Theoretical Issues in the Grammar of Kikamba: A Bantu Language

Theoretical Issues in the Grammar of Kikamba A Bantu Language

Angelina Nduku Kioko

fuillexl research abstracts of all titles monlhly updales

2005 LlNCOM EUROPA

Published by lINCOM GmbH 2005.

This book II dedlc.,ft! to my busband Dlruti K1oko lad 10 our tbUdren J\fwndwi lind MWfndt, wbo't bdp Ind taduma moral support have eoabled mt 10 mlkt slrides i.D the ludtmlc neld.

Printed in E.C. Printed on chlorine-free paper Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP Cataloguing-in-Publication-Oata A catalogue record for this publication is available from Die Deutsche Bibliothek (http://www.ddb.de)

AdlQowledgemenh This book is a modified version of my PhD. thesis submitted at Monash University in April 1994. 1 would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Heather 1. Bowe for the patient but critical guidance through out the course of my study at Monash and for continuing to be my friend and model in the academic field. lowe a great deal to the Auslralian Government for the financial support and to Kenyatta University for granting me study leave to undertake the PhD. studies. Finally I thank my fami ly and friends for their prayerful support at the various stages of this work. I appreciate the input of my fellow Kikamba speakers, who provided second opinion when I was in doubt and also challenged some of my analyses prompting me to rethink and rerUle the conclusions. Hope Wamaitha, my friend and 'daughter', deserves special mention for helping me rework on the diagrams during the revision.

iii

ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

,• Ipi

I,.

2pl

2,. 3,. 3pl

AP

ASP

d. CONS CONT.

eC FOC FlIT FV

GB HAB

Ungrammatical sentence or phrase Sentence or phrase of questionable grammatica1iry Firs! person plural First person singular SewuI AlignmmI H)'])(ICbttiI io ~ on tbr cxpccIcd coo~ oflbe ~ ",LItiOa

"'*""

and tbr role 18m!; tbr pmmaIicaI ",tatiorl dift>Ct ot;ca. ODd !be role p8Iient ODd tbr grammatical ",latioa iDc.Iireo;c objtd and tbr role ll!Cipimt.

•

3. Agreement 6) Sema.otk Rola: The meaning $!J'tICIUn: in a 5l:fltencc is discussed in tem1S of semantic roles. These include. agent, tbeme, patient, goal etc. Though ptOlOtypicaUy there will be a correlation between grammatical relations and semantic roles, in English (and in many languages), there is a loose

correlation between semantic roles and various grammatical relations. The Relation subject can 5

for example have different semantic roles as in; Jobn opened the door. (agent) De door opened (patient) TIle key opened the door. (instnunent) and the semantic role patient can correlate to either subject or object. It is DOt always easy 10 justify the set of semantic roles or 10 justify the assignment of the roles to particular a.gwnents. Comrie (1989) prefers to see semantic roles as a continuum of control with the agent being the higbe:sl Thus it is possible to add more semantic roles based on this CQIItinuum if there is "at least one possible 1angu.age with some grammatical correlation of that semantic distinction" (Comrie 1989:59). Morphological case can also reflect semantic distinctions. In some languages there is a distinction between the case marking of subjects oftransitives and those of intrensitives. This distinctions correlate with the semantic notion of control.

Where subsequent literature is used the source is given in the text.

For Relational Grammar the main sources are the papers in three volumes . Studies in Relational Gmmmar'; Perlmutter (1983), Perbnutter and Rosen (1 9S4) and Postal and Joseph (1990), Blake (1990) and various papers in the linguistic joomaJs by the key proponents of the

iliOO'}'. The primary source for the fonnalism of Lexical Functional Grammar is Bresnan (ed) (1982) but recent papers by Bresnan, Alsina, Kemeva, Kaplan, Moshi, Mchombo etc, have

introduced fundamental changes. Again the claims of the theory used in this study are outlined in the relevant chapter.

ill) Pragmatic Roles 1bese, also called discoW"Se roles, refer 10 the ways in which infonnation can be structured differently to renect the now of new and given information. The terminology on this subj~t is not standard but distinctions have been made between focused and non-focused infonnation and

between topic and comment Rclations in terms of pragmatic roles are typically renected in word order but some languages have morphological means for signalling these relations such as focus particles, topic rnwkers etc. Languages make use of word order, morphological case and agreement pbenornena as means of defining all or one of the three aspects of structure, differently. For example in English

word order is the main determinant of granunatical relations, while in Russian word order signals pragmatic structure and grammatical relation are coded by morphological case (Comrie (1981).

We will not employ one panicular theoretical approach in this study, rather we will make use of the advances in modem linguistics in a general way. The frrst task we aim to achieve is to

provide a detailed description of the chosen aspects of Kikamba syntax in a theory neutral way. To achieve this task, the research within the typological approach 10 language study will be useful. Forspocific constructions particular theoretical approaches will be considered. 'The main fonnal theories used here are; Government and Binding Theory, Relational Grammar and Lc.tical-FlUlctionai Grammar. We will not allempl to discuss the general claims of the theories ncre, specific claims concerning particular constructions are given in the relcvant chapters. The following are the primary sources of our infonnation for the three main fannal theories used in this study. 'The version of GB be used is mainly that outlined in Olomsky (1981, 1982, 1986).

6

,

Clupctr 2 hllTOdlfCdoa to tbe Laagua&e 2.0 IDlroductiou

It gives a brief cross-section description of the language. The inventory of speecb sound given in this chapter is that of the "Standard Kikamba" the variety spoken ia most of the Macbakos district and used in the tRmiatiOll of the Bible and ia the ",Tiring of scbool litenture materials. We will establish an This chapter is a general introduction to Kikamba.

inventory of the phonemes of the language and examine processes affecting them when they are juxtaposed in words and sentences. The word SlruCture of the main word classes in the laaguage will be discussed and an overview of the synlU outlined

This chaptCf therefore provides the non-Bantuist with a brief grammatical sketch and will be useful for reference tbroogb oot the study. Our aim is 10 provide a bricfand simplified sketch of the IDOSI relevant aspects of IGkamba g:nunmar. It is hoped that this will facilitate co~ion

No major dialectology study of the language bas been done, bul people that have written on

Kikamba have made observations on regional variatiOlis.

lJ}u

Lindblom (1926) recognised two dialects: the Thaisu, spoken ia Kitui district and the DOW Macbakos district. MAundu (1980) recognised four

spoken in the then Vlu area,

regional varieties one spoken ia Kitui North, another spoken in the rest of Kitui, a third in Kilungu bills, and a fourth spoken in the rest ofMachakos district We re(:ognise four regional varieties of the language but our branching is different from that of Maundu (1980). We begin with two main varieties: Kimasaku spoken in Machakos district, and Kithaisu.. spoken in Kitui

There: are tooal diffc:reoces between tbe:se two dialects but the: most prooounced

district.

difference ill the pboooJogical substitution of the cluster sound (nzJ for [00] by the Kithaisu speakers. For example:

2.

Kikamba is spoken natively in four districts in the Eastern Province of Kenya. According 10 the 1989 National Census there are more !ban 2.S million Kikamba speakers. Kikamba is one of the Central Kenya Bantu Languages and was categorised as ES5 by Guthrie (1967) that is, it is language unit j of Kikuyu-Kamba group SO, situated in BAN11J zone E. In most written literature the morpheme ··kamba' has been used 10 refer 10 the people, 10 the language, or to !be land. However.this morpheme bas roo other semantic value eJ[cepI that of being a root morpbcmc. It can ooly be considered as a word ifil bas a noun ellIS.! prelU affaxed to it. This is exemplified below.

lilim

(a) [n&!] (b) [maOOl]

[""'J [""""I [- I

look for. alloftbem.

"""

Within Kithaisu !here arc two main regional sub-dialcd:$. The Kitui North dialect and the dialect spoken in the rest of Kitui. The Kilui Nonh is marked by the presence ofsowxls such

u,

3.

h], [IS] and (rr.

which are absent from the other Klkamba dialects. but like the rest of the KIthaisu it has the [nz1 duster in place of the (00] ofKImasaku.

(.). a+kAmbi (cI.2) !he people. (b) mii+ kimbi(cI. l) a person from the group.

(c) Id+ k~d .7) the language. (d) ii+ kimbi(cl.ll )their land.'

'Thit ;, abo dltc..ssed in Maundu(1980).

•

KithaiS!l

(c) [00&:]

1.1 The uallll&e I Dd (be Pe-opk

l.

Kjrru!ykil

of data IlSed in later chapters.

Within Kimasaku there is the Kikilungu dialect spokcn in most of the western division of Machakos district. ~ an: a few lexical differences between this dialect and the one spoken in the rest of Machakos but the most remarkable difference is the absence of ll:;. an al lomorpb of the noun class cight prefIX. Thus KikiIWlgu does not segmentally differentiate class seven and lSounds such • hi IDd IyI ..... also IOwId ., oGItr cauraI KftI)'1I Banlu ~ IUCb as KiJn>yu. KimmlIDd Kiembu. The K.ibInbJo dialect II\a)' bave horrowI!d IIaete tI.lUDds form IbtIe IItnguaps or it II\a)' be !hal thtse were part of KikamI;,.. NId that !Ix dialectI IIckiDa tbem have lost daem as pan of h.i$toricalclwJ&e. We will DOIcoocemoursetve with which oflbe$c ~ is ~

,

class eight nouns in the environments where the distinction involves the This is shown in the examples below. 4.

KWIWl'N.

k:iLti differentiation.

Rest ofMacbakos.

Ca) kyU (e1.?) kyU (e1.7)

(b) kyU (e1.8i syU (eI.8) (e)ky04(eI.7) l:yoi(e l.7)

(d) k}U (el.S) syoi (e1.8)

finger. fwgers.

.... .....

Within what this study calls "rest of Kitui dialoct" there are also noted variations but detailc:d dialectal variation is beyond the scope of this study.

2.2.0

n ePboootogy

(5).

Simple Pbooemes'.

~

Bilabials

M~

SI Nasals Fricatives

'--'"

""''''

Alvcolu

V.,.,

N

•

T m



•

, •I

J

W

Glides

Palatal

2.2.1. Cooso...nQ.

We fccl that the best way of rept'e$CDting the coosonants in Kikamba is by listing the 'simple" phonemes in a manner and place of articulation chart and then discussing the 'coJl1)OUnd' phonemes separately.

The chart below therefore represents only the simple

"""""'".

The compound phonemes can be divided into three groups. I. Prenasalised compounds. 2. Palatalised compounds. 3. Labialisod compounds.

Among the compound phonemes the prenasaJised phonemes have received a wider coverage in Bmtu litenl.ture than the other two'. The prenasalised compounds have been given various names. Omondi (1980) calls them "nasal compounds" while Welroers (1973) refen to them as pre-nasaJised c<msonants. Whatever name they are given, there is agreement that they constitute a single phoneme in the: 11IIlgUIge5 in which they occur. What is interesting in Kikamba is that there is DO /gi to match tbe l'yJ. DO I~ to match the J&d/ e.le. This leads to the conclusion that these surface realisations have underlying forms with voiceless COOSODants. Many of the nasal ~

in word initial position derive from the combination of the noun class prefix (n-)

and the initial COIlSOO8DI of the root morpbeme IS shown below.

'ClasieI1 aDd. in Kikihmgu are difftranloled by use oCm. coao;ord affiuI used OQ m. ~ IIIId OQ 0Iber modificrt, in IhiI CODIe2.t.

'we ~~ to thae pboDtmeI u tiqlle becau;sem. IDIIUII:r and pAce ofarticulation is limilN'1O tbat of ~1Od IOI.IIldI in 0Iber IanguaJG. The term ~ bowever. is used bo

.

'ntis

Lili mils66 nlwttiki. I1ti mu·siO nl-i1-i·irik·a. food 3-good FOC-3-TN5-pour·FV. (The good food poured>

is 80 ptrbtps btause faeb dw .. ill, in .dditicm to !bole DOUZIIS which hive • semanric OIlIer !IOlIDI ... boIe scmaotic MJ.tioo&bip wUb tho ~ JIOOP .. nat II""ImpImIt.

rt"~, hI~e

Vcva mnsM niw~" veva mQ-s66 ru·il·..·nttn·i. spiril 3·g00d FOC.3.TNS·speak·FV. (The good spiril spoke.)

(d)

Saa nzfO niyivilUkA. saa D·st(! ni.Y·Ii.·v61ilk·a. watch 9.goOO FOC-9·TNs.faJl·FV. A good watch fell.

«)

tub 0ZA!6 nIyav'lilkA..

luta n-~ ru_I_6_viIUk-A. ruler 9-good FOC9-W5-rall-FV. A good ruler fell. Sitovu rrz.i6 niyivililkA.. sitoW n-sM nJ_t4_vilUk_l stove 9-goOO FQC-9_TNS·rall_FV. A good stove fell.

In (4 b) and (c) the nouns used are indigenous Kikamba words, (d) is

~ed from

.1:_ ."" '"and\1lI'" 'Ia and oit""" in (e) and (f) respect ively, are phonological modificatlOlls of,the IY'>W",,, I ~ . . .L . ... _. flXless oouns arc fined mlo

English ' ruler' and 'stove'. Tbe genenU observation IS illiIl u......... pre tha . ' ted into the concordial systettL Most borrowed nouns I the noun classes by being mcorpora . 9 and 10 (e 4 e and f) In example (4.) are not assigned class prefixes are fitted ~nlo classes ,8 . This is not bow Jiy 'food' a prc(tdcss noun,' IS treated as a noun With class J prefix. e~, since c~ 3 is semanticaUy associated with treeS and plants (most food stuffs come with class 4 laking the plurals. In (4 b) ~ 'spirit' is assigned clast I concords thus it is treated as a human noun, while in example (4 c) it is Imlled as part of~C h~ ' : . like a part of the bwnan body and tbettfon: falls in class 3. These elWllp d ~. ~atioos in Qlapter 2 that all DOUDS in Kikamba fit into 17 classeS and that mt'Ill ~ ~ particular class is determined by either semantic featureS, or \lOUD class prom. or a TIIOfllDetne5 Of all of these.

:::"trt!)

J.l.l Grammallcal Agrffment The nouns spread class features to all the words associated with them. for example the vcm obligatorily agrees with its subject and adjectives typically consist of a roo( and a prefu: agreeing with the noun the adjective modifies as shown in the examples below. KAna k~ nik66U. Ka·6na ka-oem nI-kj-j-il_ k-i.

(5) (a)

12-child 12-bigFOC-12-lNS-comc-fV The big ehild came. (b)

milndii milnent! niw66k1.

mil-ndil mil-nfnI! ni-il-j-iIk-l. l-pcrsoo l-big FOC- I-TN&- "

shows great diversi ty.,

So~e .languages have gender reso lution rules that an: basically syntactic,

others ~Iy ~ ~tJC ptUlClpies, yet others show iolClesting combination of !he syntactic and semantlC prtOClples. Gender resolution ruJa are thus 001: universal. In penon resolution, typically the rust person takes precedeoce over !be second person and !be ~ .person takes precedence over lbe third person. Person resolution is required w~ the conjoined NPs are prDDOUIlS. The sentences given below show that Kikamba follows thiS gcncml tendency. 27.

Nyit nakU DitwivAJUkL Nyit na-kU Di-til-a-vjIUk-A. I and-you FOC-Ipl-TNS-fall_FV. You and I feU.

FV 12-clUld. The woman saw a child.

(b)

Kivetl nIky&kbni kInI. !(j·veU ni-kH·]d..oo-6 ka-lnl. 7.woman FOC-7·TNS-12-sec>FV 12-child. The woman saw the child.

(0)

Kivetl n1kyAk6ml.. Ki·vetl ni·Id·A·kA-6n-6. 7.woman FOC_7_TNS_ 12·see-FV. The woman saw hcr/him'it (cI.1 2)

(a)

Kivetl nlkyitw€m! Ithyi. Kl· ved ni·kj·'-tUOn·llthyi. 7-woman FQC..7.TNS·2pI-see·FV us. The woman saw us.( wi th emphasis on the object.)

(b)

KIveti nikyt.1w0ni. KI-veti ni· kJ..a·tiI-6n·&. 7-woman FQC.7-TNS.2pl-soe-FV. 1be WomaD saw us.

(c)

·lGveti nIky66nllthyi.

• ka-tnJI Ia·vetl ni·kJ·a..(m·'

l2-child 7-woman fOC.7-TNS·see·FV Example (33a) where the fronled object is Cl"05s·rcfcrenccd on the verb is wcll formed while (33b) without the object affix turns out iIl· fonned.

3. Object AiJ"ftmtot: This is usually used to cover the cases where an ohj cct NP still in its base position is accompanied by an object prefix.. In languages like Kiswahili the object prefix is obligatory when the object NP is animate but in K.ikamba the factors determining the C(H)C(:WTe!ICt of a non-dislocated object and the object prefix ~ main ly pragmatic. Givon (1975) argued that the presence or absence of the object prefix in Bantu is dctcnnincd by the topicality value of the objec1 NP. Topicality in tum is dctcrminc:d by the interaction of semantic and pnlgmatic hierarchies. Givon's tbesis is that agn:emeol, whether subject·verb or object·verb, is agreement with an NP which has the potential of being a topic. This then means that object NPs that present giveo information 01" that ~ de finite will of necessity attract the agreement prefix. A dcfmite NP has very high topicality features and human nouns h.J,ve more poteotial of being ' giveo information', dcfmite, beocfICiaries and topics. Therefore. this anaI)'5is predicts !hat there will be a correlation between hwnan objects and the presence of the object preflX. This prediction is seen 10 be true in that (as we have saki above) there are Bantu Ia~ges that have obligatOf)' object agreement when the object is hurnan(seealsoAllan 1982) '.

(35)

Kl·veti nI-W..(m-l fthyi. 7-woman fOC..7-TN5-see-FV us As was said above, (35 c) is iIl·formed because the etl\'hatic pronoun form is used without the accornpI1l1ying object prefix.. Thus prooorninal object must be cross-~ferenced on the verb when they do occur. This seems to support Givon's cLaim since: pronominals have the feature of being giveo or shared information and are therefore likely topics.

"Allan takes !be arJIIIIlleII' funber and atgUeI thaI !be Kiswahili object prefix is. prDOOUII signall.iDa: !be objecI NP u foaIsed tOjlK. What is ~t for us ~ is !be uniform treatmeDt of !be faclln deCnminilll !be presence of tbe objoo:t pAlm. Issues on the calegorial mIllS of !be object pR"fi~ will ~ taken up in a..pter S.

"

67

3.3 CODclusion

Cblpler 4 Tbt Prooominal System In this chapter we have examined a~t reatures in Kikamba. The fonns ofvarious agreement morphemes were giVCD and their relationship with the semantic and morpbosyntactic features of the NP that triggers a~t was discussed. The account given on this sub;ject strongly suppons Treece's proposal that ftagreement panems and lexical noun classes must be treated Scpan!tely 10 allow rules controlling agreement morphology to refer to scma.tltics, syn~ , morphology and lexieal CBtegories thus avoiding missing generalisation and significant semantic distinc:tioos (freece ( 1986: 165). The faetQf5 determining the presence Of absence of the object marker in the verb COfl1Ilex were discussed and exemplified, ft

In the next chapter we will describe the pronominal system in Kikamba taking up some of !he issues that were raised in this chapter concerning pronominal objects,

4,1 latrodadion The pictwe presented by the pronominal system of a typical Bantu language is I1ltcrosting, Consider the Kikamba examples below.

"'

~ ninakoml.

(.J

Nyie ni-n-t·ko-m-i.. I FOCIp-TNS-s1eep-FV. I have slept, (b)

NiJlikomA Ni-n·J·kom-t FQC-Ips-sleep-FV I have slept,

(oj

Kl:! nlkyAkcnni

(dJ

- """'"

K ~ D -k ....·kom-i 7-TtI F6c.:j.TN5-skep-FV II is sleeping.

it has slept (c l 7)

ml; nIwik0rn4

('J

il~ nJ·il-A·kom-A

3·il FOC3-TN5-sleep-FV,

(0

Ni!!iJ«xnl. it has slept (ci 3)

(g)

Mwno nllD6tnM nakwl Mwno nJ·ij·n6en!..a na-Uwl Mwno FOCI- talk-FY with·me Mwno talks with me

l

The underlined in (a). (e) and (e) are what is known 85 'emphatic' ,pronouns while in (b). (d) and (I) we bave subject.vetb Igreement forms which are also present,? (I). (c). ~ ~e), We, ~ that when the persooal prooouns an: used following the par11c1cs f!! With and 11. like', I form is used as in (g). In (1g) the particle D!! "with" is ~ and the form of the first person pronoun used is . . rather than the fuJI independent form IOO£,

:::erent

I'lbil p!I.lIICI'IIIan~ tbebumID DOUIIID JI(lIaId. . 7.

"'This may I«IIl 10 Jll&&e!ol cue distioo;:tioos but e:wniIIatioo of 0Iber Ianguag~ data rules case out of

..

tbeIe VIriItionI D foon.

"

The Literatw'e on prooornioaI systems in Bantu languages is filled with inconsistencies especially on the distinction of pronouns and agreement morphemes. This is partly be
The (b) enmples are ilI-fonned because the full pronoun instead of the bound fonn is used with !he particle ~ (9 b), or with the a-link (10 b). . the For the concordial prooouns tbcre are no bound fonns. Tbr:y occur III same orm

r.

with the particles and in a-link coostructions (see ~Ie I I below. (II)

N~ ninankni naky6. NyiC ni-n-t-~Ii. na-kJ-6.

J FOC-2sg-TNS-talk-FV with·7- iL I talked .....ith iIIber. 4.2.5 The Agrtemeot Aftlus

. Subject and object prefixes have been analysed. in many studies, as pronouns m .the abseoce of the NP which triggers agreement. Thill has been generally ~ ~ f~ ~ ob~ fix beca the: object NP and the object marker rarely~. This atttrudc: IS evident m : : use of such lIS Bennett's (1986) .independent Pronouns' ~h ~ggests that tbere are depeDdcnt prooouns in Bantu. The dependent pronouns in some Studies mclude more

:moolog)'

~ is possible with !be meaniog 'as for !be dog, it bil ~Jf. In IhiI ioterprelltioD!be fuUproooon fmn is not pN1 of!be ~fkxive but l post poeecI focusing device.

.-

10A.link 00Il$II'\Idi0II1M modifier phmeI whiclJ

"

set Ibeir _

from the .:l: thallioks !be IIlOdifin IIXI

77

than the bound pronouns discussed above. There arc theoretical issues underlying the status accorded the agreement afflltes. What is undisputed is that the affu.es pmvidc cross-reference infonnalion; infonnation about nwnbcr. gender and person, a functioo nonnaUy lIS$OCialed with pmDOUDS. The fonns of the subject and object agreement morpbcmes for all the classes arc

given in chapter 3 above. 4.2.6 ReclpfOdly LD Kikamba The common practice in Genentive theoretical lilenltl= grouped reciprocal and rdlcx.ive prooouns together. This is bocause the two prooominals are said 10 IICCC$5 their antccedeDt in similar manners (Chomsky 198 1; Bosch 1983). In most Bantu languages reciprocity and reflexivity tcod to be more of a feature of the verb than sepanttc pronominal dements. Howeva, we have ehosen 10 discuss reciproca1s separate from refkltive bm close to the agreement affue:es because, while Ihe reneltive affix. is associated with a full pronoun. Ihe reciprocal affue: is. verbal elttension in . manner similar 10 that oftbc passive morpheme and is not related 10 any full pronominal fann in Kikamba. As the IICCOUIlt below will show reciprocals in Kikamba have lost their pronominal nature (if they bad any).

Here again as with the reflexive .tIU, the cp.icstion is whether the reciprocal affue: is pronominal and therefore an argwntnt of the verb, or it is a derivational affue: (a verbal exteMion) which deri ves a verb with a different argwnent structure from that of the simple verb. In tenns oflhe tests used for the reflexive affut above, the reciprocal bas no pronominal claim in Kikamba. It is invariable i.e. it does 001 refleet the peroon/IIOUD class features associated with pronominals in the language; it comes after the verb root and before tbe verb final vowel, a position reserved for derivational morphemes; it does not bring about the change in the final vowel which is expected of an impenuive associated with pronominal affix.es (see (1ii) above); there is no full pronoun with a reciprocal function, and finally the function of the reciprocal affu seems 10 be purely derivational, (see (16) below). In Kikamba. !be reciprocal affut,.::I!Il is sutlUod 10 the verb root ll and it has the effect of reducing the arguments of the verb by one. ( 16)

(a)

NgninIsyfiilmHIDI. N-gni oJ-i-i_ilm-i k-InL

I().dogs FOC-IO-TNS-bite-FV 12-clilld. The dogs bit the child.

(b)

NgIl'' ' ' ' ' ' '

N-gni nJ·i·/i-1lm-an-t.

l().dogs FOC- I0- TN'S-bite-REC-FV. The dogs bit each other ll .

''This ItIltmoe al$o bas !be inIeqnwioo \hal ·the doss bit an ot.;ect wbibasis.

''nus is !be DCUtnoI .......ma. ;t am be bt:r or tum depeoding 011 the ~Ievaot pngaIIIIic COIIleAl

· AsikaliPirnikwati

A-sikafi ni-mi.fi-kwlit.! 2-soldiers FOC2-TNS-arrest-FV.

The verb in (34 a) is marked for agreement with a class 7 subject and a class 12 object. (34 a) where the fu n pronoun co-oceurs with the object affIX is well-fonned and is marked for emphasis

"

ni'mik8kw'" kO.

The soldiers arrested illhimlber.

7-woman FQC..7-TIlS-12-beat-FV. The woman beat it. (,)

Asikali

A-sikaIi nJ·roj-i-klI-kw6t4 ka-O. 2-soldicrs FOC2-TNS-12-anest-FV 12-it. The soldiers arrested itlbim'her.

Kl-vetl nJ.kT4.1aI.kUn-6 1aI-01• 7·woman FQC..7-TNS- 12-beat-FV 12-irs. The woman beat it. (b)

nirn§kikw'"

kAnI. A_SikaliDi_roj_A_ki_kw6t-A b-lnll. 2-soldiers FOC-2-TNS-12-arrest-FV 12-: ( t936).

"Otber usc ofthls form .no givm So II«tim s.l.6. "'Perbap. in tennII oflbtt&-Tbeory reflexive vabI n.y be sUI 1O..sign one doaI Tbou-roIo {Jelf-doer ill tbe WOIda ofViuer (t987)) which in ~ ~ is QSiped 10 Ibe sut;ectpositioo (e.ll XIIou) but whido iI Ip~I between IIIe JUbjocI poe.ition and Ibe object poe.itioo in languages which m.ve reflexive

"""""'"

"At least not in !be sense ill wbicb tbe rdlniYli WN aoa/yJ«I. TIIere it howe..,.., tbe optioo. of ~ tbe reciprocal affix .. In argument of tbe vm. in • ma!lI'IeI' similar .10 ~ passive ~ u claim thai Ibe reciprocal affix suppmoeI !be direct object role orllle vm ~ Links II W !be subject.

93

4.4.4 pro as Head of NP Visser (1981) extended the prlHlrop plrameter 10 cover instaDces in Xhosa (and in Bantu in general) where heads of NPs are left out. We further observed in section 4.3 that pronouns, particularly concordial pronouns, can be heads ofNPs with modifiers and that in the absc:nee of emphasis these pro!.'IOUN can be left out Consider the examples below. (40)

(a)

(b)

Kana kill basi Dik.ithi Ka-6na kj·14 kid nJ-Idi-i-thi 12-ehild 12-that 12-tall FOC- 12-TNS-go The tall child went.

3. The agreement affixes which assU1l1C pronominal role in panicu1arenvironments. In our discussion forms in 3 were given the status of agreement affIXes.

12·it 12-that 12·ta.ll FOC-12-lNS-go

In soetioo 4.4 the pbenomenon of the absence of overt subjects. objects and head .NPs in the surface sttucturos of sentences in Kikamha was examined in the light of the: OB c~. It was shown that the uniformly complex morphology in Kikamha allows NPs 10 be OnlJn~ ~d \he regular agreement phenomena provide the identification requirement for Ihese rrussmg argumenl5. The following observations were made. \. Only prooominaI NP can be omitted. . .. . 2. In the case of renexive pronouns the EC in object POSition IS better analysed as a ",Derive pro. . 3. The option for BD NP to be omitted in Kikarnba correlates With the presence of overt

kill kaasA nlkithi 12-that 12-tall FOC- 12-TNS·go The tall one: went.

(a)

""""""". 2. Bound foons, which are in complementary distribution with the free noneoocordial pronouns.

IoIlli kaas! nlk!thi KU kIo·14 kid ni·U-i-thi

kIo-11 b·as.f, n1-ki·i-thi

(41)

1. Free pronouns which fall into two groups; oolKordlal and oon-conoordil1

1(0

The tal l one went. (c)

In summary the pronominal system in Kikamha comprises :

Kivell kll! kiasA nlkyithi Ki·veti ki-l! ki·as.f, n1-ki·lI·thi

1-WQIllIIlI1·thaI1·tall FOC-1·TNS-go The tall WOftWl went. (b)

KyO kill ldad. nlkyilhi Ki~ 1d·1! kT-as! ni·k·i·thi 1-sbe 1-that 1·tall FOC-1-TNS·go

(c)

KIlA klasi nlkytthi kI·14 kJ-asi nJ·kI-!-thi

'."""""

4. In line with what was observed in Visser (1981) Kikambe was shown to allow 001 only subjeclS but also objects and bead NP pronouns to be dropped (where the idcnlificatioo condition is JDeI).

Finally, the problems we enOOW\tercd with the classification oft~ em~ category objed of clauses with renexive aiflxes !ilJ&geslS that the position of the renexl'le object needs further investigation in relation to \be Theta and Binding Theories ofOB.

1-tbat 1-taIl FOC-1-TNS.go The proposal is that sentences such as (40 c) and (41 c) have pro as their subjed and thai this pro can be identified by the features of the agreement morpllemes on !be modifiers.

4.5 CondusioD In this chapter we have discussed the pronominal system in Kikamba. We gave the various forms of pronouns in the Language. A distinction was made between full and bound pronouns on the one hand and between CODCon!iaI and ~ pronouns on the ocher. The subject and object full pronouns were observed to surface only in structures marked for emphasis or where the pronoun subjectlobject is focused OIl. Pronouns in object of preposition positionm I!. ~ .tem and 1be final \IOWcl,lhlII underlyio.g funn doeJ no! occur 00 1be surr.ce in KilwnbIIII.tl. We will Ibmofufe rqxaeot 1be pwNe morpbeme as:!l:. ~ final ~.

'10 JaIt&uageI widI_lIlO1J1bo1ogylhiadisriDctioll iI WI outcloaty ill oem of tIIe_ matia&0II1bc that of traIISitive a.bjecII wbile odIcf intr-m.e tut;..:ta ...cti.e 1be cue IIIIrDI& DOnIIIIly I&alciaIed ....ith .... olljoct of~ Y«bI. In IC.ik:aInbl ~!lIe di&IiDctioD is DOt ~ DWt.:ed aad tbMf(n it is DOl easy 10 DDIioe. Ourclwificatioo his I>oo:o! in/Iucnood by !be OB ~ of1be diffcrmce in Imns of lb:ta 1'lI«oy. In one I)'lle of !be imrfIrIsiliv1: verbl1be verb will ..lea • tbematic suiject and tberefon: cLaU$el willi In expletive IUb:iocI wilb JUCb • vert> in ;15 underived funn wiD be iU-rooned. hi !be 0Ibcr 1ype (intrar:lliive 1). !be verb ICIccts DO mc.n.cic ""'iccl aad ~fun, I!. tubja:I pooilioa can be

(2)

K!nl niUkilnwli. (nI Idvctl.) Ka-!nl nT-U-I·kUn-w-a (ni ki-vetit.

II-ehild FQC-ll-TNS-beat-PAS-FV (by 7-woman. The child was beaten by afthc woman.

___ boIdiaa tbee pooitions, i.e .me intrIIIIitiw: tubjeda ..-rve tile sam. cue IDIrDIa: as

"

'This pncticaUy nofen 10. ~....t;cd oven or(Overt. 'The III pbrtic CUI be kft out. We hive only included it for !be C(lQvcnieoce of tncing !be relltioosbip between !be ave aad !be pwNe tenleDCe.

~Ie

NikwlkOnwt kiln! NT-ku....-k\ln-w-, b-W

FOC- 17-TNS-beot-PAS-FV 12-child Lit. 1bm: was beaten I child. (b)

~ldvcd

Mal sis would face given the Kikamba data is in relation to the insis~ that the ~P .p.romoted Y ." t be a 2 (a dire suggests ~t I.fthe passz~e morpheme must re.;eive II theta role as the GB a hes hay claimed, then m this example It has received internal thCIII role, otherwise the ~ WOUl~

an

subject an

suggests

n::

-:n

3

p

kiveti

vika

kiveti

vika

1be demotion of I to 2 has been proposed for antipassive and I to 3 for inversion construction in RG but these are quite different from the phenomenon being observed here. Kikamba docs not differentiate between final 2s and 3$ and therefore the choice of(42 a) or (42 b) has no consequences in the language. If this analysis is accepted, rather if(39 a) is analysed as reflecting the basic structure, then the following is the analysis of examples (17139 a- PaUco:Il '" t.oc.IM.

(b)

NikwAvIngiU. mOomo Ni.kii-i-ving-ik-' mil-omo fOC.I7_TNSdiIIp be IcneOOs«I. P"fIIpa \bore ;" • pm$ibIe ~ of !be ~ dID or pemap. only !be distinctioa belweaI almllllDCl iDItrmoI..-,ummas opepIt$ uni-;a-saIIy.

.

(50)

(a)

KIveti nikylivin&' mtlomo KT-veti nl·kI-i-ving·' m(l~mo 7.woman FOC-7-TN5-close-FV 3-door 123

(b)

Nikwaving'Na mijomo

Lit.

Ni-k..a-vlng-w_a mii-omo FOC-17-TNS-close-PAS_FV 3-door 'There was closed a door

(e)

Muomoniwiivfngwli Mil-omo nl.ii-A.ving_w., 3-door FOC-J -1NS-close-PAS_FV

1be door was closed. :

:~(50"')=~ (49).and,(SO) is not only the use of differenl morphemes ~ and :.t: bllt

rc is an unp ed argument (agent) which is or tb • (9 subjects of(49) and (50) hav diff. . n e case m 4 ). In fact the Kikamba.. In Kikamba all o~ crent Slatus m terms of the que~tion formation COll'ltruction in

=

:::;=):~~OIlS:j'::t~tuln(~sthe

WQ~ occupi~ ~ J?OSition of tile

:;':=(~!.~)~gI~.~ ,closed' has this subject cbaraclcristic whilc the subjecl of ~ ac earure (see the examples below) IIIIS

(5 1)

(a)

KwavfngikAkyaii:? KU-a·ving-ik-a !d-IO 17-TNS-close-SlV -FY 7-what What closed?

(b)

Kwavmgikwhikyaii:? Kii-a-vfng_ik_w-4 ni H-IO 17-TNS-close-stv·PAS_FV by 7,what

(c)

questi: ' be

Nikyaii: kyivingika? Niki-aii: kI-i-vingi_k_a FOC 7-what 7-iNS-close-STV_FV What is it that closed

In (51a) the question word ~ ~what" OCI; • the ob ' .. derived subject. In (5Ib) the question oroUPI~ b ~ect posn~on, which suggests that this is a the ' . W IS 10 a y phrase typical of subjects and (Sic) show questIOn word 10 a cleft I:ODSll'uction which is possible with all arguments. S (52)

(a)

Kwiivlngwa kyail? Kil-a-ving-w_a Id-lli 17-TNS-close-PAS-FV 7-what What was closed?

(b)

• Kyilil?-a-ving-(w)-w-a Id-llil 17-lNS-close-(PAS)_PAS_FY 7-what

(c)

Nikylliikyivingw!? Nikylii 1d-a-vlng_w-4 foe what 7-TNS-closc-PAS_FV

~~!!::i~i~:= won:! is in object position and in (S2b), the typical way of questioning the 12
Ie of povmy

'I'«IIIJ>I !be uae witbouIlhe locative in Iht$c vert. can be captumi by tbi: same mtlCbanism IS that whlcb cloak wid! ,,~ objtcf 1I*doa in wtbIlUCb uu 'eat, 'sin&' e.u. that can be used bodI transitively and intnllli~vely, Thia would Jtrmg1haI the propooaI that !be locative DOminalI are ~Iemerus oftlle vert. and \bey only ~ 1M optional bctbc wab . . it aIIo ' - ' witb tile mNIIiI!i ' laD;' buldle ~ 'Ialk II)' it DrVa"~ by I/Ie olllllppiicltive ~ !adler. ~ ~.IIl ·witb' is ' - ' wi1II!be verb. N_IIII!civeti IIlk IQIwitb d I e - .

Ka-An! nJ-ka-i-end-' Id-vetl

12-child FOC-12-TNS-go-FV 7-woman The child went ror the benefIl of the woman. the verb kQm;! 'sleep' seems to be wdl fonned in a construclion similar to (I ~ b) .L'.' ease of what we have called experienccr applicative. The oommal above. However, till:> ts a . '...... I . L--fic;~"' Thus ih:m 'woman' in (20 b) is !he object on which the subjec~ sl"... . .1 IS DOt a ~'" , I -;-r this seems 10 be a derived lrlII\Sitive and this restrictive use IS not available for go.

I

In (20 e) be ow

(20)

WIIIOI oo::ur lfIer -WW.

only. The locative that

bQic

144

KIveti nikylliini KJInI lea MUtila twI ndQnyU nilndu wa w'ii Woman_beat-childoOf_Murila_while we were at-market-because-of-fcar. While _ were at the market the woman beat MutUa's child became offear.

"""~.

OR

ill

KInl kaendea ooQnyU Ka-lnl ka-t-end-e-a ndUnyii

l2-cbiki l2-lNS-go-AP-FV market. The: child went wbile at the market.

12-child 12-TNS-go IO-AP·FV shop fear. The child went 10 the shop because orfear.

tJmNave"!tqIOeDI or pIticIII

KJInI k8eodeea ndiinyil w'ia Ka-1Inl ka-t-eod-e-o-a ooQnyil w'ia

the ICIQO!I

Kivell kyakiini1a MutUa K4nI ndilnyil. WI! KI-veti ki-ii-kUn-l-1-i-a Miltila KIn! ndUny w'l! 7-woman 7_1NS_beat_AP_AP_AP_FV Mutua ehild man:etfear. 11 1be woman beat Mutila's child while at the nuuket because orfear. " The NP MlitiiI. in (27) can also be PVC'll. bcftefactive readin& ill whicb cue it 1nDS1atea 10 '1'be tbe cllild fur Milrila while in Ibe nwb:t because of ftar'.

wOlllaD bca1

145

nm.mnals

Each of .the applied MilIiiI. DIliqr6l'I"IlIIIket' and ~-'fear' can occur alon~ IICCOOlparucd by one applied affIX on !he vem. We will only exemplifY the benefactivcl

"""""". (28).

Klvetl nikyikilnia Mutila KJnI KJ-ved nJ·kJ-t-kiln-T-a Mutila Ka-In! 7-woman FOC-lNS-beal·AP_PV Mutiia 12- BenelMalefative > Recipient > Patient > Locative> MOlive. In a case wbere there is an applied and a non-applied Locative, the basic Locative precedes the applied Locative. In a basiC___ . . . . observat" · . ':"'_~U ...... ~. ...... ..." oven ev"""..,., of Ilus dlSlmcbOll is the . Ion In some ,.,hC8l1ve OOIl5lniCtions the applied argument assumes the . ~ect",!:~.~ ~! ~Placeob. the palienl .argument while in other appIicative eonsrn: ...

InS we

prune

~ecl

properties

The former .

rti

applicatives and the ianer by instrumental appl" • t" . Of IS exemp I cd by benefactive this distinction in terms of an asytnmcnlly ': I~~, In . Icbcwa. Baker PfOPOS7' to explain instrumental theta role as follows: assignment of the benefactive and the (a) Instrume~lIals are wigoed their theta role as sisters of the verb (b) Benefacllves are assigned their !beta roles in a PP compI.erneo;ofthe vab.

2. In a benefactive applicative constructioo only the applied argument has access to the object prefix slot on the verb bul either argument in an instrumental applicative construction may be marked on the verb by use of the object affix.

3. The benefactive applied argument must be adjacent to the verb in order 10 receive case; either the instrumental applied argument or the patient can be itdjacml 10 the verb in an instrumental appIicative CODStructioa. An important eonscquence thaI 5lcmS out of this distinction between the underlying structure ofthc instromental and the benefactive applicativc is that verbs without structunll case 10 assign (intransitive verbs) are predicted not to have benefactive applieativC!! (since the appl ied argument would not have case). On the 0Ihef hand the instrumental applicativc can occur both with verbs that assign structural case (rransitivc verbs) and those thai don', (intransitive verbs). Baker's definition of intransitivity for this purpose encompasses three types of verbs. I. Unspecified object deletiOll. verbs such as n 'eat' 2. Intransitive Verbs with a LocaIive argument, like mda os!ukani .go to the shop.

3. Intransitive verbs without a Locative argument like DttIl!! ' speak' (sec: examples

""""

ISO

l"Witb !be bme&etiw IppIieaIives !be verb IbN marks • PP at D-«nIcture (iodired !beta role assigDement) while !be imaumental . assipod ita Ibm role directly !hut \beta mukal by the vab.

151

All and

'd

6.3.2 Baker (1988a,b) aad the Klk.amb. Applkadve

abo:_Baker COIK:entralCS on the applicative CODSlI'UCtions that iDllOduce benefact' .ms~ Since it was 5bown that ~ does . '1,'

w;: sal

apphcatl~

argumentS.

we can only test Baker's claims 011 the beoefactiveJ mak:~ .hav~_~~,' construchOOS since be seemed to imply that Locati ., ~~ ILIJU LocaIl W benefactive applicatives.2' ve applicatives have similar structure ." Tbcre is very link to say aboullhc Kikamba Loca . .. . analysis because as shown abov& .L_ ' "_-' I __ _ • nve a.wli.cab~e m relation to Bakcr\ , ... we app I r«ipienl " ocatlOn > Moti ve. lA~1

experienccr > instrumental > .....ien.'.L--r-

" "lCIlIl'

Morpho-lexical operations on semantic structure . applicative) Iheta roles. can suppress (eg passIVe) or add (q.: The mapping from argument struetutc to syntactic functi . . (undcrsp<x:ification) by universal lexical principles according to 1h:r::.=i~l~ spee;rt~" arguments' roles. IntemaJ. IlrgUmmts selected by the verb (patieotlthcmc meamngs 0 ~ .... Itf8\1IlICIIts). may be underspceified eilher (-r] 01" (+OJ. Only rol~ from instrumentalandand =~~) undc~ilication.. If an internal role is spcc;ified [-r) it is the primary object a~: object. een 511 ect and object functions. if specified (+0) it is the restricted (sccondaJy l

a::te reci > ~tIth > Joe > mo~

'--

.......

HI

.

M ...

EJwybnej

i

(- ~ Himrdly > Pmoo-Animacy ~y.

.. ~ OOIISldcntiooIruch u ~ and coutrJostive fOCUl nw.y tho 0VC1ride !be semantic and the.nimacy IUenrchiet 1\ fi01elf.

161

(45), The fimctions of the Applied Affix.

APPLIED AFFIX

6.S Sunullary In this chapter we have discussed the applicative construction in Kikamba. A crosssection of the possible constructions was given, (section 6. 1), and two theoretical approaches to the analysis of the applicative construction were discussed. It was shown that the constructions analysed in Baker (1988a and b) exemplifY only a small seetiOli of the appJicative constructions in Kikamba and even then some of the predictions made in Baker( 1988a and 1988b) were shown oot to hold in Kikamba. Next the LFG approach as outlined in Bresnan and Moshi (1988,1990) was examined. Some of the assumptions of LFG were brought to question and a theory neutral approach to the Kikamba applicative construction was proposed. The proposals made here point 10 the need of differentiating between a derivational and a cross-referencing fimction of the applied affix. The fact that some of the cross-refereneed applied NP1I end up as objects while others do oot access object properties is explained by assuming that objectivisation is a consequence and not a function of the cross-referencing use of the applied affix.

1.U:O .V. 1 .U:O V.

1+ .U:O.V. PJ.'t/ TIl

...,

."'

The issue of lransitivity in Kikamba (perhaps in Banlu in general) comes up again in this chapter. It was observed that intransitive verbs with Locative arguments co-occurred with the applied arguments which end up as objects, a chamctcristic that is typically associated with the transitive verbs. This can be explained if we assume that:

Thou~ ~y one node ~ with applied NPs without object propenies, it is important to note that this IS the most unrestricted fonn of applied construction, It can occur with aU verbs. Once the cross-ref~ applied NPs have advanced to object it is difficult to teU the ~ ~tween the ~SillVl.smg and the cross-referencing function on the surface, except for ~ mtnulSlllv~ verbs WIth applied Locative and/or Motive NPs which do not, usually assume

diffi

object properties.

'

Once the ':J'Ptied arguments, which are possible objects, are cross-refcrenccd on the verb by usc ?fthe apphed ~ffix, they compete with the verb's basic arguments for the primary ob'ect propert~es. The nommal ranked highest in the semantic hierarchy gets the· ob~ ~les .. In case there .is do~Jbling, (eg two possessors etc) the highest in terms ~. ~ect ,;!-crarch ~I be ~ high~ .' It to be the case in Kikamba that this ranking is Cy~ , ~e ~ object IS ~lVlsed, rtClprocalised, theme suppressed or 8f1tipassivised the other ob.JCCIS ~ ~c ranking procedure and another primary object is selected. . . An mlerestmg question concems what becomes of the other 'objects' once the primary obJC(:t IS selected. We propose that they wiU surface as secondary objects.

sca.m

EmtER: The Locative is an argument of the verb and thus the relevant parameter here is the presence of an internal argwnetlt (in fact the non-applied Locative in Kikamba can takc some object properties such as being subject of the passive verb). Therefore these vcbs are two argwnent verbs as we claimed above. Since Locatives are NPs in Bantu rather than PPs (Bresnan and Moshi (1988», perilaps their presence SCDSitivizes the verb to thc processes that othCfWise affect transitive verbs even when these Locatives are not arguments of the verb·!. Whichever of these is the case is left for future research. The other important point made in this chapter is that the distinction between the derivational and the cross-rdcrencing function of the applied affIX is reflected in productivity. The fonner usage is restrkted both in terms of the transitivity of the verb, (occurs with intnmsitive verbs only), and the frequency of its occurrence within the class ofintransirive verbs (only three intransitive verbs have been identified so far that admit the applied affIX with this function). Cross-referencing makes the NPs transparent to the object ranking processes but eross-referenced Locatives and Motives do not enter the object ranking process wtless the Locative/Motive nominal is the only post verbal NP and it is high in the animacy hierarchy.

''This sensitivity will be only df~\"e when !he k>cative is .

-~

basic ood

001

a CfOI$$-rd"etmONI (appliro.drop parameter in 08. The pronominal status of the reciprocal and reflexive affixes was considered and it was argued that the reflexive affix has pronominal features whi le the reciprocal affix is a verbal extension (derivational morpheme). The reflexive affix, however, was shown to

necessitate recognition of an empty category not part of Chomsky's (1981) typology mainly because the reflexive aifuc: is not rich enough to identify a pro in object position, in the manner posrulated in GS. In ehapter 4 we also considered the question of whether there is pro-drop in Kikwnba or whether the agreement affIXes should be considered as the unmarlc:ed pronouns in the language

>6,

whi le the full independent pronouns are considered fonns marked for particular pragmatic usc. The main question was whether the affixes are agreement markers which assume pronominal status in the absence of the NPs controlling agreement, or they are proOOWlS which assume agreement morpbeme status when the NP they cross-reference is present in the clause. If they are analysed primarily as pronouns this will have consequence for the word order statement in

'"

the tallJUB8t'. We witt need 10 recognise two basic word orders in Kikamba and in Bantu iJi generat: SVO when the subject and object are independent words and SOY wben the object is 1I pronoun. Though. this is assWDOd in much of the literature OIl Bauru languages within LFG (Bresnan and Moshi (l990:JSO), it seems nubet compte ... and we have DO $)'DChronic Kikamba evidence 10 SUPPOM this cl.aim. We ~fore ~fCl" 10 treat these formatives as agreement marl:ers which are ricb eoou&b 10 allow the omission of the fuU proooun subjects and objects where the full pronouns are not needed rc.- particular PQgmatic purposes. In OIapIer S the passive eonslnlC1ioQ in Kikamba was discussed. II was cooeluded that the eonslructiollS fal ling WIder the lerm 'passive' in Kikamba cannot be adequately discussed in terms of the promotion of an object to subject. First, this is too inclusi~ (it includes the unaccusative OONUUClions), and second, the impersonaJ passives in the language are possible with virtually all vcros. In the same way, the notion of suppressiool demotion of an iniliall logical subjecl was shown to be too inclusive. (it includes the derived statives), and it was also seen to be complicated by the reference to subject The questioo of whether it is only logical subjects that can be demoted! supprcs$Cd was raised. It was argued that the passive construction in Kikamba is better discussed in tenm of the two properties of the passive verb. That the presence of the passive morpheme;

I . Creates the type ofverb that can have an expletive subject, like the unaccusative verbs in the language.

discussed in chapter S, (Relatiooal Grammar and the Government and Binding Theory). First, the assumption bas been that passive univenally involves promotion, (RG), and therefore, the search has been for an elIOplanation for the exception 10 Ibis general rule for the languages in which this promotion doesIl't seem to be obligatory. Rather than looking for explanations why promotion does not always take place in these languages. 8$ OB bas been doing, perhaps it is time for research to point the other way and find OUI what it is thaI makes prunotion obligat()[)' in languages like English. In other words the basic feature in passive clauses is wilb the verb, il is a verb tbat can take an expletive subjecr or have another NP promoIed 8$ subject. It then:fore, seems that the languages that allow both options rather freely need 10 be taken as the typical and those that have a tendency towards one of these chokes as the resrricted in as far as the passive conslnlctiOll is concerned. The other assumption in the theoretical literature has been that demotion/suppression

involves a subject, defined in RG as an initial I and in GB as the logical subject or the tlIOtemal role. The attemptS have therefore, been focused on searching for an explanation for the cases in some languages where a non-initial lor a oon-extemal role seems to be demoted/suppressed. Pemaps universally. the demotion/suppression is oot specialised to a particular grammatical relation or semantic role but rather targets the highest role available regardless of whetbcr it is a I or a 21, an external or an internal role. If this is taken to be the case, languages like English where the demoted/suppressed role needs to be an external role will be seen as the restricted

2. llnplies an inherent but lIIlCltpressed argument, wrucb is the highest argument tbat the COfTeSponding non-passive VCfb would express.

rather than the typical in as far as the passive construction is concerned. The above suggestions are made with caution. Since this was not a comparative study.

The olher features that cbaracterue the varieties of passive eJauses in Kikamba were shown to be

we are DOt in a position to present CODClusive fmdings 00 the universal applicability of our

a oonsc:quence of these two pupertics. The eonscquenc:es of prqIQ1y I is that a passive verb will have as subject either an expletive or an NP promoted from another position. Wbetber a

suggestions. It is however, an interesting subject for further study.

passive verb get! a thematic or an expletive subject, in Kibrnba, was shown 10 depend on the pragmatic faeton governing • particular construction.

Property 2 makes the subject of a passive verb, even when promotion bas taken place, not to access all the properties associated with subjects in the language. Thus, because of the inherent argument, the subject of passive verbs is not the most prestigious NP in the clause as was illustrated by use of the question construction in Kikamba.

0Iapter 6 describes the applicative construction in Kikamba.

The variety of

coostructions with an applied affIX were given. It was shown that the use of the applied affix c:orrelated with the absence of a preposition to express that meaning (ef the absence: of instrummtal appiicatives in Kikamba and !be presence of a preposition to express the imtrumeDtal meaning). The phenomenon of multiple applicatives was elUUllincd and it was seen that the intransitive verbs used with locative NPs pattcmed in a manner typical of transitive verbs, with regard to the nwnber of applied affu;es and applied argwnents possible.

This approach has in1piications for theoretical linguistics, specifically for the theories '66

'"

Two theoretical approaches 10 the analysis of applicative CODStruCtion were examined and it was shown that Baker's (1988a, 1988b) . Preposition lncorporarion' approacb is too narrow in coverage and that eYeD his claims, based on the beneficiary applicative in Chichewa, do not bold of the beneficiary applicative in Kikamba. Baka's prediction that the beneficiary appticative will only occur with transitive verbs was shown not to bold in Kikamba.. There, howevcl', does seem 10 be some transitivity issue involved in the distribution of the applied arguments that end up as objects. Perbaps if the definition of Ir3DSilivity in the language is extended to cover unspox:ilied object deletion verbs and inslaDOe:S of intransitive verbs with nonapplied locative arguments. then Baker's predictions will bold for Kikamba. However, whether (with this modification), the verbs in such clauses will be analysed as assigning strucruraI case is an issue: that research within Incorporation Theory may need to coosMier. Whichever way, the tmmitivity status of verbs with non-applied locative NPs forms an interesting area for further

"""""'.

The asswnpIion that the applied arguments will always have object status was shown not to bold oflhe Kikamba applied locative and motive arguments.

We coocluded that the applicative construction in Kikamba is better bandied if two

functions of the applied affix m m:ognisc:d; a transitivising function and across-referencing function. and that object creatioo be seen as a consequence rather than as a function of the applied affix in its cross-refcrencing use. Finally, for al l the aspects of KikambI comidered in this study, adequate examples have been given and care was taken to provide appropriate gJosses to make the examples available to

researchers wbo would wish 10 consider alternative approaches.

of applicative constructions within LFG was seen to be more comprehensive than that in Baker (I 988a, 1988b), but the avai lable LFG IilCnlture on the construction was found to be silent on the following issues: The

lrealment

I. lhough the distinction is made between languages that allow only one NP to access the primary object properties (Languages with the Asynunetrical Object Parameter (AOP»

and languages that allow more than ODe NP to have the primary object properties (languages without AOP), the issue of the nwnber of arguments that can have primary object propertjes (objects intrinsically classified [-R]) in the absence of AOP is DOl handled. One reason for this is, perhaps, because the accounts in the Iitel'8.ture have mainly deal! with double object constructions. Therefore, we feel that there needs 10 be a statement on the possibilities available in the languages that m said to lack the Asymmetrical Object Panuntter as 10 bow many objects in these languages can access the primary object properties.

2. Rtlated to I above is the

issue of possible number of restricted objects (objects

intrinsically classirled [-+0» both in languages with AOP and in those without AOP. That is, bow many objects can be intrinsically classified as restricted?

3. The phenomena of the possessor applicative is not discussed at all in LFG. Perhaps the construction doesn't exist in the languages considered within LFG 50 far but as established in this study, the possessor applicative is very productive in Kikamba. 4. The multiple applicative is only alluded to.

'"

'"

References ADAM, H. (1987). Kiswahifi Elementary Course with Key. H.B.V: Hamburg. AFARU, T.A (1989a)."The syntax of Nowetgian Passive Construction". Doctor Atrium Thesis: University ofTrondheim. AFARLI, T. A. (1989b). "Passive in Norwergian and in English". In Linguistic.! Inquiry 20. pp. 101-108.

AISSEN, J. (1989). "Agr=nent Controllers and Tzotzil Comrnitants". In Language: vo/.65. (pp518-536). ALLAN, K. (1982). "Anaphora, CataphoOl., and Topic Focusing: Functklns of the Object PrefL'( in Swahili". In I. R. Dihoff (ed) Current Approaches to A.jHcan Linguistics. Foris: Dordrecht, New York and Cinnaminson.

ALLAN, K. (1986). "Hierarchies and the Choice of Left Conjuncts; With Particular attention 10 English". InJcuma/ a/Linguistics 1987, (23) pp 51-57. ALSINA A. and S. A. MCHOMBO (1989). "Object Asymmetries in the Chichcwa Applicative Construction". 1I1!l.; Department of Linguistics Stanford University.

ANDERSON, S. and B. COMRIE (Ed) (1991). TellSe and Aspect In Eight Languages

0/

Cmneroon. Summer Institute of Linguistics: Dallas.

AOUN, J. (198S). Generalised Binding: The Synt