. Wati-ngki ka kuturu paka-rni rdilyki. man-ERG AUX:PRS club chop-NPST broken ‘The man is chopping/striking a club (that is) broken.’ / ‘[…] a broken club.’ ≠‘The man is breaking a club (by) striking/chopping it.’ b. Wati-ngki ka kuturu paka-rni rdilyki=lki. man-ERG AUX:PRS club chop-NPST broken=CS ‘The man is chopping/striking a club (that is) now broken.’ ≠’The man is now breaking a club (by) striking/chopping it.’ c. Karli rdilyki-paka-rnu. boomerang broken-hit-PST ‘(He) struck the boomerang and broke (it).’ In (a, b), rdilyki can only be interpreted as a stative predicate holding of kuturu ‘club’. Even if we add the changed state (CS) clitic =lki to rdilyki, as in (b), this predicate will not be interpreted as referring to a state resulting from the act of striking the club. In (a, b), rdilyki is interpreted as predicated directly of the referent of the Direct Object NP kuturu ‘club’ without this relation being mediated by the verb. In order to achieve a causal link between the ‘strike’ event and the ‘broken’ state either the stative rdilyki must be embedded in the phrase projected by -karda, as in () and (), or must be in the thematic core of the verbal complex as a PV, as in rdilyki-paka-rnu seen in (c). Syntactically, case agreement is required between the predicate rdilyki and its logical subject kuturu in (a, b); both are in the phonologically null absolutive case. Paka- ‘hit, chop, strike’ lacks any CHANGE OF STATE entailment; it only entails a type of contact between one entity and another. A possible effect can only be presupposed, not entailed. In order to achieve the resultant

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

215

state interpretation as an entailment, rdilyki must be incorporated into the verbal constituent headed by paka-rni as a PV where it does not need to be case-governed, as in (c). .. ‘Light’ verbs versus ‘not-so-light’ verbs in PV-V thematic complex verbs The PV-V rdilyki-yanu [lit. broken-go:PST] in (a) only entails that the boomerang changed state from being not broken to being broken. It does not entail, like its HV counterpart, that the boomerang went (or moved along a path), although it might be argued that the process of breaking entails a metaphorical path, the transition from being unbroken to being broken. The verb expresses the CHANGE predicate, checking the Aktionsart features which assure an event reading for (a), in contrast with the stative reading in (b, c). In (), however, both the fact that the boomerang broke and that it fell is entailed, which suggests that the verb wanti ‘fall’ may function like paka-rnu ‘hit’ in (c), in that both verbs express features of the causing event. Since -wanti only allows a single argument to be syntactically projected, karli must be identified as the subject of both the ‘breaking’ and ‘falling’ events. The breaking event can only be interpreted as the result of the falling event – not as an independent contemporaneous event. () Karli rdilyki-wanti-ja. boomerang broken-fall-PST ‘The boomerang broke as a result of falling.’ Similarly in (c) (repeated here as (a)), the ‘striking’ event expressed by paka-rnu is not independent of the ‘breaking’ event, the latter is the result of the former. In both () and (a) the V is used with the same meaning as when used as a HV. Similarly for the examples in (c, d). However pinyi in (b), like yani in (a), does not specify the nature of the causing event, only the fact that it involves both the undergoer of the change of state as its logical object and an ‘agent’ role which is not bound to that of its object. () a. Karli rdilyki-paka-rnu. boomerang broken-chop-PST ‘He struck the boomerang and broke it.’ 

Note that I don’t assume that a ‘causing event’ interpretation must be projected onto a syntactically ‘transitive’ structure with separate ‘agent’ and ‘undergoer’ argument positions, and hence expressed by a constituent containing a transitive verb. Rdilyki-wanti ‘fall and break’ differs from ngunanja-wanti ‘lie down’ in that the cause is eventive in the former case (Figure .), but not in the latter (Figure .).

216

Laughren

b. Karli rdilyki-pu-ngu. boomerang broken-CAUSE-PST ‘He broke the boomerang.’ (He acted on the boomerang and it broke.) c. Karli rdilyki-katu-rnu. boomerang broken-exert_pressure_on-PST ‘He stood on/ran over the boomerang and broke it.’ d. Karli rdilyki-luwa-rnu. boomerang broken-strike_with_missile-PST ‘He broke the boomerang when he struck it (e.g. with another boomerang).’ The verb -pungu in (b) marks the projection into the syntax of an external cause event, but does not specify the nature of that event. All verbs in () project an external causer into the event structure, a role that is distinct from the undergoer of change. The intransitive verb wanti in (), on the other hand, does not project an external causer argument and can only be interpreted as involving the same entity as the one that undergoes the change to being ‘broken’. However, unlike yani and pinyi, verbs such as wanti in (), and paka-, kati-, and luwa- in () all specify aspects of the cause event. These differences, I suggest, are encoded within the PredP in the causing event AKTP in the specifier of the CauseP in the event complex in Figure .. These distinctions are not syntactically relevant, only semantically relevant. What is syntactically relevant is that the head of this PredP is mapped onto a V position in syntactic structure. The nature of the event is recoverable from the semantic information associated with the lexical entry for this verb root. Verbs such as yani and pinyi are semantically ‘lighter’ than wanti in () and paka-, kati-, and luwa- seen in () (which have a specified ‘manner’ component). In this class of PV-V construction, however, they behave differently from what I have referred to as the default or ‘syntactic’ LVs -jarri and mani. LVs such as yani and pinyi are lexically selected in that they may only form PV-V (CAUSE) CHANGE STATE expressions with a restricted class of PV – including those expressing ‘impaired integrity’ predicates. The same goes for -ngarni and –jirrirni, whose selection is tied to the Aktionsart features of the PV predicate they combine with. .. Verb as an Aktionsart head Although rdilyki nominals in (a,b), repeated as (a,b), presuppose a change of state, they only operate as eventive change of state predicates if incorporated as PV-V complex as in (a-d).

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

217

() a. Wati-ngki ka kuturu paka-rni rdilyki. man-ERG AUX:PRS club chop-NPST broken ‘The man is chopping/striking a club (that is) broken.’ / ‘[…] a broken club.’ ≠ ‘The man is breaking a club (by) striking/chopping it.’ b. Wati-ngki ka kuturu paka-rni rdilyki=lki. man-ERG AUX:PRS club chop-NPST broken=CS ‘The man is chopping/striking a club (that is) now broken.’ ≠ ‘The man is now breaking a club (by) striking/chopping it.’ The nominal predicate rdilyki ‘broken’ in () is predicated directly of the NP kuturu ‘club’ in a syntactic relationship marked by case agreement (unmarked absolutive). It refers to the state of the club quite independently of the striking event expressed by the verb paka-rni. The ‘striking’ event can be interpreted as a telic achievement (single blow to club) or as a non-telic activity (multiple blows to club). The accomplishment reading entailing the change of state (from not broken to broken) is expressed when a rdilyki predicate combines with an appropriate verb to form a PV-V constituent. In order to be in the scope of the appropriate Aktionsart features, rdilyki must combine with a dynamic verb, be it a LV like yani or pinyi (discussed in section ..) that expresses no information about the manner of the causing event, or a HV such as pakarni in () which does. We have already seen in section .. that in these PV-V complexes only dynamic predicates of the rdilyki class are selected as PV by these verb types. Thus there appears to be a compatibility requirement between the intrinsic Aktionsart features of the PV and the V it combines with. The dynamic meaning of externally caused change of state that is lexically encoded by a rdilyki class predicate is only actualized if it is placed in a larger constituent where it is in the scope of the appropriate Aktionsart features. This larger constituent contains either a verbal or a postpositional head such as -warnu discussed in section ... (see examples in () and ()). These facts raise the question as to whether V (or v) heads in syntactic structure may be reduced to Aktionsart heads in the sense that only the aspectual features associated with them are relevant or visible to the syntactic component. A related issue is whether these verbal heads are governed by separate Aktionsart heads associated with features which must ‘agree’ or at least be compatible. I will not pursue these issue here. Clearly the relationship between PV and V is mediatedby Aktionsart features. .. Form–meaning combinations in inchoative and causative PV-V constituents Some of the facts presented in this section provide evidence for a model of language in which the event structure which defines the thematic functions

218

Laughren

which determine the PAS properties of a predicate associated with a lexical form is distinct from the syntactic structure into which the predicate is mapped. We have examined a collection of semi-productive PV-V complex verbs expressing CHANGE and CAUSE CHANGE functions with varying degrees of semantic transparency, as well as the more productive ‘default-like’ patterns. The Warlpiri data reveal that the relationship between which verb forms are used in combination with which PVs to form the inner thematic core of a complex verbal constituent is not random. While some semi-productive patterns might perhaps be usefully thought of synchronically as idiomatic collocations, or collocation patterns, we have seen that other patterns correlate with identifiable features. The set of verbs which license the syntactic expression of an external ‘agent’ are distinct from those which do not; verbs which actualise the CHANGE and CAUSE functions presupposed by a dynamic predicate of the rdilyki class differ from those which add these components of event structure to a stative predicate of the yurnmi/ngurrju/ pukulyu class. Verbs which express change into a [–dur] transitory state differ from those which express change into a [+dur] state. While factors derived from the pre-history of certain forms is undoubtedly relevant to the mapping between phonological form and pieces of syntactic structure which are mapped onto a particular event structure, some consistent patterns of mapping to phonological form have been revealed. We have seen four semantically ‘light’ verbs which mark the syntactic projection of an external causer participant as the subject of the complex verb: -pinyi with ‘impaired integrity’ PVs (although it is not limited to this class of PV); -yirrarni with INF/PV which express an change of stance or spatial configuration; jirrirni with a PV expressing a momentary change of psychological state which may involve internal physical change (kinyirr-jirrirni ‘startle’, miil-jirrirni ‘shock’); -mani which combines with a PV or XP predicate to express an externally caused change of state, activity, or location. Verbs which do not express an external cause of change show more variation. An INTERNAL CAUSE of CHANGE predicate takes a number of forms. A simplex HV (karri, nyina, nguna, parntarri) may express internally caused maintenance or change of stance (nyina, nguna, parntarri). Internally controlled maintenance or change of stance may also be expressed by a PV-LV complex (wardu-karri, tarda-yani, pirri-mani). Internally caused change of stance is also expressed by a complex VINF-LV predicate (karrinja-pardi, ngunanja-wanti, parntarrinja-wanti). We have seen that as independent verbs, neither the directed motion verbs pardi ‘rise’ and wanti ‘fall’ nor the stance verb karri ‘stand’ may express an internally caused change of location. Furthermore, independent verbs which express internally caused 

Patterns akin to the use of English ‘drive’ as a syntactic causative verb which only combines with impaired behavioural or cognitive state phrases: drive mad/silly/crazy/to drink/insane/out of one’s mind/bonkers/nuts versus *sad/*happy/*charming/*calm/*bad /*good/*sick/*sane (Richard Carter, personal communication ).

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

219

change of location (warrkarni ‘ascend’, jitirni ‘descend’) which correspond to non-internally controlled verbs ( pardi ‘rise’ and wanti ‘fall’), are not used with a stance VINF to create an internally caused change of stance complex verb. Where the internally caused change of stance is expressed by a PV-V combination, the PV expresses the resultant stance while the verb expresses the change. The choice of directed motion verbs such as pardi and wanti, rather than the corresponding control verbs warrkarni and jiti, in verb complexes which express a self-initiated change of stance, suggests that it is not possible to encode one internal cause within another another (*x causes self to cause self to change). Such constraints cannot be semantic, they must be syntactic. This does not necessarily provide evidence for the position that the event structure of the type in Figures .–. is constructed in the syntax (cf. Megerdoomian (), Folli, Harley, and Karimi ()), although it would be possible to translate our event structures into syntactic trees by substituting syntactic categories for the semantic labels I have used. However, I have tried to show in this section that identical components of an event structure can be realised by different syntactic projections, e.g. NP or PV may express identical predicates, and a change event may be expressed by a V or PP form. However, the aspectual features which mediate between a predicate and its argument determine the possible semantic–syntactic pairings. Contrasting aspectual features of PV predicates are also overtly marked by the choice of V in complex thematic core structures. Whereas PV-yaexpresses a CHANGE predicate which presupposes an unexpressed external cause (rdilyki/larra/rdiirr/rdilypirr-yani) where the resultant state is ongoing (+DUR), it is expressed by PV-ngarni where the resultant state is not ongoing (–DUR), but only momentary ( julurr-/kinyirr-ngarni). The CHANGE event expressed by PV-jarri can be seen as a default option – it applies where other marked lexical options fail to apply. However its PV must be derived from a phrasal category such as NP or PP. .

Morphosyntactic behaviour of Warlpiri complex verbs

A verbal constituent, no matter how complex, can behave as a single syntactic constituent as tested by its ability to precede the Auxiliary (AUX) complex (Hale , , Laughren , Nash , Simpson ), as shown in (a) where the quantificational PV yarda ‘more, again’ and the complex thematic core rdilypirr-panturnu ‘pierce hole in’ precede the AUX. It may ‘split’ into two constituents, one preposed to AUX and the other immediately postposed 

Semantically equivalent English verbs startle, frighten, scare are typically transitive; the external causer of the experience is Subject of the active voice form while the experiencer is Object. The passive construction must be used to suppress the obligatory projection into the syntactic representation of the ‘causer’ argument: *He startled ≠ he was startled.

220

Laughren

to AUX, as in (b) (Laughren () refers to this as auxiliary stranding). In (b), the quantification PV yarda ‘more, further, again’ precedes AUX, while the complex thematic verb wantiki-ma-nta follows AUX. () a. Yarda rdilypirr-pantu-rnu=lpa=lu. more hole-pierce-PST=AUX:IMPF=PL.S ‘They were piercing holes (in it) again.’ b. Yarda=rla wantiki-ma-nta. more=AUX:DAT wide-CAUSE-IMP ‘Widen it more (to get to it).’ As mentioned in section ., while outer PVs such as yarda may also follow AUX, leaving the rest of the verbal complex in preAUX position, a thematic core PV-LV combination may also be ‘split’ by AUX, but the order must be maintained, so that PV always precedes LV. Also discussed in section . was the ability of directional enclitics (DIR) to intervene between the PV and V, as in (a). In this case, the PV=DIR constituent is expressed as a phonological word distinct from the following verb word (Pentland and Laughren ). PV=DIR may also be followed by AUX, which is then followed by the inflected V as in (b). () a.

[lawa]=rra

ma-ni

nothing= DIR

CAUS-NPST

~

[lawa-ma-ni]=rra

‘cause to not be present, make (it) go away, disperse, empty, get rid of …’ b.

[pirda]=rra=lpa

jarri-nja-ya-nu ~

[[pirda-[jarri-nja]]-ya-nu]=rra=lpa

sated=DIR=AUX:IMPF

INCH-INF-PATH-PST

[pirda-[jarri- nja]]=rra [ya-nu] =lpa

‘(he) was getting full’

[pirda- [jarri-nja]]=rra=lpa [ya-nu]

The independence between the PV and the thematic V (underlined) in () with respect to the placement of DIR and/or AUX was argued by Laughren () to derive from the ability of the PV to occupy a high specifier position in the phrase projected by an inflectional head (tense, mood) as a result of phrasal movement from a lower PREDP position within the VC (as in Figure .). It was argued that the PV (or other phrasal constituents) may move 



If yarda in (b) were an adverbial phrase independent of the verb wantiki-manta, it would have to be case-marked with Ergative, i.e. *yarda-ngku. The construction in (b) can be compared with one using an adverbial such as maya ‘more’ in Maya-ngku=rla wantiki-manta. ‘Keep on widening it to (get) it’. It is not possible to have both mayangku and the verb preposed to AUX, unlike PV yarda and the V panturnu in (a), *Maya-ngku panturnu=lpa=lu. Either mayangku or panturnu can be preposed to AUX =lpa=lu, but not both. In the Warlpiri data corpus, clause-initial yarda is overwhelmingly found in the AUXstraddling construction with AUX immediately following yarda and preceding the rest of the verbal complex.

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

221

up into the Spec of DIRP, or alternatively, that the whole verbal complex (Figure .) moves into this position. The variable placement of DIR = rra as in () provides a useful diagnostic of surface syntactic constituent structure. A satisfactory account of the syntactic properties of complex verbs must explain their single constituent-like behaviour, while at the same time allowing for the limited phrasal movement of a PV (or thematic VC constituent) relative to other components of the verbal complex, especially in finite clauses. (See Legate () for an alternative analysis.) .. VINF-V verbal constituent For the less productive VINF-V or PV-V thematic core constituents we might expect to not see the syntactic freedom displayed in () and (). However, the data do not bear out this expectation, at least not in an obvious way. In () we see VINF-V constituents in which a DIR enclitic separates the VINF from the V. In () VINF is separated from V by the AUX. () a. karri-nja]=rni pardi stand-INF=DIR rise:NPST b. karri-nja]=rni yirra-rni stand-INF=DIR put-NPST

‘stand up hither’’ ‘put in a standing position hither’

() a. karri-nja]=lpa pardi-ja ‘(he) was standing up’ stand-INF=AUX:IMPF rise-PST b. karri-nja]=ka pardi ‘(he) is standing up’ stand-INF=AUX:PRS rise:NPST Notice that this syntactic behaviour is what we find when a thematic verb is in the scope of the aspectual PATH verb yani, or PURPOSEFUL DISPLACEMENT verb parnka. The preceding (thematic) V must be in the VINF form and it may constitute an independent phrase which hosts DIR and/or it may be preposed to AUX. Examples of the separation of the thematic structure from the aspectual are given in (). () a. [pirda-jarri-nja]=rra

ya-nu =lpa

sated-INCH-INF=THITHER

PATH-PST =AUX:IMPF

‘He was getting full.’ b.

[pirda-jarri-nja]=rra=lpa

ya-nu

sated-INCH-INF=THITHER=AUX:IMPF

PATH-PST

‘He was getting full.’ c.

Ngapiri Red.Gum

ka

[karri-nja]=rra

ya-ni

karru-ngka.

AUX:PRS

stand-INF=THITHER

PATH-NPST

creek-LOC

‘The Red Gums are standing/growing along the creek.’

222

Laughren d.

[Nya-nja]=rni=lpa

ya-nu.

look-INF=HITHER=AUX:IMPF

PATH-PST

‘(He) was looking as he came.’ e.

[Nya-nja]=rni

parnka

ka=lu.

look-INF=HITHER

PURPD:NPST

AUX:PRS =PL.S

‘They are coming to see/visit (him).’

These observations lead us then to ask whether the verbs such as pardi in (a) and (a,b) or even yirra- in (b) actually belong to the thematic core as we have defined it, or whether they constitute another type of aspectual verb such as ya- in (d) and parnka in (e). Unlike these aspectual verbs, thematic verbs such as pardi in (a) and () do not combine freely with preverbal infinitive verbs as do the PATH verb ya- or the PURPD ‘go to’ verb parnka. We have seen that the VINF=V combinations of the karrinjapardi type are extremely constrained. As we have already noticed, pardi in karrinja-pardi ‘stand up’ contrasts with wanti in ngunanja-wanti ‘lie down’ in its spatial entailment – part of body of X rises. It also determines the PAS of the complex verb while aspectual verbs play no role in determining argument structure, which is why nyanja ‘see-INF’ in (d, e) maintains its dyadic status. .. Lexical PV-V constituent So what about the inner thematic core verbal constituent with an underived lexical PV (in the sense of Nash )? Does the PV behave like an XP which can separate from the thematic verb or is it more tightly related to the verb as in a compound constituent? In the barely productive PV-V collocation pirri-mani ‘sit, land, perch’, the PV can be separated by a directional enclitic (a, b) and may be further separated from the verb by the auxiliary complex, as in (b) in which AUX ka=lu intervenes between the PV pirri and the V ma-ni. ()

a. pirri]=rni seated=DIR b. pirri]=rra seated=DIR

ma-ni ‘sitting (facing/coming) hither’ V-NPST ka=lu ma-ni ‘they are sitting thither’ AUX=PL.S V-NPST

Like the VINF-V cases, which are only semi-productive at best, these PV-V combinations are visible to the S-Syntax. Like VINF, the PV may have some very limited syntactic independence by optionally moving into the specifier of DIRP and/or moving into the pre-AUX position. ‘Impaired integrity’ denominal PVs of the rdilyki class may also be separated from the verb by DIR and aspectual enclitics, as shown in (a), and also by AUX as in (b).

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

223

() a.

rdilyki]=rra=lku ya-ni broken=DIR= CS V-NPST ‘now breaks off’ b. Rdilyki-rdilyki]=lpa=lu pu-ngu. broken-broken=AUX:IMPF =PL.S V-PST ‘They were breaking it (into pieces).’

What we have seen so far is that the thematic core may separate from the following aspectual verb as in (), or PVs may separate from the rest of the verbal complex, including inner thematic core PVs which may separate from their thematic V as in () and (). In section .. we see another PV-V construction which does not permit movement of the PV away from the V, and in which the PV appears to behave like a Xº category rather than an XP. The examples of AUX-straddling by components of a verbal complex reviewed above differ from examples of discontinuous case phrases (KP) as in (a). () a. Kuyu-ku ka=rla marlu-ku yura-ka-nyi. animal-DAT AUX:PRS=DAT kangaroo-DAT sneaking-go-NPST ‘He is sneaking up on the (animal) kangaroo.’ b. Kuyu marlu-ku ka=rla yura-ka-nyi. animal kangaroo-DAT AUX:PRS=DAT sneaking-go-NPST ‘He is sneaking up on the (animal) kangaroo.’ c. *Kuyui ka=rla marlui-ku yura-ka-nyi. Although it is possible to have two contiguous nominals within the scope of the case on the final member as in (b), it is not possible to have the uncasemarked nominal in pre-AUX position while the case-marked nominal follows AUX as shown in (c). The PV elements which precede AUX followed by the remainder of the verbal constituent are syntactically licensed whereas uncase-marked nominals are not. AUX-straddling by verbal constituents is only licensed where they are in the scope of the finite verbal and clause level inflectional categories, which may be why, once COMP is filled, AUXstraddling is no longer valid (Laughren ). Both the discontinuous KP construction in (a) and AUX-straddling by verbal constituents are syntactic processes and are not in any way governed by prosodic factors. ..

Limits on PV independence

Many Warlpiri PVs have a consonant final root form as well as a vowel final augmented form derived from the consonant final root by the addition of pa 

(c) is only grammatical on a reading where kuyu and marlu refer to different individuals, e.g. an animal is sneaking up on the kangaroo.

224

Laughren

or in some cases ki/ku. The consonant final PV cannot be separated from the V with which it forms a complex constituent. This PVroot-V combination has the prosodic properties of a word–word compound in which the PV and V maintain their underlying prosodic word structure, i.e. the PV has a minimum of two vocalic morae (CVVC, CVCVC), both PV and V are stressbearing, but the PV lacks the requirement of an independent word to end in a vowel. Another phonological requirement of Warlpiri words is that they are consonant-initial. However where the initial consonant of the V is a glide y or w, it is typically elided so that the final consonant of the PV is resyllabified to form the onset of the verbal word. Some relevant examples are given in (). ()

a. wuruly-yani hidden-go b. nyunjurl-yani curse-go c. rdiirr-wanti busted-fall

[wu-ru-lya-ni]

a′. wurulypa=rra yani

[nyu-nju-rla-ni]

b′. nyunjurlpa=rni yani

[rdii-rran-ti]

c′. rdiirrpa=rra wanti

a″. *wuruly=rra yani b″. *nyunjurl=rni yani c″. *rdiirr=rra wanti It would seem as though the speaker has two options: to use a phrasal or non-phrasal root PV. Even PVs with a unique vowel final form may be used in the ‘compound’ construction or in the ‘phrasal’ construction. The speaker’s choice may be determined by pragmatic requirements; certainly the preverbal element can be focused and fronted in the phrasal construction in a way that is not possible within the compound structure. It may be, of course, that the PV in the phrasal construction always moves out of the inner thematic core in order to be in the scope of some focus operator, and that for some PVs there is a distinct in focus as opposed to out of focus phonological form. While the PV-V constituents in (aʺ–cʺ) are phonologically ill-formed since illicit consonant clusters result from the encliticisation of the DIR clitics, the motivation for the dual PV forms is not phonological. The motivation is syntactic since only the vowel final phrasal forms may precede AUX in AUX-stranding constructions, irrespective of the consonant clusters which might result from the sequences formed by the PV-final C and the AUX-initial C. The vowel final form of many PVs may also be categorised as nominal and may constitute an NP independent of a V, as we saw to be the case with rdilyki in section .. The consonant final form, on the other hand, is not phrasal. The non-phrasal PV may result from the incorporation of the PV head (in its root form) of the PREDP in the stative structure shown in Figure ., into the head of the higher verbal predicate

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

225

associated with a CHANGE or CAUSE function, whereas the phrasal PV results from the movement of the lowest PREDP into a specifier position within the inflected verbal phrase. Head movement involves the root form of the preverbal constituent, while movement from complement to specifier involves a phrasal PV category. While the various ‘motion’ or ‘stance’ verbs which combine with a PV to form CHANGE stance/location/state verbal constituents may combine with the root form, the productive intransitive verbaliser jarri only combines with augmented non-root PVs. One might expect this to be also true of the productive causative mani. However mani does combine with root forms, e.g. karaly-mani ‘make smooth’, laarr-mani ‘split/section’, minyminy-mani ‘dampen’, pinpin-mani ‘make thinner’, rdangkarl-mani ‘shorten’, rdilypirr-mani ‘make hole in, perforate’, yurnuly-mani ‘muddy’, rarraly-mani ‘straighten, smoothe out’, etc. This structural contrast between jarri and all other verbs, including causative -mani, calls for further investigation. As shown by the distribution of rdilypirr(pa) ‘hole, with hole(s)’ in (b, c), only the augmented nominal form may be incorporated into a karda phrase (*rdilypirr-karda), the root form being limited to the PV function. In neither the pre jarri or karda environment is the ungrammaticality of the consonant final root PV due to phonological constraints, as sequences of apico-alveolar tap or trill rr (or most lateral consonants) followed by j or k are permitted. .. Syntactic or lexical causatives A distinction has long been made between a syntactic causative construction, as in the English periphrastic John made Paul (feel) sad, and a lexical causative expressed within one morphological word, as in John saddened Paul. Carter () noted that while it is possible to embed a causative clause inside a syntactic causative, as in Caesar made the consul make the general make the soldiers sack the city, no single verb encodes a CAUSE (CAUSE) relation where both causer arguments would be external causers, as in *Caesar sacked the general the city, meaning that ‘Caesar made/had the general sack the city’. Only a single external cause predicate may be lexically encoded, or more precisely expressed by a monoclausal constituent. The Warlpiri causative PV-V constituents may be expressed as a tightly bound compound word or they may also be expressed as a combination of morphophonological   

A causative form rdilypirr-(y)inyi is also used; HV yinyi ‘give’. While I have classified both dependent -ma- and -jarri as ‘syntactic’ verbs, it may be the case that only -jarri has this property, -ma- being a lexical verb. Syntactic causative constructions are not necessarily periphrastic in the sense of being constructed out of several morphophonological words as in English. Languages may encode causative constructions in a single morphologically complex phonological word (see Travis (b) for Malagasy and Tagalog examples).

226

Laughren

words, in what was referred to in section .. as the phrasal construction. Like lexical causatives, the Warlpiri PV-V or V verbal constituent cannot embed an externally caused predicate inside another externally caused predicate, e.g. *karrinja-yirrarninja-yirrarni/*karrinja-yirrarninja-mani (≠to make to stand something up) or *rdilyki-pinja-mani (≠to make x break y). As noted in section ., unlike causative yirra-, causative ma- cannot have an uninflected VINF in its preverbal position. However, as observed by Nash (), yirra- can not host a transitive VINF, i.e. one with an external causer argument. The Warlpiri thematic core, be it a single morphophonological word or several, can only express a single external CAUSE predicate conforming to the semantic representation in Figure .. This constituent is monoclausal. Even where a causative event schema is expressed by a simplex verbal constituent, e.g. maja-rni ‘straighten, stretch’, mirri-rni ‘erase’, purra‘burn, cook’, it is not possible to embed this verb as a VINF preverb within a thematic core headed by a verb which expresses a CAUSE predicate. Thus it is not a constraint on morphological complexity which excludes the possibility of having an external cause VINF combine as PV with an external cause V, rather the constraint derives from interface constraints in mapping event structure onto syntactic categories. .

Summary of findings and concluding remarks

This study has distinguished a number of different verb types: thematic, aspectual, independent, and dependent. Thematic verbs can have an HV use when used as the sole exponent of the inner thematic core and also when used in combination with a PV where the V expresses a causing event, while the PV expresses the changed (or maintained) state, stance, or location. Thematic verbs can also be used as LVs in combination with a PV, such that their semantic contribution to the complex predicate is underspecified by comparison with their HV use, while their role in licensing the syntactic projection of arguments defined by the event structure remains constant. The inherently dependent verbs – those that require a PV – are either aspectual (e.g.-njini) or if thematic, then ‘light’ verbs whose selection is determined by Aktionsart properties of the PV predicate and PAS properties of the complex predicate. Only simplex stance verbs (i.e. without a PV) may operate as stative predicates. Only this class of verb may also operate as a copula; in this role I have argued that the verb does not map onto the predicative PredP component within the event structure as shown in Figure ., but rather onto the AKTP which dominates an empty PredP position linked to an overt 

These simplex external cause verbs have no cognate internal cause counterparts; internal causation can only be expressed by a syntactic reflexive construction, e.g. Jakamarra-rlu maja-rnu kurlarda (Jakamarra- ERG straighten-PST spear: ABS) ‘Jakamarra straightened a spear’, vs. Jakamarra-rlu=nyanu maja-rnu (J-ERG =ANAPH straighten-PST) ‘Jakamarra stretched/straightened up’.

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

227

NP predicate via case-marking as in Figure .. While additional research is required to pinpoint the nature of the default verbalisers jarri and -mani, I have argued that these are also Aktionsart verbs in that they mark a relationship between an Aktionsart head in Event Structure and a V head position in syntactic structure. I have classified them as non-lexical syntactic verbs. They are true ‘light’ verbs in that they do not specify any properties of a CHANGE or CAUSE CHANGE event. I have shown that in inner thematic core PV-V combinations there is a spectrum of ‘verbal weight’ measured in semantic terms. The dependent verbs are at the extreme ‘light’ end of this spectrum. The Warlpiri verbal constituent is underlyingly complex in its morphological, syntactic, and semantic structure. The verbal constituent is a phrasal complex consisting of a thematic core which must contain a verb and may additionally contain a preverbal constituent (which may be morphologically complex). The thematic structure may be augmented by an outer periphery consisting of ‘outer’ preverbal constituents which modify core elements in a variety of ways not addressed in this study. The thematic structure component of the verbal complex is in the scope of aspectual verbs, and in a finite clause, inflectional tense and mood categories realised as suffixes on the rightmost verb. The inflected constituent is in the scope of the deictic DIR category, realised as an enclitic to some phrasal component of the inflected verbal constituent. This study focused on the composition of the thematic core and particularly on stance and state predicates, achievement predicates expressing change of stance, location, and state, and accomplishments with a causal event component. It is evident that there is no simple correspondence between the morphological form and the event structure of the inner thematic core of a verbal complex. Synonymous predicates may be expressed by simplex V- or complex PV-V forms, e.g. wanti- and pata-karri ‘fall’. The same verb form may map onto different event structures (or components of event structure) with different Aktionsart properties, as illustrated by certain stance verbs, both simplex and complex. Homophonous verbs may have different semantic as well as morphosyntactic properties depending on whether they are dependent or independent, e.g. yani as a thematic independent verb (GO(x)); -yani as a thematic dependent verb (CHANGE STATE (x)) where the state is necessarily conceived as the result of some external cause change; -yani as an aspectual PATH verb which has scope over the situation or event expressed by the thematic core. In VINF/PV-V structures, the CAUSE and CHANGE functions are expressed by a number of different verbs. While there are some idiosyncratic or seeming exceptional combinations, the choice of verb was shown to be determined by systematic factors. These factors pertain to both the event structure underpinning the PAS and Aktionsart properties of the verbal constituent, and to the manner in which these event components are mapped onto the syntactic structure.

228

Laughren

This study represents a still preliminary exploration of Warlpiri verbal predicates. Some questions that have been raised remain to be answered, such as the exceptional character of the verbaliser -jarri in not allowing root PVs. However, it indicates that further investigation of verbal predicates would shed more light on the nature of lexical organisation and particularly on the interface between the meaning of predicates and the morphological and syntactic structure of their formal expression. The Warlpiri data examined in this study reveal some striking similarities with thematic PV-V structures documented in a range of languages such as Modern Persian with respect to the role of these constituents in the aspectual and thematic structure of complex verbs. We have also seen that the universally found distinction between result of event ‘broken’ type predicates and non-eventive ‘good’ or ‘ripe’ predicates is also attested in Warlpiri, even though both are expressed by nominal categories. Their different underlying event structures – which include Aktionsart features – determine the syntactic verbal structures in which they may appear. References Alpher, B., Evans, N., and Harvey, M. . Proto-Gunwinyguan Verb Suffixes. In Evans, N. (ed.) The Non-Pama-Ngungan Languages of Northern Australia: Comparative Studies of the Continent’s Most Linguistically Complex Region, –. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Arad, M. . VP-Structure and the Syntax-Lexicon Interface. PhD dissertion, University College London. (Distributed by MITWPL, MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics .) Borer, H. . The Projection of Arguments. In Benedicto, E. and Runner, J. (eds) Functional Projections. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers : –. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts. Carter, R. . Some Constraints on Possible Words. Semantikos : –. Carlson, G. . A Unified Analysis of the English Bare Plural. Linguistics and Philosophy : –. Dehé, N., Jackendoff, R., McIntyre, A., and Urban, S. (eds) . Verb-particle Explorations. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Dixon, R. M. W. . Copula Clauses in Australian Languages: A Typological Perspective. Anthropological Linguistics , : –. Folli, R., Harley, H., and Karimi, S. . Determinants of Event Structure in Persian Complex Predicates. Lingua : –. Ghomeshi, J. and Massam, D. . Lexical/syntactic relations without projection. Linguistic Analysis : –. Glass, A. and Hackett, D. . Ngaanyatjarra and Ngaatjatjarra Dictionary. Alice Springs, NT: IAD Press. Goldberg, A. . Optimizing constraints and the Persian complex predicate. Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society : –. Green, R. . Proto Maningrida within Proto Arnhem: Evidence From Verbal Inflectional Suffixes. In Evans, N. (ed.) The Non-Pama-Ngungan Languages of

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

229

Northern Australia: Comparative Studies of the Continent’s Most Linguistically Complex Region, –. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Hale, K. L. . Person marking in Walbiri. In Anderson, S. R. and Kiparsky, P. (eds) Festschrift for Morris Halle, –. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc. . Some Essential Features of Warlpiri Verbal Clauses. In Swartz, S. (ed.) Papers in Warlpiri Grammar: In Memory of Lothar Jagst. Work Papers of SILAAB, Series A vol. , –. Berrimah, NT: SIL-AAB. . Warlpiri and the Grammar of Non-configurational Languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory , : –. Hale, K. L. and Keyser S. J. . On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. (eds) The View From Building , –. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Hale, K. L., Laughren, M., and Simpson, J. . Warlpiri Syntax. Section . In Jacobs, J., von Stechow, A., Wolfgang Sternefeld, S., and Vennemann, T. (eds) Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung / An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Halbd. , –. (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft series.) Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter. Hansen, K. and Hansen, L. . Pintupi/Luritja Dictionary, rd edn. Alice Springs, NT: I.A.D. Press. Harvey, M. and Baker, B. . Vowel Harmony, Directionality and Morpheme Structure Constraints in Warlpiri. Lingua : –. Hoekstra, T. . Aspect and Theta Theory. In Roca, I. (ed.) Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar, –. Berlin; New York: Foris Publications. Jackendoff, R. . Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . Parts and Boundaries. Cognition :  –. Jelinek, E. . Empty Categories, Case, and Configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory :  –. Karimi-Doostan, M-R. . Light Verb Constructions in Persian. PhD dissertation, University of Essex. Kratzer, A. . Stage-level and Individual-level Predicates. In Carlson, G. and Pelletier, F. (eds) The Generic Book, –. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Laughren, M. . Towards a Lexical Representation of Warlpiri Verbs. In Wilkins, W. (ed.) Thematic Relations, –. New York: Academic Press. . Secondary Predication as a Diagnostic of Underlying Structure in PamaNyungan languages. In Roca, I. (ed.) Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar, –. Berlin; New York: Foris Publications. . What Warlpiri ‘Avoidance’ Registers do with Grammar. In Simpson, J., Nash, D., Laughren, M., Austin, P., and Alpher, B. (eds) Forty Years On: Ken Hale and Australian Languages, – (Pacific Linguistics ). Canberra: Australian National University. . Syntactic Constraints in a ‘Free Word Order’ language. In Amberber, M. and Collins, P. (eds) Language Universals and Variation, –. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

230

Laughren

Laughren, M. and Warlpiri Lexicography Group. . Warlpiri-English Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Electronic files, The University of Queensland. Legate, J. A. . Warlpiri: Theoretical implications. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics). . The Morpho-semantics of Warlpiri Counterfactual Conditionals. Linguistic Inquiry : –. . Warlpiri and the Thoery of Second Position Clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory : –. Levin, B. . On the Nature of Ergativity. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics). . English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Levin, B. and Rappaport, M. . What to Do With θ-roles. In Wilkins, W. (ed.) Thematic Relations, –. New York: Academic Press. Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. . Wiping the Slate Clean: A Lexical Semantic Exploration. Cognition : –. . A Preliminary Analysis of Causative Verbs in English. Lingua : –. . Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press. McConvell, P. and Laughren, M. . The Ngumpin-Yapa Subgroup. In Bowern, C. and Koch, H. (eds) Australian Languages: Classification and the Comparative Method, – (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Megerdoomian, K. . Beyond Words and Phrases: A Unified Theory of Predicate Composition. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California. Nash, D. . Preliminary Vocabulary of the Warlmanpa Language. TS. pp., Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge MA. . Warlpiri Preverbs and Verb Roots. In Swartz, S. (ed.) Papers in Warlpiri Grammar: In Memory of Lothar Jagst. Work Papers of SIL-AAB, Series A vol. , –. Berrimah, NT: SIL-AAB. . Topics in Warlpiri Grammar (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics). New York; London: Garland Publishing Inc. . Warlpiri Verb Roots in Comparative Perspective. In Bowern, C., Evans, B., and Miceli, L. (eds) Morphology and Language History: In honour of Harold Koch, (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory ), –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Pentland, C. and Laughren, M. . Distinguishing prosodic word and phonological word in Warlpiri: prosodic constituency in morphologically complex words. In Mushin, I. (ed.) Proceedings of the  conference of the Australian Linguistic Society . Pustejovsky, J. . The Syntax of Event Structure. Cognition : –. . Events and the semantics of opposition. In Tenny, C. & Pustejovsky, J. (eds), a, –. Pylkkänen, L. . Introducing Arguments. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Ramchand, G. . Aspect and Predication: The Semantics of Argument Structure. Oxford: Clarenden Press.

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

231

Riemer, N. . Verbal Polysemy and the Vocabulary of Percussion and Impact in Central Australia. Australian Journal of Linguistics : –. . Les nominaux dans les complexes verbaux du warlpiri. Actances (publication of CNRS research group Rivaldi-GDR : Relations intercatégorielles: les variations aspecto-temporelles et les structures diathétiques) : –. . The Semantics of Polysemy: Reading Meaning in English and Warlpiri (Cognitive Linguistics Research, ). Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Roca, I. M. (ed.). . Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar (Linguistics models series ). Berlin; New York: Foris/Walter de Gruyter. Simpson, J. . Warlpiri Morpho-Syntax. A Lexicalist Approach. (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory Volume ) Dordrecht; Boston; London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. . From Common Ground to Syntactic Construction: Associated Path in Warlpiri. In Enfield, N. J. (ed.) Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Grammar and Culture, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Simpson, J. and Bresnan, J. . Control and Obviation in Warlpiri. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory .:  –. Smith, C. . The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Talmy, L. . Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms. In Shopen, T. (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description : Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tenny, C. . Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. . The Aspectual Interface Hypothesis. In Sag, I. and Szabolcsi, A. (eds) Lexical Matters, –. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Tenny, C. and Pustejovsky, J. (eds) a. Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. b. A history of events in linguistic theory. In Tenny, C. and Pustejovsky, J. (eds) a, –. Travis, L. a. Event Structure in Syntax. In Tenny, C. and Pustejovsky, J. (eds) Events as Grammatical Objects: The Converging Perspectives of Lexical Semantics and Syntax –. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. b. The l-syntax/s-syntax Boundary: Evidence from Austronesian. In Ileana, P., Phillips, V., and Travis, L. (eds) Formal Issues in Austronesian Linguistics, –. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. . Agents and Causes in Malagasy and Tagalog. In Erteschik-Shir, N. and Rapoport, T. (eds) The Syntax of Aspect: Deriving Thematic and Aspectual Interpretation, –. New York: Oxford University Press. Van Valin, R. D. . Semantic Parameters of split Intransitive. Language : –. Vendler, Z. . Verbs and Times. In Vendler, Z. Linguistics in Philosophy, –. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Appendix 1: Warlpiri inflectional paradigms by conjugation class

Table A. Warlpiri independent verb conjugations 



a





NON-PAST (a)

wangka ‘speak’

paka-rni ‘hit’

kanja-ni ‘take’; yinja-ni ‘give’; pinja-ni ‘strike’

nga-rni ‘eat’

ya-ni ‘go’; ma-ni ‘get’; ji-ni ‘scold’

NON-PAST (b)

wangka-mi

PAST

wangka-ja

paka-rnu

kanja-nu

ka-ngu

nga-rnu

ya-nu

FUTURE

wangka-ji

paka-ku

IMPERATIVE

wangka-ya

paka-ka

kanja-nku

ka-ngku

nga-lku

ya-nku

kanja-nka

ka-ngka

nga-nja

ya-nta

IRREALIS

wangkayarla

pakakarla

kanjankarla

ka-ngkarla

nganjarla

ya-ntarla

PRESENTATIVE

wangkanya

paka-rni. nya

?

ka-nga.nya

nga-rni. nya

ya-na.nya

INFINITIVE

wangkanja-

paka-rni. nja-

?kanjani.nja-

ka-nja-

nga-rni. nja-

ya-ni.nja-

wangka-

paka-rni-

kanja-ni-

nga-rni-

ya-ni-

NOMIC (=N)

wangkangu

paka-rnu

kanja-nu

nga-rnu

ya-nu

Number of members:

c. 

c. 

: ka - ‘take’; yi - ‘give’; pi - ‘strike’



: ya- ‘go’; ma - ‘get’; ji- ‘scold’

PARTICIPLE

=

b

ka-nyi ‘take’ yi-nyi ‘give’ pi-nyi ‘strike’

NON-PAST (a)

ka-ngu

Notes: a. The Warlpiri non-past (b) forms for conjugation  and b verbs derive historically from Ngumpin-Yapa potential or future mood forms. Future forms shown in Tables A and B are not used in Eastern Warlpiri dialects (Lander and Hansen River). Warlpiri non-past (a) and past forms (with the exception of conjugation  -ja inflection) derive from non-finite participial forms, Warlpiri having lost the historical Ngumpin-Yapa past tense -nya on conjugation b verbs. Other Ngumpin-Yapa languages have present forms based on imperfective or progressive aspect marked forms. b. Two stance verbs whose stems end in -na, namely nyina ‘sit’ and nguna ‘lie’, have alternative imperative and irrealis forms: nyina-ya(rla) ~ nyina-ka(rla).

232

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

233

Table B. Warlpiri dependent verb conjugationsa 



a/b





 (defective)

-jirri-rni ‘cause’; -pirri-rni ‘gather’; -parrirni ‘act; remove’

-ra-nja-ni ‘put’b; -ka-nja-ni ‘move’; -yi-nja-ni ‘cause’; -pi-nja-ni ‘cause/effect’

- nga-rni ‘move’

-ma-ni ‘cause; make’; -ma-nic ‘sound’; -ji-ni ‘put via mouth’

-nji-ni ‘go & V’ -nji-na-ni ‘go & V reiteratively’

NON-PAST

(a)

-jarri ‘become; do’

NON-PAST

(b)

-jarri-mi

-ra-nyi -ka-nyi -yi-nyi -pi-nyi

PAST

-jarri-ja

-jurrurnu

-ra-nja-nu/ -ra-ngu

-nga-rnu

-ma-nu

-nju-nu -nji-na-nu

FUTURE

-jarri-ji

-jirri-ki

-ra-nja-nku/ -ra-ngku

-nga-lku

-ma-nku

-nji-nki

IMPERATIVE

-jarri-ya

-jirri-ka

-ra-nja-nka/ -ra-ngka

-nga-nja

-ma-nta

-nji-nta ~ -nji-ngka

IRREALIS

-jarriyarla

-jirrikarla

-ra-njankarla -ra-ngkarla

-nga-njarla

-ma-ntarla

-nji-ntarla ~ njingka-rla

PRESENTATIVE

-jarrinya

-jirri-rni. nya

N/A /-ra-nga. nya

-nga-rni. nya

-ma-na. nya

N/A

INFINITIVE

-jarrinja-

-jirri-rni. nja-

-ra-nja-ni. nja/-ra-nja-

-ngarninja-

-ma-ninja-

- nji-ni-nja-nji-nani-nja-

-jarri-

-jirri-rni-

-ranja-ni/N/A

-nga-rni-

-ma-ni

- nji-ni-nji-na-ni-

NOMIC

-jarringu

-jurrurnu

-ranja-nu/ra-ngu

-nga-rnu

-ma-nu

-nju-nu -nji-na-nu

Number of verbs













STEM

PARTIC.

=

NON-PAST (a)

Notes: a. The dependent verbs are distributed among the same five conjugations as the independent inflecting verbs, plus a sixth containing the defective aspectual verb -nji-. b. Dependent -ra- is only found in Eastern dialects, especially Lander River, in two verbs: mapara-nyi ‘anoint, paint, rub with’ (mapa-rni in other dialects) and yurlpa-ra-nyi ‘send’ ( yilya-mi in other dialects). c. The Warlpiri dictionary (Laughren et al. ) distinguishes six verbalisers -ma-ni on the basis of meaning and argument structure.

Appendix 2: Sample of complex verbs

Table C. Stance verbs PV (stance)

VINF (stance)

PV/VINF-V (CHANGE)

PV/VINF-V (CAUSE (CHANGE))

Gloss

nyina-nja

-wanti

-yirrarni

sit

nguna-nja

-wanti

-yirrarni

lie

karri-nja

-pardi

-yirrarni

stand

parntarri-nja

-wanti

-yirrarni

crouch over

wapa-nja

-pardi

?

get up and move

wardu

-karri

-yirrarni

lie prone

tarda

-yani

-yirrarni

sit, perch, land

yakarl-

-wanti

(-kijirni)

duck down; (turn over)

mirdi-jirrpijirrpi

-wanti

-yirrarni

kneel

pirri

-mani

?

sit, perch, land

pirrily-

?

-yirrarni

sit/seat

mirdi-pirrjipirrji

-mani

?

kneel

parntarr-

-mani

?

land in flock

marrayangkarra

-mani

?

land in flock

parrparr-

-mani

?

shake/ quiver (one’s body)

julurr- 

-mani

?

give sudden jump

 

“?” in a cell indicates a gap in the Warlpiri data base rather than confirmation that no form exists. Used with V -ngarni and -jirrirni to express uncontrolled body movement (see Table F).

234

Warlpiri verbs of change and causation: the thematic core

235

Table D. Change location verbs PV (location)

PV-V (CHANGE)

PV-V (CAUSE (CHANGE))

Gloss

jakurr(pa)

-pardi

mani/yirrarni

move up onto/put onto

jikirr-

-ngarni

?

move upwards, climb, jump over

karaly(pa)

-ngarni; -wanti

?

skid, slip; slip over

lakarn

-pardi/-yani

-mani/-pinyi

detach, peel away

lurlurl

-karri

-kijirni

fall scattered (leaves, berries)

paarr(pa)

-pardi

-jirrirni

take off in flight

pata

-karri

-kijirni

fall, drop

piraly(pa)

-pardi

-jirrirni

soar/move up through air

pirlpirl(pa)

-karri/ wanti

-kijirni

fall drop by drop

puurl(pa)

-ngarni

?

set off/ start out

rangkarr(pa)

-ngarni/-kanyi

rdululu

-ngarni

-yilyami (send)

suddenly emerge from and scatter; send scattering

rdulypa-rdulypa

-ngarni

?

stream/swarm out of

rdurruly(pa)

-pardi

-parrirni

strip away from

rduul(pa)

-pardi

-jirrirni

burst out of/force to burst out of

rduyu

-karri

-yirrarni

rise/raise (of smoke)

rikal(pa)

-pardi

-jirrirni

move up and away from

wari

-yani/-ngarni

-yirrarni

move up/onto

wilypi

-pardi

-mani

move out of

wira

-ngarni

?

take off into air

wirily(pa)

-ngarni; -wanti

?

move rapidly out/away from; slip over

dawn

wirrinti

-ngarni

?

gush/squirt out from

yakarra

-pardi

-mani

get up/out of/wake up

yalyi

-pardi

-mani

detach from, take out from



Parri-rni is a dependent verb with very restricted distribution as a causative ‘removal’ verb.

236

Laughren

Table E. Change state [+dur] verbs (external cause) PV (impaired state)

PV-V (CHANGE)

PV-V (CAUSE (CHANGE))

Gloss

lakarn(pa)

-yani/-pardi

-pinyi

peel off

larra

-yani/-ngarni

-pinyi/-mani

split, crack

palu

pali- (=V)

-pinyi

die, kill, extinguish

pangkirri

?

-pinyi

slash, split

panpan(pa)

?

-mani

split down the middle

raa

-yani

-pinyi

open, clear

rdawilyiwilyi

?

-kanyi

reduce to pieces

rdiirr(pa)

-yani

-pinyi

burst open

rdilyki

-yani

-pinyi

break

rdilypirr(pa)

-yani

-yinyi/-mani

perforate

tuurl(pa)

-yani

-pinyi

come/pull apart

yalyi

-yani

-pinyi

break off from

Table F. Change state [–dur] verbs (external cause) PV (momentary state [reaction])

PV-V (CHANGE)

PV-V (CAUSE (CHANGE))

Gloss

julurr(pa)

-ngarni

-jirrirni

give a jump; cause to jump with fear, shy away

kinyirr(pa)

-ngarni

-jirrirni

be startled; startle

miil(pa)

-ngarni

-jirrirni

be shocked; shock

8

Complex predicates in Wambaya: detaching predicate composition from syntactic structure RACHEL NORDLINGER

.

Introduction

In this chapter I compare and contrast two complex predicate constructions in Wambaya, a moribund non-configurational, non-Pama-Nyungan language of north-central Australia. The first of these – the associated motion construction – is the Wambaya reflex of the original proto-Mirndi verbcoverb construction, still present in Jaminjung (Schultze-Berndt ). In modern-day Wambaya this presents as a series of portmanteau directional + tense/aspect/mood suffixes on the second position auxiliary, in conjunction with a lexical main verb, as in ():,  ()



 

a.

Gannga mirnd-amany. return .DU.INC.S-PST.TWD ‘We came back.’ b. Gannga mirnd-any. return .DU.INC.S-PST.AWY ‘We went back.’ c. Gannga mirnd-a. return .DU.INC.S-PST ‘We returned.’

I wish to extend my heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to my Wambaya teachers and friends: Molly Grueman (deceased), Mavis Hogan (deceased), Minnie Nimarra (deceased), and Judy Holt. Many thanks also to Brett Baker, Mark Harvey, and Mengistu Amberber for inviting me to participate in the workshop on Complex Predicates at the ALS Conference in July , at which this work was first presented, and to Brett Baker, Mark Harvey, and an anonymous reviewer for detailed comments on this chapter leading to many substantial improvements. Unfortunately, I remain responsible for any errors or infelicities. All Wambaya examples are taken from Nordlinger (a) and my own fieldnotes. Abbreviations used in examples are: A ‘transitive subject’, ACC ‘accusative’, ALL ‘allative’, AWY ‘direction away from deictic centre’, COMIT ‘comitative’, DAT ‘dative’, DU ‘dual’, ERG ‘ergative’, EXC ‘exclusive’, FOC ‘focus’, FUT ‘future tense’, HAB ‘habitual’, INC ‘inclusive’, LOC ‘locative’, M ‘masculine’, NOM ‘nominative’, NP ‘non-past’, OBL ‘oblique’, PL ‘plural’, PR ‘present tense’, PROG ‘progressive’, PST ‘past tense’, RDP ‘reduplicated’, S ‘intransitive subject’, SG ‘singular’, TWD ‘direction towards deictic centre’.

237

238

Nordlinger

It is noteworthy that in this respect Wambaya differs from related languages, such as Jaminjung (Schultze-Berndt ), which only show a two-way contrast since the finite verb (corresponding to the associated motion marker in Wambaya) is obligatory and so there is no Jaminjung equivalent for (c) (Mark Harvey, personal communication). The second complex predicate construction is a serial verb construction, in which two lexical verbs (one of them yarru ‘go/come’) combine to form a single semantic predicate, as in (a). Examples (b) and (c) demonstrate that each of the elements in the serial construction in (a) is able to function as a clausal predicate in its own right also. ()

a.

Gayini g-a yarru who (NOM) .SG.S-PST go ‘Who went sneaking off this way?’ b. Gayini g-a yarru who (NOM) .SG.S.PST go ‘Who went this way?’ c. Gayini g-a ginkanyi who (NOM) .SG.S-PST this.way ‘Who snuck this way?’

ginkanyi this.way

nanganangali? sneak

ginkanyi? this.way nanganangali? sneak

Although these two complex predicate constructions are structurally distinct, they share some interesting similarities. For example, as shown in the contrast between (a) and (), the semantic contribution of the associated motion marker appears different depending on the nature of the main verb. When the main verb is a motion verb (i.e. a verb encoding locomotion along a path), as in (a), the associated motion marker adds only the direction of the motion event. When the main verb is a non-motion verb as in () and (), however, the associated motion affix encodes a sequential motion event ‘go/ come and VERB’ (Nordlinger ). ()

()



Bungmanyi-ni gin-amany yanybi. old.man-ERG .SG.M.A-PST.TWD get ‘The old man came and got her.’ Nayirrundurna irri-n gajurru. Gajurru women (NOM) .PL.S (NP)-PROG dance dance ng-uba irraga-yili. .SG-NP.AWY .PL.OBL-COMIT ‘All the women are dancing. I’m going to go there and dance with them.’

Note however, that Jaminjung has a wide range of finite verbs that buru ‘return’ can co-occur with, so it is likely that there are different semantic distinctions that can be made in Jaminjung, but not in Wambaya (see Schultze-Berndt () for discussion).

Complex predicates in Wambaya

239

In these examples, the associated motion marker does not encode the direction of the main verb event: () does not mean ‘get this way’ and () does not mean ‘dance away’. Rather, the associated motion marker encodes a motion event that is temporally prior and sequential to the main verb event – ‘come and (then) get’, ‘go and (then) dance’, respectively. A very similar contrast is found with the motion verb yarru (glossed ‘go’, but actually neutral as to deixis) when used in serial verb constructions. When combined with another motion verb, as in (a), the resulting semantics is one of simultaneous motion; a single event. When combined with a nonmotion verb, on the other hand, the resulting combination usually encodes a sequential motion event, as in (): ()

Yarru ngurl-aji go .DU.EXC.S-HAB.PST ‘We used to go and swim.’

lingba-lingba. swim-RDP

These two Wambaya constructions raise a number of issues that this chapter seeks to address. First, how are associated motion constructions such as in () and () to be integrated into a theory of complex predicates, if at all? Second, how is the interaction between motion and non-motion predicates to be accurately reflected in a model of complex predication? And third, what are the implications for theory arising from the existence of two very different syntactic constructions exhibiting the same types of semantic predicate composition, as we find in the Wambaya data? My aim in this chapter is to provide an analysis of these complex predicates in Wambaya that suggests answers to these questions. The analysis presented here draws on earlier work within the Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) tradition, particularly Butt (, , ), Andrews and Manning (), and Broadwell (). I argue that the Wambaya data supports previous work on complex predicates (e.g. Butt , , Alsina , but cf. Baker ) that argues for the separation of predicate composition from syntactic structure, as is inherent in a formal model of grammar such as LFG (Bresnan ). In particular, the Wambaya data show that: (i) the same processes of predicate composition can apply to two very different syntactic structures and; (ii) the same syntactic structure can be subject to different processes of predicate composition. Thus we need to be careful to allow a many-to-many relationship between syntactic structures and processes of predicate composition in complex predicate formation. 

This verb means ‘to play or bathe in the water’ (cool off, wash, etc.); i.e. ‘to bogey’ in Aboriginal English/Kriol. It does not refer to motion along a path by way of swimming, for which wajangarnja would be used instead.

240

Nordlinger

. A closer look at the data Before presenting my analysis of complex predicates in Wambaya, I will examine the properties of each construction type in more detail. ..

Associated motion constructions

As shown in (), the associated motion construction involves the presence of a directional marker on the auxiliary (contrasting ‘go/away’ and ‘come/ towards’), in combination with a main lexical verb. For the Wambaya speakers who I worked with, the presence of a lexical verb was obligatory; the auxiliary (with or without directional marker) could not form a predicate on its own: ()

a.

Yarru ng-uba. go .SG.S-NP.AWY ‘I’ll go (away).’ b. Yarru ng-ulama go .SG.S-NP.TWD ‘I’ll come.’ c. *Ng-uba. .SG.S-NP.AWY ‘I’ll go (away).’ d. Baraj-bali gun-uba old.man-PL(ACC) .SG.M.A-NP.AWY ‘He’ll take all the old men (away).’

irra .PL.ACC

yabu take

Since Wambaya is a non-configurational language with grammatically unconstrained word order (except for the auxiliary, which must always be in second position (Nordlinger b)), the lexical verb and the associated motion marker need not be contiguous in the clause (d) and nor must they appear in any fixed order with respect to each other (d vs. a–b). As discussed above, the semantic contribution of the associated motion marker appears different depending on the nature of the main verb. When combined with a motion verb, the associated motion marker adds the direction of the motion event, since motion verbs in Wambaya are directionneutral. When the main verb is a non-motion verb, however, the associated  

The associated motion construction is discussed in some detail in Nordlinger (), on which this section draws heavily. This is in contrast to the claims of Chadwick (: ), who gives (c) as grammatical. This was strongly rejected by my consultants, and may reflect a difference between the language of the speakers that Chadwick and I each worked with.

Complex predicates in Wambaya

241

motion affix encodes a sequential motion event ‘go/come and VERB’. Thus, when the main verb is a motion predicate, the resulting complex predicate encodes a single event with the apparent contribution of the associated motion marker being directional information. On the other hand, when the main verb is a non-motion predicate, the resulting complex predicate encodes two sub-events: one of motion + direction (encoded by the associated motion marker) and the other encoded by the main verb. Broadwell () discusses a similar distinction in Choctaw associated motion constructions, although in Choctaw the two meanings are encoded by distinct directional particles. Following Broadwell (), I will refer to these two functions as the ‘single event’ function and the ‘dual event’ function respectively. At this point it is important to consider whether associated motion constructions should be treated as complex predicate constructions at all. Butt () defines a complex predicate as having the following properties: () • •

•

Definition of a complex predicate (Butt : ) the argument structure is complex (two or more semantic heads contribute arguments); the grammatical functional structure is that of a simple predicate. It is flat: there is only a single predicate (a nuclear PRED) and a single subject [i.e. it is monoclausal – RN]; the phrase structure may be either simple or complex. It does not necessarily determine the status of the complex predicate.

Thus, we can define complex predicates as monoclausal structures in which information from two or more semantic heads (i.e. predicating elements) is contributed to a single predicate argument structure. It is clear that the Wambaya associated motion construction is monoclausal: it contains only a single lexical verb, a single subject, and the associated motion marker cannot constitute a clausal predicate on its own. Perhaps less immediately clear is whether this construction satisfies the first condition in (), namely that there is a complex argument structure with information contributed by more than one predicating element. In other words, to what extent can the associated motion marker be considered a semantic predicate? Obviously we cannot use syntactic predication as a diagnostic here, since the associated motion marker is never found as the sole predicate of the clause (although, as noted above, this is found in Chadwick’s () description of the language, and in the neighbouring language Jingulu (Pensalfini )). However, it is quite clear that the associated motion marker is a semantic predicate, nonetheless. First, when combined with non-motion verbs in the dual event function, it clearly contributes a motion predication that cannot be associated with the main lexical verb (as in ()). Second, the fact that its function is sensitive to the predicate semantics of the lexical verb it combines with – adding only a path when combined with a motion verb, and a distinct

242

Nordlinger

motion sub-event elsewhere – shows it to be operating at a level of predicate argument structure, as will be shown in more detail below. The associated motion affix contributes only a single argument (the ‘mover’), which is always fused with the highest argument of the lexical verb. Thus, the lexical verb is clearly the head for the purposes of determining transitivity and all other aspects of argument structure. This is seen clearly in () and (), in which the associated motion marker is combined with a transitive and intransitive lexical verb respectively, with the corresponding clauses having the same transitivity as the lexical verb. An analysis of the associated motion construction in Wambaya must, therefore, be able to account for the following features of the construction: Features of the associated motion construction to be accounted for: (i) (ii) (iii)

(iv) (v)

..

The associated motion marker cannot form a complete predicate on its own (c). The function of the association motion marker is sensitive to the predicate semantics of the lexical verb that it combines with (() vs. ()). With motion verbs, the associated motion marker adds the path for the motion; with non-motion verbs, the associated motion marker provides a temporally prior and sequential motion event (+ path). The agent of the motion event encoded by the associated motion marker is always identical to the highest argument of the lexical verb. Argument structure and transitivity are always determined solely by the lexical verb.

Serial verb constructions

Wambaya also has complex predicates in the form of serial verb constructions. Serial verb constructions (SVC) are not frequent in Wambaya discourse, but exist in sufficient quantity in natural, spontaneous speech to justify their analysis as a robust construction type in the language. There are a few different types of serial verb construction, corresponding to the common SVC types found cross-linguistically (e.g. Durie ), namely postural serialisations (), manner serialisations (), cause-effect serialisations (), and motion serialisations () (see Nordlinger, in prep. for detailed discussion). Each of the verbal elements of these serialised constructions can function as independent clausal predicates in non-serialised constructions (see () above for an example). ()



Darridarri irri-n be.in.a.line .PL.S (NP)-PROG ‘They’re sitting/standing in a line.’

garranbi. stand

Butt (: ff) seeks to draw a distinction between serial verb constructions and complex predicates (i.e. light verb constructions). I return to this point in section ..

Complex predicates in Wambaya

()

()

()

Gaj-ba ng-u ganjimi eat-FUT .SG. A-FUT finish ‘I’m going to eat all of this tucker.’ Warima ng-a yana hold .SG.A-PST this (ACC) ‘I squashed it by holding it.’ Yarru ngurl-aji go .DU.EXC.S-HAB.PST ‘We used to go and swim.’

243

manganyma tucker(ACC)

mama. this (ACC)

jinbarrardi squash lingba-lingba. swim-RDP

We will focus here on motion serialisations. All of the motion serialisations in the corpus involve the general motion verb yarru. Usually yarru comes first in the verb sequence (), but it need not (–). Consistent with the general ‘free word order’ properties of Wambaya, the verbs need not be contiguous in the clause. ()

()

()

Gulugbi ng-u ngawurniji yarru. sleep .SG.S-FUT .SG.NOM go ‘I’ll sleep while going (on the bus).’ Gayini g-a yarru ginkanyi who (NOM) .SG.S-PST go this.way ‘Who went sneaking off this way?’ Ganinggiji gi-n yarru! be.close .SG.S (PR)-PROG go ‘He’s coming close!’

nanganangali? sneak

As with the associated motion affixes, the contribution of the motion verb yarru in these serialised constructions differs depending on the verb it combines with. With motion verbs yarru always specifies concurrent motion, functioning to highlight the motion component, e.g. ‘go sneaking’ vs. ‘sneak’. With non-motion verbs, the function of yarru is usually to indicate sequential motion (‘go and (then) swim’, ‘come and (then) be close’), but unlike associated motion affixes, it can have a simultaneous motion meaning with non-motion verbs also, as in () ‘sleep while going’. Out of context, () is therefore ambiguous between ‘go and sleep’ and ‘sleep while going’. Somewhat unusually for serial verb constructions (e.g. Durie ), the ordering of the two verbs need not be iconic with the ordering of the sub-events: in () yarru is second in the sequence, despite the fact that the 

It is logically possible that the motion event could follow the non-motion event (i.e. ‘sleep and go’). However I have no examples in the corpus of a yarru serialised construction with this interpretation, and it is a question I neglected to test explicitly while in the field.

244

Nordlinger

motion component necessarily precedes the ‘being close’ component of the complex predicate. Anti-iconicity is a characteristic feature of Wambaya serial verb constructions (see Nordlinger, in prep). Yarru serialisations are clearly structurally distinct from associated motion constructions, since they involve two lexical verbs (in addition to the auxiliary). However, the semantics of the composite predicates share strong similarities across the two construction types. Indeed, yarru serial verb constructions as in () and () above can always be paraphrased with an associated motion construction, as in (′) and (′): (′)

(′)

Gayini g-amany who (NOM) .SG.S-P.TWD ‘Who snuck off this way?’ Ganinggiji g-ulama! be.close .SG.S-NP.TWD ‘He’s coming close!’

ginkanyi this way

nanganangali? sneak

The serialised construction in () can also be paraphrased with an associated motion construction as in (′), but in this case the meaning can only be of two sequential sub-events (since this is the only option available for associated motion constructions containing non-motion verbs). (′)

Gulugbi ng-uba sleep .SG.S-NP.AWY ‘I’ll go (away) and sleep.’

ngawurniji. .SG.NOM

As far as I can determine, the only semantic difference between (′) and (′) and their serialised equivalents is that the associated motion constructions explicitly encode deixis (i.e. motion away vs. motion towards), whereas yarru in the serial verb constructions is deixis-neutral, leaving the direction of motion to be determined from the context. Butt (: ff) argues that serial verb constructions should be excluded from the definition of complex predicates. While acknowledging that there is substantial overlap between her complex predicates (i.e. light verb constructions) and serial verb constructions, she argues that they differ on two parameters identified as characteristic of serial verbs by Durie (e.g. ), namely: (a) serial verbs may allow the single tense/aspect feature to be encoded on all verbs in the construction, whereas complex predicates do not allow multiple encoding of tense/aspect/mood; (b) complex predicates do not encode the instrumentality, resultativeness, or benefaction expressed by serial verbs in quite the same way (Butt : ). However, serial verb constructions come in many different forms cross-linguistically, and the two properties characteristic of (some) serial verb constructions mentioned above are irrelevant to Wambaya, in which serial verb constructions generally don’t involve multiple encoding of tense/aspect/mood nor express notions

Complex predicates in Wambaya

245

of instrumentality, resultativeness, or benefaction. In a model of grammar that separates syntactic configuration from predicate argument structure (as in LFG, for example), there is no reason a priori to assume that all serial verb constructions (i.e. all monoclausal constructions consisting of multiple lexical verb co-heads) should compose their predicate argument structure in identical ways or conversely, that they should undergo processes of predicate argument structure distinct from those of other complex predicate types. In Wambaya, we find that the yarru serial verb constructions show near-identical behaviour, in terms of predicate argument composition, to associated motion constructions. It therefore seems pertinent to treat them similarly in formal terms, in order to account for these similarities. Below I will present an analysis of these constructions in LFG which allows the same processes of predicate composition to apply across both associated motion and yarru serialisation constructions. .

Analysis of complex predicates as Predicate Composition

In this section, I present my analysis of these complex predicates in Wambaya, drawing on work within the LFG framework by Alsina (, , ), Butt (, , ), Andrews and Manning (), and Broadwell (). I will assume the analysis of Wambaya phrase structure presented in Nordlinger (b), in which the basic clause has the structure in (), for example (). ()

IP

( FOC) NP

N

bungmanyi-ni old.man-ERG

I


I

S

gin-amany 3.SG.M.A-PST.TWD

V

yanybi get 

I return to the issue of whether my analysis should be extended to all serial verb constructions in Wambaya in section ...

246

Nordlinger

The pertinent features of this structure are as follows. Firstly, the simple clause has two co-heads (heads are indicated by ↑ = ↓): I and S. S is an exocentric category (see Bresnan ), which in Wambaya has a flat structure containing the verb(s) and any number of NPs (including none, as in ()) in any order, thereby accounting for the non-configurational properties of the language. Within S, functional annotations (i.e. head or argument/adjunct functions) are freely assigned. The exact number of NPs possible in any S is constrained by the argument structure of the verb, and their grammatical functions are determined by their case-marking – see Nordlinger (b) for detailed discussion. Since I is the locus of the auxiliary and V is the head of S, I and V (via S) are co-heads of the clause, meaning that their lexical information is unified into the same clausal f-structure (). This accounts for the fact that they both contribute predicate information. Note also that, following standard LFG assumptions, the unexpressed object in () is not represented in the c-structure, but is contributed to the f-structure via information associated with the verb (see Austin and Bresnan () and Nordlinger (b) for discussion). The c-structure in () corresponds to the f-structure in (). The information associated with I and V (via S) map to the outer f-structure in (), which is the f-structure of the clause. Following Alsina (), I assume that the PRED information in this f-structure is essentially a pointer to a-(rgument) structure, the level at which predicate argument relations are encoded and mapped to both the semantics and the syntax (i.e. f-structure). The discussion about predicate fusion below relates to this part of the grammatical structure.

()







 PRED ‘come-get’< ... >  TENSE PAST     PRED ‘old man’    PERS 3     SUBJ  NUM SG     GEN MASC       CASE ERG    PRED ‘P P RO ’      PERS 3  OBJ     NUM SG        CASE ACC   

There is in principle no restriction that there be only one V in S, which allows for serial constructions, providing the PRED features can unify through Predicate Composition, as we will see below. The auxiliary is constrained to always being in second position in the clause. Where there is no NP in initial FOC position, it undergoes a process of prosodic inversion (Halpern ) to appear after the first constituent of S (see Nordlinger (b) for further discussion). The annotation ↑=↓ in () indicates that the information associated with the lower node is unified at f-structure with the information associated with the higher node (i.e. specifying the ‘head’ relation). The standard algorithm (Kaplan and Bresnan ) which unifies functional

Complex predicates in Wambaya

247

The possibility of clausal co-heads lends itself naturally to an analysis of complex predicates of various types. Since the associated motion affixes attach to the auxiliary in I, it is not surprising that they should form a complex predicate with the verb, since both co-head the clause. Serial verb constructions are accounted for by allowing S to contain multiple instances of V, hence multiple co-heads within S, providing their PRED information can successfully combine at the level of a-structure (see below). This analysis also allows for a combination of these two complex predicate types, namely multiple Vs in S (a serial verb construction) in addition to an associated motion marker on the auxiliary, in I. We will see an example of this type of construction in section .. Following Alsina () and especially Butt (, , ), I assume that complex predicates involve predicate composition at the level of argument structure, which I take to be elaborated along the lines of Jackendoff’s () Lexical Conceptual Structure. The process of complex predicate formation is triggered at a-structure by the presence of a transparent event argument (Butt, Isoda, and Sells ) (represented as {}Et in the figures below). A lexical item containing a transparent event in its argument structure is an incomplete predicate (Alsina ) – it cannot function as a clausal predicate without having undergone predicate composition to form a complex predicate with another lexical item. Following Butt (, , ), we can define two processes by which predicate composition occurs: Event Fusion and Argument Fusion. Event Fusion unifies the information within two events (cf. ‘merger’ (Baker and Harvey, this volume)), while Argument Fusion coindexes two arguments so that only one argument is available for linking to grammatical functions (cf. ‘coindexation’ (Baker and Harvey, this volume)). These two processes have been shown to account for a wide range of complex predicate formation in the world’s languages (see, for example, the work by Butt (), Wilson (), and Broadwell (), among others). Below we will see that they also provide a natural account of complex predicate formation in Wambaya. Moreover, the detachment of argument structure (where predicate composition occurs) from c-structure (the level of ‘surface’ syntactic structure), that is assumed in the framework of LFG, allows straightforwardly for the fact that two very different types of syntactic structure can undergo the same processes of predicate composition. Following Butt (, , ), Wilson (), and Baker and Harvey (this volume), I adopt a version of Jackendoff’s () theory of Conceptual Semantics, using his Lexical Conceptual Structure (LCS) to construct an



information annotated at c-structure to produce a well-formed f-structure disallows the unification of PRED information. In order to account for complex predicates, Alsina () redefines ↑ = ↓ such that it allows for the composition of PREDs (through the composing of their argument structures, as outlined below), and the unification of all other types of information. I will follow this analysis here also. Note, however, that nothing in my analysis hangs on the notion that Predicate Composition occurs at the level of a-structure. It could be straightforwardly translated into a model that represents LCS information (and Predicate Composition) directly at f-structure (e.g. Wilson ), or into the more articulated model of Andrews and Manning ().

248

Nordlinger

elaborated form of a-structure. Jackendoff proposes that LCSs have distinct ‘action’ and ‘thematic’ tiers – the former encoding information about Actor– Patient relations (marked with AFF), and the latter encoding the main information about the semantic content of the lexical item (decomposed into functions such as CAUSE, GO, BECOME, etc.). Butt () argues for the need to also add an aspectual tier to account for the role of inceptive, durative, and completive aspect in complex predicate formation in Urdu/Hindi. In the discussion below, I will only represent the parts of the LCS relevant to the analysis of Wambaya complex predicates. In most cases, this will consist of just the thematic tier. ..

Associated motion

Associated motion affixes have two lexical entries – one reflecting their ‘single event’ function and the other reflecting their ‘dual event’ function. Beginning with the first of these functions, associated motion markers can be analysed as having the (simplified) LCS in (). ()

‘Single-event function’: a. ‘-amany’:

{

Event GO

([

Thing

] ,  Path TO [

Place

)}

HERE] 

ET

b. ‘-any’:

{

Event

GO

([ ] ,  Thing

Path

)}

TO [ Place THERE ]  

ET

As indicated by { }ET, associated motion markers are incomplete predicates, accounting for the fact that they cannot function alone as clausal predicates, but must combine with another predicate (i.e. the lexical verb) to form a complex predicate. Apart from this, the LCS is that of a standard motion verb ( Jackendoff ). The presence of the transparent event argument triggers predicate fusion, namely the LCS of the associated motion marker can merge with another LCS with which it can unify. This is effected via the process of Event Fusion (e.g. Butt : ), which unifies the information contained within two events. Since unification is involved, it follows that the two events must be unifiable, in this case meaning that the LCS of the associated motion 

Square brackets [ ] are used to mark individual events; braces { } denote sets of events (as in ()), unless they are marked with ET,{ }ET, in which case they denote a transparent event, as discussed below.

Complex predicates in Wambaya

249

markers in () can only combine with motion predicates (e.g. ), which are also GO events. ()

 Event GO ([Thing ] , [ Path

])

Since both the associated motion markers and the motion verbs are GO events, once Event Fusion has occurred, the net effect of the associated motion marker is to provide a value for the Path argument. Hence their apparent function as directional markers with motion verbs: ()

 Event GO ([Thing ] ,  Path TO [ Place HERE] )  

Clearly Event Fusion is not possible with non-motion verbs, since these will not contain a GO predicate and so unification will fail. Thus, we account for the fact that associated motion markers do not function as directional markers with non-motion verbs. However, as we saw in section ., associated motion markers can cooccur with non-motion verbs, but in this case form a complex predicate specifying two sub-events – a motion event and a non-motion event – as in () repeated from above. () Bungmanyi-ni gin-amany old.man-ERG .SG.M.A-PST.TWD ‘The old man came and got her.’

yanybi. get

As well as allowing for the encoding of two sub-events, the LCS of these complex predicates also needs to specify that the motion event occurs prior to the event encoded by the lexical verb. I propose that the LCS corresponding to the ‘dual event’ function of associated motion markers is as in (). In this structure, more elaborated than those for the ‘single-event’ function, we have a thematic tier which is a set of two events (following Andrews and Manning’s () set-based approach to symmetric serial verb constructions) and a temporal tier, which specifies the temporal relationship between the two events (following Broadwell’s () analysis of dual-event directional particles in Choctaw). 



The prediction made by this analysis is that associated motion markers in single event function should also be able to unify with non-motion events that also contain a GO predicate in their LCS; verbs such as ‘take’ or ‘throw’, for example. Unfortunately my corpus does not contain the data to test this prediction conclusively, but there is one example (given in d), which suggests that this is indeed possible, at least with the verb yabu ‘have/take’ (i.e. ‘take away’ not ‘go and take’). Note that the correspondence between the events in the temporal tier and the events in the set is effected through the subscripted variables x and y associated with each event in the set, and in the temporal tier.

250

()

Nordlinger

‘Dual-event function’: a. ‘-amany’:

{

{

      Eventx GO ([Thing D ] ,  Path TO [ Place HERE] ) ,  Eventy AFF  TEMP : Eventx < Eventy

([ ] , )} D

}

ET



b. ‘-any’:

{

{

      Eventx GO ([Thing D ] ,  Path TO [ Place THERE] ) ,  Eventy AFF  TEMP : Eventx < Eventy

([ ] , )} D

ET

} 

In these lexical entries, then, we find a single LCS that specifies two subevents – Eventx and Eventy. Eventx is the motion event and Eventy is a transparent event argument which triggers complex predicate formation. The highest argument of Eventy (specified by AFF ([ ], ) on the action tier) is identified with the agent of the motion event. The temporal tier specifies that the motion event must temporally precede the transparent event (Broadwell ). In this case, the transparent event is an argument of the associated motion marker, and thus the a-structure of another predicate (namely, the verb) is simply substituted for the transparent event argument. Thus, one event is embedded within another event, and so it is not Event Fusion, but Argument Fusion that is the applicable process for predicate composition. Argument Fusion will ensure that the highest argument of the embedded event is coindexed with the argument of the matrix event (indicated with α in ()), making it invisible for linking purposes (e.g. Butt : ). Thus, the argument array of the resulting complex predicate is identical to that of the lexical verb. The LCS of the complex predicate in () is therefore as follows: ()    Eventx GO ([Thing D ] ,  Path TO [ Place HERE] ) ,   TEMP : Eventx < Eventy





(

 CAUSE [  D   Eventy AFF [ ] ,

(

D

]

)

, BE

([ ] , AT [D ]))       

Note that Broadwell () treats the whole superordinate event as the transparent event, rather than just the second sub-event as I do here. As far as I can tell, there are no major empirical or theoretical implications arising from this difference, although my approach is more consistent with Butt’s () definition of Argument Fusion, which applies when the transparent event is an argument of another event. Note that Argument Fusion in Butt’s () terms actually involves the coindexation of the highest embedded argument with the lowest matrix argument (p. ). However, since the

Complex predicates in Wambaya

251

The fact that associated motion markers can have two very different functions depending on the lexical verb that they combine with is thus captured by the availability of two different processes for predicate composition at a-structure – Event Fusion and Argument Fusion. Since predicate composition takes place at the level of a-structure, it operates independently of surface syntactic structure, meaning that a single construction at c-structure (namely associated motion marker + lexical verb) can correspond to two different types of predicate composition, resulting in two different constructional meanings. This highlights the importance of a model of complex predicate formation that clearly separates syntactic structure from predicate composition (as in the work by Alsina (e.g. , , ), Butt (e.g. , , ), Wilson (), Andrews and Manning (), and others). In the next section this point is further reinforced by the fact that very different syntactic construction types can, in the one language, undergo the same types of complex predicate formation at a-structure. .. Analysis of yarru serial verb constructions Above we saw that the interaction of the associated motion markers with motion and non-motion verbs can be accounted for using the mechanisms of Event Fusion and Argument Fusion, well established in the complex predicate literature. We saw that the same syntactic structure can result in two types of complex predicate – one formed by Event Fusion and one by Argument Fusion – arguing strongly for the need to separate the processes of complex predicate formation from syntactic structure. This point is reinforced by the fact that yarru serial verb constructions, while completely distinct from associated motion constructions syntactically, also enter into the same two types of predicate composition. Recall that yarru in serial verb constructions shows a similar interaction with motion and non-motion verbs as the associated motion affixes do. When combined with a motion verb it serves to further specify the motion component of a single event (); whereas with non-motion verbs it may encode a distinct motion sub-event (), or not (). () Gayini g-a yarru ginkanyi who (NOM) .SG.S-PST go this.way ‘Who went sneaking off this way?’



nanganangali? sneak

matrix event in our case always has just a single argument, this distinction is not relevant to the present discussion. In fact, this analysis does not rule out the possibility that a motion verb could combine with the associated marker in dual event function (i.e. filling the transparent event slot). This would produce meanings like ‘go and run’ (rather than ‘run away’), for example. I have no examples of motion verbs in such dual event structures, but also don’t have the negative evidence to rule such possibilities out completely. It may well be that there is a strong preference for interpreting motion verbs with associated motion markers as single event structures, ruling out dual event structures on pragmatic grounds.

252

Nordlinger

() Gulugbi ng-u ngawurniji yarru. sleep .SG.S-FUT .SG.NOM go ‘I’ll sleep while going (on the bus).’ () Yarru irr-a ngajbi nanawulu go .PL.S-PST see this.DU.ACC ‘They went and saw the two eaglehawks.’

ilarra-wulu eaglehawk-DU(ACC)

There are however, two differences in the behaviour of yarru and the associated motion markers. Firstly, yarru can function as a clausal predicate in its own right (), and so its participation in a complex predicate is optional, not obligatory (as it is for the associated motion markers). () Injani ny-u yarru ? where .SG.S-FUT go ‘Where are you going?’ Secondly, yarru encodes no temporal specification in combination with nonmotion verbs. Whereas combining an associated motion marker with a nonmotion verb always yields a complex predicate in which the motion sub-event precedes the non-motion sub-event (i.e. ‘go/come and VERB’), when yarru is combined with a non-motion verb, the motion sub-event in the resulting complex predicate can be sequential to the non-motion sub-event (e.g. ‘go and see’ in ()) or concurrent with it (e.g. ‘sleep while going’ in ()). We can thus provide a similar analysis for yarru as for the associated motion affixes, with only two minor differences, discussed below. The basic lexical entry (modified from () above) for yarru contains the LCS in (). ()

{

Event

(

GO [Thing ] , [ Path

])} (

ET

)

Here yarru is only optionally specified as a transparent event. This accounts for the fact that yarru can both occur as an independent motion predicate in its own right (), and undergo Predicate Composition to form a complex predicate with a motion verb (as in ). Since both yarru and the motion verb (e.g. nanganangali in ()) contain GO predicates, they can unify via the process of Event Fusion, exactly as we saw with the associated motion affixes in section .. above. 

In the LCS for nanganangali ‘sneak’, I follow (for convenience) Jackendoff’s (: ) treatment of predicates encoding both manner of motion and motion along a path as being formed by an adjunction rule that results in a composite structure containing both GO and MOVE functions. The distinction between GO activity verbs and MOVE activity verbs is important in Wambaya since only the former count as motion verbs for the purposes of the complex predicate constructions discussed here (cf. Baker and Harvey (this volume) who revise Jackendoff’s framework to treat all activity predicates (whether motion or otherwise) as involving the single function MOVE).

Complex predicates in Wambaya

(

253

)

GO [Thing ]D , [ Path ]    D   () AFF [ ]     Event  BY MOVE sneak ([D ])  

( )

As with the dual-event associated motion affixes, yarru also has an alternative argument structure, in which it allows for a second sub-event (). The only difference here is that there is no temporal ordering specified for the two events (and therefore no temporal tier specified here). In this case, yarru can combine with non-motion verbs (e.g. ‘sleep’ in ()) via the process of Argument Fusion, as we saw in () above. The complex predicate ‘go-sleep’ in () thus has the a-structure in ().

{

()

  Eventx GO Thing D , Path ][ ([  

()

 Event MOVE sleep  Thing      

()

   Eventx GO ([Thing D ] , [ Path  

(

]) ,

{

Eventy AFF

([ ] , )} D

}

ET

)

(

D  MOVE sleep  Thing   ]) ,  D  Eventy AFF [ ] ,

(

)

)    

This treatment of yarru serialisations as complex predicates runs counter to the arguments made by Butt (: ff) that serial verbs and complex predicates (or, light verbs) are fundamentally distinct. In Butt’s terms, they are distinguished primarily by the fact that light verbs contain a transparent event argument at a-structure, and thereby subcategorise for an argumenttaking predicate in order to form a complete predicate in the syntax, while serialising verbs do not (p. ). While I agree that there are significant differences between robust, productive serial verb constructions and the light verb constructions discussed in detail by Butt, the analysis presented here for yarru serialisations in Wambaya can be justified on a number of grounds. First, as has been shown in the discussion above, the interaction between yarru and the second lexical verb in yarru serialisations is virtually identical to the interaction between the two predicates in non-serialised complex predicates, namely the associated motion constructions. The fact that the same processes of predicate composition are found in these two

254

Nordlinger

construction types argues strongly for an analysis in which they are treated as undergoing the same processes at argument structure. Furthermore, motion serialisations in Wambaya are very restricted – only ever involving the motion verb yarru – thus suggesting that they are not as fully productive in their combinatory possibilities as motion serialisations in most serialising languages. Yarru is unique among the Wambaya motion verbs in being able to participate in these serialising constructions. For this reason, an analysis that treats yarru as having alternative argument structures containing transparent event arguments is plausible: clearly yarru is special in this respect. In fact, it may well be that yarru was in the process of developing a function as a light verb, accounting for its behaviour in serial verb constructions and reflected in its optional transparent event argument (e.g. ). I do not wish to claim, therefore, that all serial verb constructions – not even all of those that exist in Wambaya – should or could be appropriately analysed according to the analysis presented for yarru serialisations above. Indeed, the fact that yarru serialisations differ from other serial verb constructions in this way reinforces the central point of this chapter: that features of syntactic structure (i.e. whether a construction consists of multiple lexical verbs, none of which are dependent upon or complements of another) need to be clearly distinguished from properties of semantic and/ or argument structure (i.e. whether the interaction of multiple predicates in a single clause involves predicate composition). Yarru serialisations are serial verb constructions in the syntax, but differ from these by undergoing processes of predicate composition in the argument structure like ‘regular’ complex predicates (in this case, associated motion constructions). .

Combining associated motion with yarru serialisation

The analysis presented above accounts for the single-event and dual-event functions of motion-based complex predicates in Wambaya by exploiting the two processes of predicate composition well established in the LFG literature on complex predicates: Event Fusion and Argument Fusion. These two processes of predicate composition interact with the two lexical entries of associated motion markers and the motion verb yarru to yield the various complex predicates described and exemplified in section . above. Furthermore, this analysis illustrates the need to separate surface syntactic structure from predicate composition, thereby allowing for a single syntactic structure to correspond to two different types of complex predicate formation at argument structure, and conversely, for two different syntactic structures to undergo the same process of complex predicate formation. A remaining question is whether it is possible to combine associated motion markers with yarru serial verb constructions. The model presented here, with its notion of co-heads at the level of c-structure, and alternative lexical entries for both associated motion markers and yarru, allows in principle for various

Complex predicates in Wambaya

255

combinations of these constructions types. For example, a single event associated motion marker could combine with dual event yarru via Event Fusion, yielding the argument structure in (). Since this argument structure contains a transparent event argument (by virtue of the dual event lexical entry of yarru), this could in principle combine with a non-motion verb via Argument Fusion, resulting in a complex predicate containing an associated motion marker and a serial verb construction, as in the hypothetical (). () -any + dual function yarru (hypothetical)

{

{

  Eventx GO Thing D ,  Path TO Place THERE   ,  Eventy AFF [ ]  )  ([ ]   

([ ] , )} D

ET

}

() ‘go away and sleep’ (hypothetical)     Eventx GO ([Thing D ] ,  Path TO [ Place THERE] ) ,  

(

D  MOVE sleep  Thing    D  Eventy AFF [ ] ,

(

)

)    

Unfortunately, perhaps due to the relatively small number of serial verb constructions in the corpus, examples combining associated motion markers with serial verb constructions are very difficult to find. However, there is one example (from a text) which suggests that this is indeed possible: () Di-didija wurl-any yarru. RDP-hold.on.hip .DU.S-PST.AWY go ‘They went away carrying (their children) on their hips.’ Didija does not usually combine with associated motion markers in their single event function. Thus, the most plausible analysis of this construction is that it consists of a dual event serial verb construction ‘di-didija yarru’ ‘go while holding on hip’, combined with a single event associated motion marker. The (simplified) lexical entries for the three predicate items are given in (a–c). Yarru and didija combine via Argument Fusion to form the complex predicate in (). The process of Event Fusion then unifies the transparent event of the associated motion marker with the GO event in (), yielding () as the argument structure for the complete complex predicate. ()

a. yarru

{

  Eventx GO Thing D , Path ][ ([  

]) ,

{

Eventy

AFF

([ ] , )} D

ET

}

256

Nordlinger

b. didija

 CAUSE  Event c.

([ ]

D

, BE

([ ] , AT HIP (D ) ))

-any (single function)

{

Event GO

([

Thing

] ,  Path TO [ Place THERE] )} E

T

() di-didija yarru     Eventx GO ([Thing D ] , [ Path  

()

 CAUSE ]) ,   Eventy AFF [

D

D

]

, BE

   

)

,

([ ] , AT HIP (D ) )) 

-any + di-didija yarru       Eventx GO ([Thing D ] ,  Path TO [ Place THERE]  ) ,   

.

(

([ ]

(

D  CAUSE [ ] , BE ([ ] , AT  HIP (D ) )  D   Eventy AFF [ ] ,

(

)

)     

Conclusion

In this chapter I have provided an analysis for two complex predicate constructions in Wambaya within the flexible theoretical framework of LFG. Irrespective of the particular theoretical framework chosen, the Wambaya data argue strongly for the need to separate issues of ‘surface’ syntactic structure from those of complex predicate formation (see also Butt ). In Wambaya, a single syntactic construction (e.g. the associated motion construction) corresponds to two different types of complex predicate formation at argument structure (i.e. involving Event Fusion and Argument Fusion). Moreover, a single process of predicate composition (e.g. Argument Fusion) applies to two different types of syntactic construction (i.e. associated motion constructions and yarru serialisations). The analysis provided here has built on a large body of existing work on complex predicates within the LFG framework (e.g. Alsina, , Butt , Wilson , Broadwell ). The fact that the Wambaya data can also be accounted for within this same general model of complex predicate formation is a strong testament to its cross-linguistic viability. Furthermore, the fact that this model can be extended to account for motion serialisations in Wambaya has important implications for future research into the integration

Complex predicates in Wambaya

257

of serial verb constructions into a general framework of complex predicate formation. References Alsina, A. . Predicate Composition: A Theory of Syntactic Function Alternations. PhD dissertation, Stanford University. . The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications. . A Theory of Complex Predicates: Evidence from Causatives in Bantu and Romance. In Alsina, A. et al. (eds) –. Alsina, A., Bresnan, J., and Sells, P. (eds). . Complex Predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Andrews, A. and Manning, C. . Complex Predicates and Information Spreading in LFG. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Austin, P. and Bresnan, J. . Non-configurationality in Australian Aboriginal Languages. NLLT : –. Baker, M. . Complex Predicates and Agreement in Polysynthetic Languages. In Alsina, A. et al. (eds) –. Baker, B. and Harvey, M., this volume. Complex Predicate Formation. Bresnan, J. . Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. Broadwell, G. A. . Choctaw Directionals and the Syntax of Complex Predication. In Butt, M. and King, T. (eds) Argument Realization. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Butt, M. . The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. PhD dissertation, Stanford University. . The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Stanford: CSLI Publications. . Complex Predicates in Urdu. In Alsina, A. et al. (eds) –. Butt, M., Isoda, M., and Sells, P. . Complex Predicates in LFG. MS, Stanford University. Chadwick, N. . The West Barkly Languages: An Outline Sketch. In Wurm, S. (ed.) Australian Linguistics Studies C-. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Durie, M. . Grammatical Structures in Verb Serialization. In Alsina, A. et al. (eds) –. Halpern, A. . On the Placement and Morphology of Clitics. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Jackendoff, R. . Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kaplan, R. and Bresnan, J. . Lexical Functional Grammar: A Formal System of Representation. In Bresnan, J. (ed.) The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, –. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Nordlinger, R. In preparation. Serial Verbs in Wambaya: Free Word Order and Anti-iconicity. MS, University of Melbourne. a. A Grammar of Wambaya, Northern Territory (Australia). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. b. Constructive Case: Evidence from Australian Languages. Stanford: CSLI Publications. . Wambaya in Motion. In Simpson, J. et al. () Forty Years On: Ken Hale and Australian Languages, –. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.

258

Nordlinger

Pensalfini, R. . A Grammar of Jingulu, an Aboriginal Language of the Northern Territory. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Schultze-Berndt, E. . Simple and Complex Verbs in Jaminjung. Nijmegen: MPI. Wilson, S. . Coverbs and Complex Predicates in Wagiman. Stanford: CSLI Publications.



Compound verbs and ideophones in Wolaitta revisited AZEB AMHA

.

Introduction: overview of the phenomenon

Complex predicates, subsuming what are known as particle+‘say’ verbs, compound verbs, and ideophonic constructions are widely attested in the Ethiopian Cushitic, Omotic, and Semitic languages. They are reported for Amharic (Leslau , ; see also Amberber, this volume), Awngi (Hetzron ), Bench (Rapold ), Hamar (Lydall ), Qafar (Hayward ), Somali (Dhoorre and Tosco ), and Wolaitta (Adams , Lamberti and Sottile , Amha , Amha and Dimmendaal a, Amha, this volume), among others. Appleyard () and Cohen, SimeoneSenelle and Vanhove () have highlighted the importance of the construction for (historical)-comparative studies of Afroasiatic as it can account for a number of innovations in the verbal system of Cushitic, Omotic, and Semitic languages. The construction involves two predicative elements, which could be labelled temporarily: P(redicate)  + P(redicate) . P is often represented by a verbal form with restricted inflectional possibilities, e.g. by the converb (also known as gerundive), ideophonic verb, or a derived verbal stem. In some languages, e.g. Qafar (Central Cushitic), P may be a noun, an adjective, or a postpositional phrase (cf. Hayward ). P is a fully inflecting verb if the complex predicate is the head of a clause. The focus in the present contribution will be on complex predicates in which P is represented by a verb. For this reason, we will use henceforth the representation V+V instead of P+P. The cover term ‘complex predicate’ is used here to indicate that the various constructions we are dealing with comprise two predicative 

I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments and suggestions. I am grateful to Felix Ameka, Gerrit Dimmendaal, Maarten Mous, and the editors of the present volume, Mengistu Amberber, Bret Baker, and Mark Harvey for their comments and suggestions on earlier versions of the chapter. I am indebted to Ato Gebremichael Kuke, a native speaker of Wolaitta and a tireless contributor to its standardisation, for sharing his knowledge and collection of books and stories. Remaining errors are my responsibility. The present contribution emerged from a project on ‘Two Modal Categories in Omotic: the declarative and interrogative’ at the LUCL, Leiden University. I would like to thank the Netherlands Science Foundation (NWO) for financial support.

259

260

Amha

elements a combination of three predicates is rare, only attested in ideophonic constructions). The type of complex predicates we focus on is illustrated in (–), with data from Wolaitta, (also written as Wolaytta), an Omotic language spoken in southwest Ethiopia by over . million people. Fleming () classifies Wolaitta as a member of the North Ometo group of the Omotic language family. ()

haʔʔí-kka kasé biráta-n ʔolláa book-ídí now-INCL earlier iron.bar-LOC/INST hole:M:ACC dig-SS:A:CNV ʔekk-iísi  kess-í take.out-SS:A:CNV take-MSG:PF ‘Again, he dug a hole with that same iron bar and escaped.’ [Wolayttatto Leemisuwa, p. ] In () the final, main predicate comprises two verbs: kess- ‘take out’ and

ʔekk- ‘take’ to express ‘escape’. The first verbal constituent (V) is a depend-

ent verb, which cannot form a sentence on its own. It is marked by the shortened form (i.e. -í ) of the same-subject anterior converb marker -ídí (see section .. on allomorphs and distribution of the converb in Wolaitta). The V, ʔekk- is fully inflected for subject agreement, tense, (positive) polarity, and (affirmative declarative) mood. The values of the latter-mentioned verbal categories are shared by the V and V. The converb (V) is not morphologically marked for tense, negation, or mood; it only shows partial subject agreement (cf. section ..). Complex predicates such as the underlined form in () are distinguished from a modifying converb plus main verb construction in that in complex predicates nothing can intervene between V and V, whereas Objects and other modifying elements can intervene between a modifying converb and a main verb (cf. section ..). Moreover, complex predicates express a single event whereas the combination of a modifying converb plus a main verb expresses distinct events which take place sequentially or simultaneously. Generally, complex predicates have a high expressive 



Unless otherwise indicated, data on Wolaitta are based on the author’s native speaker intuitions and on data collected during fieldwork in Ethiopia. Other sources of data are nonacademic books written in the Wolaitta language. These include (i) Wolayttatto Leemisuwa [‘Wolaitta Proverbs’], compiled by Getadrew Talachew and Tsegaye Ammenu, and published in  by the Ethiopian Languages Academy; (ii) two books with a collection of children’s stories: Taani Wolqaama [‘I am powerful.’], first printed in , by Qale Hiwot Church, and Wolaytta Haysiyaa [‘Wolaitta tales’] published in  by Getachew Talachew. Data from these works are cited by giving the book title and page number; (iii) Textbooks on the Wolaitta language (grades two to seven), published in  by the Education Bureau of the Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People’s Regional State. These are cited by an abbreviated title and page number (e.g. G: , i.e. Wolaitta language textbook grade two, page ). Full reference to these works is given in the References section. The author adapted the transcription of these sources to broad phonological transcription and added tone-accent marking. In the examples in this chapter, complex predicates are underlined.

Compound verbs and ideophones in Wolaitta revisited

261

power compared to single-predicate verbs that express related meanings. For instance, the sentence in () is used in the following context: someone was locked up in a house which was subsequently set on fire. The compound kess- ʔekk- better expresses the drama of escape in this case than using for example, bet- ‘go away to avoid danger/punishment’. In example (), the complex predicate is the main verb of the clause. Complex predicates may also be (co)subordinate to other verbs. The latter may be a dependent or main verb, a single-predicate or a complex verb. Example () illustrates these possibilities. The sentence contains five clauses, comprising four dependent clauses and a final matrix clause represented by a complex predicate gufant-í ʔagg-iísi ‘he made fall forward’. Two of the four dependent clauses are headed by complex predicates (underlined). ()

ʔek’k’-í

yé- ɗɗ í

mus-ídá

godáa

rot-PF:REL

wall:M:ACC step.on-SS:A:CNV

ment-ídí

sóo

gel-ó-saa-ra

break-SS:A:CNV

home

enter-REL-place-INST

t’ólb-iyá-n

kíy-í

ʔek’k’-ídí

side-M:ACC-LOC

go.out/climb-SS:A:CNV

stand-SS:A:CNV

gufant-í fall.forward:CAUS-SS:A:CNV

stand-SS:A:CNV har-eé-ssi donkey-FEM:GEN-DAT

ʔagg-iísi give.up-MSG:PF

‘(The hyena) broke the rotting wall by pushing it hard (and) the moment it entered into the house it climbed (i.e. hit or pushed) the side of the donkey hard and made it fall forward.’ [Taani Wolqaama, p. ]

The event expressed by the first complex predicate, yeɗɗ- ʔek’k’- takes place prior to that expressed by the immediately following anterior converb: mentídí ‘having broken’. Similarly the clause headed by the second complex predicate, kíy- ʔek’k’-, is anterior to that expressed by the main verb: gufantí ʔaggiísi ‘he made (it) fall forward’. The first two complex predicates have the same V : ʔek’k’-. The latter verb indicates that the action expressed by V is done forcefully. The verb ʔagg- ‘give up’, the V of the last complex predicate in (), is productively used to indicate that the realisation of the event expressed by V is ‘immediate’ (see section ... on the semantic contribution of V). Complex predicates in examples () and () have functional and structural similarities with verbal ideophones, which are also formed by combining two predicative elements. An example of this is given in (), in 

The term ‘cosubordination’ is used when the relation between two or more clauses in a sentence is neither subordination nor coordination. A typical case is a chain of clauses with converbs (cf. Van Valin and LaPolla ).

262

Amha

which the V is the ideophone t’úlʔu ‘fall, of something small’ and the V is the verb g- ‘say’. The construction is a more expressive counterpart of the verbal lexeme kund- ‘fall’. In the context of (), using the ideophone, the speaker emphasises that she found it ridiculous that she failed the test on her own mother tongue. ()

kúnd-étt-íyo t’úlʔug-aási fall-NMZ-F:ACC IDEOsay-SG:PF ‘I failed’ [when talking about a test on the Wolaitta language] G: 

Both complex predicates and ideophonic constructions are frequent in narratives and conversation. The type of constructional meanings expressed by V+V composites is varied. However, two salient and widespread ones are: (i) a high degree of semantic specificity or expressiveness about the event expressed by V; or (ii) the opposite of this, namely denoting that the event expressed by V is not fully or completely carried out. The following characterisation of the phenomenon in Qafar (Cushitic) clearly summarises this: VCP [verbal compound particle – AA] verbs may carry a distinct sense of a lessening of the full vigor or expected duration of the activity/event denoted by the base verb and for this reason they have sometimes been referred to as ‘Diminished Action’ forms … But this would not always prove an apt label, for sometimes the difference of meaning conveyed by use of a VCP verb would better be described as ‘emphatic’ or ‘dramatic’; compare the choice of ‘to pop up’ instead of ‘to appear’ in English. (Hayward : –) Some languages use distinct morphological means to mark the distinction between the two meanings of complex predicates mentioned above. For example, in Amharic different verb stems are used for the ‘intensive’ and ‘attenuative’ meanings (cf. Appleyard ). As already mentioned, V is an ideophone or a basically open class of verbal lexemes given semantic compatibility with V. V, however, comprises a restricted class. The most widely attested V verbs are translational equivalents of the pair: SAY and DO/MAKE, respectively used in intransitive and transitive complex predicates, e.g. in Wolaitta (Adams , Lamberti and Sottile , Amha and Dimmendaal a), Hamar (Lydall ), and Amharic (Leslau ). In Bench the same V màk is used in intransitive and transitive contexts, thus translated as ‘say/do’ in Rapold (). A number of languages including Tigre and Tigrinya (Ethio-Semitic), Bilin, and Xamtanga (Cushitic), use the causative form of SAY to represent the transitive V. In Oromo the verb for PUT is used whereas the V in Qafar is translated as ‘DO, MAKE, PUT’ in Hayward (). In Somali the lexeme for GIVE is used as a V component of ideophonic constructions (Dhoorre and Tosco ).

Compound verbs and ideophones in Wolaitta revisited

263

Another commonly attested V pair involves the directional verbs COME-GO, which take semantically predictable V components such as the motion verbs TAKE, RUN, FLY, SWIM, etc. This is the case in Omotic languages, e.g. Haro (Hirut Woldemariam ), Wolaitta (Adams ), and in Cushitic languages, e.g. in Awngi (Hetzron ), Oromo (GriefenowMewis and Tamene Bitima ), as well as in Ethio-Semitic languages such as Amharic and Tigrinya (Hetzron ). In Wolaitta, V comprises the above-mentioned pairs plus several other verbs, each of which contribute distinct semantic modification of manner or duration or which add various senses of affective meaning to the event expressed by V, as will be discussed in detail in sections .–.. In the existing literature on other Omotic languages, we did not find a system as extensive in the use and variety of V verbs as that reported for Wolaitta. For example, work in progress by the present author on Zargulla (East Ometo, Omotic) shows that either productively derived ‘intensive’ verb stems or ideophonic verbs may be used as V to form complex predicates with hiyy‘say’ (intransitive) or his- ‘make say’ (transitive). However, apart from the latter verbs, Zargulla has only a handful of other verbs which serve as V components. These include ʔol- ‘give up, cease’, yew- ‘come’, and kess- ‘go out’. It seems that the Cushitic language Kamabata has quite a number of complex predicate forms comparable to those attested in Wolaitta (Yvonne Treiss, p.c.). Future text-based comparative research among Omotic and Cushitic languages is required to isolate language-specific and widespread features of complex predicates. The present work is based on two earlier studies which dealt with complex predicates in Wolaitta in some detail: Adams () and Amha and Dimmendaal (a). The aim is to expand coverage of the topic by including data recently acquired. The overall data are examined in light of current theoretical and typological–comparative studies. Contrary to earlier suggestions, I argue that V verbs in Wolaitta are not auxiliary verbs. A consequence of this position is to address the nature of semantic composition between V and V. .

Complex predicates and the role of the converb in Wolaitta

With the exception of a few examples involving ideophones in which three predicates are used, complex predicates in Wolaitta comprise two verbal elements: V+V. The construction is similar to compounds in that often the composite meaning of V and V is not the sum of the component parts. However, it does not involve base-form compounding. Rather, the complex predicate contains a partially inflected V constituent and a V which may be fully inflected or morphologically marked for (co)subordination. The V is the converb form of any verb or an ideophonic verb, both of which are morphologically dependent. They cannot head a clause on their own and they do

264

Amha

not inflect for verbal categories such as tense, aspect, and illocutionary force. V is from a restricted class and it may take a full range of verbal inflectional affixes if the complex predicate is the head of the clause, or it may be marked by morphemes indicating dependency relations if the complex predicate is not the head of the independent clause. That the V is always a dependent form is one of the defining features that distinguish complex predicates in Wolaitta (and related languages) from serial verb constructions (cf. Aikhenvald : ). In serialising languages none of the component verbs is formally marked as main or dependent verb. In the next section we briefly introduce the morphosyntax of the converb in Wolaitta to serve as a background for the discussion of converb-based complex predicates in section ... .. The structure of the converb The converb in Wolaitta is a dependent verb form which gets tense–aspect, mood, and modality value from the independent verb in the clause. There are two types of converbs in this language: the simultaneous and the anterior/general converb, each of which is further distinguished for switch reference. Same-subject converbs (both anterior and simultaneous) distinguish the gender and number of the subject but not person (cf. Amha and Dimmendaal b). Examples in (–) illustrate the use of the anterior converb wurs-ádá ‘having finished’ as head of the dependent clause ʔoósúwa wurs-ádá, which is followed by the inflecting main clause headed by the verb šemp- ‘rest’. With the exception of third person masculine singular, all singular subjects are identified in the anterior converb clause by affixing the morpheme -ádá to the verb root, as in (). The third person masculine singular and plural subjects are marked by -ídí (cf. () and () respectively). The two variants of the same-subject anterior converb, -ádá and -ídí are glossed differently using subscripted numbers: SS:A:CNV and SS:A:CNV respectively. ()

ʔoós-úwa

()

ʔoós-úwa



wurs-ádá šemp-aúsu work-M:ACC finish-SS:A:CNV rest-FSG:IPF ‘Having finished work, she is resting.’ wurs-ídí šemp-eési work-M:ACC finish-SS:A:CNV rest-MSG:IPF ‘Having finished work, he is resting.’

The pragmatically unmarked order of constituents within a clause is SOV (with some flexibility for focus purposes); lexical and clausal modifiers precede the head; the language has only postpositions. The numerous inflectional and derivational markers both in the nominal and verbal morphology are exclusively marked by suffixes.

Compound verbs and ideophones in Wolaitta revisited

265

Table .. Converb markers in Wolaitta. Anterior converb

Simultaneous converb

S-Subject

D-Subject

S-Subject

D-Subject

,  & FSG

-ádá

-(í)n(í)

-aíddá

-íšin(i)

Plural and MSG

-ídí

()

-iíddí

ʔoós-úwa

wurs-ídí šemp-oósi work-M:ACC finsih-SS:A:CNV rest-PL:IPF ‘Having finished work, we are resting.’

As illustrated in (–), the converb shows partial agreement with the subject in number or gender but it does not have the full range of inflectional possibilities as main verbs. Main verbs in Wolaitta show subject agreement for each person, number, and gender and they also indicate tense and aspect distinctions as well as distinctions in mood and negation. In the examples in (–), the agent of the transitive converb wurs- ‘finish’ and the subject of the intransitive (main/matrix) verb šemp- ‘rest’ is the same. When the subject of the converb and the main verb are different, the converb morpheme -ín(í) is used, as in (). The different-subject anterior converb is invariable for the number or gender of the subject. ()

né ʔoós-úwa moor-ín ʔetí bor-étt-ídosona SG:SBJ work-M:ACC spoil-DS:A:CNV PL:SBJ criticise-PAS-PL:PF ‘You having done the work incorrectly, they were criticised for it.’

The simultaneous converb has a similar number-gender and same- and different-subject distinction as the anterior converb (illustrated in –). Table . represents the converb marking morphemes in Wolaitta. The samesubject anterior and simultaneous converbs are partially similar. Likewise the two different-subject converbs are formally similar. Besides adverbial subordination illustrated above, the same-subject converbs are used as depictive secondary predicates, expressing optional participant-oriented physical state or posture (cf. Amha and Dimmendaal ). Another frequent use of the converb involves its occurrence as V of complex predicates. Of the four sub-types of the converb in Table ., the samesubject anterior converb is the most frequently used for this purpose. The same-subject simultaneous converb is also used as V of a complex predicate in a very restricted sense. It is only attested in complex predicates in which the V is a durational or motion verb, e.g. y- come, b- ‘go’, or gel- ‘ enter’. An example of this is given in (). Because of its relatively limited usage, the simultaneous converb will not be further discussed in the present chapter.

266

Amha

() ʔó

naag-iíddí

ʔútt-ída

ʔasa-t-í

wot’-iíddí

MS:ACC

wait.for-SS: S:CNV

sit-PF:REL

person-PL-NOM

run-SS: S:CNV

gákk-ídí

he

kakáa-ppe

arrive-SS:A:CNV

that

cliff: ACC-ABL hold-SS:A:CNV

ʔoík’k’-ídí

kess-ídósona take.out-PL:PAST:AFF:DCL

‘The people who have been waiting for her arrived running and they held her and took her out of the cliff.’ [Taani Wolqaama p. ]

As illustrated in example (), the different-subject anterior converb can be directly affixed to a verb root, just like the same-subject anterior converb. However, whereas the latter is regularly used as the V of a complex predicate, no complex predicate is attested in which V is represented by a verb root directly marked by the different-subject anterior converb marker -ín(i). However, there is a special negative construction (identified as ‘the negative converb’ in Lamberti and Sottile ()), which comprises two verbal constituents: V can be represented by any verbal lexeme, marked by the third person masculine singular negative morpheme -énna plus-in(i). The V must be the verb ʔagg- ‘give up, cease’, also inflected in the negative but the person, number, and gender value of V corresponds to that of the subject of the main clause. Example () illustrates that V and V inflect in the same way (morphemes highlighted). The subject in () is a (covert) inanimate noun (ʔíra ‘rain’) and controls/triggers the third person masculine singular agreement on the verb which is the default agreement for inanimate subjects. In example (), on the other hand, the subject of the main clause is a feminine singular noun. In this case V takes the third person masculine negative form, whereas V takes the feminine negative form. ()

bukk-énna-n

ʔagg-énna

rain-MSG:PRES:NEG:-DS:CNV

give.up-MSG:PRES:NEG

‘It will most likely rain.’ [lit. ‘Without it raining, it will not give up.’] () wónta k’aar-íya nu ʔeéssaa earlier monkey-F:NOM SG:POS honey:ACC mogol-énna-n ʔagg-úkku spoil-MSG:PRES:NEG:-DS:CNV give.up-FSG:PRES:NEG ‘It is probable that that monkey spoiled our honey.’ Contrary to the analysis of Adams (), in the present chapter the abovementioned negative construction is not treated on a par with the affirmative converb-based complex predicates illustrated in examples (–) above (see

Compound verbs and ideophones in Wolaitta revisited

267

section .. for discussion). Accordingly, the discussion in section .. will only address the same-subject anterior converb. .. Converb-based complex predicates A V converb in complex predicates is morphosyntactically distinct from that used as a modifying adverbial clause discussed in section ... First, converb-based complex predicates contain only two verbs whereas a series of three or more clauses headed by a converb or another dependent verb may be used in clause chains. Consider the example in () from Adams (: ) in which four converbs occur consecutively; of these one (i.e. gid-ídí ‘having become’) has a clause-internal modifier phrase (ʔoiddú ʔura ‘four person’). () he pars-úwa ʔúy-í káll-ídí ʔoiddú that beverage-M:ACC drink-SS:A:CNV be.satiated-SS:A:CNV four ʔura gid-ídí dend-ídí man:ACC become-SS:A:CNV get.up-SS:A:CNV ‘Having drunk that beverage, having been satiated, having become as fat as four men and risen …’ Second, in complex predicates the converb markers -ídí and -ádá must respectively be shortened as -í and -á (as in the examples –). Modifying converbs, on the other hand, often take the long converb markers -ádá or -ídí, but when two or more modifying converbs occur in sequence it is possible that all but the last converb in the chain take the short form of the converb. In (), for example, there are three consecutive converbs. The first two (t’aaf- ‘write’ and ʔ ekk- ‘take’) are marked by the short converb (-í ), but it is possible to alternate this by the long converb marker (-ídí ) and this will not result in any grammatical or semantic difference in the sentence. 



The transcription and glossing in Adams () is adapted to match the one followed by the current author, e.g. long vowels are represented by repeating the vowel rather than using diacritics and tone-accent marking is added. Translation is as in the original work. The verb ʔekk-‘take’ is often used as V to form complex predicates with motion verbs such as y- ‘come’, b - ‘go’, and paall- ‘fly’. In (), however, we do not analyse ʔekk- ‘take’ and ʔeh- ‘bring’ as a complex predicate because the verb ʔeh- ‘bring’ itself is a contracted form of the complex predicate: ʔekk- ‘take’ + y- ‘come’, which is still used alternatively to ʔeh-. Corresponding to this there is the verb ʔef- ‘take away’, a contracted form of the complex ʔekk- ‘take’ and b- ‘go’. It may be suggested that the two complex predicates are fully lexicalised and are treated like simple verbs to be used as V components. However, the function of complex predicate such as ʔekk- y- ‘bring’ and ʔekk- b- ‘take away’ is to express the direction of motion and since this meaning is already expressed in the lexemes ʔeh- ‘bring’ and ʔef- ‘take away’, we prefer to analyse the sequence ʔekk- ‘take’ ʔeh- ‘bring’ in () as representing two converb clauses rather than a single clause with a complex predicate.

268

Amha

() t’aaf-á geét-ett-idoo-ga t’aaf-í write-SG:IMP say:RDP-PAS-PF:REL-M:NMZ:ACC write-SS:A:CNV ʔekk-í ʔeh-iídí šeeɗɗ -iísi take-SS:A:CNV bring-SS:A:CNV deliver-MSG:PF ‘He wrote (grudgingly) what he was ordered to write (i.e. a punitive work), he took it, brought and submitted it (to the teacher)’ (G: ) In contrast, if the short converb markers (-í or -á) on the V of complex predicates are replaced by their respective full converb markers, the resulting construction expresses two sequential events. In some cases, e.g. ʔútt-í c’eegg-iisi (in example ), a sequential interpretation, i.e. ‘having sat, he became old’, is somewhat odd and would be pragmatically unacceptable. Finally, the converb and V of a complex predicate form a closely bound syntactic unit and object nouns and other complements cannot intervene between them. This inseparability restriction does not apply to a modifying converb and an inflecting main verb. This is illustrated in (), in which ʔasáa ‘person’ intervenes between the converb gukkídí ‘having spilled’ and the main verb meés(i) ‘he/it eats’: () tamá-n fire-LOC

wott-ín

pent-ída

haattáy …

put-DS:A:CNV

boil-PF:S:REL

water-M:NOM…spill-SS:A:CNV

ʔasáa

m-eés

person:ACC

eat-MSG:PRES:AFF:DCL

gukk-ídí

‘Boiling water (and other liquids) on fire boil over and burn people.’(G: )

Similarly in (), the object noun ʔubbábaa intervenes between the converb form of the complex predicate čaddí t’eell- ‘examine, discuss’ and the main verb tobbeés(i) ‘discuss, deliberate’: () dereé ʔakeéka-n č’add-í t’eell-ídí village.people:NOM careful-LOC stab/crush-SS:A:CNV see-SS:A:CNV ʔubbábaa tobb-eés every.thing:ACC deliberate-MSG:IPF ‘The villagers discuss everything, having carefully examined (the subject matters of their meeting).’ (G: ) In (), the consecutive dependent verbs waass- ‘cry’, b- ‘go’, and súg- ‘push’ are each marked by full converb markers, whereas gel- ‘enter’, which is the V of the immediately following complex predicate gel- ʔagg-, is and can only be marked by the shortened -í. In this context the complex predicate: gel-í ʔagg-ana (enter-CNV + give up-FUT) expresses the action of ‘entering into the house’ and would involve ‘speed and unexpectedness’.

Compound verbs and ideophones in Wolaitta revisited

269

() nu k’aála-n nu k’aála-n waass-iíddí b-iídí PL:GEN word-LOC PL:GEN word-LOC cry-SS:S:CNV go-SS:A:CNV he ʔifitt-áa súg-ídí gel-í ʔagg-ana that door-ACC push-SS:A:CNV enter-SS:A:CNV give.up-FUT yáa-g-iísi that-say-MSG:PF ‘(The donkey) said (to the cat, chicken, and dog) “we will go each crying/shouting in our respective language and push that door (open) and enter (the house) quickly”.’ (Taani Wolqaama, p. ) The order of the constituents of converb-based complex predicates in Wolaitta is fixed: converb(V)-V. In most cases the main lexical meaning of the complex predicate is contributed by the converb. V adds semantic modification including manner, direction, intensity, certainty, and duration, and/or grammatical information such as transitivity about the situation expressed by the V (converb). There are also complex predicates which do not show this semantic structure because the meaning of the complex structure is not strictly compositional (see section .. on the role of V). Tense–aspect or mood is marked only once, on the V , if the complex predicate is the head of the main clause. However, bearing verbal inflection is not the defining property of V verbs. Like monoverbal predicates, the complex predicate can be nominalised or it can be put into a subordinate relation to a main verb, in which case the morphemes which indicate nominalisation or clausal dependency are marked on the V of the complex predicate. This is illustrated in (), which contains two juxtaposed sentences. The first complex predicate ʔútt-í c’eegg- ‘get old without doing anything’ is the verbal head in the first sentence and is marked for aspect and subject agreement. The complex predicate yé ɗɗ-a ʔek’ k’- ‘to do a physical activity energetically’ in the second sentence, is an adverbial clause that modifies the main verb goyy-. Accordingly, the V of yé ɗɗ - ʔek’ k’- is affixed with the same-subject anterior converb marker -ádá. () ta naʔáa naʔá-y galbá -n ʔútt-í c’eegg-iisi SG:GEN child child:NOM mat-LOC sit-SS:A:CNV get.old-MSG:PF táání yéɗɗ-á ʔek’k’-ádá boóra goyy-aísi SG:NOM step_on-SS:A:CNV stand-SS:A:CNV ox:M:ACC plough-SG:IPF ‘My grandson has become old without doing anything. I (still) plough the land energetically (as a young and strong person would normally do).’

270

Amha

Table .. V verbs in Wolaitta in Adams (: –). Aspect type

V

lexical meaning

(‘aspectual’) meaning in CPs



ʔagg-

‘give up’

Immediacy



beʔ-

‘see’

Trial



ʔer-

‘know’

Experiential



ʔekk-

‘take’

Certainty



ʔak’-

‘spend the night’

Agreement aspect



han-

‘happen’

Imminence



bess-

‘show’

Obligation



wóɗɗ - (itr.) ʔekk- (tr.)

‘climb down’ ‘take’

Suddenness



péʔ-

‘spend the day’

Expectation



(repetition of converb)

(lexical meaning of converb)

Intensification



ʔaggénna

‘it will not cease’

Probability



g-

‘say’

Decisive/compulsory aspect



wott-

‘put down’

Unconcern/precedence/ preparation



ʔútt-

‘sit’

Durative, expectancy

.. Inventory and classification of V verbs in converb-based complex predicates The number of verbs used as V of complex predicates is restricted. Adams () includes fourteen V verbs (see Table .), which he labelled as Aspect, Aspect, etc. However, in his discussion Adams mentions another verb that is not included in this list, namely báy- ‘be lost, disappear’, noting that this is an example of ‘other auxiliary verbs … (that) seem to cover a wide area in the manner of action and have to be glossed differently in different contexts’ (p. ). Based on various morphosyntactic criteria, Amha and Dimmendaal (a) exclude four of the above fourteen Vs from their own list. These are han- ‘happen’, bess- ‘show’, ʔaggénna ‘he/it will/does not give up/cease’, and ‘repetition of converb’ as V verbs. Below these four cases will be examined and the reason(s) for their exclusion is/are justified. The construction with the first two V verbs that are excluded, i.e. han‘happen’ and bess- ‘show’, is structurally similar. Thus the two will be discussed together. Adams treats the verbs han- ‘happen’ and bess- ‘show’ in () and (), taken from Adams (: ), as V verbs which respectively express constructional meanings imminence and obligation.

Compound verbs and ideophones in Wolaitta revisited

271

() sóo gel-aíčč-a ʔíra-y bukk-aná(-w) home enter-ASP-SG:IMP rain-M:NOM rain-FUT-DAT han-eési happen-MSG:PRES:AFF:DCL ‘Get into the house quickly, for it is about to rain.’ () naʔá-y ba aawáa k’aálaa síy-ána-w bess-eési child-M:NOM his father word:ACC hear-FUT-DAT show-MSG:IPF ‘The child ought to listen to his father’s words.’ The underlined predicates in () and () have the structure Vroot-FUTDAT + inflected V pattern. The reasons for not treating these as compound verbs include that the Vroot-FUT-DAT constituent is a nominalised clause which is derived from an independent (main) clause inflected for future tense. It is thus different from the complex predicate types we focus on in the present chapter, namely those involving two verbal constituents, the first one of which is not inflected for tense–aspect and polarity but only partially for subject. The fact that () and () are nominalised clauses is clear from the fact that the future tense verb in these examples can head a clause on its own. Compare the main verbs bukk-aná ‘it will rain’ and síy-ána ‘I/we/he/she etc. will hear’ with bukk-aná-w and síy-ána-w in () and () respectively. Any of the three allomorphs of the dative casemarking morphemes, i.e. -u/w, -ssi, and -yyo, can be used in this construction. Second, the examples in () and () and related constructions must occur with Vs that form a semantically coherent class of verbs including kóyy- ‘want, seek’, košš- ‘be necessary, be wanted’, and dandaʔ- ‘be able’, which comprise verbs that are cross-linguistically widely used as modal verbs, which express the obligation, necessity, probability, etc. of the event expressed by V. These are better analysed as special constructions with predictable meanings. Third, some of the Vroot-FUT-DAT + V constructions allow modifiers between the two verbal components, whereas this is not possible in the converb-based complex predicates we discussed in section ... Compare example () with () and (), in which the modifiers loytí ‘do well, properly’ and dáro ‘a lot, much, very’ intervene between the dependent and main verbs. () naʔá-y ba ʔaawáa k’aálaa síy-ána-w child-M:NOM his father word:ACC hear-FUT-DAT loyt-í bess-eési make.good-SS:A:CNV show-MSG:IPF ‘It is highly proper that the child ought to listen to his father’s words.’ () naʔá-y child-M:NOM

ba ʔaawáa his father

k’aálaa word:ACC

síy-ána-w hear-FUT-DAT

dáro a.lot

272

Amha

košš-eési be.necessary-MSG:IPF ‘It is highly necessary that the child listens to his father’s words.’ The verb han- ‘be, happen’ in example (), is interpreted by Adams as an aspectual category expressing imminence. This verb is semantically different from the modal verbs such as košš- ‘be necessary’ and dandaʔ- ‘be able’. However, the use of han- in () can be linked to modality in that, as a prediction of what will surely happen in the immediate future, it can be interpreted as an expression of ‘strong possibility’. Amha and Dimmendaal exclude the verb bess- ‘show’ (in example ) on the grounds that there it combines with a clausal complement. Distinct from this, we find bess- as V in converb-based complex predicates, in which the constructional meaning ‘do lightly, of event expressed in V’ is expressed. This is illustrated in (–). ()

yaá-t-ídí wolakk-í bess-í-nne that-do-SS:A:CNV mix-SS:A:CNV show-SS:A:CNV-COORD ʔagg-í g-eettees give_up-SS:A:CNV say-PL:IPF ‘We mix (the ingredients) lightly like this and further we leave (the recipe) just like that.’

()

he tókk-ídó-ge búlʔ-í búlʔ-í that plant-PF:REL-NMZ:NMZ dig-SS:A:CNV dig-SS:A:CNV bess-ídó-ge ʔiččášu laítta-ra woozz-eés show-PF:REL-NMZ:NOM five year-INST be.ripe-MS:PF ‘(The ensete) which is planted becomes ripe in five years, (the soil that is around it) being regularly lightly moved.’

For the above-mentioned reasons we propose to treat the Vroot-FUTDAT + V construction distinct from the complex predicate with V (samesubject anterior converb) + V pattern. The third case Amha and Dimmendaal (a) exclude from their list of Vs is the repetition/reduplication of the V (converb), illustrated in the underlined form in example (), from Adams (: ). ()





mára-y baassá badaláa calf-M:NOM baassa:POS corn-M:ACC

m-í m-iídi eat-SS:CNV eat-SS:CNV

The verbal form yáat- ‘do like that’ is a combination of the deictic proclitic yáa- ‘that’ and the verb root ʔoott- which is reduced to -t. The parallel intransitive verb yáan- ‘be like that’ comprises yáa- ‘that’ and the reduced form of the verb han- ‘happen’. A highland plant known by the scientific name ensete ventricosum.

Compound verbs and ideophones in Wolaitta revisited

273

káll-iísi be.satiated-MSG:PF ‘The calf, having gorged himself on Bassa’s corn, was satiated.’ The reason for the exclusion is that reduplication of a constituent for the expression of pluractionals is not unique to complex predicates. It is used with adjectives to express plurality, as in (). Moreover, the function of verbal repetition is not restricted to expressing ‘intensity’. It may be used to express a distributive action as well, as illustrated in (). Moreover, reduplication can also be used for expressing (non-intensive) iterative actions, see búlʔ-í búlʔ-í ‘dig soil regularly’ in () above. () c’íma c’íma ʔasa-t-i šiik’-ídí.… old old person-PL-NOM gather-SS:A:CNV ‘Several old people gathered and …’ () naa-t-á t’eég-í t’eég-í miiššáa child-PL-M:ACC call-SS:A:CNV call-SS:A:CNV money:M:ACC ʔim-iísi give-MSG:PF ‘He called the children apart (each individually or in groups of two or more) and gave them money.’ Moreover, unlike complex predicates which involve only two constituents, converbs may be repeated three or four times to express the intensive or distributive. Finally, Wolaitta has a productive derivational affix -eret- expressing intensive or verbal plurality. For these reasons reduplication should not be considered as a special type of complex predicate construction. The fourth construction which Amha and Dimmendaal exclude from their list of V verbs is ʔaggénna ‘he/it will/does, not give up/cease’. Example () from Adams (: ) illustrates its use. () wontó ʔetí gákk-énna-ni tomorrow PL:NOM arrive-MSG:FUT:NEG-DS:A:CNV ʔagg-énna gišša-u giig-iss-á give.up-MSG:FUT:NEG reason-DAT be.prepared-CAUS-SG:IMP ‘Prepare things, because they will probably arrive tomorrow.’ In its usage in (), ʔaggénna ‘he/it will/does not give up/cease’ must be preceded by a dependent clause derived from the third person masculine singular negative declarative main clause form of any verb. In () this is gákkénna ‘he/it will/does not arrive’, which is subordinated by suffixing the different-subject anterior converb marker n(i). Amha and Dimmendaal () claim that structurally the different-subject converb marker is parallel

274

Amha

to sentential complementisers. It occurs in the same slot in which complementisers such as -dani ‘in order to’ occur. Compare the verb gákk-énna-ni ‘without arriving’ in example () with gákk-énna-dan ‘in order not to arrive’ and gákk-énna ‘he does/will not arrive’. Irrespective of the person, number, or gender of the subject, the verbal form that precedes ʔagenna ‘he/it will/does not give up/cease’ is the third person masculine singular form. The corresponding feminine form ʔaggúkku ‘she will/does not give up’, or any of the other forms in the future negative paradigm, cannot be used in this context. The literal translation of the underlined forms in () is: ‘he will/does not give up without arriving’. This is a special construction type involving two verbs inflected for tense and negative polarity. It is structurally different from the kind of complex predicates we discussed in section .. and in the present chapter it is not treated on a par with the other verbs in Table .. While excluding four of the fourteen Vs in Adams (), discussed above, Amha and Dimmendaal add a large number of V verbs which were not included in the earlier work. Some of these have a regular meaning associated with them when they are used as V. Others form a fixed collocation with a specific V converb and they express a unique and often unpredictable meaning. For this reason Amha and Dimmendaal (a: –) classified complex predicates into two types: (i)

semantically asymmetrical compounds, which ‘involve freely generated (V) converbs, given compatibility with the meaning of (V), which are drawn from a closed list’; (ii) semantically symmetrical compounds, involving unique verb combinations because of which it is not possible to generalise the semantic contribution of V on its own. One has to interpret each V+V combination separately, even in cases in which the same V is used, as in ʔek’k’- ‘stand up’ in the following two complex predicates: wóɗɗʔek’k’- [‘descend’ + ‘stand up’] ‘turn to a previous state, do again of an activity’ vs. yéɗɗ- ʔek’k’- [‘step on, stamp’ + ‘stand up’] ‘do a physical activity vigorously’. The list of asymmetrical compound verbs in Amha and Dimmendaal (a: ) includes ten of the fourteen given in Adams (), see Table . above, plus the ten V verbs shown in Table .. The V and V in the symmetrical compound verbs are shown in Table .. The list of symmetrical complex predicates in Table . is not complete. The following combinations are attested in text recently examined. ()

kaymtend to fire- eat‘become old, live long decently’

Compound verbs and ideophones in Wolaitta revisited

275

Table .. Asymmetrical V verbs in Wolaitta (Amha and Dimmendaal a: ). V

lexical meaning

constructional meaning

báy-

‘disappear’

counter expectation

digg-

‘remove something, forbid’

irreversible state (tr.)

kícc-

‘remove oneself’

irreversible state (itr.)

haík’k’-

‘die’

extreme degree (itr.)

wor-

‘kill’

extreme degree (tr.)

ʔiiss-

‘insist, persist’

continuity of negatively perceived state, e.g. feel pain, make noise

kaall-

‘follow’

continuity/progress of positively evaluated action, e.g. do work, study

šaác’c’-

‘spend the season/year’

duration

t’eell-

‘look at, examine’

adversive

wur-

‘be finished’

near-complete action

Table .. Symmetrical set in Wolaitta (Amha and Dimmendaal a: ). converb (V)

V

meaning of complex predicate

baizz- ‘sell’

m- ‘eat’

sell and squander

baizz- ‘sell’

ʔekk- ‘take’

sell (for one’s benefit)

bak’k’- ‘slap’

ʔoík’k’- ‘hold’

be too tight, stick to something

k’at’t’- ‘twist’

zaar- ‘return’

capture a person by misleading him/her

miic’c’- ‘laugh’

kaaʔ- ‘play’

make fun of someone

sing- ‘smell’

gákk- ‘arrive’

find intuitively or by surprise

ʔaáɗɗ- ‘pass’

wóɗɗ- ‘descend’

turn over (intransitive)

ʔaatt- ‘let pass’

yégg- ‘add, drop’

turn over (transitive)

ʔekk- ‘take’

y- ‘come’

bring

ʔekk- ‘take’

b- ‘go’

take away

[the verb kay- means ‘to warm oneself by sitting close to the hearth/ campfire and keep it burning; inhale smoke of medicinal or sweetsmelling plant(product)’]

276

Amha

() mokkwullreceive.guest- collapse‘disappear or hide after having been seen briefly’ () mokkʔekkreceive.guest take ‘to welcome a guest, to host’ () wottʔekkkeep/put- take‘loot/rob, ejaculate’ () kíywóɗɗcome.out- descend‘arrive in a place unexpectedly’ () wóɗɗʔek’k’descend- stand.up‘turn to a previous state, do again of an activity that is supposed to have been completed’ () yéɗɗʔek’k’step.onstand.up ‘do a physical activity vigorously’ () naak’k’ʔoik’k’insert/exploit hold ‘have a good grip on something, do a handwork well’ ()

yiggt’eéllmeasure see ‘be thoughtful, consider different sides of an issue’

() t’aát’- waat’wrap- bind.yoke‘conclude/summarise a speech, story, or an argument’ ()

ʔeét’t’- kiy-

burn go.out ‘be aflame, catch fire quickly; be very expensive of price’ () ʔeettkessmake.burn take.out ‘ignite, set fire to; make very expensive, of price’

Compound verbs and ideophones in Wolaitta revisited

277

A striking absence in the list of verbs in Tables ., ., and . and in the examples in (–) is the verb ʔimm- ‘give’, which is used in many serialising languages and in languages with compound verbs to form complex predicates (Bril : , Denis Creissels, p.c.). Concerning the syntactic unity of complex predicates in Wolaitta, we mentioned earlier that no other element can intervene between the two constituents. Prosody is another feature that provides evidence of the syntactic unity of complex predicates. Wolaitta is a tone-accent language. Words in isolation have lexically determined tone patterns. However, when two or more lexical items are put together to form phrases or compound words, there are predictable patterns of reduction of accentual prominence. In nominal compounds, for example, the reduction affects the rightmost constituent (cf. Amha ). The same is observed in complex predicates, since the lexical high tone of V is reduced and the prominent (acoustically salient) tone-accent is that of the V. The writing behaviour of native speakers also points to the prosodic unity just mentioned. Adams (: ) notes: ‘educated Wolaittas who are learning to write their own language, consistently try to write the V [i.e. converb + V – AA] as one word, not realising that because each verb can conjugate and has its own high pitched stress there are two words involved, not just one’. In fact, the reduction in the phonetic realisation of the high pitch/intensity in the second verb could be one of the motivating factors for the speakers’ writing of V+V as one word. The other factor could be the semantics of the complex predicates. That is, complex predicates express a single event and this may eventually lead speakers to treat the two components like single words and merge the tone-accent pattern of the components into a single prosodic unit. In school textbooks and in other published documents there is inconsistency in writing complex predicates. The same complex predicate may be written as one word in one place and as two words elsewhere. Some of the entries of complex predicates in a Wolaitta– Amharic dictionary published in  are written as a single word, e.g.  ʔaggibeʔiis [give.up + see] ‘he gave up completely’. Others are written as two words, e.g., ʔaatti yeggiis [let.pass + drop, add] ‘he turned something upside down’; still others are written with a hyphen separating the two constituents, e.g. mokki-wulliis [receive.guest + collapse, fall] ‘disappear’. The dictionary makers, all of whom are native speakers, do not explain their writing convention. .

Ideophone-based complex predicates

Ideophones in Wolaitta are characterised by their highly specific and/ or expressive semantics and special morphological shape, e.g. use of 

Ethiopian Languages Research Centre. . Wolayttatto Qaalatu Amaaratto Birshettaa [Wolaitta Amharic Dictionary]. Addis Ababa: Institute of Ethiopian Studies.

278

Amha

reduplication and/or predictable pattern of vowel combinations in a word. There are two types of ideophones in the language: adjectival and verbal. In the present study we examine only verbal ideophones briefly, to draw attention to their structural and functional parallel with the converb-based complex predicates discussed in section ... Verbal ideophones constitute a complex predicate together with V verbs g- ‘say’ and ʔoott- ‘do’. They may or may not involve reduplication, depending on the duration of the event expressed. Punctual events or onset of durational states or activity are often expressed by non-reduplicated CVC(C)V forms. Consider the reduplicated and non-reduplicated ideophones in () and (), which are immediately followed by the verb g- ‘say’. ()

kúrúru g-

‘to move, of small children, and as an insult for a short adult person’ sáláli g‘to move in a slow, easy manner’ c’úrúru g- ‘to spill, of liquid coming out in a slow consistent manner’ (Amha : )

()

láwhu g- ‘to leave or pass by quickly’ šóttu g- ‘to stand up abruptly’ jóllu g- ‘to become motionless and absent minded’ (Amha : )

Verbal ideophones involve sound symbolism: those with high vowels are associated with smallness/lightness and those with mid vowels are associated with bigness/heaviness. ()

túlku g- ‘to break easily, suddenly of something small’ tólku g- ‘to break easily, suddenly of something big’ (Amha : )

Ideophones are not inflected for verbal categories such as tense, negation, and mood. The latter are marked on the V. Transitivity is distinguished by alternating the V verbs: ʔoott- ‘do’ indicates that the ideophone is transitive whereas g- ‘say’ indicates that it is intransitive. The following are examples: ()

ʔissí-to wottáa díʔʔi g-iídí ʔubb-áa laagg-ídí one-ORD race IDEO say-SS:A:CNV all-M:ACC chase-SS:A:CNV simm-í ʔagg-ókkoní yáa-g-iísi return-SS:A:CNV give.up-PL:IPF:Q that-say-MS:G:PF ‘He said “Don’t we all run at once and chase them away and return?”’ (Taani Wolqaama, p. )

()

cácácácáca ʔoott-ádá guútta moóre ʔašo do-SS:A:CNV little fat meat:ACC IDEO

tamá-n fire-LOC

Compound verbs and ideophones in Wolaitta revisited

279

t’iit’t’-aásu roast-FS:G:PF ‘She roasted a little fat meat on the fire.’ As can be observed from (), the semantic content of an ideophone can simply be imitation of a sound during an activity. However, most ideophones are not sound ‘imitation’ or ‘onomatopoeic’ forms. In general, ideophonic forms express the event as well as information on the manner or duration of the event. Most ideophones have corresponding ‘regular verbs’ with somewhat similar lexical content but lacking the effect of ideophones. Compare: láwhu g- ‘leave/pass by quickly’ and b- ‘go’, šóppu g- ‘to spill (of liquid) at once, in large quantity’ and gúkk- ‘spill’. Apart from indicating transitivity and verbal inflectional categories such as tense–aspect, the lexical semantic contribution of the V components g- ‘say’ and ʔoott- ‘do’ is not directly apparent. However, the latter verbs are essential to identify the transitivity of the ideophonic construction. Like converb-based complex predicates, the ideophone and the V g- or ʔoott- cannot be separated by other constituents. Moreover, the ideophone is rarely extracted from the composite and used on its own. .

Transitivity and complex predicates

In the present context we use ‘transitivity’ in connection only with the possibility of a verb to take one, more, or no Direct Object, although the Object nouns may or may not be overt and some verbs can be characterised as labile. In Wolaitta, transitive verbs may be derived from intransitive ones by suffixing the productive causative/transitive morpheme -is. With a number of verbal lexemes non-productive final consonant alternations (or perhaps petrified morphemes) distinguish intransitive/middle, transitive/causative, and ditransitive verbs, e.g. gufann- ‘fall forward’ vs. gufant- ‘make fall forward’, dagamm- ‘be scared’ vs. dagant- ‘scare someone’, in which the transitive verb ends in -t. But there are a few examples in which the reverse of this, i.e. the intransitive/middle form ends in -t and the corresponding transitive form ends in -y: yiillot- ‘be angry’ vs. yiilloy- ‘make angry’, ʔámott- ‘crave, long for (certain food)’ vs. ʔámoy- ‘make long for food’. In others the intransitive form ends in a velar consonant whereas the transitive counterpart ends in -ss: yeekk- ‘cry’ vs. yeess- ‘make cry’, t’uúk’k’- ‘explode’ vs. t’uuss- ‘make explode’. Finally, there are a few that contrast only in ejective vs. non-ejective voiceless palatal consonant alternations: laac’c’- ‘lick’ vs. laacc- ‘make lick’ and miic’c’- ‘laugh’ vs. miicc- ‘make laugh’. Some of these alternations can be explained by phonological processes resulting from affixation of the causative morpheme -is. Of the twenty asymmetrical V verbs in Table . and ., twelve are intransitive as they normally occur without a direct object when used

280

Amha

independently. The remaining eight take a direct object noun when used in single-predicate clauses. In complex predicate clauses, intransitive V verbs often combine with intransitive V and transitive Vs combine with transitive V. However, this is not a strict rule since a mismatch in transitivity is also attested as in (), taken from Adams (: ), in which V is transitive and V intransitive. The same V is used in () in which V is intransitive. ()

m-í bay-iísi eat-SS:A:CNV disappear-MSG:PF ‘He ate it carelessly.’

()

ʔek’k’-í

bay-iísi stand-SS:A:CNV disappear-MSG:PF ‘He was just standing (not working).’

The verb bay- ‘disappear’ is one of the frequently used asymmetrical V verbs and it contributes the meaning ‘counter expectation’ in such constructions. In five short texts (all children’s stories) we found fourteen utterances with complex predicates taking bay- ‘disappear’ as V. Of these, eleven have intransitive V, matching the intransitive V bay- ‘disappear’. Two of these are given in (–). ()

daafur-ídí

ʔetí

be.tired-SS:A:CNV

PL:NOM boy-DIRC

naʔáa-kko gákk-íyo

wode naʔaí

arrive-IPF:REL

time child:M:NOM

ʔek’k’-í

báy-ídí

miic’c’-eés

stand-SS:A:CNV

disappear-SS:A:CNV

laugh-MS:IPF

‘Tired, when the people got there to rescue him, the boy was simply standing there and laughing (although he had made an alarm call earlier).’ (Taani Wolqaama, p. )

()

b-á t’aát-étt-ádá zinʔ-á go-SS:A:CNV curl-REFL-SS:A:CNV lie.down-SS:A:CNV bay-aasu disappear-FS:PF ‘She went and lied down, curled up (instead of seeking solution for her problem).’

The remaining three have transitive V verbs, two of the three involve the same V, namely ʔagg- ‘give up, cease’; one of the two cases is given in (). The third involves the verb ʔol- ‘throw’ (). The examples (–), as well as the combination m- + bay- [‘eat’ + ‘disappear’] ‘eat carelessly’ in example (), suggest that in the case of asymmetrical complex predicates,

Compound verbs and ideophones in Wolaitta revisited

281

the transitivity value of V overrides that of V since in all attested cases of mismatch the compound has the same transitivity value as V. () godareé hyena-M:NOM

túma-kka g-iídí

ʔagg-í

true-INCL say-SS:A:CNV

give.up-SS:A:CNV disappear-MSG:PF

bay-iis

‘The hyena gave up saying “that is true, indeed” (although one would expect that the hyena would know that what was told to him, that donkeys have no heart, is not true).’ (Taani Wolqaama, p. )

() kútto-y k’int’áll-íya bak’k’-í-nne chicken-M:NOM side.of.face-M:ACC slap-SS:A:CNV-COORD yiic’oy-ídí bay-iísi ʔol-í make.feel.dizzy-SS:A:CNV throw-SS:A:CNV disappear-MSG:PF ‘The rooster slapped (the man) hard, causing him feel dizzy and fall.’ (Taani Wolqaama, p. ) Similarly, in the symmetrical compounds, it is possible for the composites to have different values for transitivity. However, the common pattern is for V and V to match in transitivity. The list in Table . and the examples in (–) comprise twenty symmetrical complex predicates. Out of these, V as well as V of sixteen complex predicates have the same value for transitivity (i.e. they are either transitive or intransitive) and the complex predicate the two components form has a transitivity value identical to its component parts, i.e. it is transitive if both components are transitive and intransitive if both are intransitive. The remaining four complex predicates are the following: singgakk- [‘smell’ + ‘arrive’] ‘find intuitively or by surprise’, mokk- wull- [‘receive. guest’ + ‘collapse’] ‘disappear having been briefly seen’, ʔekk- y- [‘take’+ ‘come’] ‘bring’, and ʔekk- b- [‘take’ + ‘go’] ‘take away’. In these four cases, V is intransitive whereas V is transitive; and the derived complex predicate is also transitive just like V. Thus, as we said for asymmetrical compounds, where there is mismatch between the transitivity of V and V, the complex predicate has the same value for transitivity as that of V. For some of the constructional meanings, in fact, there are intransitive and transitive V pairs. This is the case with the V verbs wóɗɗ- ‘descend’ and ʔekk- ‘take’, both of which express ‘suddenness’. However, ʔekk- combines with transitive V (), whereas wóɗɗ- combines with intransitive ones (). The two examples are from Adams (: ). () táání ʔakeek-énna-ni kana-y SG.SBJ be.attentive-NEG:IPF-DS:A:CNV dog-M:NOM sáʔʔ-í ʔekk-iísi bite-SS:A:CNV take-MSG:PF ‘When I was not expecting it, the dog suddenly bit me.’

táná SG.OBJ

282

Amha

() ʔetí

dap-íšini

wodoró-y

PL.SBJ stretch-DS:S:CNV

duut’t’-í

woɗɗ-iísi

rope-M:NOM break-SS:A:CNV descend-MSG:PF

‘While they were stretching the rope, it suddenly broke.’

In some sentence pairs the V is transitive, but alternating intransitive and transitive Vs denotes subtle differences in meaning. For example, as simple verbs, the pairs: ʔútt- ‘sit’ and wott- ‘put, set down, place’ are semantically related but they differ in transitivity. According to Adams (), as V verbs the two have different meanings: wott- ‘put, set down’ expresses ‘unconcern/precedence/preparation’ whereas ʔútt- ‘sit’ expresses ‘durative, expectancy’. However, it seems that ‘preparation, durative, expectancy’ characterise both verbs but the translation differences could be attributed to their difference in valence. The reason for this claim is that, in all its attestations so far, complex predicates with ʔútt- as V are reflexive/middle in which the subject is both the agent of the event expressed by V and at the same time the participant affected by it. This is illustrated in (), in which the transitive cognition verb beʔ- ‘see’ in V position goes with the V ʔútt- ‘sit’. In the judgment of the present author, the sentence is unacceptable if V is replaced by wott- ‘put, set down’ (this was not tested with other native speakers). In contrast, in () the V can be either ʔútt- ‘sit’ or wott‘put, set down’. With ʔútt- ‘sit’ as V the ‘preparation, expectancy, duration, etc.’ in example () affects the third person masculine singular subject. The subject is here an experiencer waiting and anticipating the results of the action he took. In contrast, with wott- as V the subject (in ) has an agent or causative role. ()

sintaá-ra

deʔ-íya-ge

gaamm-úwa

demm-íbeénna

in.front-INST

exist-IPF:REL-M:NMZ:NOM

lion-M:ACC

find-MSGPF:NEG

šin

guyyeé-ge

beʔ-í

ʔutt-iisi

ADVST

behind-M:NMZ:NOM

see-SS:A:CNV

sit-MSG:PF

‘The person (walking) in front did not see the lion, but the one (walking) behind him saw the lion (and was prepared to escape but he did not warn his friend).’ (Taani Wolqaama, p. )

()

sígaa-ssi reconciliation:ACC-DAT

šoroo-t-á

šiišš-á

neighbor-PL-ACC gather-SS:A:CNV

wott-aasu put-FSG:PF

‘She (the wife) had gathered the neighbours to reconcile her with her husband.’

Example (), with a di-transitive verb kunt- ‘fill’, is taken from Adams (: ); the translation is as in the original work. In this sentence, too, if the V wott- ‘put, place down’ is replaced by ʔútt- ‘sit’, the interpretation would be that the subject is ‘expecting’ or testing whether he would indeed ‘feel fear in the dark’.

Compound verbs and ideophones in Wolaitta revisited

283

() t’úmaa-yyo yáyy-ennaa-dani lambá darkness:ACC-DAT fear-MSG:FUT:NEG-COMP kerosene:ACC kuraaz-iya-ni kunt-í wott-iisi oil.lamp-ACC-LOC fill-SS:A:CNV put-MSG:PF ‘In order to not fear the dark, he took the precaution to fill the oil lamp with kerosene.’ The semantically related verb pair haík’k’- ‘die’ and wor- ‘kill’ further illustrate the importance of matching in transitivity between V and V. Example () illustrates that the intransitive V miic’c’- ‘laugh’ takes haík’k’- ‘die’ as V. ()

ʔí

miic’c’-í MSG:NOM laugh-SS:A:CNV ‘He laughs/is laughing a lot.’

haik’k’-eesi die-MSG:IPF

In contrast, the corresponding transitive verb miicc- ‘make laugh’ forms a complex predicate with wor- ‘kill’, as in (). The verbs haik’k’- and worare productively used as V constituents of complex predicates and their function is characterised as ‘expressing an extreme degree for some action or process expressed by V’ in Amha and Dimmendaal (a: ), from which the examples in (–) are taken: ()

ʔí

ʔas-áa miicc-í MSG:NOM people-ACC laugh:CAUS-SS:A:CNV ‘He makes people laugh a lot.’

()

ʔí

wor-ees kill-MSG:IPF

bóllot-iyo haik’k’-eesi ʔit’t’-í MSG:NOM LOG mother.in.law-F:ABS hate-SS:A:CNV die-MSG:IPF ‘He hates his mother-in-law badly.’ ba

Transitivity concord is important in the symmetrical set of complex predicates as well. In examples () and (), semantically related but formally distinct intransitive and transitive V verbs wóɗɗ- ‘descend’ and yégg- ‘drop, climb down, add’ form unique combinations with corresponding intransitive and transitive verbs: ʔaáɗɗ- ‘pass’ and ʔaátt- ‘let pass’ (see also the list in (–)). () hargánc-íya zinʔó-sa-ppe ʔaá ɗɗ-á woɗɗ-aasu patient-F:NOM lie.down-place-ABL pass-SS:A:CNV descend-FSG:PF ‘The patient turned over in her bed.’

284

()

Amha

mac’c’aas-íya ʔoíttáa ʔaatt-á yegg-aasu woman-F:NOM bread:ACC let.pass-SS:A:CNV drop-FSG:PF ‘The woman turned over the (flat)bread (in the baking pan).’ (Amha and Dimmendaal a: )

Finally, as discussed in section ., the selection of a V is the only clue as to the transitivity of an ideophonic construction: an ideophone + g- ‘say’ combination is always intransitive whereas ideophone + ʔoott- ‘do’ is always transitive. The above-mentioned cases of matching transitivity of V and V are comparable to what Bril () refers to as ‘transitive concord’ in the Oceanic language Nêlêmwa. This language has morphemes indicating transitivity. In ideophonic constructions, the choice of V helps identify transitivity because the form of the ideophone itself does not alter in intransitive and transitive constructions. In the case of converb-based complex predicates, however, matching in transitivity among the verbs is the norm, with just a few cases violating this tendency. Alternating V verbs (see the lists in Tables . and .) in asymmetrical compounds do not turn a transitive verb into an intransitive one or the other way round. Rather, each V has its own semantic import. We have an example where a passive derivational morpheme is affixed to the V component of the complex predicate, thereby affecting argument structure (). In this example, the transitive V verb m- ‘eat’ takes the passive derivational suffix -ett (it is the lexical property of this minimal verb root form C- to reduplicate the derivational suffix). The V used in combination with this derived form is ʔagg- which is also transitive. () ʔetá ʔoík’k’-ana g-iíddí c’iimmá haatta-n PL:NOM catch-FUT say-SS:S:CNV sea:GEN water-LOC ʔagg-iis gel-ídí m-eét-ett-í enter-SS:A:CNV eat-RDP-PAS-SS:A:CNV give.up- SG:PF ‘Intending to catch them, (the baboon) fell in the lake and drowned.’ [lit. ‘it was eaten by water’] We have shown in sections . and . that converb- and ideophone-based complex predicates in Wolaitta are not used to introduce non-subcategorised arguments. The exception we mentioned was ʔekk- ‘take’, the converb form of which is used to introduce an instrumental noun. However, in this case, ʔekk- is not part of a complex predicate because it is used without V and its tone-accent is not phonetically reduced. () č’ač’č’ap-ídí k’aatt-oós míttaa ʔekk-ídí sprinkle-SS:A:CNV stir-PL:PRES:AFF:DCL wood:ACC take-SS:A:CNV ‘Having sprinkled (the mixture of spices and butter-milk over the ensete) we mix it with wood.’

Compound verbs and ideophones in Wolaitta revisited

() mel-ída-ga zazzár-iya ʔekk-ídí dry-PF:REL-M:NMZ:ACC sieve-M:ACC take-SS:A:CNV ‘That which became dry, we sieve with a sieve and …’

285

zazzar-ídí sieve-SS:A:CNV

The verb ʔekk- and its object noun are used as alternative expressions to noun + the instrumental or comitative case-marker -ra or noun + the locative marker -n, which can also be used to mark the instrumental. Replacing this N+Affix form by a Verb+Noun construction may be in order to upgrade the grammatical role of the instrument noun into a core constituent. . The status of V verbs Adams (:) analysed V verbs as auxiliaries. He notes: ‘[F]or each of these verbs there exists a homophonous verb that occurs alone, as the sole head element of a verb phrase, and has its own independent (lexical) meaning, quite distinct from the grammaticalised “aspectual” meaning expressed by the auxiliary verb counterpart.’ Amha (: ) refers to V as ‘an adverbial modifier or an auxiliary verb’ without stating the motivation for the terminology, whereas Amha and Dimmendaal (a: ) write that V verbs ‘are best analysed as grammaticalized verb forms as a result of their frequent occurrence in the main verb slot and their semantic interaction with the preceding verb’ but they do not specify the lexical status of V verbs as ‘auxiliary verbs’. Treating V verbs as auxiliaries would not be correct despite differences among V verbs in the level of grammaticalisation. There are formal/phonological, structural or grammatical, and semantic reasons. Each of these is considered in turn. All of the V verbs are used as a single-predicate verb with their basic lexical meaning. Phonologically, the verbs are exactly the same when they are used on their own and when they function as V verbs in complex predicates, i.e. there is no formal reduction in the segmental make-up of the lexeme. The only difference is the reduction in the phonetic prominence of the toneaccent of the V in complex predicates. However, this affects phrases and compounds in general, including N + N compounds, and it cannot be used as a criterion to distinguish main and auxiliary verbs. Analysing formally identical verbs both as major verbal lexemes as well as auxiliaries would result in unnecessary duplication of predicate forms in Wolaitta. Besides, V verbs in Wolaitta constitute a relatively large number of verbs whereas clear cases of auxiliaries in genetically or areally related languages are few in number. For example, the Ometo languages Zayse and Zargulla have auxiliary or copula verbs, e.g. yéne/yéšše ‘be (present/past)’, and the negative auxiliary baáʔa (past tense). These are used on their own (only) in nominal clauses; otherwise they are used in combination with lexical verbs to express aspect

286

Amha

or negation, as with the verb ʔač’č’- ‘cut’ in ʔač’č’-aá-tte yéne ‘he/she, etc. is cutting’, ʔač’č’-aá-tte yéšše ‘he/she, etc. was cutting’, ʔač’č’-aá baáʔa ‘he/she does not cut’, which contrast with the simple predicate verb in the past: ʔác’c’átteséne ‘he cut’. Wolaitta has zero copula in the affirmative; some of the functions expressed by auxiliaries in Zargulla (e.g. past/ present progressive and negation) are denoted in Wolaitta through verbal affixes. There are a few cases of multi-verb constructions which can arguably be analysed as auxiliary constructions. For example, some speakers use the existential verb deʔ- in combination with another lexical verb to express the progressive, e.g. k’oid-aídda daisi ‘I am counting’ [comprising k’oid- ‘count’ and a reduced form of deʔ- ‘exist’]. This usage is alternative to verbal affixes -aisi (first person), -aása (second person), etc., which can be directly affixed to the lexical verb to mark the present tense or progressive aspect: k’oid-aísi ‘I count/am counting’, k’oid-aása ‘you count/ are counting’. There are a number of structural reasons for not analysing V as auxiliary. First, two verbs that belong to the class of V verbs in Wolaitta can combine with each other to form a complex predicate that can, on its own, express a state of affairs. That is, Vs greatly contribute to the semantic content of an utterance. For example, the verbs ʔagg- ‘give up’ and báy- ‘disappear, be lost’ are among the group of verbs that are used as V verbs. In (), however, the two verbs are combined to form a complex predicate. Two or more auxiliaries may combine in languages that have auxiliaries as sub-types of predicates, e.g. Dutch. However, these would still need another lexical verb to form a complete utterance. ()

ʔasá-y

ʔaš-úwa

šaakk-íyo-ga

ʔagg-í

people-M:NOM

meat-ACC

divide-IPF:RELM:NMZ:ACC

give.up-SS:A:CNV

bay-ídí

keett-áa

tamáa

toiss-aná-w

disappear-SS:A:CNV

house:GEN

fire-ACC

extinguish-FUT-DAT

wottá-n

b-iís

race-LOC go-MSG:PF ‘The people gave up dividing the meat and ran to extinguish the fire which caught the house.’

Second, one and the same verbal lexeme may be used as part of V as well as V. This is illustrated in (), in which the verb g- ‘say’ occurs twice. Apart from complex predicates involving ideophones we did not encounter complex predicates comprising three verbal constituents. 

The singular noun ʔasá ‘person’ is often used with plural reference (cf. the plural form: ʔasatí ‘the people’) and triggers third person masculine singular agreement on the verb.

Compound verbs and ideophones in Wolaitta revisited

()

287

wónta-y [waáʔʔi g]-ií g-iisi day.light-NOM IDEO say-SS:A:CNV say-MSG:PF ‘It became daylight, just like that.’

In its first occurrence (in square brackets), g- is a co-predicate with the ideophone waáʔʔi and provides the lexical meaning: ‘become (day)light’. In its second occurrence, it is a V with the constructional meaning ‘decisiveness, compulsory action’. The third structural reason involves argument structure. One of the general criteria for distinguishing between auxiliaries and inflecting verbs in complex predicates is that auxiliary verbs lack argument structure whereas V components of complex predicates have argument structure (cf. Baker and Harvey, this volume). That V verbs in Wolaitta have argument structure is evident from the selection of certain V verbs according to the valence of V. Alternating transitive and intransitive V may result in distinct interpretations of the same construction, as we showed in section .. In ideophonic constructions, transitivity of V is crucial in interpreting the construction as transitive or not (cf. section .). Finally, V+V (both of the symmetrical as well as asymmetrical type) as a unit get subordinated to another inflecting single or complex predicate verb; they can be nominalised or function as heads of a relative clause, whereas auxiliaries do not. V verbs contribute to the semantic content of the complex predicate. Unlike auxiliaries, their contribution in this regard is not limited to facilitating the tense–aspect, mood, or modality interpretation of V. These are special constructions used mainly for discourse/pragmatic effects; they are not grammatically determined, obligatory usages. As mentioned earlier, for most of the complex predicates there are corresponding single-predicate verbs. Complex predicates express both the event as well as the manner, direction, duration, intensity, etc., within the verbal domain, whereas some languages tend to do this by using adjunct adverbial expression. It is to be noted that Wolaitta has very few manner adverbs. It seems that a compositional analysis would better capture the function of complex predicates in Wolaitta, rather than treating them as auxiliaries (cf. Baker and Harvey, this volume). Wolaitta complex predicates, discussed in sections .–., have a number of structural parallels to what Baker and Harvey refer to as ‘merger constructions’ in which ‘the predicate information from the contributing constituents merges where they have common conceptual structure. This method produces predicate structures whose range classes with the range of predicate structures found in monomorphemic predicates (p. ). In the present contribution we did not attempt to methodically test the application of these ideas to the Wolaitta data. The work is limited to outlining the morphosyntax and some aspects of the semantics of complex predicates in the language. More research is needed on conceptual structure and lexicalisation patterns of simple and complex predicates in Wolaitta in order to better understand the nature of the semantic composition of V+V.

288

Amha

A pertinent but difficult question in this regard is whether there is a principled correlation between the lexical specification of a certain verbal lexeme and the specific interpretation it contributes when used as V in complex predicates. In some cases the semantic motivation for the selection of V is directly apparent from the meaning of the verb when it is used in single-predicate clauses. Note, for example, the verbs ʔak’- ‘spend night’ and péʔ- ‘spend day’ contributing the meaning ‘durational’ when used as V constituents. On the other hand, why certain semantic interpretations are attributed to some V verbs is difficult to specify. For example, why is it that just g- ‘say’ and not any of the other Vs that can express ‘decisiveness’? Or, how is the sense of ‘precedence, preparedness’ is imparted by the V pairs ʔútt- ‘sit’ and wott- ‘put, set down’ on V related to the use of these same verbs as independent verbal heads? These are questions for further research. . Conclusion Complex predicates are used in a number of Cushitic, Omotic, and EthioSemitic languages. In the present study we discussed the phenomenon in Wolaitta (Omotic). In this language, V of complex predicates may be represented by converbs or ideophonic verbs, both of which have restricted inflectional possibilities. Unlike Amharic and Tigrinya (Ethio-Semitic), Qafar (Cushitic), and Zargulla (Omotic), in Wolaitta there are no productive derivational stems which serve exclusively as V components of complex predicates. In comparison with the former languages, Wolaitta employs a larger number of V verbs which are productively used to add different semantic senses to the event expressed by the V. Complex predicates formed by using such V verbs with predictable semantics are analysed as asymmetrical complex predicates. In addition to these, there are complex predicates in which the V+V combination is fixed. Such complex predicates appear to be more lexicalised. The latter are described as symmetric compound verbs in earlier work. Despite their difference in the lexical–grammatical cline, both asymmetrical and symmetrical compounds are formed using the same morphosyntactic strategy. Both manifest the same construction type involving composition or merger. Moreover, the function of the merger in both types is to denote complex activities or events that could be viewed or perceived as one event, e.g. an activity and the manner in which it is carried out. Future research is needed to fully understand semantic composition in different types of complex predicates in Wolaitta.

References Adams, B. . A Tagmemic Analysis of the Wolaitta Language. PhD dissertation, University of London.

Compound verbs and ideophones in Wolaitta revisited

289

Aikhenvald, A. Y. . Serial Verb Constructions in Typological Perspective. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds) Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Amberber, M., this volume. The Structure of the Light Verb Construction in Amharic. Amha, A. . Tone-accent and Prosodic Domains in Wolaitta. Studies in African Linguistics , :–. . Ideophones and Compound Verbs in Wolaitta. In Kilian-Hatz, C. and. Voeltz, F. K. E. (eds) Ideophones, –. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Amha, A. and Dimmendaal, G. . Secondary Predicates and Adverbials in Nilotic and Omotic: A Typological Comparision. In Himmelmann, N. P. and Schultze-Berndt, E. (eds) Secondary Predication and Adverbial Modification: The Typology of Depictives, –. Oxford University Press. a. Verbal Compounding in Wolaitta. In Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds) Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. b. Converbs in an African Perspective. In Ameka, F., Dench, A., and Evans, N. (eds) Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Anderson, G. D. S. . Auxiliary Verb Constructions. Oxford University Press. Appleyard, D. . The Verb ‘to say’ as a Verb Recycling Device in Ethiopian Languages. In Zaborski, A. (ed.) New Data and New Methods in Afroasiatic Linguistics: Robert Hetzron in Memoriam, –. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Baker, B. and Harvey, M., this volume. Complex predicate formation. Bril, I. . Complex Verbs and Dependency Strategies in Nêlêmwa (New Caledonia). In Bril, I. and Ozanne-Rivierre, Françoise (eds) Complex Predicates in Oceanic Languages, –. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Cohen, D., Simeone-Senelle, M-C., and Vanhove, M. . The Grammaticalization of ‘say’ and ‘do’: An Areal Phenomenon in East Africa. In Güldemann, T. and von Roncador, M. (eds) Reported Discourse: A Meeting Ground for Different Linguistic Domains, –. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dhoorre, C. S. and Tosco, M. . Somali Ideophones. Journal of African Cultural Studies.  –. Fleming, H. . Omotic Overview. In Bender, M. L. (ed.) The Non-Semitic Languages of Ethiopia, –. East Lansing: African Studies Center, Michigan State University. Griefenow-Mewis, C. and Bitima, T. . Coordination of Actions in Oromo by Means of Lengthening the Final Vowel of the Conjugated Verb. Paper presented at The Third World Congress of African Linguistics, Leipzig. Hayward, R. J. . Compounding in Qafar. Paper Presented at the Twelfth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, – September . Hetzron, R. . The Verbal System of Southern Agaw. University of California Near Eastern Studies, vol. . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. . Ethiopian Semitic: Studies in classification. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

290

Amha

Lamberti, M. and Sottile, R. . The Wolaytta Language (Studia Linguarum Africae Orientalis, ). Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Leslau, W. . The Influence of Cushitic on the Semitic Languages of Ethiopia: A Problem of Substratum. Word , :  –. . Reference Grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Lydall, J. . Having Fun with Ideophones: A Socio-linguistic Look at Ideophones in Hamar, Southern Ethiopia. In Yimam, B., Pankhurst, R., Chapple, D., Admassu, Y., Pankhurst, A., and Teferra, B. (eds) Ethiopian Studies at the End of the Second Millennium. Proceedings of the XIVth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, – November, , Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. vol. III, –. Addis Ababa: Institute of Ethiopian Studies. Rapold, C. . Towards the Grammar of Benchnon. PhD dissertation, Leiden University. Talachew, G. . Wolaitta Haysiya [Wolaitta Tales] . Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Languages Research Centre, Addis Ababa University. Talachew, G. and Amenu, T. . Walayttatto Leemisuwa: Yewolaytigna Missaliyawi Nigiggiroch Kenneamarigna Tirgumachew. Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Languages Academy. Van Valin, R. D. and LaPolla, R. J. . Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wolaitta Qale Hiwot Church. . Taani Wolqaama: Wolaitta Haisiya. [No publisher] Woldemariam, Hirut. . The Grammar of Haro with Comparative Notes on the Ometo Linguistic Group. PhD dissertation, Addis Ababa University.

10

The structure of the light verb construction in Amharic* MENGISTU AMBERBER

. Introduction The aim of this chapter is to provide a detailed structural analysis of the light verb construction in Amharic. In particular, the light verb construction will be systematically compared with its morphologically simpler counterpart in order to reveal the formal and semantic differences between the two types of predicates. The key assumption of our analysis is that the light verb construction is derived through employing exactly the same independently motivated morphosyntactic machinery. We show that the derivation of the light verb construction does not require any additional mechanism over and above what is required in the derivation of morphologically simple predicates. In order to investigate the properties of the light verb construction, it is important to start with a general understanding of the organisation of the verb system in the language. As a Semitic language, Amharic employs the so-called root-and-pattern morphology as its main word-formation strategy. Root-and-pattern morphology is characterised by a root which consists of consonantal radicals and a pattern which comprises consonantal positions and vowels. In general, the roots encode lexical meaning, whereas the patterns encode grammatical meaning. For example, the verb səbbərə ‘he broke (TR)’ consists of the triradical root
sbr ‘break’ and the pattern CəC C əCencodes the perfect conjugation. The verbal noun of
sbr ‘break’ is məsbər ‘to break’ which is formed by attaching the prefix mə- to the pattern -CCəC. The overall predicate structure for a main clause predicate can be represented as follows: (a) perfect: [verb + subject + (object)]; (b) imperfect: [subject + verb + (object) + allə + subject]. Note that the (compound) imperfect involves the use of the verb allə ‘be’, which is itself marked for person, number, and gender. This can be seen in () where examples of the (a) perfect and (b) compound imperfect are shown. * I would like to thank Azeb Amha, Baye Yimam, Brett Baker, Mark Harvey, Mary Laughren, and an anonymous reviewer for useful comments and discussion. Of course, all the usual disclaimers apply. Some sections of this chapter are slightly revised versions of material that appear in Amberber (b) and Amberber (, Ch. ).  Abbreviations used.  = st PERSON,  = nd PERSON,  = rd PERSON, ACC = ACCUSATIVE, ANTC = ANTICAUSATIVE, ATT = ATTENUATIVE, AUX = AUXILIARY, CAUS = C AUSATIVE, COMP

291

292

()

Amberber

a. səbbər – əčč – (ɨw) cut.PF-F-(MO) ‘She broke (it).’ b. tɨ -səbr-(əw)- all -əčč F-break.IMP-(MO)-AUX-F ‘She breaks/will break (it).’

Thus in the perfect, subject agreement is expressed by a suffix, whereas in the imperfect it is expressed by a combination of a prefix and a suffix. Given its root-and-pattern morphology, it is not surprising that the Amharic verb can be classified on the basis of the number of consonantal radicals. Thus, there are biradicals, triradicals, quadriradicals, and pluriradicals. ()

Biradical Triradical Quadriradical Pluriradical

( radicals:
sm) ( radicals:
sbr) ( radicals:
mskr) ( or more radicals:
brkrk)

səmma səbbərə məsəkkərə (tə)-brəkərrəkə

‘hear’ ‘break’ ‘testify’ ‘tremble’

The verbs are further classified into major conjugational classes (conj cl). For example, triradical verbs are classified into three major classes traditionally known as Type A, Type B, and Type C. This classification is based mainly on the vocalic pattern of the stem and gemination, that is, whether or not the second radical of the root is geminated throughout the conjugation (Leslau : ff). In all three types of classes, the second radical is geminated in the perfect. ()

a. Perfect Type A Type B Type C

səbbərə fəlləgə marrəkə

b. Imperfect Type A Type B Type C

yɨsəbral ‘break (TR)’ yɨfəllɨgal ‘search’ yɨmarrɨkal ‘cause to surrender’

‘break (TR)’ ‘search’ ‘cause to surrender’

= COMPLEMENTISER, CV = COVERB, DEF = DEFINITE, F = FEMININE, GER = GERUND, IMP = IMPERFECTIVE, IMPER = IMPERATIVE, INCH = INCHOATIVE, INT = INTENSIVE, INTR = INTRANSITIVE, M = MASCULINE, NEG = NEGATIVE, O = OBJECT, PART = PARTICLE, PASS = PASSIVE, PF = PERFECT, PL = PLURAL, POSS = POSSESSIVE, RECIP = R ECIPROCAL, REFL = REFLEXIVE, S = SINGULAR, TR = TRANSITIVE.

The structure of the light verb construction in Amharic

293

In Type A verbs, such as səbbərə ‘break (TR)’, the second radical is geminated in the perfect only (a). In Type B verbs, such as fəlləgə ‘search’, the second radical is geminated in all forms. In Type C verbs, such as marrəkə ‘cause to surrender’, the vowel a occurs after the first radical. In terms of derived transitivity, there are derivational prefixes (anticausative, passive-reflexive, causative) that attach to a basic stem to derive a verb with certain lexical semantic and morphosyntactic properties. The morphological passive is formed by attaching the prefix t(ə)- to the verb stem. This is realised as tə- before consonants and as t- before vowels. Thus, consider the examples in (): ()

a. aster dɨ nggay-u-n A. stone- DEF-ACC ‘Aster threw the stone.’

wərəwwər -əčč throw.PF-F

b. d ɨnggay-u tə-wərəwwər -ə stone-DEF PASS-throw.PF-M ‘The stone was thrown (by someone).’ The same formal strategy, the prefix t (ə)-, is employed to derive the inchoative or anticausative. The term ‘anticausative’ is employed here to refer to a derived intransitive form which is non-passive in its morphosyntactic properties (see Haspelmath () for a similar use of the term). Consider the examples in (): ()

a. b. c. d.

səbbərə kəffətə bəttənə ləwwət’ə

‘break’ ‘open’ ‘scatter’ ‘change’

tə-səbbərə tə-kəffətə tə-bəttənə tə-ləwwət’ə

‘break ‘open ‘scatter ‘change

(INTR)’ (INTR)’ (INTR)’ (INTR)’

The anticausative simply derives intransitive verbs. The object argument of the transitive verb becomes the subject and there is no implicit agent (unlike in the passive). The prefix t(ə)- is also used to derive the reflexive. Selfgrooming verbs such as ‘wash’ and ‘shave’ are marked by the reflexive morpheme, shown below in (): ()

a. aster t – at’t’əb-əčč A. REFL-wash.PF-F ‘Aster washed herself.’ b.

ləmma tə – lač’č’ə REFL-shave.PF.M L. ‘Lemma shaved himself.’

294

Amberber

Regarding valency-increasing derivations the most noteworthy is the causative. There are two main types of causative prefixes: a- and as- as exemplified in (): ()

a. mət’t’a b. k’wərrət’ə

‘come’ ‘cut’

a-mət’t’a as-k’wərrət’ə

‘bring’ ‘make x cut y’

In general, the causative prefix a- is attached to intransitive stems whereas the prefix as- is attached to both intransitive and transitive stems. . The light verb construction In the previous section we looked at the morphological encoding of transitivity through the use of various derivational prefixes. In the typical case, a derivational prefix (anticausative, passive-reflexive, causative) is employed to derive a verb with certain lexical semantic and morphosyntactic properties. Thus, transitivity can be indicated by marking the verb morphologically. There is another type of transitivity encoding strategy that involves the use of independent verbs. Consider the following examples: () a. k’ɨbe – w k’əllət’-ə butter – DEF melt.PF-M ‘The butter melted.’ b. k’ɨbe – w k’ɨllɨt’t’ butter – DEF melt.CV.INT ‘The butter melted.’

al -ə say.PF-M

Both (a) and (b) have essentially the same meaning, although (b) includes a slightly different meaning component, as we shall see shortly. Notice, however, that formally, the two constructions are different. In (a) the predicate is morphologically simple, whereas in (b) it is complex. The predicate in (b) consists of two independent morphological items: the non-finite form k’ɨllɨt’ followed by the finite verb alə ‘say’. Tense–aspect and agreement are marked on the finite form. Another verb which is productively used as the finite verb component of a complex predicate is the verb adərrəgə ‘do’, ‘make’. This type of complex verb formation, also known as a ‘compound’ or ‘composite’ verb, is very productive in Amharic. The construction is also quite common in other Ethiopian Semitic languages including Giiz, as the following examples show (based on Dillmann () as quoted in Hetzron (:)): ()

a. oho b. ɨnbɨyə

bəhil bɨhil

‘to obey’ ‘to refuse’

The structure of the light verb construction in Amharic

295

Gutt (: ) has shown that in Silte (East Gurage) there are many compound verbs ‘consisting of an uninflected morpheme and an inflected helping verb like baala “say”, mañe “build” (mainly intransitive), ašeʡan ̴e “do, make” (mainly transitive)’. Examples are shown below in (): ()

a. buube baala b. buube aše

‘flee in fright’ ‘cause to flee in fright’

In Tigré, according to Raz (: ), the coverbal element may or may not exist as an independent lexical form and the finite verb, the second element, is limited to three verbs: bela ‘to say’, wada ‘to do, to make’, and gaʔa ‘to become’. ()

a. bə əl b. bərəf c. hən

bela wada gaʡ a

‘to pardon, to excuse’ ‘to clear off’ ‘to become speechless’

The equivalent of the verb ‘to say’ is also used in Tigrinya to form a compound verb. Kogan (: ) describes the coverbal element in Tigrinya as a ‘quasi-verbal element consisting of two or more radicals’. This verbal element combines with the verb bälä ‘to say’ and its causative variant ʔabbälä. The following are some examples of compounding (from Kogan : ): ()

a. ʢaw b. təx c. bədəd

ʡabbälä

bälä bälä

‘to raise one’s voice’ ‘to be straight’ ‘to get up, to rise’

Compound verbs are also common in Cushitic and Omotic (see Amha: this volume) and attested in some Nilotic languages (see Armbuster ). Consider the following examples from Oromo (cf. Bender et al. : ) where the verb jeccu ‘say’ is used to form compound verbs: ()

a. ol jeccu b. c’al jeccu c. tole jeccu

‘get up’ [lit. ‘say “up”’] ‘be quiet’ [lit. ‘say “ssh”’] ‘assent, agree’ [lit. ‘say “yes”’]

This type of verb formation is so widespread across Ethiopian languages that some scholars have identified it as a feature of the Ethiopian language area. Indeed, Ferguson (: –) found compound verbs in thirteen of his sample of sixteen indigenous languages. He describes the compound verb as follows: In addition to many simple verbs consisting of a verb stem with inflectional elements, there are many verbs consisting of a noun-like or interjectionlike ‘coverb’ plus a semantically colourless auxiliary, commonly the verb ‘to say’.

296

Amberber

Hetzron () attributes the presence of compound verbs in Ethiopian Semitic to an early Cushitic (probably Agaw) influence. According to Hetzron (: ), in Southern Agaw the verb as ‘to say’ ‘is used for composite verbal expressions in which a nominal or an unanalysable word is combined with nəŋ and used always with it’. Some examples from Southern Agaw are given below in (), (from Hetzron : ): ()

a. yaƔas b. ənga c. əwnəs ́ d. déss

nəŋ nəŋ nəŋ nəŋ

‘to agree’ ‘to refuse’ ‘to believe’ ‘to be happy’

What we refer to here as a light verb construction is found productively in many typologically and genetically diverse languages. A construction that is similar to the Ethiopian composite verb is common in Australian languages, particularly in the non-Pama-Nyungan group of languages (see the chapters by Baker and Harvey; Laughren; and Nordlinger, in this volume; see also Butt ()). In languages like Amharic, the light verb construction is often used in addition to simple verbs, that is, for most of the composite verbs there are corresponding simple verbs. Compare (a) and (b) below: ()

a. t’ərmus -u sɨbbɨrr al -ə glass-DEF break.CV say.PF-M ‘The glass broke (in a smashing manner).’ b. t’ərmus – u tə – səbbər -ə glass-DEF ANTC/PASS-break.PF-M ‘The glass broke.’

Although the same truth-conditional meaning is encoded by both the light verb construction in (a) and the simple verb in (b), it does not mean that they are identical. In Amharic, the light verb construction often has an additional meaning specification. In most triradical roots, the coverb 



In a critique of Ferguson’s notion of an Ethiopian language area, Tosco (: ) argues that the compound verb formations are ‘calqued from Cushitic and are, therefore a very strong indicator of Cushitic influence’. It is interesting to note that a light verb construction seems to introduce a specific meaning element that is left unspecified in the associated simple verb construction. Thus, as Huddleston and Pullum (: ) pointed out, in English ‘[t]he use of a light verb and noun tends to yield a significant increase in syntactic versatility over that of the associated verb construction’. They further point out that the light verb construction ‘generally allows for dependents to be added to the noun, allowing a considerably greater range of elaboration by modifiers and determiners’. For example, consider the contrast between He gave a scream and He screamed. Huddleston and Pullum (: ) argue that the construction He gave a scream ‘is not fully equivalent to He screamed, for it involves a necessarily quite short and continuous event, while He screamed is not so restricted, covering also cases where the

The structure of the light verb construction in Amharic

297

typically appears in two different templates, identified in the literature (Beyene ) by the terms INTENSIVE and ATTENUATIVE respectively. For a typical triradical verb with the pattern CəCCəCə, the two templates are as follows: ()

a. CɨC CɨCC b. CəC əCC

Intensive Attenuative

The Intensive versus Attenuative distinction correlates with the presence or absence of a range of related meanings including the intensity of the event. A more idiomatic translation of the verb in sentence (a) below is not simply the neutral ‘break’. It may encode a range of meanings including the manner of the event that would normally be expressed by the use of adverbs such as ‘suddenly’ or ‘completely’. ()

a. t’ərmus -u s ɨbb ɨrr glass-DEF break.CV.INT ‘The glass broke (suddenly).’ b. t’ərmus -u səbərr glass-DEF break. CV.ATT ‘The glass broke (slightly, somehow).’

al -ə say. PF-M al -ə say. PF-M

The coverb can also occur in a reduplicated template with a ‘distributive’ meaning, as shown in (): ()

sɨbɨrbɨrr al -ə break.CV.INT say.PF-M ‘It broke into pieces.’

The shape of the coverbal element is predictable only when it is derived from verbs or, in some cases, from other lexical categories. When the coverb is an ideophonic element, it can occur in a variety of different often idiosyncratic forms, as shown in (): ()

a.

k’uč’č’ al- əčč sit.CV say.PF-F ‘She sat down.’ b. bɨdɨgg al -əčč rise.CV say.PF-F ‘She rose up.’

screaming is prolonged and intermittent’. The same is true with the pair she kissed him and she gave him a kiss. The construction She gave him a kiss ‘specifies a single kiss where [She kissed him] does not, and hence could apply to a situation where she covered him with kisses’.

298

Amberber

The coverb can be an onomatopoeic word, as shown in the following examples: ()

a. zɨnab – u t’əbb t’əbb al -ə rain-DEF drip.drip.CV say. PF-M ‘The rain dripped.’ [lit. ‘The rain said: “t’əbb t’əbb” ’] b. gomma -w sit’it’t’ al -ə tyre-DEF squeak.CV say. PF-M ‘The tyre squeaked.’ [lit. ‘The tyre (of a car) said: “sit’it’t.” ’]

It is important to note that while most light verb constructions have a simple verb variant, there is no one-to-one correspondence between the two types of predicates. For example, there are some gaps in the simple verb inventory that are filled by the light verb construction. For instance, the state of ‘being quiet’, ‘be silent’ is expressed by the light verb construction zɨmm alə, for which there is no (idiomatically) equivalent simple verb. Therefore, the Amharic complex predicate, while not the only way of forming a verbal predicate, is a productive strategy of expanding and elaborating the verbal inventory. In an important study of composite verbs across Ethiopian languages, Appleyard () proposes a useful typology of composite verbs which recognises three types on the basis of the nature of the coverbal element: (a) ideophone particle + say verbs; (b) quotative particle + say verbs; and (c) derivational particle + say verbs. Some of the ideophonic particles (‘coverbs’ hereafter) are clearly onomatopoeic but others are not. An ideophonic coverb is defined as an element ‘not derived from any other item in the language, neither noun, verb nor particle, nor can it normally be extracted from the composite and used in isolation’ (Appleyard :). In this type, Appleyard includes coverbs which are clearly onomatopoeic, e.g. hɨk’k’ alə ‘hiccup’, and non-onomatopoeic ideophones such as zɨmm alə ‘be quiet’, b ɨk’k’ alə ‘appear suddenly’, and kəff alə ‘be high’. However, as Appleyard (: ) suggests, it is at times difficult to distinguish coverbs which are ‘truly imitative’ from those which are not. In the quotative coverb, ‘the uninflected particle element is a form that may enter into other syntactic contexts, such as a noun, an interjection or any other free-standing form in the language’ (Appleyard : ). Coverbs of this type include ɨšši alə ‘agree’ (literally ‘say OK’), and ɨ mbi alə ‘disagree’, ‘refuse’. Appleyard suggests that there is a connection between this type of composite verb and the fact that in most of the Ethiopian languages the verb ‘say’ is used to introduce both direct and indirect speech, sometimes as a complementiser (see also Amberber , a).

The structure of the light verb construction in Amharic

299

Table .. Transitivity of the light verb construction Basic stem (transitive)

Complex predicate Intransitive [COVERB.INT. + alə]

Transitive [COVERB.INT. + adərrəgə]







dəffək’k’ ‘immerse’







gət’t’əmə ‘join’







gəmməsə ‘cut in two’







k’ərrəfə ‘peel off bark’







fət’t’ərə ‘create’

*




gəddələ ‘kill’

*




gəlləs’ə

*




səbbərə

‘break’

‘explain’

The third type identified by Appleyard (: ) is the derivational coverb, which is characterised by its derivation ‘from an existing verb root by means of one or more predictable morphological processes’. Interestingly, Appleyard notes that on the evidence available so far this type of ‘composite’ verb is productive only in three languages, Amharic and Tigrinya (Semitic) and Qafar (Cushitic). . Transitivity and the light verb construction An important question is whether or not it is possible to predict the transitivity of the light verb construction from the transitivity of the light verb itself. Table . summarises some of the possibilities available for some transitive verbs. For simplicity, only the distribution of the intensive coverb is indicated (
= the composite verb is possible; * = the composite verb is not possible). 

One problem with Appleyard’s typology is its inability to distinguish between quotative particles and ideophones. Appleyard (: ) argues that the particle ɨšši in ɨšši alə ‘agree’ [lit. ‘say OK’] is a quotative particle because the particle ɨšši can stand alone, for example as a reply to a request. While the ability of a coverb to occur on its own can be a useful diagnostic test to determine its non-ideophonic status, it is not sufficient. Ideophonic coverbs such as zɨmm in zɨmm alə or kəff in kəff alə can occur by themselves in some contexts. Thus, for example, kəff can occur on its own as an imperative kəff! ‘move up’. Hence, the occurrence of a coverb in isolation does not distinguish between ideophones and quotatives. Consequently, it is not clear why kəff should be analysed as an ideophone whereas ɨšši is analysed as a quotative coverb. See Amberber () for a representative list of coverbs where a distinction is made between underived coverbs and derived coverbs. The former includes ideophones and what Appleyard () calls ‘quotation’ particles.

300

Amberber

Notice that a coverb derived from a transitive verb can almost always occur in the adərrəgə ‘make’ composite verb. This is what we would expect if the coverb retains the transitivity value of the basic verb. However, note that in some cases a coverb based on a transitive verb can also occur with the light verb alə ‘say’. When we consider the lexical semantics of the basic verbs we find that the distribution is not completely arbitrary. The class of coverbs that can occur in the alə ‘say’ composite verb are generally the ones that are derived from verbs that encode an event that can come about without the involvement of an external causer. This is clearly the case with the verb fət’t’ərə ‘create’: its coverb variant ( f ɨt’t’ɨrr) cannot occur with the light verb alə to derive an intransitive predicate. As shown in (c) below, a well-formed intransitive form can be derived by the regular morphological strategy, i.e. by attaching the prefix tə- to the verb. ()

a. fət’t’ərə b. *f ɨt’t’ɨrr alə c. tə-fət’t’ərə

‘create’ ‘be created’ ‘be created’ [passive reading]

Furthermore, it appears that the presence or absence of external causation is relevant to the choice between alə ‘say’ and adərrəgə ‘make’, ‘do’ for at least some basic transitive verbs. Some intransitive verbs lack a morphological transitive variant in a- as they have a suppletive transitive form. The verb wəddək’ə ‘fall’ (a) is a case in point. This is an unaccusative verb and would be expected to be transitivised with the causative prefix a-. However, the resulting form *a-wəddək’ə is ill-formed, presumably because the verb already has a suppletive transitive (c). Notice that a coverb based on this verb can take alə ‘say’ in the composite verb, as shown in (d): ()

a. b. c. d.

wəddək’ə *a-wəddək’ə t’allə wɨddɨk’k’ alə

‘fall’ ‘cause to fall’ ‘drop’ (= ‘cause to fall’) ‘fall (suddenly)’

Particularly interesting are forms which may have different transitivity frames. For example, the form t’əbbək’ə has two meanings: (a) ‘be tight’ (intransitive) and (b) ‘guard’ (transitive). A coverb derived from the intransitive t’əbbək’ə can occur both with alə ‘say’ and adərrəgə ‘make’ in the light verb construction, (a). A coverb based on the transitive sense, ‘to guard’, however, can occur only with adərrəgə, as shown in (b): () a. b.

t’əbbək’ə t’əbbək’ə

‘be tight’ ‘to guard’

[ + alə]
*

[ + adərrəgə]



The structure of the light verb construction in Amharic

301

The presence of the verb adərrəgə ‘make’, ‘do’ with a coverb based on a stative intransitive implies the presence of an additional (causative) argument. Thus, consider the following contrast in (): ()

a. ayn-u f ɨt’t’ɨt’t’ eye-DEF pop.CV.INT ‘His eyes popped.’ b. ayn-u-n f ɨt’t’ɨt’t’ eye-DEF-ACC pop.CV.INT ‘He popped his eyes.’ c. *ayn-u-n eye-DEF-ACC

f ɨt’t’ɨt’t’ pop.CV.INT

al -ə say.PF-M adərrəg -ə make.PF-M al -ə say.PF-M

The distinction between the two types of intransitive verbs, the stative (unaccusative) verb versus the activity (unergative) verb, is also relevant here. Indeed, it appears that coverbs related to unergative intransitives do not normally occur with the verb alə ‘say’ but rather with the verb adərrəgə ‘make’, ‘do’ in the light verb construction, as can be seen in the following examples: ()

a. č’əffərə *č’ɨff ɨrr č’ɨff ɨrr

‘dance’ alə adərrəgə

b.

‘sing’ alə adərrəgə

zəffənə *zɨff ɨnn zɨff ɨnn

Note that with coverbs based on activity intransitives, the presence of the verb adərrəgə ‘make’ does not imply that the composite verb is overtly transitive. Thus, a more accurate gloss for the verb adərrəgə here is simply ‘do’ rather than ‘make’. For example, the composite verb in (a) č’ɨff ɨrr adərrəgə does not mean ‘x make y dance’ (with two arguments) but rather simply ‘x do dancing’. It is observed that coverbs related to genuine unergative verbs do not normally occur with the verb alə ‘say’. Further examples are provided in Table .. Coverbs derived from intransitive verbs that encode events that are involuntary (as in ()) take the verb alə ‘say’: () a. bərəggəgə b. dənəbbərə c. gwəməǰǰə

‘be startled’ ‘bolt (horse)’ ‘crave’, ‘desire’

302

Amberber

Table .. Coverbs derived from activity intransitives Basic stem

Complex predicate Intransitive [COVERB.INT. + alə]

Transitive [COVERB.INT. + adərrəgə]

səggədə ‘bow in worship’

*




fokkərə ‘boast’

*




s’əlləyə ‘pray’

*




tərrətə ‘tell a tale’

*




Interestingly, coverbs that are related to verbs of temperature occur with alə plus an object suffix, such as alə-w (say.PF.M-MO), when used as experiencer predicates. Notice that the object suffix cross-references the experiencer. Thus, consider the following examples: ()

a. bərrədə b. mok’k’ə

‘be cold’ ‘be warm’

bɨrrɨdd alə-w mok’k’ alə-w

‘he is cold’ ‘he is feeling warm’ (also: ‘he is tipsy’) c. wəbbək’ə ‘be humid’ wɨbbɨk’k’ alə-w ‘he is feeling humid’

The same is true with experiencer coverbs derived from bound forms, that is, forms which cannot occur independently. This is exemplified in (): ()

a. *gərrəmə ‘be amused’ gɨrrɨmm b. *č’ənnək’ə ‘worry’ č’ɨnnɨk’k’

al-ə-w al-ə-w

‘he is amused’ ‘he is worried’

Likewise composite predicates such as dəss alə- ‘be happy’ involve the object suffix on the verb alə as in (), literally ‘it says to him: “dəss” ’: ()

*dəss

‘be happy’

dəss alə-w

‘he is happy’

There is a class of verbs whose basic stem begins with the vowel a. These verbs do not take the prefix a- to be transitivised. Since these verbs form a phonological class, and not a lexical semantic one, we would expect them to select either alə ‘say’ or adərrəgə ‘do’, depending on the lexical semantics of the root. This is exactly what we find. Consider the following examples: ()

a. abbədə b. *a-abbədə c. ɨbbɨdd alə

‘be insane’ ‘he became insane’

The structure of the light verb construction in Amharic

()

a. b. c. d.

303

abbəsə ‘wipe’ *a-abbəsə *ɨbbɨss alə ɨbbɨss adərrəgə ‘he wiped (it) completely, suddenly’

() a. addəgə b. *a-addəgə c. ɨddɨgg alə

‘grow’ ‘it grew’

As already mentioned, coverbs can be used as sources of other lexical categories. For example, there are a number of nominals that are clearly formed from coverbs, as shown in (), where the nominalising suffix -ɨta is employed (see Leslau : ; see also Kane ): ()

Nouns derived from coverbs a. dəss-ɨta ‘happiness’ b. zɨmm-ɨta ‘silence’ c. s’ət’t’-ɨta ‘quiet, clam’

(< dəss) (< zɨmm) (< s’ət’t’)

To summarise the discussion so far, we have shown that the light verb construction has two components: a non-inflecting coverb and an inflected light verb: alə ‘say’ or adərrəgə ‘make’, ‘do’. In most cases there is a transitivity distinction depending on the inflecting verb: alə ‘say’ often occurs in an intransitive frame, whereas adərrəgə ‘make’, ‘do’ occurs in a transitive frame. Two major types of coverbs are recognised: underived coverbs (including ideophonic, quotative elements) and derived coverbs. The latter is a productive strategy of complex verb formation as a coverb can be derived from almost any verb. . The syntagmatic relationship between the coverb and light verb In this section, we examine the nature of the syntagmatic relationship between the coverb and the light verb. Consider, once again, an example of a typical light verb construction in (): ()

k’ɨbe – w k’ɨll ɨt’t’ butter – DEF melt.CV.INT ‘The butter melted.’

al -ə say.PF-M

The coverb k’ɨllɨt’t ‘melt.INT’ and the light verb al-ə ‘say’ do not appear to form a single head or X category. The main evidence for this is that the two forms can be separated from each other by other elements. In (), the

304

Amberber

complementiser ɨnd(ə) ‘that’ is prefixed to the light verb, thus occurring between the coverb and the light verb: ()

k’ɨbe – w k’ɨllɨt’t’ butter – DEF melt.CV.INT ‘I saw that the butter melted.’

ɨnd- al -ə

that-say.PF-M

ayyə -hw see.PF-S

In relative clauses, the relative clause marker (REL) is prefixed to the light verb: ()

k’ɨll ɨt’t’ y- al -ə-w melt.CV.INT REL-say.PF-M ‘the butter that melted’

k’ɨbe butter

This fact suggests that the coverb and the light verb do not form a single morphological object. It is also difficult to analyse the coverb as some kind of ‘complement’ of the light verb (as in the standard analysis of Japanese light verb constructions; Grimshaw and Mester ). A complement is normally a theta-bearing argument selected by a verb. It is obvious that in the light verb construction here the coverb is not an argument but rather part of the predicate itself. Thus, how should we characterise the formal morphosyntactic relationship between the coverb and the light verb? The coverb and the light verb are in a dependency relationship: the coverb does not normally occur independently of the light verb, whereas the light verb (at least in the case of alə ‘say’) is a light verb only when it occurs with the coverb. A good piece of evidence comes from wh-questions. A normal predicate can be wh-questioned in-situ as follows: ()

a. k’ɨbe – w k’əllət’-ə butter – DEF melt.PF-M ‘The butter melted.’ b. k’ɨbe – w mɨn hon -ə butter – DEF what become.PF-M ‘What happened to the butter?’

For independent reasons, the verb ‘to melt’, which is unaccusative, can only be questioned with the help of the verb ‘become’, as in (b). Now, surprisingly, in the light verb construction with ‘say’, the coverb cannot be simply replaced by the wh-word as (b) shows: ()

k’ɨllɨt’t’ al -ə a. k’ɨbe – w melt.CV.INT say.PF-M butter – DEF ‘The butter melted.’

The structure of the light verb construction in Amharic

305

b. k’ɨbe – w mɨn al -ə butter – DEF what say.PF-M * ‘What happened to the butter?’ [OK as: ‘What did the butter say?’] Note that (b) is ill-formed only with the interpretation ‘what happened to the butter?’ but is perfectly fine with the (unintended) interpretation ‘what did the butter say?’. In other words, without the presence of the coverb, the verb alə ‘say’ defaults into its ordinary (‘heavy’) use. The only way of wh-questioning the predicate in the light verb construction involves the use of the verb ‘become’, as in (), which is exactly the same as wh-questioning the simple verb variant we saw above in (b). () k’ɨbe – w mɨn hon -ə butter – DEF what become.pf-M ‘What happened to the butter?’ This is in marked contrast with the behaviour of the other common light verb – adərrəgə ‘do/make’. First, consider how a morphologically simple verb is wh-questioned: ()

a. aster k’ɨbe – w-n A. butter-DEF-ACC ‘Aster melted the butter.’

a- k’əllət’-əčč – ɨw CAUS-melt.PF-F-MO

b. aster k’ɨbe – w-n mɨn A. butter-DEF-ACC what ‘What did Aster do to the butter?’

adərrəg- əčč – ɨw do.PF-F-MO

Now consider how the verb in the light verb construction is whquestioned: ()

a. aster k’ɨbe – w-n A. butter-DEF-ACC ‘Aster melted the butter.’

k’ɨll ɨt’t’ melt.CV.INT

b. aster k’ɨbe – w-n mɨn A. butter-DEF-ACC what ‘What did Aster do to the butter?’

adərrəg-əčč – ɨw do.PF-F-MO adərrəg-əčč- ɨw do.PF-F-MO

Thus, (b) contrasts with (b) where the light verb alə ‘say’ cannot occur without the coverb. This suggests that unlike the light verb alə ‘say’, the light verb adərrəgə ‘do/make’ is ‘light’ in all of its occurrences.

306

Amberber

It also suggests that the light use of a verb is ‘read off’ from the entire construction. For example, consider the use of the light verb take in English (see also Huddleston and Pullum : –): ()

i. a. We ii. a. We

rested. took a rest.

b. What did we do? b. ?What did we take?

The construction in (, i. a) can be wh-questioned as in (, i. b). On the other hand, the wh-question in (, ii. b), which retains the verb take appears to favour the ordinary interpretation of take rather than its light verb interpretation. As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, the light verb construction also resists clefting: *was it a shower he took. . The derivation of the light verb construction In this section, we develop a formal analysis of the derivation of the light verb construction. The key assumption of our analysis is that the light verb construction is derived through employing the same independently motivated structural configuration of predicate structure. In particular, we argue that the derivation of the light verb construction does not require any additional mechanism over and above what is required in the derivation of morphologically simple predicates. .. Basic theoretical assumptions Our assumption about the architecture of grammar is based on the theoretical framework of Distributed Morphology (DM) (Halle and Marantz , Marantz , Harley and Noyer , Embick and Noyer ). In Distributed Morphology there is only a single generative engine – namely the syntax – and words are formed by syntactic operations (Merge, Move) and as such ‘the principles of morphology are … to a large extent the principles of syntax’ (Embick and Noyer : ). In addition to these syntactic operations, additional and language-specific PF processes may ‘modify and elaborate syntactic structure in limited ways’ (p. ). Thus, in DM ‘some aspects of word formation arise from syntactic operations such as head movement, which occur in the syntax proper, while other aspects of word formation are accounted for by operations that occur on the PF branch’ (p. ). In this approach, there is no independent Lexicon in the traditional sense and the properties attributed to the Lexicon are assigned to three distinct lists (p. ): 

For some previous studies on light verbs from a formal perspective see Grimshaw and Mester ( ), Miyamoto (), Saito and Hoshi () for Japanese, and JeongRyeol () for Korean. See also Jackendoff () and Culicover and Jackendoff ( : –).

The structure of the light verb construction in Amharic

()

307

a.

Syntactic terminals: The list containing the roots and the abstract morphemes. b. The vocabulary: The list of vocabulary items, rules that provide phonological content to abstract morphemes. c. The encyclopaedia: The list of semantic information that must be listed as either as a property of a root, or of a syntactically constructed object (idioms like kick the bucket.)

The syntactic terminals – roots and abstract morphemes – are defined as follows: ()

a. Abstract morphemes: composed exclusively of non-phonetic features, such as [past] or [pl], or features that make up the determiner node D of the English definite article eventuating as the. b. Roots: these include items such as √CAT, √OX, or √SIT, which are sequences of complexes of phonological features, along with, in some cases, non-phonological diacritic features.

While the class of abstract morphemes is closed and universal, the class of roots is open-ended and language-specific. A further crucial assumption in DM is that roots are category-neutral and are categorised only when they combine with category-defining functional heads (such as v, n, a) in a local environment. The abstract morphemes acquire their phonological features through a mechanism called Vocabulary Insertion. For example, the phonological exponent of the abstract morpheme [pl] (plural) in English is /-z/: [pl]
z. ..

The morphosyntactic derivation of light verbs

We assume that minimally a verb is an amalgam of an idiosyncratic root and an event-type functor – essentially specifying the event-type encoded by the verb. For the present purposes, we assume that there are four main types of event-type functors: CAUS, BECOME, BE, ACT which roughly correspond to the Vendlerian verb classes of accomplishment, achievement, state, and activity (see also Baker and Harvey’s Jackendovian analysis in this volume). Let us take a specific example to see how the various pieces of the verb are assembled. Consider the example below: ()

k’ɨbe – w k’əllət’-ə butter – DEF melt.PF-M ‘The butter melted.’

The event expressed by the construction in () is a simple change of state. Let us assume that most change of state events are headed by the event-type functor BECOME (see also Harley ; Amberber b). Following some

308

Amberber

standard assumptions about the syntactic representation of predicate structure (Hale and Keyser , ; Harley, ; Kratzer ), we assume a layered VP structure with a functional higher head. The higher projection is headed by Voice (following Kratzer ), which is also referred to as little v in much recent work (see, for example, Chomsky (, ), Marantz (), among others). Thus, consider the configuration in (): () VoiceP

VP

BECOME

V


DP

k’ bew

√rootP

V CONJ.CL

√klt’

The little v head can be regarded as a kind of voice head and determines whether or not the structure projects an external argument. In () the VoiceP is headed by a change of state event, BECOME, which by hypothesis does not project an external argument. Following Arad’s () analysis of verb formation in Hebrew, we assume that the consonants that form the root need to be syllabified in order to be pronounceable. The V head provides a range of CV- patterns, in effect conjugation classes (the traditional Semitic binyan). The root moves to V to get syllabified. The choice of a particular CV- pattern is sensitive to the type of root selected. For example, the root √klt’ ‘melt’, maps onto the conjugation class Type A with the pattern [CəC CəC]. As pointed out by Arad (: ) ‘the combination of roots with patterns serves a double purpose: it makes the segmental root into a pronounceable string and turns the (category-neutral) root into a noun, a verb or an adjective’. Once the root has moved into the CV- pattern, it needs to spell out its event type (represented by the event-type functors CAUSE, BECOME, BE, and ACT respectively). Again, the vocabulary item that is inserted as an exponent of the event-type functor depends on the type of √root. For example, the root √klt’ ‘melt’ can occur either as a change of state or causative predicate. Thus, it can be simply phonologically zero, [ø], or may be realised by one

The structure of the light verb construction in Amharic

309

of the two overt affixes [a-] or [t(ə)-] (see Yabe (a, b) for a similar and insightful analysis of causatives in Amharic within a Distributed Morphology framework). The derivation for k’ɨbew k’əllət’-ə ‘the butter melted’ is roughly represented in (). () VoiceP

VP v [k’ ll t ’e] e e

BECOME ↔ [Ø] +

V


k’ bew √rootP

V ↔ [C1 C2C2 C3] ↔ [k’ ll t ’e] e

√t

e

[CONJ CL.TYPA]

e e

DP

√t

Notice that the combination [√root + conjugation class] merges with the voice head BECOME whose phonological exponence is [ø] for this particular root. ()

BECOME




[ø]

One important assumption in DM (see Bobaljik ), and shared by a number of other approaches to morphology, is that the insertion of phonological material (or vocabulary insertion in DM terms) proceeds cyclically: ()

CYCLICITY: The interpretive procedure (vocabulary insertion) proceeds root-outwards (Bobaljik ).

Thus, given the string such as this [[[√root] conj cl -] voice], the phonological exponence of the conjugation class is inserted in the first cycle. The phonological exponence of the voice feature is inserted in the second cycle. In this way, the insertion of a vocabulary item at each cycle will ‘see’ the morphophonological features of the previous cycle. Now let us consider the derivation of the light verb construction. Consider () and the structure in (): ()

k’ɨbe – w k’ɨll ɨt’t’ butter – DEF melt.CV.INT ‘The butter melted.’

al -ə say.PF-M

310

Amberber

()

VoiceP

VP v

DP

k’ bew

e

BECOME ↔ [al

‘say’]

V


√rootP V [CONJ CL.CV] ↔ [C1 C2C2 C3C3][k’ ll t’t’] √t

There are two crucial differences in the derivation of the light verb construction: (a) the phonological exponence of the conjugation class is the pattern [CɨC C ɨCC]; (b) the phonological exponence of the event type functor is the light verb alə ‘say’. We assume that when the event type functor is spelled out by an independent form, the [√root + conj cl] form does not move into it, by hypothesis. ()

BECOME




[alə ‘say’]

The question of which vocabulary item is inserted to spell out the event type functor is determined by contextual allomorphy. The identity of the conjugational class determines the choice of exponent for BECOME. ()

BECOME BECOME





[ø] [alə ‘say’]

{√root + [CəC C əC ], …} {√root + [CɨC C ɨCC], …}

Thus, BECOME is spelled out as [ø] in the context of √root + [CəC CəC]. It is spelled out as alə ‘say’ in the context of √root + [CɨC C ɨCC]. The above derivation shows how the monadic predicate ‘melt (INTR)’ is represented in the syntax. The transitive predicate ‘melt (TR)’ is derived in essentially the same way. Consider the following transitive forms: ()

a. aster k’ɨbe – w- ɨn A. butter – DEF-ACC ‘Aster melted the butter.’ b. aster k’ɨbe – w- ɨn A. butter – DEF-ACC ‘Aster melted the butter.’

a -k’əllət’-əčč CAUS-melt.PF-F k’ɨllɨt’t’ melt.CV.INT

adərrəgə-əčč do/make.PF-F

We assume that in both (a) and (b) there is a CAUS head which can be spelled out either by a causative prefix or by an independent light verb. 

A similar analysis is proposed by Megerdoomian () to account for complex predicates in Persian. However, the Persian complex predicate is different from the construction we

The structure of the light verb construction in Amharic

()


[a-]
[adərrəgə ‘do/make’]

CAUS CAUS

311

{√root + [CəC CəC ], …}— {√root + [CɨC C  ɨCC], …}—

The predicate ‘melt’ in (a) takes two arguments – the Agent (‘Aster’) and the Patient (‘the butter’). The verb itself is marked by the causative prefix a-, which is the phonological exponence of the CAUS head. The verb root √k’lt’ merges with little v and the complex so formed moves to the CAUS head: ()

VoiceP V
DP aster

VP 

CAUS ↔ [a−

DP

]

V


k’ bew √rootP

V [CONJ CL.TYPA] ↔ [C1 C2C2 C3] ↔ [k’ ll t ’ ] e e e

e

e

On the other hand, in the light verb construction (b), the phonological exponence of the CAUS head is the light verb adərrəgə ‘do/make’. The root √klt’ merges with v but the complex so formed does not move to the CAUS head: ()

Voice P V’ DP VP CAUS

 ↔[ad rr g-] e e

aster

V


DP

k’ibew √rootP

V [CONJ CL.CV] ↔ [C1 C2C2 C3] ↔ [k’ ll t ’ ’]

√t



are interested in here. Crucially, in Persian the preverbal element can be a noun, an adjective, an adverb, or a prepositional phrase. See also Folli et al. (). The light verb adərrəgə is itself morphologically complex – consisting of the causative prefix a- and the form dərrəgə (which does not occur by itself). Given this fact, it is probably

312

Amberber

The phonological exponents of the verbalising head are partially determined by some diacritic features of the root, for example, the specification of conjugation classes Type A, Type B, Type C, among others. Notice that our analysis has important consequences for the categorisation of the coverb element in the light verb construction. Recall that the coverb by itself does not belong to any of the lexical categories: verb, adjective, noun, adverb, etc. Therefore, one may be tempted to stipulate that the coverb is a new part of speech in its own right. If the present analysis is on the right track, no such stipulation is necessary: the coverb is simply another verb pattern formally equivalent to other verb patterns in the language. Nevertheless, while this analysis is plausible for the productive coverb exemplified in the derivations above, it is problematic for coverbs that are clearly related to interjections and onomatopoeic forms. Thus, consider the coverbs in the following examples: ()

a. aster zɨ mm al- əčč A. silent.CV say.PF-F ‘Aster became silent.’ b. aster k’uč’č’ al- əčč A. sit.CV say.PF-F ‘Aster sat down.’ c. zɨnab – u t’əbb t’əbb al -ə rain-DEF drip.drip.CV say.PF-M ‘The rain dripped.’ [lit. ‘The rain said: “t’əbb t’əbb” ’]

We suggest that these coverbs have to merge with v whose exponence is [ø], as shown below for the coverb root √zɨmm ‘silent’. (59)

VP

YP

v


v BECOME ↔ [al ‘say’]

v


e

R

v

zimm

[ø]

more appropriate to analyse this light verb as composed of a root √drg plus a verbalizing head v that merges with the causative head a-.

The structure of the light verb construction in Amharic

313

The analysis of such roots as zɨmm as a category-less root also makes sense as they can be nominalised by merging with an n whose phonological exponence is ɨta, as in √zɨmm + -ɨta = zɨmm ɨta ‘silence’: () n’

R √z mm

n ↔ [- t a ]

To summarise, we have shown that the light verb construction is derived in essentially the same manner as its morphologically simple counterpart. In both constructions a category neutral root merges with v – a verbalising head. In the unmarked case the (partial) phonological exponence of the verbalising head is the verbal pattern (the traditional Semitic binyan). Event-type functors, such as CAUS and BECOME, specify the event type of each construction. The phonological exponence of these event-type functors can be ø, a- (for CAUS), or the light verbs alə ‘say’, adərrəgə ‘do/make’, among others. The √root + v complex forms a single morphophonological unit with the eventtype functor at PF only when the functor is spelled out as ø or as an affix. One consequence of this analysis is that while some light verbs such as alə ‘say’ are exponents of a single terminal head – an abstract morpheme – light verbs such as adərrəgə ‘do/make’ are internally more complex and have a hybrid property involving the merger of two types of terminal heads – roots and abstract morphemes. Incidentally, recall that light verb adərrəgə ‘do/make’ occurs not only with accomplishments but also with activities such as ‘dance’ and ‘sing’. These are unergative intransitives and do not permit the light verb alə as can be seen in the following examples: ()

a. č’əffərə ‘dance’ *č’ɨff ɨrr alə č’ɨff ɨrr b. zəffənə ‘sing’ *zɨff ɨnn alə zɨff ɨnn

adərrəgə adərrəgə

There are a number of formally compatible ways of capturing this phenomenon. One possibility is to argue that unergatives are underlyingly diadic, as they can admit some sort of cognate object as an internal argument, for example: she danced a dance; she sang a song (see Hale and Keyser ). Thus, the fact that adərrəgə and not alə can be used in this context is consistent with the otherwise robust generalisation that the light verb construction that involves adərrəgə is transitive.

314

.

Amberber

Remarks on the typology of light verbs

It is important to emphasise that, cross-linguistically, verbs which function as light verbs are similar: they include verbs such as ‘be’, ‘become’, ‘come’, ‘do’, ‘get’, ‘give’, ‘go’, ‘have’, ‘make’, ‘put’, ‘say’, ‘take’. Of course, there are some light verbs that are found only in some languages due to the cultural saliency of the event encoded by the verbs in question, for example, ‘spear’ in Australian languages. In general, it is true that semantically similar verbs function as light verbs cross-linguistically. Many linguists assume that at least some of these verbs behave like a closed-class category in that they are semantically ‘near-empty’ or impoverished. Some claim that such verbs have general and abstract meanings when employed as light verbs or ‘auxiliary’ verbs (see Heine () and references therein). This is usually what is assumed for English verbs like be, become, make, do. It is assumed that most light verbs are not born as light verbs but rather are historically derived from lexical sources through a process of both morphophonological and lexical semantic ‘depletion’ or ‘bleaching’ (see also Bowern, forthcoming). For instance, regarding the verb be in English, Jespersen (: ), who is believed to have coined the term ‘light verb’ (see Butt ), claims: The verb be has become what it is through a long process of wearing down more concrete signification (‘grow’); it took a predicative in exactly the same way as many other verbs with a fuller signification still do: he grows old | goes mad | the dream will come true | my blood runs cold | he fell silent | he looks healthy | it looms large | it seems important | she blushed red | it tastes delicious | this sounds correct, etc.

The basic idea is that when lexical verbs undergo the process of bleaching their meaning becomes more constant and less idiosyncratic – facilitating their transition from a lexical item into a grammatical one. Likewise, Weinreich (: ) has the following to say about the nature of verbs such as take. When we contemplate the varieties of ‘meanings’ which a word like take has in English (take offence, take charge, take medicine, take notice, take effect, etc.), we come to the conclusion that this is a case not of abnormally overdeveloped polysemy of a word, but rather of its semantic nearemptiness.

What is not usually acknowledged in the literature on light verbs is the fact that in most cases verbs that are used as ‘light’ have a rather ‘schematic’ meaning, even in their ‘heavy’ or ‘lexical’ usage. For example, consider the English verb take. The basic meaning of take can be paraphrased as ‘cause a thing to undergo a change in location’ ( Jackendoff ). There are a number of verbs that incorporate this basic meaning but are also more specific.

The structure of the light verb construction in Amharic

315

For example, English has a large class of specialised take verbs, such as the steal class of verbs (Levin : ff). This class includes such verbs as abduct, capture, confiscate, cop, emancipate, embezzle, thieve, wangle, winkle. Each verb encodes a kind of ‘taking’ but ostensibly adds something more having to do with the manner of the ‘taking’ and other parameters including agency, volition, intent, and outcome. The same is true with the verb say. English has a number of so-called ‘manner of speech verbs’ (Zwicky , Levin ), such as shout, scream, yell, holler, whisper, shriek, lisp, growl, mumble, mutter, etc. A manner of speech verb incorporates the basic meaning of ‘say’ (whatever that may be) but is also more specific: Mary whispered something to him means ‘Mary said something to him in a whispering manner’. Similar remarks can be made with regard to other common ‘light’ verbs. Thus, the lexical semantics of ‘give’ in English forms the subset of the lexical semantics of verbs such as present, award, confer, etc. This raises the possibility for a ‘monosemic’ analysis of light verbs, i.e. at least some light verbs should be analysed as inherently ‘light’ and that their apparent ‘heavy’ interpretation should be derived constructionally (similar to Borer (a, b)). For example, consider the English verb take: ()

a. She took a book. b. She took a shower.

(Heavy) (Light)

Suppose that in both (a) and (b) the verb ‘take’ is the spellout of a functional (event) head – CAUS/ACT. The ‘heavy’ interpretation arises when the inner vP involves a phonologically null root √ø with a meaning something like ‘move’ that takes ‘a book’ as its internal argument. The ‘light’ interpretation obtains when the inner vP involves the root √shower which merges with n. If something along these lines is on the right track, it will obviate the need for two ‘take’ verbs and derives the difference between the ‘heavy’ and ‘light’ usages from the construction as a whole. . Conclusion In this chapter we investigated the lexical semantics and syntactic representation of the light verb construction in Amharic. The language has two productive light verbs that combine with a range of preverbal elements (referred to as coverbs) to form a complex predicate. Overall, the transitivity frame of the light verbs is predictable: ‘say’ occurs with intransitives and ‘do/make’ tends to occur with transitives. In terms of event structure, ‘say’ light verbs are typically used to encode achievements whereas ‘do/make’ light verbs often occur with accomplishments and activities.

316

Amberber

It is argued that both the light verb construction and its simple verb variant are derived in the same way – utilising the same structural operations and represented in the same configuration. In both constructions the verb is assumed to involve the merger of a category-neutral root with a verbalising head. This analysis provides a natural account for the otherwise descriptively problematic aspect of the construction: the fact that the coverb does not belong to any lexical category. In the proposed analysis the productive coverb is formed through the merger of a root and a verbalising head in exactly the same way as the formation of a morphologically simple verb. References Amberber, M. . Functional Verbs and Predicate Formation: Event-type Hierarchy and Grammaticization. In Ahlers, J. and Bilmes, L. (eds) The Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, –. Berkeley Linguistic Society. a. The Transitivity of Verbs of ‘saying’ Revisited. In Camacho, J., Choueiri, L., and Watanabe, M. (eds) The Proceedings of the Fourteenth West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics, – Stanford: CSLI Publications. b. Transitivity Alternations, Event-types and Light Verbs. PhD dissertation, McGill University. . Quirky Alternations of Transitivity: The Case of Ingestive Predicates. In Amberber, M. and Collins, P. (eds) Language Universals and Variation, –. Westport, Connecticut and London: Praeger. Appleyard, D. . The Verb ‘to say’ as a Verb ‘Recycling Device’ in Ethiopian Languages. In A. Zaborski (ed.) New Data and New Methods in Afroasiatic Linguistics:Robert Hetzron in Memoriam, –. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Arad, M. . Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morphosyntax. Dordrecht: Springer. Armbuster, C. H. . Dongolese Nubian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, B. and Harvey, M., this volume. Complex Predicate Formation. Bender, M. L., Bowen, J. D., Cooper, R. L., and Ferguson, C. A. . Language in Ethiopia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beyene, T. . Aspects of The Verb in Amharic. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University. Bobaljik, J. . The Ins and Outs of Contextual Allomorphy. In University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics : –. Borer, H. a. In Name Only: Structuring Sense, vol I. Oxford: Oxford University Press. b. The Normal Course of Events, vol II. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bowern, C., forthcoming. The Historical Linguistics of Complex Predication. Butt, M. . The Light Verb Jungle. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics : –. Chomsky, N. . The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.

The structure of the light verb construction in Amharic

317

. Derivation by Phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.) Ken Hale. A Life in Language. Cambridge: MIT Press. Culicover, P. and Jackendoff, R. . Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Embick, D. and Noyer, R. . Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/ Morphology Interface. In Ramchand, G. and Reiss, C. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ferguson, C. A. . The Ethiopian Language Area. In Bender, M. L., Bowen, J. D., Cooper, R. L., and Ferguson, C. A. (eds) Language in Ethiopia, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Folli, R., Harley, H., and Karimi, S. . Determinants of Event Type in Persian Complex Predicates. In Astruc, L. and Richards, M. (eds) Cambridge Occasional Papers in Linguistics : –. Grimshaw, J. and Mester, A. . Light Verbs and Theta-Marking. Linguistic Inquiry : –. Gutt, E. . The Silte Group (East Gurage). In Hetzron, R. (ed.) The Semitic Languages, –. London: Routledge. Haile, G. . The Suffix Pronouns in Amharic. In Kim, C-W. and Stahlke, H. (eds) Papers in African Linguistics, –. Edmonton: Linguistic Research, Inc. Hale, K. L. and Keyser S. J. . On Argument Structure and the Lexical Expression of Syntactic Relations. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. (eds) The View From Building , –. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. . Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Halle, M. and Marantz, A. . Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. (eds) The View from Building 20, – Cambridge: MIT Press. Harley, H. . Subjects, Events, and Licensing. PhD dissertation, MIT. Harley, H. and Noyer, R. . Distributed Morphology. Glot International , : –. Haspelmath, M. . More on the Typology of Inchoative/Causative Verb Alternations. In Comrie, B. and Polinsky, M. (eds) Causatives and Transitivity, –. Amsterdam and New York: John Benjamins. Heine, B. . Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hetzron, R. . The Verbal System of Southern Agaw. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. . Ethiopian Semitic: Studies in Classification. Manchester: Manchester University Press. . Semitic Languages. In Comrie, B. (ed.) The World’s Major Languages, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. . The Semitic Languages. Oxford: Routledge. Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K. . The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jackendoff, R. . A Deep Structure Projection Rule. Linguistic Inquiry, , : –.

318

Amberber

. Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT Press. Jeong-Ryeol, K. . A Lexical-Functional Grammar Account Of Light Verbs. PhD dissertation, University of Hawai’i. Jespersen, O. . The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin. Kane, T. L. . Amharic-English Dictionary. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kogan, L. E. . Tigrinya. In Hetzron, R. (ed.) The Semitic Languages, –. Oxford: Routledge. Kratzer, A. . Severing the External Argument From its Verb. In Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds) Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, –. Leslau, W. . Reference Grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Levin, B. . English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Marantz, A. . No Escape From Syntax: Don’t Try Morphological Analysis in the Privacy of Your Own Lexicon. In Dimitriadis, A., Siegel, L., Surek-Clark, C., and Williams, A. (eds) Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4:2: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, –. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Megerdoomian, K. . Event Structure and Complex Predicates in Persian. Canadian Journal of Linguistics , /: –. Miyamoto, T. . The Light Verb Construction in Japanese. The Role of the Verbal Noun. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Raz, S. . Tigré. In Hetzron, R. (ed.) The Semitic Languages, –. London: Routledge. Reid, N. . Complex Verb Collocations in Ngan’gityemerri: A Non-derivational Strategy for Encoding Valency Alternations. In Dixon R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, A. Y. (eds) Changing Valency: Case Studies In Transitivity, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Saito, M. and Hoshi, H. . The Japanese Light Verb Construction and the Minimalist Program. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds) Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge: MIT Press. Tosco, M. . Is There an ‘Ethiopian Language Area’? Anthropological Linguistics , :  –. Weinreich, U. . On the Semantic Structure of Language. In Greenberg, J. (ed) Universal of Language. Cambridge: MIT Press. Yabe, T. a. Morphological Transitivization and Causativization in Two Ethiopian Semitic Languages, Amharic and Ge’ez. Handout from the  (S/C-U-)NY(-U) Mini Conference,  April . b. Segmenting Amharic Causative as- into Two Verbal Morphemes: Semitic a- and Cushitic –s. MS, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York. Zwicky, A. . In a Manner of Speaking. Linguistic Inquiry : –.

INDEX

Alpher, B.  Abeillé, A.  Ackerman, F.  Adams, B. , , , , , , , –, , , , ,  Adjer, D.  Agaw  Ahtna - Aikhenvald, A. , , , , , , , , , , –,  Aissen, J.  Akimoto, M.  Alamblak  Alsina, A. , , , , , , , , , ,  Ambae  Amberber, M. , , , , , ,  Amha, A. , , , , , , , –, , , ,  Amharic , , , , , , – Andrews, A. , , , ,  Appleyard, D. , , ,  Arad, M. ,  Arce-Arenales, M.  Armbuster, C. H.  Austin, P.  Awngi ,  Axelrod, M. , , ,  Baker, B. , , , , , , ,  Baker, M. ,  Bamgbose, A.  Barai , ,  Bardi  Bench  Bender, M. L. et al  Bengali  Berlin, B.  Beyene, T.  Bilin  Bitima, T.  Bobaljik, J.  Bodomo, A. B. 

Bohnemeyer, J. , ,  Borer, H. , ,  Boroditsky, L. , ,  Bowern, C. , , , –,  Bowers, J.  Bradshaw, J.  Bresnan, J. , , , , , , , , ,  Briem, D.  Bril, I. ,  Brinton, L. J.  Broadwell, G. A. , , , , ,  Bruce, L. , ,  Bugenhagen, R. – Butt, M. , –, , , , , , , , , , , ,  Bybee, J.  Campbell, L.  Cantonese  Carter, R. , ,  Cattell, R.  Chadwick, N. ,  Chatterji, S. K.  Choctaw  Choi, S. ,  Chomsky, N. , ,  Christaller, J. G.  Cohen, D.  Comrie, B.  Crowley, T. –,  Culicover, P.  Dagaare  Darlymple, M. ,  Dehé, N.  Denison, D.  Deo, A.  Dhoore, C. S. ,  Diller, A.  Dillmann, C. F. A.  Dimmendaal, G. , , , , , , , –, –, 

319

320 Dixon, R. M. W.  Dowty, D. , ,  Durie, M. , , , ,  Dutch  Embick, D. – Enfield, N. ,  English , , , , , , , , , ,  Evans, N.  Ferguson, C. A.  Fitzpatrick-Cole, J.  Fleming, H.  Fodor, J.  Foley, W. , , ,  Folli, R. , , , , , ,  Fox, B.  French , , , – Gentner, D. , ,  Geuder, W. ,  Ghomeshi, J.  Giiz  Givon, T.  Glass, A. ,  Godard, D.  Goldberg, A.  Green, R. ,  Griefenow-Mewis, C.  Grimshaw, J. , , ,  Gurr-goni  Gutt, E.  Hacker, P.  Hackett, D. ,  Hale, K. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Halle, M. ,  Halpern, A.  Hamar ,  Hansen, K.  Harley, H. , , , , , ,  Haro  Harris, A.  Harvey, M. , , , , , , , ,  Haspelmath, M.  Hayward, R. J. ,  Heath, J. – Hebrew  Heine, B.  Hendriksen, H.  Hetzron, R. , , ,  Hindi , , ,  Hinrichs, E.  Hirut, W.  Hoekstra, T. , 

Index Hook, P. E. , –,  Hopper, P. J. , , ,  Hoshi, H.  Huang, J.  Huddleston, R. –,  Ikegami, Y.  Isoda, M.  Jackendoff, R. , , , –, , , , , , , , ,  Jaminjung –, –, –, ,  Japanese , , , ,  Jarkey, N. , , – Jelinek, E. ,  Jeong-Ryeol, K.  Jespersen, O. , ,  Jetté, J. – Jingulu  Johns, B.  Jones, E. – Joshi, S.  Kamabata  Kamu  Kane, T. L.  Kaplan, R.  Kari, J. – Karimi, S. , , , ,  Keyser, S. J. , , , , , , , ,  King, T. H. ,  Kogan, L. E.  Korean ,  Koyukon , – Kratzer, A. ,  Kriol  La Polla, R. , , , ,  Lahiri, A. – Lakoff, G.  Lamberti, M. , ,  Lane, J.  Lapointe, S.  Laughren, M. , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Legate, J. ,  Leslau, W. , , ,  Levin, B. , , ,  –, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Levinson, S.  Li, C. ,  Lieber, R.  Lightfoot, D.  Lord, C. – Lydall, J. ,  Malagasy , 

Index Malak-Malak  Mandarin , –,  Mangap Mbula – Manning, C. , , , ,  Marantz, A. , , ,  Marathi  Marra – Masica, C.  Massam, D.  Matisoff, J. A.  Matngele  Matthews, P.  Matthews, S. – McConvell, P.  McGregor, W.  Mchombo, S.  Megerdoomian, K. , , , , ,  Mester, A. , , ,  Miyamoto, T.  Mohanan, T. , , ,  Müller, S.  Nash, D. , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Nelemwa  Ngaliwurru ,  Ngan’gityemerri – Nordlinger, R. , , , , , ,  Noyer, R. – Numbami ,  Olson, M. , ,  Oromo , ,  Paamese – Pagliuca, W.  Pardeshi, P.  Pawley, A. , , ,  Pensalfini, R  Pentland, C.  Perkins, R.  Perlmutter, D.  Persian , , , , ,  Pesetsky, D.  Plank, F.  Pullum, G. K. –,  Pustejovsky, J. , , ,  Pylkkanen, L.  Qafar , , ,  Ramchand, G. , , –,  Rapold, C. ,  Rappaport Hovav, M. , , ,  –, , , , , , , , , , , ,  Ratliff, M. ,  Raz, S. 

321 Reesink, G. ,  Reid, N.  Reimer, N.  Rice, K. – Ritter, E.  Roberts, I.  Rosen, S. , ,  Roussou, A.  Sag, I.  Saito, M.  Sanskrit ,  Saxon, L.  Scalise, S.  Schultze-Berndt, E. , , –, –, –, ,  Scott, B. ,  Sebba, M. ,  Sells, P. , ,  Silte  Simeone-Senelle, M-C.  Simpson, J. , , , , , , , , ,  Smith, C. S. , , ,  Somali  Sottile, R. , ,  Speas, M.  Strecker, D.  Tagalog ,  Talmy, L. , ,  Tantos, A.  Tenny, C. ,  Thai  Thompson, C. , ,  Thompson, S. , ,  Tigre ,  Tigrinya , , , ,  Tikkanen, B.  Tosco, M. , ,  Trask, L.  Traugott, E. C. , ,  Travis, L. , , , , ,  Turkish  Tversky, B.  Twi – Urdu –, ,  Van Staden, M.  Van Valin, R. , , , , , ,  Vanhove, M.  Vendler, Z. ,  Wagiman – Wambaya , – Warlmanpa ,  Warlpiri , –

322 Warner, A.  Watam , – Webelhuth, G.  Weinreich, U.  White Hmong , – Whitney, W. D. ,  Wilhelm, A.  Willie, M.  Wilson, S. , , –, , , , ,  Wolaitta , – Wurmbrand, S. , 

Index Xamtanga  Yabe, T.  Yimas , – Yip, V. –, – Yoruba  Zachs, J.  Zargulla , , ,  Zayse  Zwicky, A. 