Reciprocals: Forms and Functions

RECIPROCALS TYPOLOGICAL STUDIES IN LANGUAGE (TSL) A companion series to the journal “STUDIES IN LANGUAGE” Honorary Ed...

Author: Zygmunt Frajzyngier | Traci S. Curl

169 downloads 1359 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

RECIPROCALS

TYPOLOGICAL STUDIES IN LANGUAGE (TSL) A companion series to the journal “STUDIES IN LANGUAGE” Honorary Editor: Joseph H. Greenberg General Editor: Michael Noonan Assistant Editors: Spike Gildea, Suzanne Kemmer

Editorial Board: Wallace Chafe (Santa Barbara) Bernard Comrie (Leipzig) R.M.W. Dixon (Canberra) Matthew Dryer (Buffalo) John Haiman (St Paul) Kenneth Hale (Cambridge, Mass.) Bernd Heine (Köln) Paul Hopper (Pittsburgh) Andrej Kibrik (Moscow)

Ronald Langacker (San Diego) Charles Li (Santa Barbara) Andrew Pawley (Canberra) Doris Payne (Oregon) Frans Plank (Konstanz) Jerrold Sadock (Chicago) Dan Slobin (Berkeley) Sandra Thompson (Santa Barbara)

Volumes in this series will be functionally and typologically oriented, covering specific topics in language by collecting together data from a wide variety of languages and language typologies. The orientation of the volumes will be substantive rather than formal, with the aim of investigating universals of human language via as broadly defined a data base as possible, leaning toward cross-linguistic, diachronic, developmental and live-discourse data.

Volume 41

Zygmunt Frajzyngier and Traci S. Curl (eds) Reciprocals Forms and functions

RECIPROCALS FORMS AND FUNCTIONS

Edited by

ZYGMUNT FRAJZYNGIER TRACI S. CURL University of Colorado

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Reciprocals : forms and functions / edited by Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Traci S. Curl. p. cm. -- (Typological studies in language, ISSN 0167-7373; v. 41) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. Grammar, Comparative and general--Reciprocals. 2. Grammar, Comparative and general-Reflexives. 3. Grammar, Comparative and general--Grammaticalization. I. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. II. Curl, Traci S. III. Series. P299.R38R43 1999 415--dc21 99-29871 ISBN 90 272 2940 6 (Eur.) / 1 55619 654 7 (US) (Hb; alk. paper) CIP © 2000 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. • P.O.Box 75577 • 1070 AN Amsterdam • The Netherlands John Benjamins North America • P.O.Box 27519 • Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 • USA

Contents

Introduction Polysemy involving reflexive and reciprocal markers in African languages Bernd Heine

vii 1

Reciprocals without reflexives Frantisek Lichtenberk

31

Types of anaphoric Expressions: Reflexives and reciprocals Martin Everaert

63

Reflexive and reciprocal constructions in Nyulnyulan languages William McGregor

85

Reciprocal marking with deictic verbs “come” and “go” in Mandarin Meichun Liu

123

Combinatory restrictions on Halkomelem reflexives and reciprocals Donna B. Gerdts

133

Reciprocals and set construal Elena Maslova

161

Coding of the reciprocal function: Two solutions Zygmunt Frajzyngier

179

Subject index

195

Author index

198

Language index

200

Introduction The scope of the domain of reciprocal function has not been controversial in linguistic literature. Lichtenberk (1994) makes a distinction between reciprocal situations and reciprocal markers and constructions. A reciprocal situation involves two or more participants playing the same role. The fundamental starting point for the study of reciprocals has not changed in the last half century (cf. Marouzeau 1951). Reciprocal markers code a situation as reciprocal. The fundamental prerequisite for a reciprocal situation is the plurality of participants. This prerequisite accounts for the simple fact that in so many languages reciprocal constructions have overt markers of plurality, whether encoded in nominal, pronominal, verbal, or adverbial expressions. But plurality of participants is a necessary but not a sufficient prerequisite for the coding of a reciprocal situation. One of the most interesting questions is, therefore, what else does it take to code a reciprocal situation? The scope of research under the heading of reciprocal function has been considerably extended in the last thirty years; it now involves collective, repetitive, and associative functions. This extension has not resulted from fluid definitions or laxity in analytical methods, but rather has been dictated by data. In many languages the markers that code reciprocals also code those other functions. Moreover, it is not always clear which function, if any, is primary. The analyses in Lichtenberk and McGregor in the present volume strongly suggest the existence of a morpheme with a very abstract function. The papers in the present volume make a double contribution to the problems of reciprocal constructions: They provide important descriptive data and they address theoretical issues. Thus they provide evidence that there is no schism between the descriptivist and the theoretical approach. The range of languages discussed, while not typologically representative, is nevertheless quite wide: English; Dutch; German; Greek (Everaert); Polish (Frajzyngier); Nyulnyulan (Australia [McGregor]), African languages from all families (Heine); Amharic (Ethio-Semitic), Bilin (Cushitic), and Chadic languages (Frajzyngier); Bantu (Maslova); Oceanic (Lichtenberk); Halkomelem (Salishan [Gerdts]); Mandarin (Liu); and Yukaghir (Maslova). The theoretical issues addressed in the papers are the semantic and cognitive properties of reciprocal events and the relationship of reciprocals to other grammatical categories. Several papers discuss at various length and, more impor-

viii

introduction

tant with different theoretical approaches the issue of grammaticalization of markers used in reciprocal constructions (Heine, Lichtenberk, Liu, Gerdts, Frajzyngier). Although every language can express a reciprocal situation, not every language has reciprocal markers. Instead, languages exploit already existing means to code other functions, and the reciprocal meaning obtains as a result of a computation involving the inherent meaning of the predicates, the number of participants, and a marker that has already been grammaticalized for some other function (cf. Frajzyngier’s paper). A test of whether a given marker is reciprocal or not is with singular subjects. If such deployment is possible, then the marker is not reciprocal, i.e., its inherent function is not to code the reciprocal. One can also deploy the marker in question with different verbs. If the resulting meaning is not reciprocal, then the marker is not reciprocal either. A reciprocal meaning with some verbs and with plural subjects is just a result of computation of all factors present in an utterance. Among languages discussed in the present volume at least three, English (Everaert), Halkomelem (Salishan, Gerdts) and Hausa (Heine), appear to have grammaticalized markers whose primary function is the coding of reciprocal. Reciprocal markers are interesting because they very seldom represent the first stage in the grammaticalization chain. That is, given a chain that starts with a lexical item, either a noun or a verb, the first grammaticalization product of this item is very seldom a reciprocal marker. Usually the reciprocal function is coded by forms that have already become grammatical markers for other functions. Therefore, within each language the reciprocal form (if any) is a late product of grammaticalization in comparison to other categories, more specifically to the categories that must be used to code the reciprocal. This phenomenon explains the peculiar grammatical status of reciprocals, which led Kemmer (1993) to label reciprocals as a ‘‘minor category.’’ The importance of reciprocal constructions for linguistics and cognitive studies is that being relatively late products of grammaticalization, they provide a relatively transparent area to study cognitive processes at work in grammaticalization, and also lexical, syntactic, morphological, and phonological effects of grammaticalization (cf. Liu’s paper). The picture that emerges from the studies in the present volume shows that apart from adverbs corresponding to ‘‘mutually’’ which may exist in many unrelated languages, there is a considerable variation in the means deployed for the coding of reciprocals. Some languages deploy reflexive, middle, or point-of-view markers (Slavic [Frajzyngier], German); other languages deploy collective markers, associative (Bantu languages [Schladt 1998]; Yukaghir, Maslova); other languages deploy markers coding plurality of relations (Lichtenberk), still others deploy verbs (Liu). The variation in the means deployed for the coding of reciprocals obtains even in closely related languages, e.g. German and English and Dutch (Everaert), various

introduction

ix

Chadic languages (Frajzyngier). There are nevertheless interesting commonalities. For many languages the grammaticalization chain postulated herein by Heine does obtain. And also, it appears that the means of coding the reciprocal share quite abstract semantic properties across languages, properties that have enabled those markers to serve in reciprocal constructions (papers by Frajzyngier, Liu, Heine, Maslova). These properties in most general ways involve the obligatory plurality of participants or predicates. One marker of the reciprocal, the English ‘‘each other’’ form has provoked the interest of generative scholars because it appeared to be subject to binding condition B. Martin Everaert demonstrates that lumping together reflexives and reciprocal as anaphors obeying principle B does not explain different syntactic properties that the two categories have. Everaert provides a review of the literature that shows that reflexives and reciprocals have different properties and then demonstrates on several of them these differences, viz. Tensed-S/Specified-Subject violations, possessive, and impersonal passives, where the reciprocal markers can occur but reflexives cannot. Consequently, Everaert calls for a replacement of binding conditions by several distinct mechanisms. One of these mechanisms would account for the special properties of ‘‘each other.’’ Bernd Heine examines a polysemy involving reflexives and reciprocal markers in sixty-two languages spoken in Africa. He studies the grammaticalization of these markers. This study allows him to establish a grammaticalization chain: nominal source → emphatic marker/reflexive → reciprocal → middle → passive, with the usual caveats that some stages can be missing and that various forms can cooccur in a language at the same time. By far the most frequent nominal source is ‘‘body,’’ followed by ‘‘head.’’ The grammaticalization chain as postulated correlates with morphosyntax in that the initial element is a full lexical item characterized by nominal morphology, and the rightmost element is a verbal affix. The chain also correlates with phonological reduction in that the rightmost element is the most reduced. Frank Lichtenberk’s study examines the range of functions of a plural relations marker in Oceanic languages. The properties of this marker include coding the reciprocal function; chaining situations; collective situations; the distributional situation, which includes multiple localities and directionalities; the converse situation (A acts on B and B undergoes the action of A); and repetitive functions. The same marker is also deployed to code plurality of relational nouns. This marker codes the middle and reflexive function in only a very few languages. Although such cases are rare and are severely constrained to certain types of verbs, nevertheless they are interesting because, as Lichtenberk shows, they are derived from relational plurality markers. McGregor’s paper on reflexive/reciprocal coding in the Nyulnyulan languages of Australia has three components. It is a descriptive study, for much of the data has

x

introduction

not been presented before. It is a comparative study of reflexive/reciprocal coding as well. The paper also presents a theoretical approach different from the one commonly found in studies of grammatical constructions. The interesting fact about the reflexive/reciprocal coding is that in all the Nyulnyulan languages except one there is no formal difference between the coding of the two functions. The reflexive/reciprocal marker can occur with plural and singular participants, which indicates that it is not inherently reciprocal. All verbs having the reflexive/reciprocal marker are morphologically intransitive and all constructions in which those verbs participate are also intransitive. The only transitive clauses with reflexive/reciprocal markers allowed are those in which the patient belongs to the actor’s physical domain. The reflexive/reciprocal marker never codes coreferentiality. The constructions with this marker are not derived from transitive clauses. Instead of postulating a list of functions for the reflexive/reciprocal marker McGregor proposes one abstract meaning, viz., an action directed toward or among the arguments from which it emanates. Meichun Liu describes an emerging reciprocal coding in Mandarin. The coding means consists of the verbs lai ‘come’ and qu ‘go’ used in that order. This coding means supplements the adverbial coding of the reciprocal in Mandarin. She postulates that the semantic motivation for the deployment of the verbs ‘come’ and ‘go’ to code the reciprocal function lies in the repetitive meaning of the sequence ‘come go’. The evidence for her hypothesis is provided by the fact that the sequence lai qu is restricted to activity and accomplishment verbs. Halkomelem is one of the few languages discussed in the present volume with a separate reciprocal marker. Gerdts postulates that the language has two reflexive markers, one coding control with an extended aspectual meaning of inchoative, the other coding limited control with an extended aspectual meaning of ‘‘manage to,’’ and a reciprocal marker, without the distinction between intended and unintended function, with an extended meaning of coding the collective. The reflexive and reciprocal markers are composite structures consisting of the object marker and a reflexive or a reciprocal marker. Thus morphologically, the reflexives and reciprocals have the features of transitive verbs. Syntactically, clauses having a reflexive or a reciprocal marker are intransitives in that the agent is marked absolutive rather than ergative. Recall that in Nyulnyulan languages of Australia verbs with reflexive/reciprocal markers are morphologically intransitive and clauses with such verbs are syntactically intransitive, because the agent is not marked by the ergative case. Morphologically and syntactically, limited-control reflexives and reciprocals pattern together with respect to applicative and lexical suffixes. In various languages the reciprocal markers are similar or identical with associative or collective markers, as noted in Bantu languages (cf. Schladt 1998 for a review of the coding systems in various languages and a hypothesis regarding the

introduction

xi

direction of grammaticalization). In addition to Bantu data as given in Schladt (1998) and in other sources, Maslova brings in similar data from Yukaghir. She provides a semantic explanation of why the coding of an apparently different domain by the same marker is possible. Her explanation is that the two domains are similar in that the associative represents participant set construal and the reciprocal represents relational set construal. The focus of Frajzyngier’s paper is the motivation for the choice of markers of the reciprocal function. He examines two types of languages: those in which the reciprocal is similar to or identical with the reflexive marker (Polish and Amharic) and those in which the reciprocal is coded by the lexeme ‘‘body.’’ He demonstrates that in the first type, although the reciprocal function is coded, there are really no reciprocal markers, because there is no construction or morpheme whose interpretation must be reciprocal. On the other hand, in Chadic languages, the marker identical with the lexeme ‘‘body’’ has been grammaticalized as a reciprocal, not as a reflexive marker. This fact presents an interesting challenge to Heine’s grammaticalization chain, which postulates ‘‘body’’ as the starting element in the chain and reciprocals developing from reflexives. Frajzyngier also provides an explanation of why ‘‘body’’ has become the grammatical marker of the reciprocal.

References Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins [Typological Studies in Language 23]. Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1994. ‘‘Reflexives and reciprocals.’’ R.E. Asher and J.M.Y. Simpson (eds), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. vii. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 3504–9. Marouzeau, Jules. 1951. Lexique de la terminologie linguistique francais, allemand, anglais, italien (3rd ed.) Paris: P. Geuthner. Schladt, Mathias. 1998. ‘‘Reciprocals in Bantu languages. A case of grammaticalization.’’ Afrikanistische Arbeitspapiere 53: 5–25.

Polysemy involving reflexive and reciprocal markers in African languages BERND HEINE University of Cologne

1.–Questions Looking at the structure of reflexive and reciprocal markers in African languages, a number of questions arise, like the following: Why do reflexive and/or reciprocal markers sometimes exhibit nominal morphology, sometimes verbal morphology, and why do they sometimes have features that link them with both nominal and verbal morphosyntax? More precisely: Why do these markers sometimes have the structure of nouns, sometimes of particles, and sometimes of verbal clitics or affixes? Why are such divergent meanings as emphasis and passive expressed by one and the same item in some languages, that is, what accounts for the extraordinary amount of polysemy to be observed in many African languages? Such questions have already been addressed by Kemmer (1993). In the present paper, some more data and generalizations are added by looking at one particular linguistic area. The approach chosen is typological-comparative, the data is taken from grammars of 62 African languages. Since more than one polysemous construction were found in some languages, our sample includes altogether 78 categories. There are a number of problems associated with our approach. First, grammatical descriptions do not always contain the kind of information one would like them to contain. Accordingly, our findings relate exclusively to what exists in grammars rather than what exists in the languages concerned. For example, if we find a pattern of polysemy in Language A but not in Language B then our analysis takes care of Language A only, even though the fact that no polysemy has been found in B could simply be due to insufficient information. In more than two thirds of the languages surveyed we found the markers used to encode reflexive and/or reciprocal meanings to be polysemous, but the impression gained was that the information contained

2

bernd heine

in grammatical descriptions reveals only a part of the actual amount of polysemy existing in these languages. Second, the way grammatical functions are described differs greatly from one author to another. For example, the term ‘middle’ hardly ever appears in grammars of African languages, and what has been described as a middle function by others is likely to be subsumed under the label ‘reflexive’ by many authors. Still, in some grammars mention is made of a middle category, and in at least one grammar (Childs 1995: 184–90), middle is treated as a more general term referring to functions like reflexive, reciprocal, and passive. In a number of cases, our terminology differs from that of the respective authors, as can be illustrated with the following example taken from a Ewondo grammar: The medio-passive differs from the reciprocal, which means do something to oneself. The reciprocal is used to mean such things as hit oneself or kill oneself; whereas the medio-passive is used to mean such things as lay oneself down, set oneself down, set oneself up, wake up (oneself ), or become weak.—(Redden 1979: 103)

Redden’s terminology does not correspond to that used commonly by other authors dealing with the description of African languages. On the basis of the conventions described below we decided to replace Redden’s terms ‘medio-passive’ by middle and ‘reciprocal’ by reflexive. Third, in order to secure cross-linguistic comparability, one major concern was with the classification of grammatical forms. In a few cases our classification had to diverge from that of the relevant authors. For example, Santandrea (1970: 150) says that reflexive constructions in Kara contain a preposition rri (rre). However, this item is inflected like a noun and in the wordlist provided by the author, the item appears as a noun meaning ‘body’. We therefore diverge from the author in treating rri (rre) as a noun rather than a preposition. Fourth, some grammars mention a large variety of grammatical forms used to encode reflexive or reciprocal functions. In this paper, only those forms were taken into account which (a) involve a consistent morphological expression, and which (b) are polysemous. Fifth, whether we are in fact dealing with instances of polysemy, rather than of monosemy or homonymy, is hard to decide in most cases. The criteria listed in (1) are usually considered to be essential for defining polysemy. (1) a. There are two or more distinct but related meanings. b. These senses are associated with one linguistic form only. c. The linguistic form belongs to one and the same syntactic category. But using these criteria in a somewhat rigid way raises a number of problems. First, on the basis of the data available it would seem impossible to decide unambiguously

polysemy in african languages

3

whether the semantic variations we are confronted with are in fact suggestive of polysemy or, say, of contextually engendered ‘‘monosemy’’; hardly any of the grammars consulted contains satisfactory information on which exactly is involved. Second, what constitutes ‘‘polysemy’’ is largely a matter of the perspective adopted, and we do not wish to impose any particular perspective for the purposes of the present paper. Third, in a number of more recent works (e.g. Traugott 1986; Lakoff 1987; Emanatian 1992), the relevance of (1c) for defining polysemy has been questioned, for good reasons, as we believe (see Heine 1997 for details). While it would be possible to argue that, e.g., on a crosslinguistic basis, reflexive and reciprocal represent ‘‘different meanings’’, we do not know what exactly this means with reference to the languages looked at here, or to any particular language. The term ‘‘polysemy’’ will therefore be used in a loose sense. Among the various meanings that tend to be associated with reflexive and/or reciprocal polysemies, the following are most common, and they are the ones looked at in more detail in this paper (no attempt is made to define these meanings exclusively in terms of semantic properties): (a) Nominal meanings (abbreviated nomi, e.g. ‘body’, ‘head’, ‘comrade’). (b) Emphatic reflexive (emph). With this term we refer to both emphatic reflexive meanings in a narrow sense (as English himself in he hit himself ) and emphatic ‘self’ (as himself in he did it himself ). In a number of languages, forms for emph have some case marker on them when emphasizing the clausal subject, not infrequently a comitative adposition, as in the following examples. (2) a.

Shilluk (Westermann n.d.: 19) Yáá kí re/ -a/ . I with body-my ‘I myself.’ b. Margi (Hoffmann 1963: 105) Nì də´ kər-äà. ´ I with head-my ‘I myself.’

(c) Reflexive (refl; e.g. He saw himself in the mirror). Following Kemmer (1993: 24) we will say that reflexive markers indicate that the agent and the patient (or analogous semantic role) in an event ordinarily involving two such roles are the same entity. (d) Reciprocal (reci; e.g. They saw each other). Reciprocals are markers referring to situations where there are two participants, A and B, and where the relation in which A stands to B is the same as that in which B stands to A (e.g. A and B hit each other; Lichtenberk 1985: 21).

4

bernd heine

(e) Middle (midd; e.g. He adorned himself). Middle markers are used for event types involving intrinsic coreference, such event types being grooming (e.g. washing, getting dressed, shaving, bathing), change of body posture (lying down, sitting down, standing up), translational motion (going, coming, walking, flying, leaping), emotional middle (being angry, frightened, sad, happy), cognitive middle (thinking, remembering, forgetting, supposing), etc. (Kemmer 1993: 16ff.). Whereas the reflexive invokes two separate semantic roles inhering in the event concerned, it can be argued that there is only one semantic role in the case of the middle (Kemmer n.d.: 11). No claim is made that a language where middle uses were found, necessarily has what Kemmer (1993: 15) calls a ‘‘middle system’’. (f) Passive (PASS; e.g. lights are lit). With this term we refer to a range of passivelike functions, labelled ‘‘medio-passive’’, ‘‘neutro-passive’’, ‘‘facilitative’’, ‘‘intransitivizer’’, and the like, an example being French se in Le livre se vend bien ‘The book sells well’ (Kemmer 1993: 147ff.). No attempt is made here to delimit the various meanings, e.g. to trace a boundary between refl and midd uses, or between midd and pass ones in a given language; that there is, nevertheless, crosslinguistic evidence to distinguish these meanings has been provided by Kemmer (1993). Furthermore, a number of notions that are related to the ones listed above, such as impersonal, logophoric situation types, etc., are not considered here; the reader is referred to the relevant literature for more details (e.g. Faltz 1985; Kemmer 1993). Due to the limited availability of data to be found in grammars of African languages, only contexts are examined for which some crosslinguistically comparable data are available. This means, for example, that we will be largely confined to contexts where refl markers involve third person reference and where coreference between subject and object are discussed (rather than, say, between direct and indirect object). The six meanings just listed are not the only ones associated with markers whose use includes that of expressing refl and/or reci meanings, but they are the ones most likely to be found. Whenever two or more of these meanings are expressed by one and the same form in a given language, we will say that this is an instance of polysemy. In Ibibio, for example, the item ídém serves to express the nominal meaning ‘body’ (3a) in most contexts, that of emph, as in (3b), and of a refl marker, as in (3c); hence we will say that Ibibio ídém is a polysemous item. (3) Ibibio (Kwa, Niger-Congo; Essien 1982: 96ff.) a. [. . .] ídém ámɔ` [. . .] body his ‘[. . .] his body [. . .]’ nomi


5

b. Ìmé ké ídém ámɔ. ` Ime emph body his ‘Ime himself.’ emph c. ÁnyààÎà ídém (ámɔ). ` he.is.helping body his ‘He is helping himself.’ refl Altogether 62 languages from all major regions and belonging to all language families and major genetic sub-groupings were surveyed. A deliberate attempt was made to have a representative sample of the geographical, genetic, and typological diversity of African languages, but selection was also influenced by our goal to study only polysemous expressions. The survey data are summarized in Appendix 1.

2.–Some findings The data obtained were analysed with reference to a number of parameters. One of these parameters was morphological status. There are essentially only three kinds of markers used for refl/reci polysemies in African languages, which are nouns, particles, and affixes. ‘Nouns’ are items that have nominal morphosyntax, even though not necessarily a nominal meaning. Thus, some of the items figuring as ‘nouns’ in Table 1 are described as nouns in the relevant literature although no meaning is provided for them (see Section 4). Particles are in the majority of cases post-verbal clitics; they are frequently but not necessarily invariable. The affixes are almost without exception verbal suffixes. The morphological status associated with the various grammatical meanings is summarized in Table 1. As noted already above, refl/reci polysemies tend to involve a small set of grammatical meanings; these are almost invariably the ones distinguished in

Table 1.–Correlations between form and meaning in reflexive/reciprocal polysemies: Morphological classes (Number of occurrences according to Appendix 1; percentages in parentheses; sample: 62 African languages) Form Noun Particle Affix Total

Function emph

refl

reci

midd

pass

29 (91) 3 (9) 0 32 (100)

37 (55) 18 (27) 12 (18) 67 (100)

15 (38) 9 (36) 2 (14) 92 (52) 12 (31) 1 (4) 3 (21) 37 (21) 12 (31) 15 (60) 9 (65) 48 (27) 39 (100) 25 (100) 14 (100) 177 (100)

Total

bernd heine

6

Table 1. Looking at the relative distribution of the various categories, a few generalizations emerge: (a) nomi, emph, refl, reci, midd, and pass are meanings that can be described with reference to a scale of decreasing nominality, in that order. Thus, emph overwhelmingly has a nominal form (91 %), refl less so (55 %), and pass is associated with a minimal amount of nominal morphosyntax (14 %). (b) Conversely, these meanings also constitute a scale of increasing affixation. While no emph has been found to be associated with affixal status, 18 % of all refl’s, 31 % of the reci’s, 60 % of the midd’s, and 65 % of the pass’s were found to be expressed by affixes. What this means, for example, is that refl, midd, and reci differ remarkably in their morphosyntactic form: Whereas markers whose meanings include refl are more likely to be nominal in structure (55 %), those including midd are predominantly affixal (60 %), and those including reci have the appearance of morphosyntactic ‘hybrids’, in that they can in much the same way be expected to have the form of nouns, particles, and of verbal affixes. In a similar fashion, refl/reci polysemies exhibit a fairly clear-cut scalar structure if one looks at the ‘phonological heaviness’ (Kemmer 1993: 25, 120) or relative amount of phonetic substance employed to express these meanings. In the present study, phonological heaviness is calculated in terms of the number of syllables employed; note, however, that the term ‘syllable’ is used in a loose sense; the data available do not allow for a reliable identification of syllables. The syllabic form associated with the various grammatical markers is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.–Correlations between form and function in reflexive/reciprocal polysemies: Number of syllables. (Number of occurrences according to Appendix 1; percentages in parentheses; sample: 62 African languages) Form Monosyllabic Disyllabic Trisyllabic Total Average rate of syllables per marker

Function emph

refl

reci

midd

pass

11 (32) 18 (53) 5 (15) 34 (100) 1.89

38 (55) 29 (42) 2 (3) 69 (100) 1.49

25 (64) 17 (71) 10 (67) 101 (56) 13 (33) 6 (25) 5 (33) 71 (39) 1 (3) 1 (4) 0 9 (5) 39 (100) 24 (100) 15 (100) 181 (100) 1.44 1.35 1.35 1.60

Total


7

Table 2 is suggestive of a scale of the following kind: (c) emph, refl, reci, midd, and pass figuring in polysemic categories can also be described with reference to a scale of decreasing size of phonetic substance, in that order. Thus, emph has the lowest percentage of monosyllabic markers (32 per cent) and the highest number of disyllabic (53 per cent) and trisyllabic markers (15 per cent). emph is predominantly disyllabic while all others are more likely to be monosyllabic. Note, however, that the latter do not differ greatly from one another, and even the fact that no trisyllabic PASS’s were found does not appear to be significant considering the generally low figure of trisyllabic markers. Nevertheless, the highest rate of monosyllabic markers is found with categories having midd (70 per cent) and pass (64 per cent) as members. These observations corroborate those made by Kemmer (1993: 25, 120), who found out e.g. that in her sample of 14 languages of world-wide distribution, (natural) reciprocal and middle markers are never phonologically heavier than reflexive markers (and prototypical reciprocal markers like English each other). What the data presented above suggests is that grammatical meanings associated with refl/reci polysemies can be arranged along a scale of the following kind: (4) nomi > emph > refl > reci > midd > pass This scale is based on the parameters proposed above, viz. degree of nominality and phonological heaviness. The scale is directional, that is, it can be described with reference to the relative amount of linguistic material employed. Accordingly, we will expect the following to obtain with a high degree of probability: (a) The morphology employed for encoding a given meaning figuring in (4) is less nominal than that of any of the meanings located to its left. (b) The phonetic substance employed for encoding a given meaning is smaller than that of any of the meanings to its left.

3.–Evolutions But the scale in (4) can not only be described as a synchronic structure, it also reflects a diachronic sequence leading from nomi to pass. This claim is based on observations like the following: (a) There is historical evidence to suggest that many markers for emph, refl, reci, etc. are historically derived from nouns. In some African languages where ‘body’ or ‘head’ figure in refl/reci polysemies, the markers concerned can

8

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

bernd heine be reconstructed by means of the comparative method to earlier language states, that is, to hypothetically set-up proto-languages. To our knowledge, none of the reconstructed meanings includes e.g. refl, reci, midd, or pass; the only meaning that can safely be reconstructed is the nominal one. What this suggests is that the polysemy structures found in the modern languages are likely to be the result of an extension of the nominal meaning to other meanings. Cross-linguistic findings on the evolution of grammatical forms (Heine, Claudi and Hünnemeyer 1991; Hopper and Traugott 1993) show that if a linguistic item has lexical/nominal uses in some contexts and grammatical uses in other contexts then almost invariably the former are diachronically prior. Furthermore, nouns commonly develop into particles and particles into affixes, while particles or affixes are unlikely to turn into nouns. Language internal observations. The more strongly grammaticalized a linguistic form is, the less internal morphological complexity and phonetic substance it is likely to have. Thus, if a given item has both a long and morphologically complex form and an etymologically related form which is shorter and morphologically less complex, then, ceteris paribus, the former is less grammaticalized than the latter (see (d) below). Erosion. One of the by-products of the evolution from noun to grammatical marker is that forms undergoing grammaticalization tend to lose in phonetic substance, that is, to become shorter than their lexical source forms (see e.g. Heine 1993). Grammarians’ insights. Not uncommonly one finds in grammars of African languages statements to the effect that refl markers admit a reci interpretation when used with plural subject referents. We have not found any evidence for a reversed directionality, that is, where a reci marker is described as acquiring a refl meaning when associated with singular subject referents. Whatever the exact basis of this observation may be, it is suggestive of a unidirectional grammaticalization from refl to reci meaning.

Taken together, these observations allow us to propose some plausible hypotheses on the evolution of grammatical forms, and we are therefore led to conclude that there is a unidirectional evolution leading from nouns via emph, refl, reci, and midd to pass markers. Observations of this kind have in fact been made already by Kemmer (1993: 196ff.). As her discussion shows, however, things are slightly more complex, and this is borne out by our own data (see below). Thus, in those cases where polysemy involves a nominal/lexical plus one or more grammatical meanings, it is the former which represents the first stage in the evolution of refl/reci polysemies. But even in cases where no nominal meaning is involved, it is frequently possible to show that at the beginning of the evolution that


9

gave rise to polysemy there was a noun: not seldom, refl and reci markers retain some of the properties of their lexical source, like the ability to take possessive modifiers, nominal inflections, etc. Kraft and Kirk-Greene (1973: 231), for example, say that Hausa has a noun juunaa meaning ‘each other’. This item does in fact behave like a noun, taking the genitival (GEN) masculine link -n and nominal possessive suffixes, as in (5a), or a numeral in what appears to be an idiomatic use (5b). But juunaa is a reci marker, it has no nominal meaning. Still, its morphology bears witness of its lexical origin. (5) Hausa (Chadic, Afro-Asiatic; Abraham and Mai Kano 1949: 434) a. Sun ga juunaa-n-sù. they see rec-gen-their ‘They saw each other.’ b. Tanàà dà juunaa biyu. she.is with rec two ‘She’s pregnant.’ (Lit.: ‘she has two juunaa’s’) As observed earlier, there are only a small number of nominal meanings (nomi) figuring in refl/reci polysemies. In Table 3, all meanings found and their respective frequency of occurrence are listed. As Table 3 suggests, by far the most common nominal meaning is ‘body’, which accounts for more than half of all nominal meanings found in our sample, followed by ‘head’ which, however, is much less frequent and apears to be suggestive of an areal distribution: With one exception (K’emant), all occurrences of ‘head’ are confined to west and west-central Africa. Similarly, the nominal meanings ‘life’ and Table 3.–Nominal sources for reflexive/ reciprocal polysemies in African languages (Sample: 62 languages; see Appendix 1) Nominal meaning

Number of occurrences

‘Body’ ‘Head’ ‘Owner’ ‘Comrade’ ‘Life’ ‘Relative’ ‘Soul’ ‘Person’ Total

20 7 3 2 2 1 1 1 37

10

bernd heine

‘soul’ appear to be areally confined to north-central Africa. Thus, only the meaning ‘body’ does not exhibit any areal constraints and one can formulate the following prediction: If the refl or reci polysemy in a given African language involves a nominal meaning then most likely that meaning is ‘body’. While ‘head’ is areally constrained in its distribution, its occurrence in polysemy structures is not constrained in any discernible way: Like ‘body’, it can occur with any of the grammatical meanings commonly assocciated with refl/reci polysemies. In the case of other nominal meanings, there are a few constraints of occurrence which allow for a couple of further generalizations based on the data of Appendix 1 (see also Kemmer 1993: 100–101), which are: (d) If polysemy involves the meaning ‘owner’ then the only other meaning is emph. (e) If polysemy involves the meaning ‘comrade’ or ‘relative’ then the only other meaning is reci. What these observations would seem to suggest is that any of the meanings figuring in (4) can arise when ‘body’ or ‘head’ are involved as nominal meanings. Thus, nouns having these meanings may give rise to a sequence of stages of evolution as sketched in (6a). The meanings ‘owner’, ‘comrade’, or ‘relative’ seem to be associated with highly specific evolutions each, as proposed in (6b) and (6c). (6) a. ‘body’, ‘head’ > emph > refl > reci > midd > pass b. ‘owner’ > emph c. ‘comrade’, ‘relative’ > reci Rather than sequences, the three kinds of evolutions proposed in (6) can more appropriately be described as grammaticalization chains (Heine 1992; 1993).

4.–A cross-linguistic chain In the present section, some general properties of chains are briefly discussed by looking in turn at the three main components that make up chains, viz. meaning (Section 4.1), morphosyntax (Section 4.2), and phonology (Section 4.3). Discussion is confined to (6a), which represents the most complex of the three chains. Before going into more detail, a few caveats seem in order. First, we do not wish to argue that all data presented in Appendix 1 necessarily have a chain structure like (6a). In addition to those cases where (6b) and (6c), rather than (6a), apply, there may be other cases where alternative chains should be set up. Second, not all stages discussed below are necessarily distinguished in a given language. Our data suggest, for example, that certain stages can be ‘skipped’, e.g. that the evolution leaves out


11

stages such as reci, or that a chain does not proceed beyond emph, or reci, etc. Furthermore, it is quite possible that in some cases, meanings other than ‘body’ or ‘head’ figure at the initial stage. The case of reci markers provides perhaps the most obvious example of polysemies that are not associated with refl meanings. First, reci markers can be derived from nouns that do not give rise to refl meanings, as we saw in (6c). Second, it would seem that reci markers can have lexical sources other than nominal ones; Mandarin, for example, appears to develop a reci marker based on a combination of the verbs ‘come’ and ‘go’; cf. Liu (1999). Third, reci markers can also have non-lexical sources. For example, the reci marker *-an-/-na is widely found in Bantu languages, but it is unlikely to have a nominal or a verbal source; as Schladt (1996) has convincingly shown, it can be traced back to the comitative preposition *na ‘with’. Note furthermore that in a number of Australian languages, the refl/reci marker appears to be traceable to a comitative marker (William McGregor, p.c.). That reci markers can be entirely unrelated to the kind of polysemies discussed here is suggested perhaps most strongly by the data provided by Lichtenberk (1999). It is not possible to deal with all these lines of grammaticalization in the present paper; more research is required on this subject. 4.1.–Meaning The semantic evolution of refl/reci in many African languages appears to involve the following stages: 0: I: II: III: IV:

The item is still a noun meaning ‘body’, ‘head’, etc. The item acquires an emph meaning (‘self’) in specific contexts. The item acquires a refl function. The item assumes a reci function when the subject has plural reference. The item spreads to domains like grooming, translational motion, etc. and assumes midd functions. V: The item is increasingly assocciated with an intransitive morphosyntax and assumes pass functions.

As can be expected in all instances of the evolution of grammaticalization chains, there will be a phase of overlap between the earlier and the later stage, which means that during this phase there exists ambiguity between the two meanings concerned. The following may serve as an example of overlap between Stages 0 and I:

12

bernd heine

(7) Ibibio (Kwa, Niger-Congo; Essien 1982: 96ff.) Ìmé ámà étígha idem (amɔ). ` Ime ? shot body his (i) ‘Ime shot his body (as opposed to his head)’, nomi (ii) ‘Ime shot himself.’ refl Another kind of overlap is found in Krongo: the item òonó ‘body’/‘self’ is only used when no particular part of the body is involved, as in (8a). Whenever a specific body part is implied, òonó is replaced by the term for that body part, as exemplified in (8b). Thus, òonó appears to be ambiguous between its nomi and its midd meanings. (8) Krongo (Kordofanian, Niger-Congo; Reh 1985: 173) a. N-ákυrà-Î ` àʔàÎ òonó. I-scratch-tr I body ‘I am scratching myself.’ b. N-ántàná-Î àʔàÎ oþ ötù. I-arrange-tr I head ‘I am combing myself.’ A quite common area of overlap concerns the transition from Stage II to III. Initially, let us say, at Stage IIIa, the grammatical form is a refl marker but it may optionally be interpreted as reci when referring to plural participants. Thus, the refl morpheme is ambiguous when used with plural subjects, that is, in addition to its refl meaning it may also assume a reci function, as is the case e.g. with the Luo verbal suffix -rV (or non-personal -ruok): In the Singular the action of the Verb is Reflexive, but in the Plural it may be interpreted as Reflexive or Reciprocal.—(Tucker 1994: 158)

To distinguish refl from reci uses, some phrase, like ‘one another’, ‘with his neighbors’, etc., is added whenever a reci use is intended. In a similar fashion, Santandrea (1963: 38) observes that in Bongo the refl form can also stand for the reciprocal ‘‘[w]hen no misunderstanding is feared’’. At a more advanced stage (IIIb), a situation of complementary distribution arises, whereby the relevant grammatical form has a refl meaning when referring to singular participants but invariably a reci meaning when referring to plural participants. Overlaps may involve more than two stages. Essien (1982: 97–98), for example, observes that in a number of Nigerian Kwa languages, such as Ibibio, Oron and Usak Edet, there is an element serving both as ‘‘a noun stem in a reflexive function and a purely lexical item meaning ‘body’’’, as well as an ‘‘emphatic pronoun’’, and in certain contexts these meanings are interchangeable. A remarkable amount of


13

functional overlap has also been reported by Awoyale (1986) for Yoruba, where one and the same form covers three different stages, plus another meaning that the author refers to as the ‘‘honorific reflexive’’ (where third person plural pronouns are used for third person singular referents): (9) Yoruba (Kwa, Niger-Congo; Awoyale 1986: 11) Won rí ara won. they saw body their a. ‘They saw their bodies’ nomi b. ‘They saw themselves’ refl c. ‘They saw each other’ reci d. ‘s/he saw his/her body’ Honorific nomi e. ‘s/he saw himself/herself’ Honorific refl 4.2.–Morphosyntax In the evolution from noun to grammatical marker, the following main stages of morphosyntactic behavior can be distinguished: 0: The item behaves like a full-fledged noun. I: The item loses in nominal properties, it behaves like a decategorialized noun and may have more in common with particles than with nouns; it may even become a clitic on the verb. II: The item turns into a verbal affix. At Stage 0, the item concerned is fully compatible with that of a canonical noun phrase syntax. Thus, the Anywa noun dèl, pl. dèetì ‘body’, used as a refl marker, can be inflected like a noun. In the following example, the Anywa noun therefore refers to a plural subject referent and hence is used in its plural form. Furthermore, it requires a pronominal possessive modifier (see also Reh 1996: 166ff.). (10) Anywa (W. Nilotic, Nilo-Saharan; Mechtild Reh, p.c.) Jεy ` dèet-g 'a¯-jàal-g. people bodies-their pfv-blame-they ‘The people blamed themselves . . .’ At Stage I, the construction undergoes decategorialization (Hopper 1991; Heine 1993): it loses in nominal properties, like the ability to take gender or number inflections. In the following example from Hausa, the (a)-sentence has the noun kaì, pl. kaawunà ‘head’ in its plural form while in the synonymous (b)-sentence, the noun is no longer used in its plural form. While the former sentence is suggestive of Stage 0, the latter is an instance of Stage I.

14

bernd heine

(11) Hausa (Chadic, Afro-Asiatic; Kraft and Kirk-Greene 1973: 231) a. Sun kashè kaawunàn.sù. they kill heads.their ‘They have committed suicide.’ (Lit.: ‘they killed their heads’) b. Sun kashè kân.sù. they kill head.their ‘They have committed suicide.’ ‘Loss of nominal properties’ also means that the item loses the ability to accept nominal modifiers like adjectives, demonstratives, and markers of definiteness/indefiniteness. The only modifiers that tend to survive are possessive pronominal determiners, although even their use can be discontinued, or at least become optional (see below). The latter situation is found in Ibibio: possessive determiners are used obligatorily when the item ídém has nominal (‘body’; nomi) or emph (‘self’) meaning, but they are optional when ídém denotes refl meaning, as in (12) (note, however, that possessive determiners can also be deleted in other contexts where reference relations can be inferred). (12) Ibibio (Kwa, Niger-Congo; Essien 1982: 96ff.) ÁnyààÎà ídém (ámɔ). ` he.is.helping body his ‘He is helping himself.’ Furthermore, when serving a grammatical function, the noun may become subject to constraints in word order permutation that are not characteristic of ‘canonical’ nouns. Nouns having refl or reci meaning may lose, for example, the ability to move to the clause-initial position. Thus, Awoyale (1986: 4) points out that a reversal of subject and object is possible in this language, though not in a reflexive construction like (13a). (13) Yoruba (Kwa, Niger-Congo; Awoyale 1986: 4) a. Nwosu rí ara rε. ` Nwosu saw body his ‘Nwosu saw himself.’ b. *Ara rε` rí Nwosu. body his saw Nwosu In the same way as with meaning, overlaps between different stages are also common in morphosyntax. An overlap between Stages II and III is mentioned by Reh (1985: 233): In Krongo, the refl/midd pronoun òonó is used optionally as either a free word or as a verbal suffix, as illustrated in (14a) and (14b), respectively.


15

(14) Krongo (Kordofanian; Reh 1985: 233) a. N-úwó àʔàÎ òonó kí-cóorì. 1-impf:dive I midd loc-house b. N-úwó-onó àʔàÎ kí-cóorì. 1-impf:dive-midd I loc-house ‘I am going to go into the house.’

or

Overlap may also refer to an entirely different situation that commonly obtains e.g. when a noun acquires refl meaning: since there is already a refl marker, the noun will be in competition with that marker, that is, at least for some time there will be an older form of refl marking co-existing with a younger one. Such a situation appears to exist in the West Nilotic language Lango, where for certain verbs instead of the older form (= the verbal reflexive suffix -εrε), the noun kom ‘body’ (or ic ‘belly’) can be used: (15) Lango (West Nilotic, Nilo-Saharan; Carollo 1991: 53) Wan otwεny-εrε or otwεnyo kom-wa. we stretch-refl stretch body-our ‘We stretched ourselves.’ 4.3.–Phonology In the same way as its meaning and morphosyntax, the phonetic substance of the relevant items is also affected; the following stages can be distinguished in a number of languages: 0: The item is used in its full form; I: The item is phonetically reduced, that is, it becomes shorter and/or phonologically simplified. The relevant process is usually referred to as erosion (Heine 1993). The Kisi verbal suffix -nˇuÎ, for example, whose meanings include refl, reci, midd, and pass, has its full form after monosyllabic stems with filled codas; otherwise, the suffix is reduced to -ˇÎ, -nd-, etc. (Childs 1995: 184–7). While erosion refers in most cases to the loss of phonetic substance, it can also affect entire morphemes. One area where morphological erosion is particular common concerns the use of possessive determiners on the refl or reci marker. In a number of African languages, the genesis of these markers can be said to have involved a proposition of the kind ‘He hit his body’, which assumes the grammaticalized meaning ‘He hit himself’. Not infrequently, the possessive determiner (‘his’ in our example) is eroded at some stage in the process of grammaticalization, so that the resulting construction is ‘He hit body’; cf. (8)). At what stage exactly morphological erosion takes place, or

16

bernd heine

whether it takes place in the first place, differs from one language to another. Hoffmann (1963: 151) says that the Margi marker údz½ú (‘body’, reci, pass) behaves exactly like any other noun object. At the same time he remarks that this marker no longer takes any possessive suffixes when used as a ‘‘true formative’’. In a similar fashion, in Koromfe, a Gur language of Burkina Faso, the noun dono, pl. domba ‘comrade’ has been grammaticalized to a reci marker. But in the latter case, this item is used without possessive modifier, as can be seen in the following example: (16) Koromfe (Gur, Niger-Congo; Rennison 1996: 110) a. Ba zàÎ ba domba gaba. 3:pl:hum take 3:pl:hum comrade.pl knife.pl ‘They take the knifes of their comrades.’ b. Ba zàÎ domba gaba. 3:pl:hum take comrade.pl knife.pl ‘They take one another’s knifes.’

nomi

reci

The Margi marker kər ´ (‘head’) covers essentially all the meanings looked at here (see Appendix 1; see also example (2b) above), and it appears to have retained its possessive suffixes except for its most strongly grammaticalized use: when serving as a pass marker, kər ´ does not have possessive suffixes on it (Hoffmann 1963: 154). 4.4.–Correlations There are a number of correlations holding between the various evolutions sketched in Sections 4.1–4.3. The semantic Stage 0, for example, correlates with the morphosyntactic and the phonological Stage 0. But on the whole, these correlations are of a more general nature: The more semantic stages a given item has passed, the more likely it is to also have reached a more advanced morphosyntactic or phonological stage. This predication may not be reversed: As has been established in other studies of grammaticalization (e.g. Heine, Claudi and Hünnemeyer 1991; Hopper and Traugott 1993), semantic shift precedes morphosyntactic and other kinds of shift. This means, for example, that refl markers may still have the structure of object nouns while no longer having nominal meanings, as in the following example: (17) Ful (West Atlantic, Niger-Congo; Klingenheben 1963: 141) ‘O mbari hoore maako. he killed head his ‘He killed himself.’


17

The body part noun in (17) still has the properties characteristic of nouns, such as plural marking, even though expressing a refl meaning. Similarly, in the Hausa example (11a), the object has the structure of a plural noun, even though it expresses a refl meaning. Such observations have been made time and again. Hoffmann (1963: 151) says that the Margi midd/pass (kər) ´ and reci (údz½ú) markers behave grammatically ‘‘exactly like other noun objects’’, and Stroomer (1987: 123–5) reports that the refl and reci pronouns of the southern Oromo dialects of Kenya behave like nouns although they do not seem to have any nominal meaning. That there exist some systematic correlations between meaning, morphosyntax, and phonology is suggested in particular by the quantitative data presented in Tables 1 and 2. According to this data, we will expect that the more nominal behavior a given form exhibits, the more phonetic substance is employed for its expression, and, conversely, the shorter a form is, the more likely it is to behave like a verbal affix. The Chadic language Lamang has grammaticalized the noun ghvà ‘body’ to express middle functions. There is also a shortened version (-và) of this item which, however, is no longer a noun but a verbal suffix (Wolff 1983: 120–2). Still, some of the above observations must be taken with care. As we saw in Section 4.3, there is a tendency for nouns to undergo morphological erosion when they assume grammatical functions. But at what stage that happens, or whether erosion takes place in the first place, differs from one language to another.

5.–Conclusions One of the main goals of the present paper is to account for the fact that grammatical markers not infrequently have structural properties that they are perhaps not expected to have. But what the observations made in the preceding sections suggest is, first, that the shape grammatical forms take is not arbitrary, rather it can be accounted for with reference to their genesis and further evolution. We are now in a position to answer the questions raised in Section 1. That refl and reci markers sometimes exhibit nominal structure, sometimes behave like verbal affixes, and sometimes like particles, is neither arbitrary, nor is it surprising: Since these markers most likely start out as nouns and develop gradually into particles and clitics, some of them ending up as verbal affixes, their partly nominal and partly verbal behavior is in fact to be expected. It is therefore not surprising that such different functions as nomi and pass belong to one grammaticalization chain or polysemy structure, that is, they represent different stages of evolution of one and the same linguistic form. These observations also suggest—in accordance with other findings that have

18

bernd heine

been made in studies of grammaticalization—that there is no discrete boundary separating lexical from grammatical forms. Some grammatical markers have nominal morphosyntax and, conversely, nominal meanings figure in polysemies in much the same way as grammatical meanings like refl and midd (as we noted in Section 1, we do not consider criterion (1c) to be essential for defining polysemy). Furthermore, these observations also enabled us to propose a few generalizations on the structure of polysemy involving refl and/or reci markers, such as the following: (a) If in a given African language a new marker for refl arises then it can be predicted with a certain degree of probability that that marker will be derived from a noun meaning ‘body’. A secondary choice, having a considerably lower degree of probability is that it will be a noun for ‘head’. (b) If the polysemous marker includes emph as one of its functions then it is likely to have the structure of a noun and unlikely to be an affix. (c) If the polysemous marker has the structure of a noun then it is unlikely to have pass as one of its meanings. The analysis of quantitative data also suggested that the various meanings distinguished can be arranged in the form of the following implicational scale (repeated here from (4) for convenience). (18) nomi > emph > refl > reci > midd > pass Rather than being arbitrary, the forms associated with these meanings can be described in terms of the following probabilistic generalization: (d) The more a meaning is located to the left on this scale, the more nominal properties and the fewer verbal ones it has, and the more phonetic substance is employed for its expression. But the polysemy patterns described above also raise a number of questions that we were not able to tackle, such as the following: Why does the polysemy involving a refl or reci marker include the meaning ‘body’ in one language but ‘head’ in another, and both ‘body’ and ‘head’ in yet another language? In Pero, a Chadic language of north-eastern Nigeria, for example, the grammaticalization of different body part terms, cíg ‘body’ and kó ‘head’, each has given rise to a refl marker (Frajzyngier 1989: 183). In Margi again, a Chadic language like Pero, the noun for ‘body’ (údz½ú) has been grammaticalized primarily to a reci marker (rarely also to a refl and pass marker) and the noun for ‘head’ (kər) ´ primarily to an emph, a refl and midd marker (although it occassionally also has reci uses; see Hoffmann 1963: 105–6, 151–7). Another problem concerns the question of why some languages are extremely


19

polysemous while other languages are notoriously ‘monosemous’ in the expression of refl, reci, etc. Examples of the former are Chadic languages (see Appendix 1); examples of the latter type are Bantu languages, where each of the various meanings looked at here tends to be expressed by a different grammatical form. The situation in Swahili is characteristic of a larger number of Bantu languages, it has the following conventionalized forms: mw-enyewe (‘owner’) emph, ji- refl, -ana reci, and -wa pass. There is no form typically associated with midd, even if some midd uses tend to be expressed by the refl marker (usually in combination with the applicative suffix), in other Bantu languages, like Lingala (see Kemmer 1993: 200), also by the reci marker. There are a number of more specific problems that also have remained unsolved in this paper. One of them concerns refl/reci markers of a type widely found in Ubangi languages of the Niger-Congo family, consisting of what is referred to as a preposition plus a possessive suffix. In most languages, the preposition is ti-, as in the Zande example (19). There are two ways to account for this construction: Either we are dealing with an erstwhile preposition, as is suggested by the interlinear glosses in this Zande example; in this case we would be confronted with a somewhat less common pattern of grammaticalization. Alternatively, ti- was originally a noun (e.g. for ‘body’) which developed into a kind of preposition. In this case, the construction would be yet another instance of the canonical noun-to-grammatical marker evolution. Which of these alternatives is correct cannot be decided on the basis of the evidence available. (19) Zande (Ubangi, Niger-Congo; Tucker and Bryan 1966: 150) Mì-ímí t`-rε`. I-kill on-me ‘I kill myself.’ No attempt is made either to determine the way in which coreferentiality of the kind associated with refl markers arises and spreads. The data available suggests that direct objects are the first to develop refl uses, followed by indirect objects (cf. Amiridze 1997: 7) and other complements, but this is also a subject that requires much further analysis. Finally, no attempt is made either to explain the semantic evolutions discussed. The reader is referred to Kemmer (1993: 121) for a noteworthy account of this problem.

Acknowledgements We wish to express our gratitude to the following colleagues for valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper: Zygmunt Frajzyngier, William McGregor, and Mathias Schladt. Furthermore, our thanks

bernd heine

20

are due to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Society) for its generous support of the research on which the present paper is based.

Abbreviations 3 emph gen hum impf loc midd nomi pass pfv pl, pl. reci refl tr

third person emphatic reflexive genitival link human imperfective locative middle nominal meaning passive perfective plural reciprocal marker reflexive marker transitive marker

Appendix 1. Polysemies involving reflexives and reciprocals in African languages (Sample: 62 languages. Orthographical conventions are simplified in some cases) Language

Marker

Status

emph refl reci midd pass

Acholi (Malandra 1955: 367; Crazzolara 1938)

kööm‘body’

noun

emph refl

Arbore (Hayward 1984)

-εˆ wal

verbal suffix refl reci midd preverbal refl reci particle noun emph

Bagirmi (Stevenson 1969: 46)

mala ‘owner, master’ ro, pl. roge noun ‘body’ kow(o) noun ‘life, self’

emph refl

midd

emph refl

midd

polysemy in african languages Language

Marker

Balese (Vorbichler 1965) -ni Banda (Ubangi, Santandrea ti1965: 85–7) Bari (Spagnolo 1933: 81) mυgυn ‘body’ Bassa (Kwa, Awoyale nímì ‘body’ 1986: 4) Bongo (Santandrea 1963: rɔ-ne sg., 38) rɔ-yε pl. ‘on-him/ them’ Didinga (Rosato 1980: 15) ele ‘body’ Dinka (Nilotic, Tucker rɔ´(t) and Bryan 1966: 423) pl. ro¼t Diola/Dyola (Weiss n.d.: -o 25; Wintz 1909: 30, 42) huko ‘head’ ‘Dongo (Ubangi, Tucker ti and Bryan 1966: 123) Duala (Ittmann 1939: 177) Ebira (Kwa, Awoyale 1986: 4) Ewondo (Redden 1979: 103; 108–10) Fulani (Klingenheben 1963: 141–2)

Gabu (Ubangi, Santandrea 1965: 87) Gidar (Frajzyngier 1997) Gisiga (Lukas 1970: 71) Gola (Westermann 1921: 51) Hausa (Wolff 1993: 117) Ibibio (Benue-Congo, Essien 1982: 96ff.) Iraqw (Mous 1991)

Status verbal suffix particle

21

emph refl reci midd pass refl reci midd pass refl reci

noun

emph refl

noun

refl

particle

refl reci

noun particle

emph refl refl reci

verbal suffix noun preposition

refl

midd midd

nyólò ‘body’ εnwu ‘body’ -b -an hoore, pl. ko’e ‘head’ -(á)ncában`d‘relative’ akúsi

noun

refl

noun

refl

zə´ ‘body’ vo ‘body’ bíl, bíí daße ‘comrade’ kaì ‘head’ ídém ‘body’

noun noun particle noun

refl reci refl emph refl reci

noun noun

emph refl emph refl

ti

particle

refl reci

midd

verbal suffix refl midd verbal suffix reci pass noun emph refl

verbal suffix noun

reci reci

noun

reci

refl reci

pass

bernd heine

22 Language

Marker

Status

Kalenjin (Kipsikiis; Toweett 1979: 336ff.) Kanuri (Saharan; Tucker and Bryan 1966: 183) Kara (C. Sudanic, Santandrea 1970: 150) Kenzi (Nile Nubian; Hofmann 1983: 95) Kisi (Childs 1995: 184–90) Koromfe (Gur; Rennison 1996: 106ff.; 110ff.)

-kεε

verbal suffix

rô- ‘life’

noun

rre, rri

noun

newerti ‘soul’ -nˇuÎ gllε domba ‘comrades’ Kposo (Wolf 1909: 165) εtu Krongo (Reh 1985: 172–3; òonó 230–2) ‘body’ -áncá -(àní) Kwami (Leger 1994) kúu ‘head’ Kxoe (Köhler 1973: 17ff., dí-xa-mà 31a, 59) ‘owner’ -can K’emant (Zelealem 1997: -aghoy 10) ‘head’ Lamang (Wolff 1983: ghvà ‘body’ 120–2) -và (< ghvà) Lango (Carollo 1991: 23; kom52–3) ‘body’ -εrε Lele (Frajzyngier 1997) cà ‘head’ kùs ‘body’ Logone (Lukas 1936: 50–1) -zí(í) Lugbara (Barr 1965: 90–3) i Luo (Tucker 1994) -rV -ruok (Tucker 1994: 151–2) wuon, pl. wegí ‘owner’ Ma (Ubangi; Tucker and lε Bryan 1966: 110) Maba (Trenga 1947: 64–5) néfès ‘person, self’ ndu ‘skin’ Mamvu (Vorbichler 1971) -ni

noun

emph refl reci midd pass refl reci midd emph refl reci emph

verbal suffix refl reci midd pass noun emph refl noun reci noun noun

refl midd

verbal suffix reci noun emph refl noun emph

pass

verbal suffix refl noun emph

midd

noun verbal suffix refl noun emph refl

midd midd

verbal suffix refl midd noun midd noun emph refl reci verbal suffix refl midd pass particle refl pass verbal suffix reci midd verbal suffix refl reci midd noun emph

particle noun noun verbal suffix

refl reci emph refl refl reci midd pass

polysemy in african languages Language

Marker

Status

Mangbetu (C. Sud.; Larochette 1958: 74–5) Margi (Hoffmann 1963)

-ndr-

verbal suffix

Mayogo (Ubangi; Tucker and Bryan 1966: 93) Mba (Ubangi; Tucker and Bryan 1966: 110) Mina (Frajzyngier 1997)

Moru (Tucker and Bryan 1966: 45–6) Nama (Hagman 1977: 81–2) Ndogo (Ubangi; Tucker and Bryan 1966: 93) Ndunga (Ubangi; Tucker and Bryan 1966: 110) Ngala (Ubangi; Santandrea 1965: 85–7) Ngbandi (Ubangi; Tucker and Bryan 1966: 93) Oron (Benue-Congo; Essien 1982: 98) Päri (Simeoni 1978: 41–2) Pero (Frajzyngier 1989: 183) Pokot (Baroja et al. 1989: 214–5; Crazzolara 1978: 112–13) Shilluk (Westermann n.d.: 19–20; Kohnen 1933: 75–6) So (Carlin 1993: 48)

Supyire (Carlson 1994: 416–7)

kər ´ ‘head’ noun údz½ú ‘body’ noun gbàgbà particle

23

emph refl reci midd pass refl reci midd emph refl reci midd pass refl reci pass emph refl reci

-lè

verbal suffix

refl

pass

tàláÎ ‘head’ ksəm ` ‘body’ rυ' ‘body’ lɔmvɔ ´ ´ ‘body’ -sn

noun noun

refl refl

noun

emph refl reci

verbal suffix

refl

ti

‘preposition’

refl reci

-la

verbal suffix

reci

mä

particle

mvε`ni

particle

ile ‘body’

noun

refl

rok ‘body’ cíg ‘body’

noun noun

emph refl reci refl

kó ‘head’ kεx

noun particle

re ‘body’

noun

emph refl reci

baak, pl. beek ‘body’ -ye

noun

refl

suffix on anaphoric pronouns

refl reci

midd

refl reci emph refl

refl refl reci midd

pass

bernd heine

24 Language

Marker

Status

emph refl reci midd pass

Swahili

mwenyewe ‘owner’ òmà

noun

emph

noun

refl reci

únem ‘body’ wá (Îgˇa) bε’ ´ ε`εˇ búù wá ‘body itself’ Xdi (Frajzyngier 1997) vghá‘body’ Yoruba (Awoyale 1986: 4) ara ‘body’ Zande (Ubangi; Gore 1926: ti32–3; Tucker and Bryan 1966: 150) Zu/’hoan (Dickens n.d.: /’àè, pl. /’àè-sì 64–6) Heikkinen 1987: 12) khòè ámá, pl. ámá-sì

noun

refl

noun noun noun

emph refl emph refl emph

Urhobo (Kwa; Awoyale 1986: 4) Usak Edet (Benue-Congo, Essien 1982: 98) Vai (Welmers 1976: 52–4)

noun

refl reci

noun noun

refl reci refl reci

particle

refl

particle noun ‘body’

midd pass reci

emph

pass


25

Appendix 2 Sample of African languages according to genetic affiliation (classification based on Greenberg 1963). Family

Branch

Number of languages

Niger-Kordofanian

Kordofanian West Atlantic Mande Gur Kwa Benue-Congo Adamawa-Ubangi Eastern Sudanic Central Sudanic Other languages Chadic Cushitic North Central

1 4 1 2 5 5 11 9 9 2 7 3 1 2 62

Nilo-Saharan

Afro-Asiatic Khoisan Total

References Abraham, Major R.C., and Mai Kano, Malam. 1949. Dictionary of the Hausa Language. London: University of London Press. Amiridze, Nino. 1997. Georgian grammaticalized body-part tav- and its role in the economic motivation of language. Paper distributed at the Symposium on Reflexives and Reciprocals, Boulder, August 29–30, 1997. Awoyale, Yiwola. 1986. ‘‘Reflexivization in Kwa languages’’. In Gerrit Dimmendaal (ed.), 1–14. Baroja, Tomás Herreros, Peter Sikamoy, and Daniel Partany. 1989. Analytical Grammar of the Pokot Language [Bibliotheca Africana 3]. Università di Trieste. Barr, L.I. 1965. A Course in Lugbara. Nairobi, Kampala, Dar es Salaam: East African Literature Bureau. Carlin, Eithne. 1993. The So Language [Afrikanistische Monographien 2]. Cologne: Institut für Afrikanistik, Universität zu Köln.

26

bernd heine

Carollo, Bruno. 1991. Practical Lango Grammar (4th edn.) [Museum Combonianum 46]. Trieste: Università di Trieste, Bibliotheca Africana. Carlson, Robert. 1994. A Grammar of Supyire [Mouton Grammar Library 14]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Childs, G. Tucker. 1995. A Grammar of Kisi, a Southern Atlantic Language [Mouton Grammar Library 16]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Crazzolara, J. P. 1938. A Study of the Acooli Language. London: Oxford University Press. Crazzolara, Pasquale. 1978. A Study of the Pokot (Suk) Language: Grammar and vocabulary. Bologna: Editrice Missionaria Italiana. Dickens, Patrick. n.d. Ju/’hoan Grammar. Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. (ed.). 1986. Current Approaches to African Linguistics, vol. iii. Dordrecht and Cinnaminson: Foris Publications. Emanatian, Michele. 1992. ‘‘Chagga ‘come’ and ‘go’: Metaphor and the development of tense-aspect’’. Studies in Language 16(1): 1–33. Essien, Okon E. 1982. ‘‘The so-called reflexive pronouns and reflexivization in Ibibio’’. Studies in African Linguistics 13(2): 93–108. Faltz, Leonard M. 1985. Reflexivization: A study in universal syntax. New York: Garland Publishing. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 1989. A Grammar of Pero [Frankfurter Studien zur Afrikanistik 4]. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. —— 1999. ‘‘Domains of affected subject and coreferentiality: System interactional approach to the study of reflexives’’. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier and Traci Curl (eds), Reflexives: Forms and Functions [Typological Studies in Language 41]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 125–52. —— and Traci Curl (eds.). 1999. Reciprocals: Forms and functions [Typological Studies in language 41]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gore, Canon E.C. 1926. Zande Grammar. London: The Sheldon Press. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. The Languages of Africa. The Hague: Mouton. Hagman, R.S. 1977. Nama Hottentot Grammar [Language Science Monographs 15]. Bloomington: Indiana University. Hayward, Dick. 1984. The Arbore Language: A first investigation [Kuschitische Sprachstudien 2] Hamburg: Buske Verlag. Heikkinen, Terttu. 1987. An Outline of the Grammar of the !Xu Language Spoken in Ovamboland and West Kavango [South African Journal of African Languages 7, Supplement 1]. Pretoria: African Languages Association of Southern Africa. Heine, Bernd. 1992. ‘‘Grammaticalization chains’’. Studies in Language 16(2): 335–68. —— 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. —— 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. —— Ulrike Claudi, and Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hofmann, Inge. 1983. Einführung in den nubischen Kenzi Dialekt [Lehr- und Lesebücher zur Afrikanistik und Ägyptologie 4]. Vienna: AFRO-PUB.


27

Hoffmann, Carl. 1963. A grammar of the Margi language. London: Oxford University Press. Hopper, Paul J. 1991. ‘‘On some principles of grammaticization’’. In: Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.), 17–35. —— and Elizabeth C. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ittmann, Johannes. 1939. Grammatik des Duala (Kamerun). With the collaboration of Carl Meinhof [Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen, Beihefte, 20]. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer; Hamburg: Friederichsen, de Gruyter. Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice [Typological Studies in Language 23]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Klingenheben, August. 1963. Die Sprache der Ful (Dialekt von Adamaua). Grammatik, Texte und Wörterverzeichnis [Afrikanistische Forschungen 1]. Hamburg: J.J. Augustin. Köhler, Oswin. 1973. ‘‘Grundzüge der Grammatik der Kxoe-Sprache’’. MS. Cologne: University of Cologne. Kraft, Charles H., and A.H.M. Kirk-Greene. 1973. Hausa. [Teach Yourself Books]. London: St. Paul’s House. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Larochette, J. 1958. Grammaire des dialectes mangbetu et medje, suivie d’un manuel de conversation et d’un lexique [Annales du Musée Royal du Congo Belge, Sciences de l’Homme, Linguistique 18]. Tervuren: Commission de Linguistique Africaine. Leger, Rudolf. 1994. Eine Grammatik der Kwami-Sprache (Nordostnigeria) [Westafrikanische Studien 8]. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1985. ‘‘Multiple uses of reciprocal constructions’’. Australian Journal of Linguistics 5: 19–41. —— 1999. ‘‘Reciprocals without reflexives’’. In Frajzyngier and Curl (eds.), 31–62. Liu, Meichun. 1999. ‘‘Reciprocal reading with deictic verbs ‘come’ and ‘go’ in Mandarin’’. In Frajzyngier and Curl (eds.), 123–32. Lukas, Johannes. 1936. Die Logone-Sprache im zentralen Sudan [Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes]. Leipzig: Deutsche Morgenländlische Gesellschaft. —— 1970. Studien zur Sprache der Gisiga (Nordkamerun) [Afrikanistische Forschungen 4]. Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin. Malandra, Alfred. 1955. A New Acholi grammar. Nairobi/Kampala/Dar es Salaam: The Eagle Press. Mous, Maarten. 1991. A grammar of Iraqw. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of Leyden. Redden, James E. 1979. A Descriptive Grammar of Ewondo [Occasional Papers on Linguistics 4]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, Department of Linguistics. Reh, Mechthild. 1985. Die Krongo-Sprache (niino mo-di). Beschreibung, Texte, Wörterverzeichnis [Kölner Beiträge zur Afrikanistik 12]. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. —— 1996. Anywa Language: Description and internal reconstruction [Nilo-Saharan 11]. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe. Rennison, J.R. 1996. Koromfe. London, New York: Routledge.

28

bernd heine

Rosato, Michele. 1980. Didinga Grammar and Dictionary (Sudan-Equatoria). Verona: Museo Africano. Santandrea, Stefano. 1963. A Concise Grammar Outline of the Bongo Language (Sudan, Bahr el Ghazal Province). Rome: Solidarity of St. Peter. —— 1965. Languages of the Banda and Zande Groups: A contribution to a comparative study. Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale. —— 1970. Brief Grammar Outlines of the Yulu and Kara Languages (Bahr el Ghazal, Sudan—Central African Republic) [Museum Combonianum 25]. Rome: Solidarity of St. Peter Claver. Schladt, Mathias. 1996. Reciprocals in Bantu languages: A case of grammaticalization. MS. Cologne, University of Cologne. Simeoni, Antonio. 1978. Päri: A Luo language of southern Sudan: Small grammar and vocabulary [Museum Combonianum 34]. Bologna: Editrice Missionaria Italiana. Spagnolo, L.M. 1933. Bari Grammar. Verona: Missioni Africane. Stevenson, Roland C. 1969. Bagirmi Grammar. Khartoum: University of Khartoum. Stroomer, Harry. 1987. A Comparative Study of Three Southern Oromo Dialects in Kenya: Phonology, morphology and vocabulary [Kuschitische Sprachstudien 6]. Hamburg: Buske Verlag. Toweett, Taaitta. 1979. A Study of Kalenjin linguistics. Nairobi: Kenya Literature Bureau. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1986. ‘‘From polysemy to internal semantic reconstruction’’. Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 539–550. Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Bernd Heine (eds.). 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. i. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Trenga, Georges. 1947. Le bura-mabang du Ouadai [Trauvaux et Mémoires de l’Institut d’Ethnologie 39]. Paris: Institut d’Ethnologie. Tucker, A.N. 1994. A Grammar of Kenya Luo (Dholuo), edited by C.A. Creider. Two volumes (Nilo-Saharan, 8.1., 8.2.) Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. —— and M.A. Bryan 1966. Linguistic Analyses: The non-Bantu languages of north-eastern Africa. London, New York, Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Vorbichler, Anton. 1965. Die Phonologie und Morphologie des Balese (Ituri-Urwald, Kongo) [Afrikanistische Forschungen 2]. Glückstadt: Augustin. —— 1971. Die Sprache der Mamvu [Afrikanistische Forschungen 5]. Glückstadt: Augustin. Weiss, Henri. n.d. Grammaire et lexique diola du Fogny (Casamance). No place and publisher mentioned. Welmers, William E. 1976. A Grammar of Vai [University of California Publications in Linguistics 84]. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. Westermann, Diedrich. 1921. Die Gola-Sprache in Liberia: Grammatik, Texte und Wörterbuch. [Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiet der Auslandskunde 6]. Hamburg: L. Friederichsen. —— n.d. A Short Grammar of the Shilluk Language. Philadelphia: The Board of Foreign Missions of the United Presbyterian Church of N.A. Wintz, R.P. Ed. 1909. Dictionaire Francais–Dyola et Dyola–Francais précédé d’un essai de grammaire. Elinkine, Paris: Paillart.


29

Wolf, Franz. 1909. ‘‘Grammatik der Kposo-Sprache (Nord-Togo West-Afrika)’’. Anthropos 4: 142–67; 630–59. Wolff, Ekkehard. 1983. A Grammar of the Lamang Language (Gwàd Làmàn) [Afrikanistische Forschungen 10]. Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin. —— 1993. Referenzgrammatik des Hausa. Zur Begleitung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts und zur Einführung in das Selbststudium [Hamburger Beiträge zur Afrikanistik 2]. Hamburg: LIT Verlag. Zelealem Leyew. 1997. A sketch grammar of K’emant morphology and syntax. Typescript. Cologne: University of Cologne.

Reciprocals without reflexives FRANTISEK LICHTENBERK University of Auckland

1.–Introduction It is well known that there are many languages that exhibit a reflexive-reciprocal polysemy, with one and the same morphosyntactic means serving the two functions; see e.g. Geniušiene˙ 1987, Kemmer 1993, and Lichtenberk 1985. Typically, those same elements or constructions have other functions besides reflexive and reciprocal. Some of these are, or are assumed to be, more directly related to the reflexive rather than the reciprocal function, passives being one example (Geniušiene˙ 1987; Kemmer 1993); while others are more directly related to reciprocals, with the chaining-situation marking function being one such case (Lichtenberk 1985). And when it comes to the relation between the reciprocal and the reflexive functions, the former normally develops from the latter rather than vice versa (Geniušiene˙ 1987; Kemmer 1993). In fact, Kemmer (1993: 100) considers the reciprocal category to be crosslinguistically a ‘‘minor prototype’’ because it is frequently related to other functions, reflexives and collectives in particular. The present paper has several aims. It considers data from a group of genetically related languages that have morphological markers used to encode reciprocal and certain other situations, but not reflexive situations. The languages in question are members of the Oceanic group, a subgroup within Austronesian. Although most of the data will come from Oceanic, some data from other languages will be presented as well. Specifically, I will examine polysemies that unite reciprocal and other functions. What is interesting about the Oceanic languages is the absence of reflexive uses of the constructions in question. The Oceanic data support Kemmer’s (1993) claim of a close link between reciprocals and collectives. On the other hand, the data show that one type of polysemy which Geniušiene˙ (1987) considers to be (ultimately) based on the reflexive function (at least in the languages in her sample) need not be related to reflexives. And I will also consider certain functions

32

frantisek lichtenberk

found in the Oceanic languages that appear to be rather unusual crosslinguistically. After providing a brief historical-comparative background in Section 2, I proceed to a discussion of the various functions of the relevant elements in Section 3. In Section 4 data are given from non-Austronesian languages that exhibit similar links between reciprocal and certain other fuctions. The final section presents a summary and conclusions that can be drawn from the data discussed here.

2.–Historical-comparative background The languages that are the focus of this study are members of the Oceanic group, which is a subgroup within the Austronesian family. Figure 1, which is a skeletal representation of the subgrouping of Austronesian (after Pawley and Ross 1993), shows (in italics) the languages that will be referred to in the paper. Blust (forthcoming) has reconstructed *par i- for Proto-Eastern-MalayoPolynesian as a prefix marking reciprocal and collective actions. Pawley (1973: 172) has reconstructed the structure *par i-verb-i for Proto-Oceanic, which ‘‘among other functions, marked reciprocal action.’’ He characterizes the ‘‘basic meaning’’ of the prefix *par i- as indicating ‘‘combined or repeated action by a plurality of actors, or affecting a plurality of entities, normally but not invariably those denoted by the subject of the verb’’ (p. 152). And Ross (1988) has added another reconstruction for Proto-Oceanic: besides *par i-, he also postulates *pa(k)i-, which he suggests may have cognates outside Oceanic, reflecting Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *paki, meaning something like ‘do (something) together’. (For a remark on the possible history of *par i- see the concluding section.) Whatever the best characterization of the meaning(s) of the proto-form(s) may be (see the next section), what is important for our purposes is that there are no grounds for postulating a reflexive-marking function. Even though my presentation of the data begins with reciprocals, this does not mean that the reciprocal function is in some sense basic, historically primary; in fact, there is no evidence to that effect.

3.–Functions served by the elements in question 3.1.–The notions of plurality of relations and low elaboration of situations Reflexes of the Proto-Oceanic verbal prefix(es) are widespread throughout the Oceanic group. In some languages, the prefix is sometimes accompanied by a suffix. As noted above, Pawley (1973) has reconstructed *par i-verb-i for Proto-Oceanic. Reflexes of the suffix -i are found with some verbs in some languages; in certain

reciprocals without reflexives

33

Austronesian

Formosan

Malayo-Polynesian (MP)

Southern Tsouic Western MP

Central-Eastern MP

Central MP

Eastern MP

South HalmaharaWest New Guinea Oceanic

Western Oceanic

New Caledonia-Loyalties

Mekeo Tolai Tigak Kara Simbo Hoava-Kusaghe Zabana

Nêlêmwâ

Southeast Solomonic

Central Pacific

To’aba’ita

Fijian Tongan Samoan Futunan

Figure 1.–Oceanic languages referred to in the text and their positions in Oceanic and in Austronesian

other cases, a different suffix is required; and in still other cases, only the prefix is used. In the descriptions of the languages, the forms are often said to have a reciprocalmarking function, but some descriptions specifically also mention other functions. Sometimes, the reciprocal function is seen as part of a set of meanings (that is, as participating in a polysemy); sometimes, it is considered a special case of a more general function. No single label can do justice to the variety of functions that the relevant forms can express in the various languages. There is one notion that underlies the great majority (though not all) of the functions: plurality of relations. There

34


is plurality of relations in an overall situation (event, state, etc.) if what can be considered to be basically one and the same relation holds more than once either between one or more participants and the event/state they are involved in, or between the relevant entities. Thus, in a reciprocal situation, there is plurality of relations because participant A stands in a certain relation to participant B, and B stands in the same relation to A. In a collective situation, there is plurality of relations because more than one participant are involved in a certain kind of relation: for example, A and B acting jointly. The notion of plurality of relations may be extended to converses: A is related in a certain way to B, and B is conversely related to A. Reciprocal situations can be viewed as involving plural identical relations (A acts on B and B acts on A) as well as converse relations (A acts on B and B is acted on by A). Besides plurality of relations, there are other factors that are relevant to the uses of the forms in question, chief among them being low elaboration of situations. In her account of the links between reciprocals, reflexives, and middles, Kemmer introduces the notion of relative elaboration of events, which is ‘‘the degree to which the participants and component subevents in a particular verbal event are distinguished’’ (Kemmer 1993: 121). (In keeping with the terminology of the present paper, I will speak of elaboration of situations rather than events.) The notion of relative elaboration of situations subsumes those of relative distinguishability of participants and relative distinguishability of the subevents making up an overall situation. Reciprocal and some other uses of the forms discussed in what follows are characterized by a low degree of elaboration of the situations. For example, with reciprocals the overall situation is presented as an undifferentiated whole, regardless of the temporal configuration of the subevents (simultaneous, sequential, overlapping); and the relevant participants play identical pairs of roles, and as will be seen in the next section, in the Oceanic languages they are encoded only once (in subject position). As far as low degree of elaboration of situations is concerned, it is the notion of low degree of distinguishability of participants that is of primary relevance in the data discussed in what follows. There are some other factors that are of consequence to the uses of the forms under discussion; these will be mentioned in the relevant places. In my discussion, I make use of Kemmer’s (1993) (macro)roles initiator and endpoint: ‘‘[t]he Initiator role subsumes participant roles involving a conceptualization of a ‘starting point’ for an event, such as Agent, Experiencer and Mental Source’’; while ‘‘Endpoint includes participants at the end of the ‘action chain’ . . . including Patients . . . and Recipient and Beneficiary participants’’ (p. 51), as well triggers of mental experiences. In discussion and in glossing the examples, I will use ‘PR’ for ‘‘plurality of relations’’. The gloss will be used for the prefix as well as for the suffixes that may be


35

required, even though some of the suffixes have other functions, not directly relevant to those under discussion.1 3.2.–Reciprocal situations In all the languages in the sample, the PR forms may be used to encode reciprocal situations; only two representative examples are given below: To’aba’ita (1) Roo wane kero kwai-kumu-i. two man 2du:nonfut pr-punch-pr ‘The two men are punching each other.’ Nêlêmwâ (Bril, forthcoming) (2) Hli pe-yage-i. 3du pr-help-pr ‘They help each other.’ As mentioned in Section 3.1, reciprocal situations are characterized both by plurality of relations and by a low degree of elaboration. 3.3.–Chaining situations In a chaining situation, participant A stands in a certain relation to participant B, B stands in the same relation to participant C, C to D, etc. (Lichtenberk 1985). This function too is common in Oceanic. To’aba’ita (3) Wela kera futa kwai-suli. child 3pl:nonfut be.born pr-follow ‘The children (siblings) were born in quick succession (in successive years).’ Futunan (Moyse-Faurie, forthcoming) (4) E fe-sipa-’aki le ta¯naki o moelaga. ns pr-be.crooked-pr art gathering poss mat ‘Mats are not piled neatly.’ 3.4.–Collective situations As the term is used here, in a collective situation two or more participants are together involved in a situation, in the same Initiator-type role. This is another common use of the forms. The subject of a collective-action verb is (semantically) non-

36


singular. Typically, though not necessarily (see further below), the participants are involved in the overall situation simultaneously. Hoava (Davis 1997: 283) (5) Vari-paqahi-ni-a gami sa gugusu. pr-leave-ap-3sg pro:1pl(excl) art:sg village ‘We left the village together.’ Fitzsimons (1989: 112) says that in Zabana one of the functions of the ‘‘reciprocal’’ construction is to signal ‘‘actions undertaken jointly’’: Zabana (6) Di vari-pu-purudu ghini-u palu ghaseboro idi 3pl:nonfut pr-red-run valen:3sg-seq two woman these ia mamihi. art wi.apple ‘The two women both ran after the Wi apple.’ (Fitzsimons 1989: 113) Another way of signalling a collective situation in Zabana is by means of the verb vari-ghara ‘gather’, which carries the PR prefix: (7) Da-ke mahai vari-ghara-ghu ghita haroharo. 1pl(incl):fut-pfv eat pr-gather-seq we everyone ‘We will all eat together.’ (Fitzsimons 1989: 114) Churchward (1953: 257) calls one of the functions of the Tongan prefix fe‘‘communal’’: Tongan (8) fe-lele-i pr-run-pr ‘run together or simultaneously’ (9) fe-kumi pr-seek ‘seek together or simultaneously’ The verb kumi can also be used to encode a reciprocal situation, in which case it has to take the suffix -‘aki in addition to the prefix; cf. (9) and (10). (10) fe-kumi-’aki pr-seek-pr ‘seek each other’ (Churchward 1953: 257) In all of the examples of collective situations given above, the participants are in-


37

volved in the overall situation simultaneously. I will refer to this involvement as ‘‘joint action’’. However, it is also possible for two or more participants to be involved in an overall situation in succession, still in the same role. Moyse-Faurie (forthcoming) calls this a ‘‘successive sense’’ in Futunan: (11) E fe-sulu-‘aki loku ga¯ kie e toe. ns pr-put.on-pr my clf cloth erg child ‘Children put on my loin-cloth in turn.’ Schlie and Schlie (n.d.: 21) give an example of a collective situation with successive subevents from Kara: (12) Ri fe-paaus-an a vio. 3pl pr-carry-ef nm pig ‘They, working together, carried the pig (on the pole between them).’ The meaning of paaus is ‘carry on a pole between two people’; notice, however, that the subject in (12) is plural (Kara also has dual subject markers). Schlie and Schlie (n.d.: 21) interpret the meaning of (12) thus: ‘‘They evidently took turns with the carrying since it takes only two to carry by this method.’’ Collective situations are characterized by plurality of relations and by a low degree of elaboration. They consist of at least two subevents, and the subevents are presented as an unindividuated whole: their temporal configuration—simultaneous or successive—is irrelevant. Both features are also characteristic of reciprocal situations. As will be seen in what follows, collective situations of both subtypes exhibit close links to other types of situation. 3.5.–Situations where the participants are in a converse relation to each other In collective situations of the types discussed above, two or more participants are involved in the situation in the same role. However, in some languages the PR construction is used to encode situations where the roles of the relevant participants are not identical; rather, the participants stand in a converse relation to each other. Thus, in Boumaa Fijian, according to Dixon (1988), the PR prefix (called ‘collective’ by Dixon) may be used to encode non-reciprocal situations where ‘‘[the] core participants are grouped together as a single set, with no indication of who is A and who is O’’ (Dixon 1988: 177): (13) Erau sa vei-’oti ti’o o Sepo vata ’ei Elia. 3du asp pr-cut cont art S. together with E. ‘Sepo and Elia are involved in an activity of (hair) cutting.’ In (13), the situation is neither reciprocal nor collective: it is neither the case that

38


the two people are cutting each other’s hair nor the case that they are both cutting somebody else’s hair. Rather, the two people are in a converse relation to each other: one is the agent in an action in which the other is the patient. According to Dixon (1988: 177): We cannot tell, from this sentence, just who is cutting whose hair. But everyone in Waitabu knows that Sepo often cuts people’s hair, including that of his son Elia; this sociocultural knowledge would enable them to deduce who was A and O, on hearing [(13) above].—Dixon (1988: 177)

Note that the PR prefix may encode a reciprocal situation with the verb ’oti ‘cut’, but in that case the verb carries the ‘‘passive’’ suffix -vi:2 (14) Erau sa vei-’oti-vi ti’o gaa o Sepo vata ei Elia. 3du asp pr-cut-pass cont only art S. together with E. ‘Sepo and Elia are cutting each other’s hair.’ (Dixon 1988: 178) The converse use of the PR construction is also found in Standard Fijian: (15) Era¯u¯ ve¯¯ı-vaka-vuli-ci. 3du pr-caus-learn-trans ‘They share a teacher-student relationship.’ (Schütz 1985: 206) Tolai is another language where the PR construction can have a converse use; see the last sentence in the example below: (16) Nam ra tutana i vilau. A tabaran i ga mur-tadav ia. dem art man he flee art ghost he ta follow-go.to him Di ga var-korot. they:du ta pr-chase ‘The man fled. The ghost followed him and chased him while the man tried to escape.’ (Lit.: ‘. . . the two performed the action of chasing.’) (Mosel 1984: 147) According to Mosel (1984: 147), ‘‘[v]arkorot [in (16) above] does not mean that they chased each other, which would not make sense, but that the two were involved in the action of chasing.’’ Situations with converse roles comprise plurality of relations, say agent-action and patient-action; and they are encoded by means of the PR construction with a very low degree of elaboration. In fact, this is low elaboration par excellence: the two participants are encoded uniformly (in subject position) even though they play diametrically opposed roles in the situation. As will be seen in Section 3.9, there are other uses of the PR construction in which the relations are converse.


39

3.6.–Distributed situations In the case of collective situations, the subevents performed by two or more participants are presented as forming a homogeneous whole; specifically, in the absence of any explicit statement to the contrary, there is no implication that the subevents take place in different localities or are characterized by different directionalities. However, there are also cases where the PR construction signifies that the overall situation comprises a plurality of localities or different directionalities: the locality or directionality of one subevent is not the same as that of another subevent. I will use the term ‘‘distributed’’ to refer to such situations. It is further possible to distinguish different subtypes of distributed situations that involve plural directionality: dispersive, where the subevents disperse from a common point; reversive, where there is reverse directionality (‘‘back and forth’’); and unspecified plurality of directions (‘‘in various directions’’). In situations of plural locality, the subevents take place in different parts of an area (‘‘here and there’’, ‘‘all over the place’’). The use of PR forms to express distributed situations is well established in Oceanic. One such language is Fijian. The next set of examples from Standard Fijian illustrate all the subtypes mentioned above. In Fijian, to express a distributed situation the prefix vei- must be accompanied by the suffix -yaki (-yak before an object suffix).3 Dispersive (Milner 1972: 113): (17) . . . era sa¯ mani vei-suka-yaki ki na nodra koro. 3pl asp then pr-return/disperse-pr to art their village ‘(When the ceremonial exchange was over) they then dispersed (and returned) to their villages.’ (18) vei-soli-yak-a pr-give-pr-3sg:obj ‘handing out, giving out’ Reversive (Milner 1972: 113): (19) Sa¯ vei-vuki-yaki tiko ga¯ na ivakarau ni ka¯kana. asp pr-change-pr cont lim art measure ptl food ‘Food rations go up and down.’ Unspecified multiple directionalities (Schütz 1985: 208): (20) Era ve¯¯ı-cici-yaki. 3pl pr-run-pr ‘They ran in all directions.’

40


Multiple localities (Schütz 1985: 208): (21) Era ve¯¯ı-bini-yak-a. 3pl pr-pile-pr-3sg:obj ‘They piled it in several places.’ In all the examples above, the subject is non-singular; this, however, is not necessary, as the next two examples demonstrate: (22) E ve¯¯ı-voce-yaki. 3sg pr-paddle-pr ‘He paddled back and forth.’ (Schütz 1985: 208) (23) Sa¯ vei-veve-yaki na gaunisala. asp pr-bend-pr art road ‘The road turns and twists about.’ (Milner 1972: 113) The situations encoded in (22) and (23) do not include any non-singular participants; nevertheless, they comprise plural relations: in (22) the man is involved in multiple subevents of paddling, each one having its own directionality; and in (23) the road can be thought of as consisting of multiple stretches of different directionalities. As will be seen in the next section, there are other uses of the PR form(s) where there need not be any non-singular participant. The same uses of the PR construction are found in other languages. Futunan (Moyse-Faurie, forthcoming) (24) E fe-futi-‘aki e toe le ma’ea o le lu¯lu¯’aga. ns pr-pull-pr erg child art rope poss art swing ‘Children are pulling the rope of the swing in every direction.’ All of the examples of distributed situations given by Moyse-Faurie contain the suffix -‘aki in addition to the PR prefix fe-. Mekeo (Jones 1993: 495) (25) Papiau uma-ai ke-pi-feu-ai-n-a. people garden-obl 3pl-pr-sleep-pr-th-3sg ‘(The) people are sleeping all around in a/the garden.’ Jones (1993: 495) says that the Mekeo PR prefix ‘‘in its distributive function usually (though not always) acts in concert with the remote transitive suffix -ai’’ (glossed pr in example (25) above). I will return to the use of the Fijian suffix -yaki, Futunan -‘aki, and Mekeo -ai to express distributed situations in the concluding section.


41

Sometimes both a collective and a distributed interpetation are available: Nêlêmwâ (Bril, forthcoming) (26) Hla pe-hâgee mat. 3pl pr-fish at.low.tide (a) ‘They are fishing together at low tide.’ (b) ‘They are fishing here and there at low tide.’ See also discussion in Section 3.11. 3.7.–Repetitive function The PR construction is used in some languages to signal repeated occurrences of a situation, whether iterativity within one time frame and with the same Initiator involved, or over multiple time frames (habitual, general situations) with the same Initiator or the same type of Initiator involved. There is multiplicity of successive events and so multiplicity of relations. The PR construction with the repetitive function is found both with intransitive and with transitive verbs. In Section 3.8, another use of the PR construction with transitive verbs will be discussed which is closely related to the repetitive function. As some of the examples below show, in the repetitive function the Initiator need not be non-singular. Mekeo (Jones 1993: 494) (27) Go-bi-noi-abala. 2pl-pr-request-very ‘You are always/constantly asking for something.’ Futunan (Moyse-Faurie, forthcoming) (28) Kua fe-loi-saki le toe ki lona tamana i lona ¯ı. pfv pr-lie-pr art child obl his father obl his fear ‘The child lied over and over again to its father because he fears him.’ Samoan (Cook 1988: 53; cited in Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1992: 180) (29) Na fe-a’a e le tama le polo. past pr-kick erg art boy art ball ‘The boy kicked the ball (again and again).’ Hoava (Davis 1997: 286) (30) Na huke, ninai vari-nahu tia. art taro.leaf food pr-hurt stomach ‘Taro leaves, food (which) can hurt stomachs.’ In (30) the object is nonspecific, and it is incorporated.

42


3.8.–Depatientive function There is one subtype of the repetitive function of the PR construction that merits separate discussion. I have referred to it elsewhere (Lichtenberk 1991b) as the ‘‘depatientive function’’. (Geniušiene˙ 1987 refers to this kind of construction as ‘‘absolute reflexive’’. I will return to Geniušiene˙’s account of this construction in the concluding section.) In the depatientive function, transitive verbs are made syntactically intransitive by means of the PR construction: there is no direct object. The Endpoint participant encoded as the direct object of the source verb is backgrounded, not expressed. However, even though no Endpoint participant is expressed, there is one implied. Typically, the implied Endpoint participant is general, nonspecific, and the situation is a habitual or general one. The depatientive construction is found in a number of Oceanic languages. To’aba’ita (31) Roo wane kero kwai-laba-ta’i. two man 3du:nonfut pr-affect.negatively-trans ‘The two men harm (people), spoil, damage (things), etc.’ Sentence (31) can only have a depatientive, not a reciprocal, interpretation. To encode a reciprocal situation, the verb labata’i ‘affect negatively’ does not occur in the PR construction: instead, it takes a pronominal object coreferential with the subject: (32) Roo wane kero laba-ta’i keero’a. two man 3du:nonfut affect.negatively-trans 3du ‘The two men harm each other.’ In the depatientive construction, the subject may be singular: (33) Wane e kwai-abingi. man 3sg:nonfut pr-mistreat ‘The man mistreats (others).’ A depatientive sentence is primarily about the Initiator: it characterizes him/her/it. The identity of the Endpoint participant is not relevant, or the Endpoint is generic. In To’aba’ita, depatientive verbs are often used as noun modifiers to ascribe a characteristic to an Initiator: (34) wane ni kwai-’olo-fi man ptl pr-give.false.promise.to-trans ‘man of false promises’, ‘man who often, habitually makes false promises’ In To’aba’ita, sentences with the depatientive construction usually encode habit-


43

ual, general situations, but they may also be used to encode iterative situations: (35) Nau ku kwai-amasi ‘e a’i ta wane 1sg 1sg:nonfut pr-call.sb.for.help 3sg:nonfut neg.vb some man si fula. neg arrive ‘I called (people) for help, but nobody came.’ The depatientive function is characterized by plurality of relations and by a relatively low degree of distinguishability of participants: the situation is habitual, general, or iterative, and the Endpoint participant is backgrounded, not expressed. In Standard Fijian also, the PR construction can be used with a depatientive function. According to Schütz (1985: 208), the PR prefix ‘‘is used with active verbs (other than verbs of motion) to refer to general, formalized action, rather than to a specific instance.’’ No object is expressed; in Schütz’s words ‘‘the [PR] form focusses on the activity’’ (p. 209). For example: ni ve¯¯ı-kati. (36) E sega 3sg neg.vb comp pr-bite ‘It doesn’t bite (people).’ (Said when discussing sharks.) (Schütz 1985: 209) In Standard Fijian also, the depatientive construction is used to modify nouns to express a characteristic of the Initiator: (37) E tamata da¯u¯ ve¯¯ı-caqe. 3sg human.being hab pr-kick.against ‘He’s a person who plays football.’ (Schütz 1985: 209) And: (38) mata vei-caqe group pr-kick.against ‘football team’ (Capell 1973: 25) Hoava is another language where the PR construction may be used with a depatientive function: (39) Vari-viraki sa sasaeri heni. pr-itch.trans:3pl art:sg leaf this ‘This leaf can make (someone) itch.’ (Davis 1997: 166) In Hoava too, a depatientive verb may function as a noun modifier: (40) nikana vari-va-mate man pr-caus-be.dead ‘men who can cause death’ (Davis 1997: 166)

44


Davis (1997: 167) says that in Hoava ‘‘[t]he potentially affected participant is usually not specified in the clause, as the effects are applicable to anyone, but if a particular part of a person can be affected, it may be stated as an incorporated object’’; see example (30) in Section 3.7 above. 3.9.–Noun-based derivations In a number of Oceanic languages, the PR construction can be used with nouns. With one type of exception I am aware of, the nouns involved are kinship terms; also included may be terms for ‘friend’, ‘partner’, and some others. Kinship terms, and terms such as ‘friend’ and ‘partner’ are, of course, by their nature relational. The forms derived by means of the PR construction also signify kinship or other relations. They refer to sets of two or more individuals that are in certain converse relations to each other, as determined by the base noun; and in that sense, there is plurality of relations. The base noun signifies the relation of one member of the set to the other(s); the other, converse, relation is implied. Depending on the meaning of the base noun, the converse relations may be symmetrical or asymmetrical. In Standard Fijian, PR relational nouns take not only the PR prefix but also the suffix -ni.4 In (41), the relations are symmetrical: (41) Era¯u¯ ve¯¯ı-wati-ni. 3du pr-spouse-pr ‘They are husband and wife.’ (Schütz 1985: 206) In (42) and (43), the relations are asymmetrical: (42) ko irau na vei-taci-ni5 art 3du art pr-younger.sibling.of same.sex-pr ‘the two brothers’, ‘the two sisters’ (Milner 1972: 113) Only one of the siblings can be the younger one; by implication, the other is older. (43) Era¯u¯ ve¯¯ı-tama-ni. 3du pr-father-pr ‘They are father-and-child.’ (Schütz 1985: 206) Converse PR kinship terms are similar to PR verbs that signal converse relations between participants in an event; see example (15) in Section 3.5 from Standard Fijian. There is another use of the PR construction with some nouns in Standard Fijian, which is group, collective plural: (44) vei-niu pr-coconut ‘coconut grove or plantation’ (Milner 1972: 111)


45

(45) vei-tiri pr-mangrove ‘mangrove swamp’ (Milner 1972: 111) (46) vei-vale pr-house ‘group of houses’ (Capell 1973: 259) This collective use of the PR construction is closely related to its use with kinship terms, in particular with those that signal symmetrical relations: a set of (two) people who are in a spouse relation to each other can also be thought of as a set of spouses. In To’aba’ita, some kinship terms and certain other human-relation nouns take the PR prefix wai-, which is historically a doublet of kwai-, the latter used with verbs (Lichtenberk, forthcoming). In addition to the prefix wai-, the suffix -na is also used in some circumstances.6 In (47) and (48) the relations are symmetrical: (47) a.

roo wai-kwai-na two pr-spouse-pr ‘married couple’ b. Roo wai-kwai-na too-laa keero’a e nganga. two pr-spouse-pr live-nr 2du 3sg:nonfut be.apart ‘The couple, they do not live harmoniously.’ (Lit.: ‘ . . . their lives are apart.’)

In (48b) the derived form is used predicatively: (48) a.

wai-ruana pr-friend/trading partner ‘mutual friends/trading partners’ b. Kamare’a roo kini mere wai-ruana. 1du(excl) two woman 1du(excl):nonfut pr-friend/trading partner ‘The two of us, women, are friends, trading partners.’ (With ruana the suffix -na is not used.)

With the terms for ‘mother’ and ‘father’, the derived forms refer to groups of people that consist of the mother and father, respectively, and her or his children. The term based on the noun ‘father’ can also be used if the group includes the mother/wife: (49) wai-thaina-na pr-mother-pr ‘mother’s group, i.e., mother and her child/children (but not the father/ husband)’


46 (50) a.

wai-maka-na pr-father-pr ‘father’s group, i.e., father and his child/children (and possibly also the mother/wife)’ b. Wai-maka-na baa ki kere tatha na’a. pr-father-pr that nonsg 3pl:nonfut pass perf ‘The man and his family have gone by.’

With a few kinship terms, the PR form is synonymous with the base noun; it has no collective significance. The suffix -na is not used: (51) (wai-)funga pr-parent.in.law ‘father-in-law, mother-in-law’ Tigak is another language where the PR construction is used with kinship terms: (52) Rek e-tama. 3du:pres pr-father ‘They are father and son.’ (Beaumont 1979: 94) In Futunan, there is at least one kinship term that can occur in the PR construction: (53) fe-ta¯ina7 pr-sibling ‘siblings’ (Moyse-Faurie, forthcoming) 3.10.–Middle uses As pointed out in Section 3.1, the Proto-Oceanic PR construction(s) is/are not assumed to have had encoding reflexive situations among its/their functions. There is, however, at least one Oceanic language where the PR construction has been said to have a reflexive use. According to Moyse-Faurie (forthcoming), in Futunan the (PR) prefix fe- is used with a reflexive function with ‘‘a few verbs designating actions performed on the body’’ (emphasis added). Moyse-Faurie specifically mentions these verbs: lole ‘rub (with the hand or a glove)’, lomi ‘massage’, olo ‘rub (with pumice)’, ‘umo ‘pinch’, and vaku ‘scratch’. All of these verbs can be used transitively, and they ‘‘are all rendered intransitive and take on a reflexive sense after prefixing fe-’’ (Moyse-Faurie, forthcoming). Moyse-Faurie gives two sentential examples; one of them is (54) (the other is (55), discussed further below). For reasons to become apparent below, I gloss the relevant forms mid (for ‘‘middle’’): (54) E kau fe-‘umo pe kau moemiti fakatotonu pe le’ai. ns 1sg mid-pinch or 1sg dream really or not ‘I pinch myself to know if I am dreaming or not.’


47

Following Faltz (1985) [1977]) and Kemmer (1993), such uses of these verbs must be distinguished from reflexives proper; verbs such as the ones in Futunan listed above are ‘‘body action’’ verbs: they refer to ‘‘actions carried out on one’s own body’’ (Kemmer 1993: 58; see also Faltz 1985 [1977]). (In many languages, such verbs, typically intransitive in their form, express actions on the Initiator’s own body without any special marking.) Both Faltz and Kemmer consider such verbal constructions to be middle rather than reflexive: they refer to ‘‘actions that are typically performed by a human agent on him- or herself’’ (Kemmer 1993: 53). The Futunan PR prefix fe- (sometimes in combination with a suffix) has a relatively large range of functions (a list is given in Section 3.11). In some cases, the PR verb is formally intransitive; in others it is transitive (as shown by the presence of an ergative Initiator noun phrase). One might want to suggest that with verbs like ‘massage’, ‘pinch’, and ‘scratch’ the prefix fe- does not signal a self-directed body action, but that it has some other function, perhaps signalling iterativity: actions such as scratching, rubbing, massaging oneself normally consist of repetitions of the same kind of action. However, there is evidence that this is not the case. At least one of the body action verbs that takes the PR prefix can occur in two types of PR construction, one with and the other without a suffix in addition to the prefix. In the first example below, the verb ‘scratch’ carries only the prefix fe-; in the other, it carries the prefix fe- and the suffix -‘aki. According to Moyse-Faurie, it is the suffix -‘aki that signals iterativity in the second example.8 (55) E ke fe-vaku i le kai e namu. ns 2sg mid-scratch obl art eat erg mosquito ‘You are scratching because of mosquito bites.’(Moyse-Faurie, forthcoming) (56) E fe-vaku-‘aki a Petelo. ns pr-scratch-pr abs p. ‘Petelo scratches again and again.’ (Moyse-Faurie, forthcoming) The contrast between (55) and (56) can be taken as evidence that the prefix fe- does have encoding of self-directed actions among its functions. To’aba’ita also has a few PR verbs with middle semantics. These include actions performed on or through one’s own body (Kemmer 1993): (57) kwai-thathai mid-make.ready ‘get ready (intr.)’ (58) kwai-karangi mid-approach (tr.) ‘move close, closer (intr.)’

48


Another semantic area that Kemmer (1993) considers to be part of the middle complex is that of spontaneous events. This use of the construction in question is found in Nêlêmwâ: (59) Hla pe-nuk du bwa doo pwâ-mâgo. 3pl spont-fall dir on earth fruit-mango ‘Mangoes fall by themselves (without being poked).’ (Bril, forthcoming) The Nêlêmwâ construction is also used to express what Bril calls ‘‘undirected events’’, events in which the Initiator is characterized by a low degree of volition, intention: (60) Na pe-diya. 1sg undir-make ‘I am doing this just so [sic] (without much enthusiasm).’ (Bril, forthcoming) (61) I u pe-kâlap mwâmâîdu. 3sg accompl undir-lie.down over.there.down ‘He lay down (having nothing else to do).’ (Bril, forthcoming) It is the notions of lack of, and low degree of, volitionality/intention that unite spontaneous and undirected events. A middle, spontaneous-event use is also found in Standard Fijian: (62) Sa¯ vei-sau na draki. asp mid-repay art weather ‘The weather has changed.’ (Milner 1972: 111) Kemmer (1993: 100) suggests that reciprocals are a ‘‘minor prototype’’ crosslinguistically: they are often subsumed under other functions, typically reflexive or collective. She is not aware of cases of a reflexive-reciprocal-collective polysemy. In the Oceanic languages, reciprocals group with collectives and/or other functions characterized by plurality of relations; I have not encountered any cases of a polysemy uniting reciprocals and reflexives proper. At the same time, in at least a few Oceanic languages the construction used to encode reciprocal situations is also used with middle functions that are closely related to true reflexives. In the middle uses, plurality of relations is not a relevant factor; rather, it is the Initiator-Endpoint unity (Kemmer 1993) that is relevant, and in that way middles are particularly close to reciprocals among the plurality-of-relations meanings. 3.11.–Polysemies in individual languages In the preceding sections, examples were given of the various functions that the PR constructions have in Oceanic. In this section, I want to look at the functions from


49

the perspective of individual languages, to see the range of the PR polysemies. Most, though not all, descriptions take the reciprocal function as basic, and then consider other uses that the ‘‘reciprocal’’ construction has. This primacy given to the reciprocal function may be restrictive and may result in only some of the total range of the uses of the construction being identified. However, there are also studies which specifically pay attention to the range of the uses of the ‘‘reciprocal’’ construction in the given language and which give comprehensive surveys. In what follows, I list the polysemies found in some of the languages; as can be seen, the polysemies can be quite extensive: • Futunan (Moyse-Faurie, forthcoming): reciprocal, chaining, collective, distributed, repetitive, kinship, middle. Moyse-Faurie considers the basic function of the PR construction to be collective (her ‘‘sociative’’). • Nêlêmwâ (Bril, forthcoming): reciprocal, chaining, collective, distributed, middle. • Standard Fijian (Schütz 1985; Milner 1972): reciprocal, chaining, collective, converse, distributed, depatientive, kinship, collective plurals, middle. Both Schütz and Milner take the reciprocal function as basic. On the other hand, for Boumaa Fijian Dixon (1988) considers the basic function of the PR construction to be collective (his term), with the reciprocal function just a special case. • To’aba’ita: reciprocal, chaining, depatientive, kinship, middle. • Mekeo (Jones 1993): reciprocal, repetitive, distributed. In some cases, the type of situation being expressed by a PR construction is either fully determined by the base term, or one of the several theoretically possible readings is strongly favored. When a kinship noun occurs in the PR construction, the only meaning that is possible is that of a set of people in the relevant converse relations to each other. And with verbs such as ‘follow’ and ‘be stacked’ it is normally a chaining situation that is being expressed. However, there are also cases where the PR construction is used with one and the same verb and where there is ambiguity or vagueness between two or even more interpretations. For example, sentence (63) from Mekeo may express a reciprocal, an iterative, or a dispersive situation: (63) Ke-pi-isa. 3pl-pr-look a. ‘They look(ed) at one another.’ b. ‘They keep/kept looking.’ c. ‘They look(ed) around.’ (Jones 1993: 490) (In fact, according to Jones, the sentence can also have an ‘‘intensive’’ interpretation: ‘They look(ed) attentively.’ ‘They watch(ed) closely.’; although, in this

50


example at least, there may not be much difference between the iterative and the intensive interpretation.) The following example from Standard Fijian is ambiguous between a collective and a reciprocal interpretation: (64) Era¯u¯ ve¯¯ı-vacu. 3du pr-punch a. ‘They are fighting (against an opposing force).’ b. ‘They are fighting each other.’ (Schütz 1985: 209) Sometimes, one may be dealing with vagueness rather than ambiguity. For example, according to Christine Dureau (pers. comm., April 1997 ), some PR verbs in Simbo may have an interpretation that does not distinguish between collective actions and dispersive actions. The meaning may be something like ‘two or more participants performing the same type of action at the same time’: (65) vari-gore pr-descend ‘descend, together or in different directions’ (66) vari-mule pr-return ‘all return, separately or together’ There are also cases where the different derived meanings are associated with different forms of the same basic verb. For example, in Hoava-Kusaghe the meaning ‘fight jointly against somebody else’ is expressed by a PR verb without a transitive suffix, while the meaning ‘fight each other’ is expressed by the same verb with a transitive suffix; see (67) and (68) below. Although the examples are not from the same dialect, Davis (1997) attributes the difference in the verbal forms to differences in the meanings being expressed, not to a dialectal difference. (Hoava and Kusaghe are two dialects of a language referred to by Davis as ‘‘Hoava-Kusaghe.’’) Hoava (Davis 1997: 282) (67) Karovo ge-di ria pa Duke, mae vari-pera pa Kusage. cross poss-3pl pro:3pl prep d. come pr-fight prep K. ‘The ones from Duke crossed over (the sea) to fight together in Kusaghe.’ (Davis says explicitly that the meaning of vari-pera in (67) is collective.) Kusaghe (Davis 1997: 283) (68) Hokara siki na boko tu vari-pera-e. be.true dog art pig rest pr-fight-trans:3pl ‘Truly, just dogs and pigs were fighting with each other.’


51

Recall also the pair of examples (14) and (13) from Boumaa Fijian in Section 3.5, where the difference between a reciprocal and a converse interpretation is signalled by the presence versus absence of the transitive suffix on the verb. In Tongan, one finds the following pair of PR verbs where one carries the suffix -aki and expresses a distributed situation, and the other carries the suffix -‘aki and expresses a reciprocal situation (the two suffixes are related historically; both function derivationally in Tongan): (69) fe-hihingo-aki pr-look.aghast-pr ‘look aghast in various directions’ (Churchward 1959: 155) (70) fe-hihingo-‘aki pr-look.aghast-pr ‘look aghast at one another’ (Churchward 1959: 155) And as pointed out in Section 3.6, in Fijian the suffix -yaki and in Mekeo the suffix -ai are used (obligatorily in Fijian and usually in Mekeo) in addition to the PR prefix to express distributed situations. All languages considered here have lexical restrictions on the formation of PR verbs; middle uses seem particularly infrequent. While there are cases where a PR verb may be ambiguous (see the Mekeo example (63) and the Standard Fijian example (64) above), it is also common for a PR verb to have a single meaning, with other potential meanings excluded. For example, the two To’aba’ita PR verbs in (71) and (72) have only depatientive meanings, even though there appears to be no reason why, for example, a reciprocal meaning should not be available: (71) kwai-laba-ta’i pr-affect.negatively-trans ‘harm (people), spoil, damage (things)’ (72) kwai-fa’a-ma’u-i pr-caus-be.afraid-pr ‘be frightening’ To express reciprocal meanings with these verbs, a different construction must be used. In Futunan, according to Moyse-Faurie (forthcoming): Each sense [of the PR prefix] usually involves a limited number of verbs which are, in some cases, semantically related. There are also instances in which verbs prefixing [the PR marker] can take different senses in different contexts, depending in particular on whether they have an argument denoting one or more participants.


52

The PR and middle constructions are derivational, the formal and semantic idiosyncracies being one reflection of that.

4.–Reciprocals without reflexives in some other language families As illustrated in the preceding section, Oceanic languages have polysemies which subsume reciprocals and which can be characterized as involving the notion of plurality of relations. Connections between reciprocals and other kinds of situation characterized by plurality of relations are not unique to Oceanic (or Austronesian). In this section, I give examples from several non-Oceanic non-Austronesian, genetically as well geographically diverse, languages that do not exhibit reciprocalreflexive polysemies and where, instead, reciprocals and other types of plural relations are united. I will continue to gloss the relevant markers pr. Martuthunira (Australian) has a verbal suffix that Dench (1995) characterizes as ‘‘collective’’. In Dench’s words, collective verbs may have three different interpretations: action performed by a group acting together (collective), action involving members of a group each acting on the other (reciprocal), or action involving persons in the same generation set (kin group). (p. 154)

Even though Dench speaks of three different ‘‘interpretations’’ of collective verbs, he assigns only two separate meanings to the PR suffix (see further below). Sentence (73) encodes a collective situation: (73) Kulhampa-ngara puni-marri-layi tharrwa-lu thawura-la-rru. fish-pl go-pr-fut enter-purp:ss net-loc-now ‘The fish will all swim together into the net.’ (Dench 1995: 153) In (74) the situation is reciprocal: (74) Parrungka-marri-layi wiyaa. shout-pr-fut maybe ‘Maybe they’ll start shouting at each other.’ (Dench 1995: 153) Third, the collective suffix may be used to emphasise the existence of a particular kin relationship between participants in the clause. Specifically, the suffix indicates that the participants are in the same alternating generation set. . . .—(Dench 1995: 153)

In this function, the PR marker is affixed to the verb, not to the kinship terms. The subject of the clause in which the PR verb occurs need not refer to the people that are in the kin relation to each other:


53

(75) Ngayu kangku-yarri-lha9 panaka-ngurni karimarra-wuyu-u 1sg:nom take-pr-past section-obscrd section-side-acc marrari-mulyarra, Martuthunira-a nhuura-npa-waa. language-all m.-acc know-inch-purp:so ‘I took the karrimarra boy along, after the panaka boy, towards the language, to learn Martuthunira.’ (I.e., I taught two boys who are together in the same generation set.) (Dench 1995: 154–5) According to Dench (1995: 154), Interaction between members of the same generation set is characterised by a tendency towards collective activity while, by contrast, relations between people in the different generation sets typically involve varying degrees of respectful avoidance. The use of the collective suffix to mark the former relationship is a reflection of these institutionalised patterns of social interaction.

As example (75) above shows, a PR verb need not encode direct interaction between the kin. Dench says that ‘‘separate collective and reciprocal meanings need not be established for the [PR] suffix. Rather, a single collective meaning will allow a reciprocal interpretation in certain contexts and with certain verbs.’’ On the other hand, ‘‘[t]he kin-group meaning of the suffix must be independent of the collective meaning and the suffix must be described as polysemous between these two meanings.’’ (p. 155). At the same time, Dench’s discussion suggests that he considers the kin-group function to be a development from the collective function (see the quote from p. 154 above). In Tauya (Papuan), the ‘‘reciprocal’’ marker may also be used to mark a successive action: ‘‘the participants [take] turn in performing an action’’ (MacDonald 1990: 205): (76) Sau eko te-pa ʔe-sami ʔamaiʔamai-waʔane-pa mepimepimepi axe e. get-ss dem-abl carry.red-pr-ss come.down.red ʔatou-ti-i-te . . . arrive-pfv-3pl-ds ‘They got the eko axe then they carried it in turn and came down and they arrived . . . ’ Recall that successive collective actions are encoded by means of the PR construction in some Oceanic languages (Section 3.4). In Delaware (Algonquian), the same basic suffix is used on verbs to encode reciprocal situations and also to indicate ‘‘a nonreciprocal action by an indefinite subject on an indefinite, but by implication plural, object’’ (Goddard 1979 [1969]: 44):

54


(77) Wɘncˇí·-ti·-n. summon-pr-indef.su ‘People are being summoned.’ It is conceivable (Goddard’s discussion is not clear on this) that this is similar to the depatientive function of the Oceanic PR construction. In Mupun (Chadic), an adverb meaning ‘together’ is used with a reciprocal function, which ‘‘seems to be an extension of the basic meaning of indicating that the two or more participants are involved in the action together’’ (Frajzyngier 1993: 278). The first example below encodes a collective situation: (78) Wur a siak kə mat fin. 3m cop pr prep wife 3m ‘Hei is together with hisi wife.’ (Frajzyngier 1993: 278) In the next example, the situation is a reciprocal one: (79) Mo tu siak. 3pl kill pr ‘They killed each other.’ (Frajzyngier 1993: 279) Frajzyngier (1993: 278) says that ‘‘[a] necessary prerequisite for this adverb [i.e., siak] to occur is that there be more than one participant mentioned in a clause, such as a plural subject, an object, a benefactive, an associative, etc.’’ Finally, Turkish has a verbal suffix used to form ‘‘reciprocal or co-operative’’ verbs (Lewis 1967: 143) to show that ‘‘the action is done by more than one subject, one with another or one to another’’ (Lewis 1967: 143–4). However, the PR suffix may also express a distributed situation: (80) kos¸-us¸run-pr‘make a concerted rush’, also ‘run in all directions’ (Lewis 1967: 144) Even as cursory a survey of languages as this one shows that plurality-of-relations polysemies that include reciprocals but not reflexives are not uncommon, with collective meanings typically included as well. More examples can be found in Kemmer 1993.

5.–General discussion and conclusions Many Oceanic languages use one and the same construction with a number of functions to express a variety of real-world situations. The functions discussed above


55

include the following: reciprocal, chaining, collective, converse, distributed, repetitive, depatientive, middle, kinship relations, and collective plurals. Some languages also contain other PR verbs whose meanings do not fit neatly into any of these categories. There are two basic notions that underlie the polysemies: plurality of relations and a low degree of elaboration of situations. Plurality of relations has to do with there being two or more instances of relations that are intimately linked: either because they are of the same kind, or because the relations are converses of each other. Plurality of relations is implicated in all the functions except for the middles. The other factor, a low degree of elaboration of situations, in particular a low degree of distinguishability of the participants, is relevant to a number of the functions: reciprocal, converse, depatientive, middle, and kinship terms. Among the various functions, some are more closely related than others. For example, chaining situations are more closely related to reciprocal situations than to collective situations (pairing of the reciprocal and the chaining functions is widespread cross-linguistically, found in languages where collective situations are not included in the polysemy); and the depatientive and the repetitive uses are more closely related to each other than either is to the kinship-term function. The notion of semantic relatedness of the different functions of a polysemous element has, of course, a diachronic correlate. That is, assuming three functions X, Y, and Z of a polysemous element, such that Y can be shown to be semantically or formally closer to X than Z is, and where X is historically the original function, the historical sequence X → Y → Z is much more likely than X → Z → Y. (See Lichtenberk 1991a for the Principle of Gradual Change in Function, and also Harris and Campbell 1995 for the Complementarity Principle.) Unfortunately, no relevant historical information exists on the Oceanic languages that would enable us to determine the sequence of the historical developments. Since the present-day PR constructions are typically polysemous, and since some such polysemies are not uncommon elsewhere, it is difficult to tell—in the absence of direct historical evidence— how the Oceanic polysemies arose diachronically. To what degree are they due to independent developments, and to what degree are they retentions from the ProtoOceanic or an even earlier stage? The Proto-Oceanic PR construction(s) itself/ themselves may have been (highly) polysemous. There is some evidence of a PR polysemy in Proto-Oceanic. First, Pawley (1973) has reconstructed the pattern *PR-verb-i 10 for Proto-Oceanic, for which he postulates the ‘‘basic meaning’’ as indicating ‘‘combined or repeated action by a plurality of actors, or affecting a plurality of entities, normally but not invariably those denoted by the subject of the verb’’ (p. 152). There is also evidence that a second PR pattern is reconstructible for Proto-Oceanic: *pr-verb-aki,11 whose function was to encode distributed situations. Patterns of this basic kind are found in Fijian, in Polynesian languages, and in Mekeo (see examples 17–23, 24, and 25 respectively in

56


Section 3.6). Fijian and Polynesian on the one hand and Mekeo on the other belong in two different primary subgroups of Oceanic (Figure 1 in Section 2), which suggests that the pattern existed in Proto-Oceanic.12 The existence of two types of verbal PR constructions in Proto-Oceanic suggests the existence of polysemy of the PR prefix, and can also be taken as evidence of the notion of plurality of relations as a uniting factor. Second, the PR prefix is used with cognate kinship terms in languages that belong in different primary subgroups of Oceanic (Section 3.9): Standard Fijian wati ‘spouse’ (ex. 41) and To’aba’ita kwai ‘spouse’ (47), and Standard Fijian tama ‘father’ (43) and Tigak tama ‘father’ (52). This pattern too, then, is reconstructible for Proto-Oceanic, and here too it is plurality of relations that is the relevant factor. Kemmer (1993) proposes the notion of low degree of elaboration of events (situations) as the factor linking reflexives, middles, and reciprocals: with middles and reflexives the Initiator and the Endpoint participants are not (fully) separate entities; with reciprocals, the participants bear identical pairs of roles in identical relations (of reverse directionality), and the relations may even be simultaneous. As far as the Oceanic languages are concerned, it is primarily the degree of distinguishability of the participants that is relevant: in the reciprocal, converse, depatientive, middle, and kinship-term uses. Even though the notion of low elaboration of situations is clearly relevant to some of the uses of the Oceanic PR constructions, I believe it is the notion of plurality of relations that is the prime factor. I elaborate on this in what follows. Kemmer says that in cases of reciprocal-reflexive or reciprocal-middle polysemy the reciprocal function develops from the reflexive or the middle function. (See also Geniušiene˙ 1987 for statements to this effect.) The link connecting reciprocals with reflexives and middles is the low degree of distinguishability of participants: in all three types, the Initiator(s) is/are also the Endpoint(s). However, while developments in the direction reflexive/middle to reciprocal may be cross-linguistically rather common, developments in the other direction appear rare. In the case of Oceanic, I have come across only a small number of instances of middle meanings expressed by what is primarily a PR construction. Undoubtedly, there are more such cases, but they are unlikely to be very common. They appear to be lexically idiosyncratic and so language-specific developments. Most likely it was the reciprocal function that gave rise to the middle meanings, with the notion of low degree of distinguishability of the participants as the relevant factor. Reciprocals participate in (at least) two types of semantic network. In one, they are connected to reflexives (and middles), and there the notion of low degree of distinguishability of participants is relevant. In the other, they are connected to chaining, collective, dispersive, and some other types of situation, and there the notion of plurality of relations is relevant. Both plurality of relations and low degree of distinguishability of participants are relevant to reciprocals, and in that sense


57

reciprocals could function as a link between reflexive and middle meanings on the one hand and collective and other plurality-of-relations meanings on the other; but this seems to happen only rarely, and in Oceanic only middles are involved, not reflexives. If it were the factor of low degree of distinguishability of participants that was relevant in the Oceanic case, one might expect developments into the reflexive domain; however, such developments appear to be non-existent. Kemmer noted the absence of reflexive-reciprocal-collective polysemies crosslinguistically. In a single language, reciprocals may be connected to reflexives or to collectives but not to both.13 This suggests that the notions of plurality of relations and of elaboration of situations are highly distinct from each other, which, in turn, suggests that there may be limits on the extent of polysemy: certain types of meaning are unlikely to participate in a polysemy even though they could, in principle, be linked indirectly via intermediaries. Kemmer (1993: 100) says: ‘‘The direct reflexive and the collective prototypes, we might further hypothesize, are semantically distant from one another, thus making a three-way polysemy among these types unlikely.’’ What is interesting is that polysemies uniting reflexives and collectives do not seem to arise even though an intermediate link does exist, namely reciprocals. Even though reciprocals are characterized both by low elaboration of situations and by plurality of relations, the two factors are weighted differently in different languages. In some, it is the former that is weighted more due to links with reflexives; in others, it is the latter due to links with collectives and/or other situations characterized by plurality of relations. In the Oceanic case, there is evidence that it was plurality of relations that was historically the primary factor. Kemmer (1993) takes reflexives to be the prime source of middles. As the Oceanic case suggests, reciprocals may be another source. The notion of plurality of relations has some connections with what has been called ‘‘verbal plurals’’. Frajzyngier (1997) discusses in detail verbal plurals in Chadic languages (see also further references cited therein). In Chadic, verbal plurals include mutliple events and plural arguments (typically objects and/or intransitive subjects). These types of situation involve plurality of relations, as the term has been employed in this study. However, while there are some commonalities between the Chadic verbal plurals and the Oceanic plurality-of-relations polysemies, there are also some significant differences. The Oceanic polysemies involve a number of categories that never appear in the Chadic verbal plurals, such as the reciprocal, chaining and middle uses (Frajzyngier, pers. comm., December 1997). The notion of plurality of relations is broader than that of verbal plurals: for example, the former but not the latter can be used to characterize a single reciprocal situation with a sole agent and a sole patient. The differences between the Chadic verbal plurals and the Oceanic plurality-of-relations polysemies may have to do with the histories of the developments. Frajzyngier (1997) argues that in Chadic the


58

verbal–plural markers developed from earlier demonstratives. The origin of the Oceanic plurality-of-relations marker(s) has not been determined; however, information has come to hand recently that may have bearing on this matter. Tsuchida (1997) has reconstructed a bound verb-like form *pari- for Proto-Southern-Tsouic (within Formosan; see Figure 1 in Section 2), to which he assigns the meaning ‘gather (trans.)’. According to Robert Blust (pers. comm., December 1997), ProtoSouthern-Tsouic *pari- could be cognate with Proto-Eastern-Malayo-Polynesian *par i- (Section 2 above), in which case the form *par i- would be reconstructible for Proto-Austronesian. The meaning ‘gather’ of the Proto-Southern-Tsouic form could then be taken as further evidence that plurality of relations was the primary factor in the development of the Oceanic polysemies. There is one more lesson that the Oceanic languages can teach us. One of the functions served by the PR constructions is the depatientive one. There a semantically transitive verb is syntactically intransitive: a type of Endpoint is implied but none is expressed. Geniušiene˙ (1987), in her typology of reflexives, refers to this function as ‘‘absolute (reflexive).’’ She posits the following historical path of development (p. 347): semantic reflexivity → ‘partitive object’ and/or autocausative → absolute and/ or reciprocal That is, the absolute/depatientive and the reciprocal functions are seen as independent developments both originating (not necessarily ultimately) in the reflexive function. However, elsewhere Geniušiene˙ notes that ‘‘the Turkic reciprocal suffix can be used to signal the absolute use’’, but not the reflexive use, and that, therefore, ‘‘a reciprocal marker may also develop into a polyfunctional recession marker’’ (p. 318). In a number of Oceanic languages, the reciprocal and depatientive functions are united in polysemies that do not involve reflexives. This demonstrates that the depatientive function need not arise from the reflexive function or indeed be related to the reflexive function. And since there are languages in which depatientives are related (not necessarily directly) to reciprocals without being related to reflexives, there is no reason to assume that in those languages that do have a reflexive–reciprocal–depatientive polysemy the reciprocal and depatientive functions must have derived independently from the reflexive function rather than being more closely related to each other.

Acknowledgements My work on the To’aba’ita language has been supported by grants from the University of Auckland Research Fund. I am grateful to a number of speakers of To’aba’ita for providing me with the data that


59

appear in this study, in particular my principal language consultants Lawrence Foanaota and Reuel Riianoa. In revising an earlier version of this paper, I profited from comments by, and discussions with, a number of the participants at the Symposium, in particular Zygmunt Frajzyngier and Suzanne Kemmer.

Abbreviations abl abs acc accompl all ap art asp caus clf comp cont cop dem dir ds du ef erg excl fut hab inch incl indef lim loc m mid neg nm nom nonfut nonsg

ablative absolutive accusative accomplished allative applicative article aspect causative classifier complementizer continuative copula demonstrative directional different subject dual emphatic focus ergative exclusive future habitual inchoative inclusive indefinite limiter locative masculine middle negative, negator noun marker nominative non-future non-singular

now nr ns obj obl obscrd pass past perf pfv pl poss pr prep pres pro ptl purp red rest seq sg side so spont ss su ta th trans undir valen vb

now nominalizer non-specific aspect object oblique obscured passive past perfect perfective plural possessive plurality of relations preposition present independent pronoun particle purposive reduplication restrictive sequencer, sequential singular side purposive subject corresponding to matrix object spontaneous same subject subject tense/aspect thematic consonant transitive undirected valence verb.


60

Notes 1. Elsewhere, the glossing conventions of the sources of the data are used, except that the forms of some the glosses have been altered for the sake of uniformity (see Abbreviations). The sources of the data are given with the individual examples. The To’aba’ita data come from my field notes. 2. There has been some debate about the function of the suffix -Ci, where the C is a variable consonant (-ci, -vi, -ni, -i, etc.), in Standard Fijian. Current consensus is that there it is a transitive, rather than a passive, suffix; see e.g. Pawley 1986 and Schütz 1985, and example (15). Note, however, that Dixon’s examples are from Boumaa, not Standard, Fijian. 3. Milner (1972) writes the PR prefix as vei-, while Schütz (1985) writes it as ve¯¯ı-. 4. The suffix is historically most likely one of the variants of the transitive suffix; see note 2 above. 5. Ko is a ‘‘proper’’ article, used with proper nouns and personal pronouns; na is an article used with common nouns. 6. The suffix is historically related to the third person singular possessive suffix -na (Lichtenberk, forthcoming). 7. Without the prefix, the form of the word for ‘sibling’ is taina. 8. The suffixful form can also be used to express a reciprocal situation: (i) E fe-vaku-‘aki a Petelo mo Paulo. ns pr-scratch-trans abs P. and P. ‘Petelo and Paulo are scratching each other.’ (Moyse-Faurie, forthcoming) 9. 10. 11. 12.

The PR suffix has several allomorphs. Evidence from the present-day languages suggests that the suffix *-i was not always present. *-aki is one of the transitive suffixes reconstructed by Pawley (1973). Geraghty (1983) considers this construction to be an Eastern Fijian-Polynesian innovation; the Mekeo evidence was not available to him at the time. 13. According to Maslova (forthcoming), in Luvale (a Bantu language) a reflexive marker is used to express reflexive, reciprocal, as well as collective (‘‘sociative’’) situations. However, in the latter two functions the reflexive marker (a prefix) combines with other morphemes: ‘‘[an] old reciprocal suffix’’ and a ‘‘‘proximitive’ (formally, reduplicated applicative) suffix’’, respectively.

References Beaumont, Clive H. 1979. The Tigak Language of New Ireland. Canberra: Australian National University [Pacific Linguistics B-58]. Blust, Robert A. Forthcoming. Austronesian Comparative Dictionary. Bril, Isabell. Forthcoming. ‘‘Values of the reciprocal marker in Nêlêmwâ’’. In Nedjalkov and Guentcheva (eds). Capell, Arthur. 1973. A New Fijian Dictionary (4th ed.). Suva, Fiji: Government Press. Churchward, C. Maxwell. 1953. Tongan Grammar. Nuku’alofa, Tonga: Vava’u Press. —— 1959. Tongan Dictionary. Tonga: Government Printing Press. Cook Kenneth. 1988. A cognitive analysis of grammatical relations, case, and transitivity in Samoan. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Davis, Karen. 1997. A grammar of the Hoava language, Western Solomons. Ph.D. thesis, University of Auckland.


61

Dench, Alan C. 1995. Martuthunira: A language of the Pilbara Region of Western Australia. Canberra: Australian National University [Pacific Linguistics C–125]. Dixon, R.M.W. 1988. A Grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Faltz, Leonard M. 1985. Reflexivization: A study in Universal Syntax. New York: Garland. Fitzsimons, Matthew. 1989. Zabana: A grammar of a Solomon Islands language. M.A. thesis, University of Auckland. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1993. A Grammar of Mupun. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. —— 1997. ‘‘Grammaticalization of number: From demonstratives to nominal and verbal plural’’. Linguistic Typology 1: 193–242. Geniušiene˙, Emma. 1987. The Typology of Reflexives [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 2]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Geraghty, Paul A. 1983. The History of the Fijian Languages [Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication No. 19]. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Goddard, Ives. 1979. Delaware Verbal Morphology: A descriptive and comparative study. New York and London: Garland Publishing. Harris, Alice C., and Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jones, Alan A. 1993. Towards a lexicogrammar of Mekeo. Ph.D. dissertation, Australian National University. Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice [Typological Studies in Language 23]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lewis, G.L. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1985. ‘‘Multiple uses of reciprocal constructions’’. Australian Journal of Linguistics 5: 19–41. —— 1991a. ‘‘On the gradualness of grammaticalization’’. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds), Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. I, Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues [Typological Studies in Language 19]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 37–80. —— 1991b. ‘‘Reciprocals and depatientives in To’aba’ita. In Robert Blust (ed.), Currents in Pacific Linguistics: Papers on Austronesian Languages and Ethnolinguistics in Honour of George W. Grace [Pacific Linguistics C–117]. Canberra: Australian National University, 171–83. —— Forthcoming. ‘‘Reciprocals and related meanings in To’aba’ita’’. In Nedjalkov and Guentcheva (eds). MacDonald, Lorna. 1990. A Grammar of Tauya. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Maslova, Elena. Forthcoming. ‘‘Remarkable reciprocals in Bantu’’. In Nedjalkov and Guentcheva (eds). Milner, G.B. 1972. Fijian Grammar (3rd ed.). Suva, Fiji: Government Press. Mosel, Ulrike. 1984. Tolai Syntax and its Historical Development [Pacific Linguistics B-92]. Canberra: Australian National University. —— and Even Hovdhaugen. 1992. Samoan Reference Grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

62


Moyse-Faurie, Claire. Forthcoming. ‘‘Reciprocal constructions in Futunan’’. In Nedjalkov and Guentcheva (eds). Nedjalkov, Vladimir P., and Z. Guentcheva (eds). Forthcoming. Typology of Reciprocal Constructions. Munich: Lincom Europa. Pawley, Andrew. 1973. ‘‘Some problems in Proto-Oceanic grammar’’. Oceanic Linguistics 12: 103–88. —— 1986. ‘‘A reanalysis of Fijian transitive constructions. Te Reo 29: 81–112. —— and Malcolm Ross, 1993. ‘‘Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history’’. Annual Review of Anthropology 22: 425–59. Ross, M.D. 1988. Proto Oceanic and the Austronesian Languages of Western Melanesia [Pacific Linguistics C–98]. Canberra: Australian National University. Schlie, P. and V. Schlie, n.d. (c.1984). No title. Typescript. Schütz, Albert J. 1985. The Fijian Language. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Tsuchida, Shigeru. 1997. Lexical prefixes in Formosan languages. Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Taipei, 28–30 December 1997.

Types of anaphoric expressions: Reflexives and reciprocals MARTIN EVERAERT Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS

1.–Introduction Within the generative research tradition binding conditions A and B of the Binding Theory have long been one of the few constants in rapidly changing theoretical concepts. (1a–b) present the Lectures of Government and Binding version (Chomsky 1981), where the notion ‘‘governing category’’ and ‘‘binding’’ are defined as in (1c) and (1d), respectively: (1) a. An anaphor must be bound in its governing category. b. A pronominal must be free in its governing category. c. b is a governing category for a if and only if b is the minimal category containing a, a governor of a, and a subject (accessible to a). d. a binds b iff a and b are coindexed and a c-commands b. In this theory, there is only one concept ‘anaphor’, subsuming reflexives and reciprocals. If we look at the predecessors of Binding Theory, we can see that this neglect of the difference between reflexives and reciprocals is an innovation. In the work preceding Lectures of Government and Binding, Chomsky mainly discusses the distribution of the reciprocal each other which he takes to be derived from eachmovement, i.e. The men hated each other is derived from The men each hated the other(s) (Dougherty 1970). For reflexives Chomsky follows the analysis of Helke (1979) who puts reflexives on a par with bound anaphora in certain idioms such as his way in He lost his way, and his cool in He lost his cool. This approach is most clearly visible in Chomsky (1977), where the following rules are formulated:

martin everaert

64 (2) a.

Reciprocal rule: assign to each other the feature [+anaphoric to i] in a structure containing NPi. b. Bound anaphora: assign to a pronoun the feature [+anaphoric to i] in a structure containing NPi, in the context [NP–Possessive–Nx].

Two things are important to note. Chomsky, potentially, recognizes the morphological difference between the two types of anaphors, but stresses their similarities. These rules of construal are subject to the same restrictions: the Specified Subject Constraint and the Tensed S Condition. The Binding Theory as formulated in (1) has been very influential in generative research. It is also true that, essentially, it hasn’t changed since its conception, although, from the beginning, it was clear that there were severe empirical problems. The most well-known and most thoroughly studied problem was the so-called phenomenon of long distance binding. Limiting ourselves to Germanic, one can refer to the work of Thráinsson (1976), Reis (1976), Harbert (1983), Maling (1984), Vikner (1984), Everaert (1986), Hellan (1988), Koster (1988), Hestvik (1990), among many others. Take, for instance, the Icelandic examples in (3a) and (3c) and the Norwegian example in (3b).1 (3) a.

Joni let mig raka sigi. Jon:nom made:3sg:ind me:acc shave:inf himself:acc ‘Jon made me shave him.’ b. Olai bad oss snakke om segi. Ola asked us talk about himself ‘Ola asked us to talk about him.’ c. Jóni segir a* María elski Jon:nom says:3sg:ind that Maria:nom loves:3sg:subj sigi. himself:acc ‘Jon says that Maria loves him.’

Despite the anaphoric status of the indexed elements in (3) the anaphor is bound outside what one would like to call its governing category. We will not discuss the numerous proposals that have been suggested to solve this problem (cf. the references above). Whatever one might think of the proposals, two things became increasingly clear: (4) a. We should distinguish types of anaphors. b. Binding is not a unitary phenomenon. Below it will come clear what we mean by this, and we will do that in two ways. First by discussing two proposals that illustrate the statements in (4), and, after that,

types of anaphoric expressions

65

by discussing two types of empirical problems for the standard Binding Theory that can receive a satisfactory analysis if we abandon standard BT as formulated in (1).

2.–Towards a typology of anaphoric expressions Recently two papers have been published that, in my mind, change the picture that I sketched above substantially: Reinhart and Reuland’s Reflexivity, and Heim, Lasnik and May’s Reciprocity and Plurality. The former question the uniformity of Binding Theory, as I will explain, and the latter give a detailed analysis of the English reciprocal which seems to derive its anaphoric status from independent properties. 2.1.–Reflexivity In the Reflexivity framework (Reinhart and Reuland 1993; Reuland, this volume) the distribution of anaphors are regulated by the binding conditions, as formulated in (5): (5) a. A reflexive-marked syntactic predicate is reflexive. b. A reflexive semantic predicate is reflexive-marked. The definitions of reflexive and reflexive-marked are given in (6): (6) a. A predicate is reflexive iff two of its arguments are coindexed. b. A predicate (of P) is reflexive-marked iff either (i) P is lexically reflexive or (ii) one of P’s arguments is a self-anaphor. Central in this framework is the notion ‘reflexive-marked’. The distributional difference between pronominals and reflexives in (7a,b) follows from the fact that English himself is a self-anaphor, and him not. In the same way, the difference between Dutch zich and zichzelf in (7c,d) follows from the assumption that the latter is a self-anaphor, and the former not: (7) a. b. c. d.

Johni washed himselfi. *Johni washed himi. Mariei houdt niet van zichzelfi. *Mariei houdt niet van zichi. Mary loves not of herself (self) ‘Mary doesn’t love herself.’

The difference between English him and Dutch zich is that the latter is an anaphor, and not a pronominal. In Reinhart and Reuland’s terminology it is a se-anaphor. The definition of reflexive-marked further states that anaphor and antecedent

66

martin everaert

must be co-arguments. If that is not the case, as in (8), the reflexivity conditions simply don’t hold, allowing the anaphor to be bound outside its governing category. Reinhart and Reuland call this the logophoric use (cf. Reuland 1997 and Frajzyngier 1997 for further discussion of logophoricity). (8) Maxi boasted that the queen invited Lucie and himself i for a drink. A curious fact about the conditions in (5) is that they do not say anything about the configurational effects of Binding Theory. So, German (9a) is predicted to be just as grammatical as German (9b), which is, in fact, not the case. (9) a. [Der Johan]i wäscht [sich selbst]i. [the Johan]:nom washes [himself self]:acc ‘John washes himself.’ wäscht [den Johan]i. b. *[Sich selbst]i [himself self]:nom washes [the John]:acc The configurational effects of the Binding Theory—the difference between (9a) and (9b)—are due to the movement module, i.e., chain formation. In Reinhart and Reuland’s view every lexical element, overt or empty, is subject to chain formation under the conditions set out in (10). (10) a.

Generalized Chain Condition C=("1, . . . ,"n) is a chain iff C is the maximal sequence such that (i)–there is an index i such that for all 1≤j≤n, "j carries that index, and (ii)–for all j, 1≤j≤n "j governs "j+1. b. Condition on A-chains A maximal A-chain ("1, . . . ,"n) contains exactly one link ("1) which is +R c. An NP is +R iff it carries full specification for phi-features (person, number, gender) and structural Case Elements that are co-indexed will form a chain if they are ‘close enough’ (cf. 10a), such as in (9). The condition on A-chains (cf. 10b) will exclude the ungrammatical (9b) because the chain [sich selbst, den Johan] is headed by a −R element. German sich (selbst) is considered −R because it is underspecified for number and gender (cf. 10c). In (9b) the chain [Johan, sich selbst] satisfies the condition on A-chains.2 To summarize: • ‘binding’ is the result of the Reflexivity conditions (5) and Chain Formation (10); • logophoric use of anaphors is distinguished from non-logophoric use of anaphors: [−R,+self]-anaphors (Dutch zichzelf) are distinguished from [−R,–self]-anaphors (Dutch zich).3


67

It is clear that the Reflexivity approach radically differs from standard Binding Theory since it is based on the assumption that binding effects are derived by the interplay between two independent modules. It, furthermore, presupposes a typology of anaphors that differs from the Binding Theory concept.4 In the next section I will focus on Heim, Lasnik and May’s approach to reciprocals, which illustrates the statements in (4) in a different way. 2.2.–Reciprocity and plurality Heim, Lasnik and May (1991) propose that the semantics of the reciprocal construction is derivable on the basis of its morphosyntactic properties; in their own words ‘‘reciprocal expressions have no properties peculiarly their own and that their meaning instead arises from the compositional interactions of the meanings that their constituents parts have in isolation.’’ For Heim, Lasnik and May a sentence as in (11a) will have a semantic structure as in (11b): (11) a. The cats tickled each other. b. Semantic structure: distributor reciprocator scope ∀x(x ∈ cats) ∀y(y ∈ cats ∧y ≠ x) tickled(x,y) ↑ ↑ ‘range argument’ ‘contrast argument’ The basic ingredients of this semantic structure consist of a reciprocator (the reciprocal each other), the distributor (its ‘antecedent’) and a scope element (the predicate). The reciprocator has a complex semantic structure consisting of a range argument and a contrast argument. Heim, Lasnik and May assume that the range argument corefers with the distributor, the group denoting antecedent, and the contrast argument ranges over the distributor, as (11b) shows.5 They argue that this is encoded at Logical Form where each adjoins to the distributor (after which both the distributor and the reciprocator are also moved as a result of Quantifier Raising): (12) [S [NP [NP the cats]1 each-2][S e1 [VP [NP e2 other]3 [VP tickled e3 ]]]]] Heim, Lasnik and May argue that this analysis not only accounts for the semantic properties of each other, which I will not discuss here, but also for the distributional restrictions of each other. In (12) each moves at Logical Form leaving behind an NP-trace (e2 in (12)) and, as a result, the relation between the reciprocal and its antecedent is subject to binding condition A. It is clear that this analysis is reminiscent of Dougherty’s (1970) and Belletti’s (1982) analysis in which (13a) is derived from (13b):

68

martin everaert

(13) a. The cats tickle each other. b. The cats each tickle the other(s). Just as in their analysis, in Heim, Lasnik and May the semantics of each other is derived from the semantic properties of each and other in isolation. Furthermore, the observation that each other is subject to binding condition A is derived from covert each movement leaving behind an NP-trace. This means that this analysis crucially depends on the assumption that both empty categories and overt categories are subject to binding conditions and can be categorized as anaphoric/pronominal (Chomsky 1981,1982). There is convincing evidence that Heim, Lasnik and May’s analysis is on the wrong track (Dalrymple, Mchombo and Peters 1994). They show that all of the properties of English each other are also present in the case of reciprocal markers that do not have such a morphological composition such as the reciprocal verbal affix -an- in Chichew ˆ a. This is unexpected if the constituent parts of reciprocals play such an important role in their semantic and distributional properties. However there is also evidence that some aspects of Heim, Lasnik and May’s analysis are correct. Observe, for example the Greek examples in (14), from Elena Anagnostopoulou (p.c.): (14) I ginekes agapoun i mia the:nom:pl women:nom:pl love:3sg:pl the:nom:sg one:nom:sg tin alli. the:acc:sg her:acc:sg ‘The women love each other.’ A plural antecedent is construed with a complex constituent consisting of a singular phrase with the same Case as the antecedent, mia meaning ‘one’, and another singular phrase, in this case accusative, alli meaning ‘other’. The exact syntax of this construction has not been investigated, but it seems that it can be naturally accommodated under the Logical Form representation of reciprocals outlined above. The singular phrase sharing the same Case with the plural antecedent corresponds to the English each which acts as the contrast argument; the other phrase having the case of the position is the range argument corresponding to the English ‘other’. The fact that in Greek the distributor and the range argument have the same morphological case can be viewed as a reflex of the fact that at Logical Form, they form a complex subject of the type illustrated in (12).6 Similar facts were discussed for Icelandic in Everaert (1990). The Icelandic reciprocal consists of two indefinite demonstrative pronouns, hvor and annar, roughly meaning ‘one of (both)’ and ‘the other, another’. Both parts have their own agreement restrictions. As far as number and gender are concerned, they agree with the


69

antecedent. Case marking, however, is different. In ‘‘standard’’ Icelandic the hvor part agrees in Case with the subject, just as in Greek, and the annar part takes the Case of the position the reciprocal occupies:7 (15) Þeir elska hvor annan. they:nom love:3pl:ind one:nom another:acc ‘They loved each other.’ 2.3.–Summary In the two sections above I have, very briefly, tried to make clear that the basic concept of the ‘‘standard’’ binding theory, a simple opposition between anaphor and pronominal whose distribution is regulated by one rule is under serious scrutiny. It might be the case that there is no simple primitive concept anaphor and that the effects of binding condition A/B should be replaced by several distinct mechanisms. In the next section I will discuss some observational issues that strengthen this conclusion.

3.–A typology of reflexives: nominative anaphors The Binding Theory as formulated in (1) predicts the ungrammaticality of (16b): (16) a. Johni washes himselfi. b. *Himselfi/Heselfi washes Johni. In (16b) the antecedent does not c-command the anaphor, thus violating (1a). However, Greek anaphors differ strikingly from the English anaphor and German anaphor (cf. 9) in this respect.8 3.1.–Greek Consider the Greek examples in (17) from Anagnostopoulou and Everaert (1995). In (17a–b) but not in (17c) a nominative anaphor is allowed.9 (17) a. [O eaftos tu]i tu aresi tu Petrui. the:nom self:nom his:gen cl:dat like:3sg the:dat Peter:dat ‘Peter pleases himself.’ b. [O eaftos tu]i ton afora ton Petroi. the:nom self:nom his:gen cl:acc concern:3sg the:acc Peter:acc ‘Peter concerns himself.’

martin everaert

70

c. *[O eaftos tu]i ton antipathi ton Petroi. the:nom self:nom his:gen cl:acc dislike:3sg the:acc Peter:acc himself dislikes John In Anagnostopoulou and Everaert (1995, 1999) it is argued that English and Greek anaphors differ with respect to their internal structure and this difference is responsible for their different distributional properties. We show that this difference follows from the Reflexivity framework outlined in Reinhart and Reuland (1993), given some modifications. Recall that the ungrammaticality of (16b) and (9b) follows from the condition on chain formation (10b). At first sight the same condition would also exclude (17a–c). Now suppose that an anaphor does not undergo chain-formation. It will then not be subject to the configurational restrictions linked to the Chain Condition. In such a case all the examples in (17) would be equally acceptable. There is reason to assume that chain formation, indeed, doesn’t work. Iatridou (1988) has shown that o eaftos tu has the structure of an inalienable possession NP, contrary to himself which is a pronoun.10 In Anagnostopoulou and Everaert (1995, 1999) we follow Iatridou for the structure of the Greek anaphor in (18b) and Reinhart and Reuland (1993) for the structure of Dutch/English anaphor in (18a) (a more detailed analysis of the internal structure of the English and Greek reflexive is given in Anagnostopoulou and Everaert (1999)): (18)

DP

a.

DP

b.

D′

D′

D

NP

D

zich him

zelf self

o

NP N

Spec-NP

eaftos

tu

Given the structures in (18), there is no chain formation in Greek, cf. (19a), but there is in English (19b): (19) a. [O eaftos tui]j tu aresi [tu Petru]i. the:nom self:nom his:gen cl:dat like:3sg the:dat Peter:dat ‘Peter pleases himself.’ b. *Himselfi pleases Peteri (19a) shows that the reflexive phrase as a whole is not coindexed with its antecedent, only the possessive part of the reflexive. The fact that not all nominative


71

reflexives in Greek are acceptable—(17c) is ungrammatical compared to (17a,b) —follows from the fact that the verbal predicates in (17a,b) are unaccusative, and in (17c) unergative. To formulate it in different terms. The nominative anaphors in (17a,b) are derived subjects and in (17c) a base-generated subject. In Anagnostopoulou and Everaert (1995) and Everaert and Anagnostopoulou (1997) it is discussed how the unaccusative/unergative dichotomy could derive the desired distinction. I leave the details of such analyses undiscussed here. This analysis makes a strong prediction. Every language that has a Greek-type anaphor, i.e. an inalienable possession NP reflexive, should allow nominative anaphors (in the case of unaccusative verbs). And reversely, every language that has a Dutch/English-type of anaphor, i.e. a pronominal reflexive, will not allow nominative anaphors. I have not been able to check these predictions in detail but there is evidence for at least two languages the former prediction is borne out.11 3.2.–Basque Basque is language with a reflexive that appears to be of the Greek-type. The Basque reflexive xen burua consists of a possessive pronoun, the noun buru and an affixed determiner a (and additional case-marking). Itziar Laka (p.c.) informs me that Basque sentences like (20) are grammatical (Rudolf de Rijk informed me that he collected similar examples with a ‘subject’ anaphor): (20) a.

Peruri bere burua gustatzen zaio. Peru:dat his:3sg:gen head:abs like:asp 3sg:abs:Root:3sg:dat ‘Peru liked himself.’ b. Neure buruak izutu nau. my:gen head:erg (pro:abs) frightened 1sg:abs:Root:3sg:erg ‘I have frightened myself.’

The psych verb ‘like’ in Basque takes an absolutive subject and a dative object, and as (20a) shows the object Peru binds the reflexive in subject position. (20b) gives an example with the psych verb ‘frighten’ which takes an ergative subject and absolutive object. If these verbs are analyzed as truly unaccusative having undergone NP-movement the grammaticality of these examples would be predicted. Such an analysis is not without problems because it has been claimed that Basque has no NP-movement. However, the behavior of reflexives in these cases is quite unexpected given standard assumption about the hierarchy of case arguments in Basque (Itziar Laka, (p.c.)). Except psych predicates all other predicates that take a Dative-Absolutive Case array must have the anaphor in dative, bound by the absolutive. Other predicates that take the ergative-absolutive case array must have the anaphor in absolutive.

72

martin everaert

3.3.–Albanian Albanian is another language that allows nominative anaphors, as has frequently been reported in the literature (K. Williams 1988 a.o.): (21) a. Vetjai iu tregua Dritësi prej artisit. self:nom cl:dat show:3sg:pd:na Drita:dat by artist:abl ‘The artist showed Drita herself.’ b. Vetjai iu përshkrua Agimiti prej self:nom cl:dat describe:3sg:pd:na Agim:dat by gazetarit. journalist:abl ‘The journalist described Agim himself.’ In (21) the nominative anaphor is bound by the indirect object. However, the passive oblique may not antecede any term, either the subject (22a) or the indirect object (22b): u ftua prej kapedaniti. (22) a. *Vetjai self:nom cl invite:3sg:pd:na by captain:abl himself was invited by the captain b. *Libri iu dergua vetesi prej Agimiti. book:nom cl:dat send:3sg:pd:na self:dat by Agim:abl the book was sent to himself by Agim If we assume that the reflexive in Albanian is structurally comparable to Greek, the chain condition will not exclude (21) and (22).12 In (21) the predicate is reflexivemarked and reflexive, and thus predicted to be acceptable. In (22) too, the predicate is reflexive-marked but it is not immediately clear that the predicate is also reflexive. If the by-phrase is taken as a syntactic argument the predicate would be considered reflexive, predicting the grammaticality of (22). However, if the by-phrase is not taken as a syntactic argument of the predicate, in the sense defined by Reinhart and Reuland (1993), the two coindexed elements are not co-arguments so that the reflexivity condition is violated. I.e. the predicate is reflexive-marked but not reflexive. In the latter option the difference of grammaticality between (21) and (22) would be predicted. In the literature alternative explanations have been presented for the Albanian facts. If we would make a distinction between direct functions/theta roles and oblique functions/theta roles and assume that the latter are lower on the hierarchy than the former, the difference between (21) and (22) follows (cf. Hellan 1988; Sells 1988; Dalrymple 1993 for a more detailed version of this very brief summary).


73

However, what these analyses do no capture is why languages like Dutch and English crucially differ on this point, i.e. why the Albanian examples in (21) are grammatical but the Dutch examples in (23) are not: (23) a. *Zichzelfi werd Jani beschreven door Peter. Himself self was John described by Peter b. *Himselfi was described to Johni by Peter To complicate matters, note that in Greek an example such as (22a) would be ungrammatical but (22b) is considered acceptable, provided that the by-phrase precedes (Anagnostopoulou and Everaert 1996). (24) To tragoudi afierothike apo [ton Janni]i the:nom song:nom was dedicated by the:acc John:acc s-[ton eafto tu]i. to-the:dat self:dat his:gen ‘The song was dedicated by John to himself’ This is clearly unexpected in the accounts of these facts that I sketched above, including the Reflexivity approach in Anagnostopoulou and Everaert (1999), and shows that more research is needed on this point.

4.–Difference between reflexives and reciprocals Over the years, it has been pointed out that in English reflexives and reciprocals do differ in their distribution on some points. If one adopts the assumption that both reciprocals and reflexives are anaphors subject to binding principle A of the Binding Theory this is clearly unexpected. In this section I will repeat some of these observations to strengthen the position that I have defended in the preceding sections, i.e. that we should distinguish types of anaphora. My overview will be mainly based on English and Dutch and will only be exemplary. 4.1.–Tensed-S/Specified Subject violations In Lebeaux (1983) it was noted that reflexives and reciprocals seem to behave differently in the (nominative) subject position of tensed sentences such as (25a,b): (25) a. ?[John and Mary]i didn’t think that each otheri would leave early. b. *[John and Mary]i didn’t think that themselvesi would leave early. c. [John and Mary]i didn’t think that theyi would leave early. The fact that (25a) is grammatical is unexpected because the embedded sentence is

74

martin everaert

a governing category if we follow the definition in (1c), which explains why (25c) is grammatical. Partially on the basis of these facts, the definition of governing category is changed in Chomsky (1986) in such a way that the matrix sentence is the domain in which the anaphors must be bound.13 This means that both (25a) and (25b) are predicted to be grammatical. The ungrammaticality of (25b) should follow from other principles of grammar (the specifics of this analysis do not concern us at this point, cf. Chomsky (1986)). In Philip and Everaert (1995) it is observed that the difference between the two anaphors observed in (25) changes when we vary the matrix predicate. The use of the reflexive always leads to ungrammaticality, but grammaticality judgments vary in the case of reciprocals: (26) a. [John and Mary]i haven’t decided what each otheri should do. b. ?[John and Mary]i wondered what each otheri should do. c. *[John and Mary]i whispered that each otheri would leave early. Moreover, it is observed that in Dutch, both a reflexive and a reciprocal are ungrammatical in such cases: (27)*Ziji dachten niet dat zichzelfi/elkaari vroeg zouden vertrekken. they thought not that themselves/each other early would leave ‘They didn’t think that themselves/each other would leave early.’ In the case of for-to infinitives there is also a distributional difference between reflexives and reciprocals (Chomsky 1981 and references there cited): (28) a. */?Johni much preferred for himselfi to be the candidate. b. */?Johni wanted himselfi to be a contender. (29) a. The meni preferred for each otheri to be the candidate. b. The meni wanted each otheri to be a contender. (30) a. *The meni preferred for themi to be the candidate. b. *The meni wanted themi to be a contender. Following the definitions in footnote 13, the matrix predicate is the governing category in (28)–(30), just as in (25). From that it follows that the (un)grammaticality of the examples in (29)–(30) is predicted. However, the ungrammaticality of the examples in (28) is unexpected. Finally, Kuno (1987) observes that reflexives and reciprocals behave differently with respect to expletive subjects in sentences such as (31): (31) a.

Theyi think it bothered each otheri that the pictures are hanging on the wall.


75

b. *Theyi think it bothered themselvesi that the pictures are hanging on the wall. Under the assumption that expletive subjects count as accessible subjects, one would expect both (31a) and (31b) to be ungrammatical. Just as in the case of (27) Dutch makes no difference between reflexives and reciprocals in these cases:14 (32)*Ziji denken dat het elkaari/zichzelfi dwars zat dat de foto’s they think that it each other/themselves bothered that the pictures aan de muur hangen. on the wall hang ‘They think that it bothered each other/themselves that the pictures are hanging on the wall.’ 4.2.–Possessives It is a well-known observation that in English reciprocals are allowed as possessives while reflexives are not (cf. 33a–35a); this observation can be repeated for Dutch (cf. 33b–34b): (33) a. *Theyi bought themselves/theirselves’i books. b. *Ziji kochten zich/zichzelf’si boeken. they bought themselves’ books (34) a. Theyi bought each other’si books. b. Ziji kochten elkaarsi boeken. they bought each others books (35) a. Theyi saw theiri books. b. Ziji kochten huni boeken. they bought their books In English there seems to be one exception to this generalization, a possessive reciprocal in a gerund (Chomsky 1981): (36) *Theyi’d prefer each otheri’s writing the book. In its original formulation (Chomsky 1981), the Binding Theory excludes all anaphors in (33)–(34), and predicts the grammaticality of the examples in (35), because the definition of the notion Governing Category was such that the NP containing the anaphors was the domain in which the anaphor had to be bound. As mentioned above, in Chomsky (1986) this definition was changed in such a way that an anaphor in the subject position of clauses and NPs could be bound by an antecedent in the matrix sentence, i.e. the matrix sentence is the binding domain for the

martin everaert

76

anaphor in these cases. As a result (33)–(34) are predicted to be grammatical. The same holds for the pronoun in (35). Under this version of the binding theory the noun phrase itself is the binding domain for the possessive pronoun in (35) and grammaticality is thus predicted. The main effect of this reformulation of the binding theory is that the binding domain of an element depends on its status as an anaphor/pronominal. Whatever version of the binding theory one adopts, for a principle and parameter approach the difference between reflexives and reciprocals in cases like (33)–(34) remains unaccounted for since the binding theory is not sensitive to the reciprocal– reflexive distinction. 4.3.–Impersonal passives In Dutch the reciprocal, but not the reflexive, can be used without an overt antecedent in passive constructions, the so-called impersonal passive (cf. Everaert 1986; Broekhuis 1994):15 (37) a.

Er werd veel over elkaar gepraat. there was much about each other talked ‘One talked a lot about each other.’ b. *Er werd veel over zichzelf gepraat. there was much about themselves talked

English does not allow an impersonal passive construction, but in a comparable construction, neither a reflexive nor a reciprocal can be used (Chomsky 1995): (38)*There seem to each otheri/themselvesi to have been many good linguistsi not even given job interviews, much less jobs There seems a clear distributional difference between reflexives and reciprocals. 4.4.–Some thoughts on the distribution of reciprocals This brief discussion of the distribution of reciprocals in Dutch and English makes clear that reflexives and reciprocals differ substantially in their distribution. In the context of this paper I will not pursue detailed explanations for all the facts mentioned. The question is whether the observed distributional differences should be reflected in the binding theory. One could very well imagine that binding theory makes a distinction between reflexives and reciprocals—along the lines of (2), for instance. The analysis of Heim, Lasnik and May would, in principle, allow such a


77

line of reasoning, but they themselves do not pursue it. The anaphoric status of each other is derived by each-movement leaving behind a trace. This trace is taken as an NP-trace, and thus as an anaphor subject to binding principle A (1a), just as reflexives. The other option is that binding theory itself doesn’t make a difference between reflexives and reciprocals but that the distributional differences can be explained by independent principles. This line is taken by Lebeaux (1983) and Chomsky (1986). They argue that reflexives but not reciprocals move at Logical Form. Triggered by an agreement requirement the reflexive must move to a position close to its antecedent. So, in the case of (25b) and (28) the reflexive will leave a trace that is not properly governed resulting in an Empty Category Principle violation (Chomsky 1981), explaining their ungrammaticality. Such an analysis, however, will not shed any light on the (un)grammaticality of the examples in (31). In the case of (36) a similar line of reasoning might be used. The ungrammaticality of (36) seems to be a mystery, till one compares it with (39) (Chomsky 1981): (39) *They’d prefer somebody’s writing the book. If the ungrammaticality of (39) is due to the fact that the possessive is a quantified NP, it is to be expected that (36) is also ungrammatical if we follow Heim, Lasnik and May’s analysis that reciprocals are analyzed as quantified NPs. The Logical Form-movement analysis of Heim, Lasnik and May may also shed some light on the observed difference between (26a), (26b) and (26c), repeated here: (26) a. [John and Mary]i haven’t decided what each otheri should do. b. ?[John and Mary]i wondered what each otheri should do. c. *[John and Mary]i whispered that each otheri would leave early. Given an analysis in which the each-part of the reciprocal is moved to the antecedent at Logical Form one would expect normal restrictions on such movement to be relevant. We know that operator-movement is sensitive to island constraints such as the WH-island constraint, or inner islands such as negation (Rizzi 1990). The remarkable fact is that the a-example of (26) presents us with two possible barriers for each movement, a WH-island and negation, while the b-example has only one barrier, a WH-island. The c-example doesn’t even have a barrier in the traditional sense although whisper is a nonbridge-verb. Apparently acceptability of the reciprocal in subject position is improved when more barriers are added. In Philip and Everaert (1995) it is argued that the reciprocals in embedded subject position (25a), and in pseudo passives (37a), are acceptable only insofar as they have a ‘pseudo-reciprocal’ reading.16 They describe it as intuitively ‘pronom-

78

martin everaert

inal’. A test of pseudo-reciprocity would be that it gives rise to contradiction (#) in contexts such as (40a), while a true reciprocal reading does not—see (40b). (40) a. #They don’t believe each other can be trusted, but they believe they can be trusted. b. They don’t like each other, but they like themselves. The oddness of (40) shows that the reciprocal sentences in (25a, 31a) lack true reciprocal readings: (41) a. #They didn’t think that each other would leave early but they thought they would leave early. b. #They didn’t think it bothered each other that the pictures are hanging on the wall, but they thought it bothered them that the pictures are hanging on the wall. The same distinction might play a role in the pseudo-passive cases of (37a). Philip and Everaert (1995) assume that this ‘pronominal’ reading only comes available when a grammatical (syntactic or semantic) derivation of the relation between a reciprocal and its antecedent is blocked. This performance-theoretical account of such cases is further elaborated in Philip (1996), partly on the basis of acquisition data. The semantics of reciprocals have been studied in a number of papers in the formal theoretic tradition (Langendoen 1978, Higginbotham 1980, Dalrymple et al. 1994, among others). Some of the papers in this volume discuss the semantics of reciprocals from other theoretical perspectives. It is evident that the semantics of reciprocals is quite diverse and complicated (Kemmer 1993; McGregor this volume; Lichtenberk this volume), but, surprisingly, it appears as if these semantic differences never have consequences for the distributional properties of reciprocals. In the study of reflexives it seems to be generally accepted that we should make a distinction between ‘syntactically bound reflexives’ and ‘discourse bound reflexives’, often called logophors. That is, some anaphora facts are accounted for in syntax, other facts in semantics, discourse. In Reflexivity the distinction between the types of reflexivization is defined configurationally: a reflexive in argument position is subject to syntactic/semantic constraints (the Reflexivity conditions): a reflexive in a non-argument position is subject to logophoric interpretation. In Pollard and Sag (1994) the distinction depends on the locality of the relation between anaphor and its antecedent. Suppose a similar distinction holds for reciprocals? That is, some reciprocals are real reciprocals, some reciprocals are pseudoreciprocals comparable to the logophoric reflexives of Maling (1984) and Reinhart and Reuland (1993).


79

5.–Conclusion Standard generative binding theory treated reflexives and reciprocals on a par, being classified as an anaphor they were both subject to condition A of the Binding Theory. The differences between the two types of anaphors are recognized, but in the Binding Theory their similarities are stressed. Research in the 1980s showed that we should distinguish different types of reflexives and that their domains of interpretation differ. Reinhart and Reuland (1993), for instance, distinguished se-anaphors from self-anaphors and showed how they obeyed different constraints. Heim, Lasnik and May (1991) argue that some of the semantic properties of the English reciprocal each other could be derived from its morphosyntactic properties. This line of research is further developed in, for instance, Safir (1996) and Anagnostopoulou and Everaert (1995,1999) who show that the internal syntax and semantics of reflexives deserve more attention because it influences their distributional properties. A similar line of research is needed for reciprocals if we are to successfully address the distributional differences between reflexives and reciprocals.

Acknowledgements This paper builds on cooperative work with Elena Anagnostopoulou, Section 3 in particular (cf. Anagnostopoulou and Everaert 1995), and William Philip, Section 4 in particular (cf. Philip and Everaert 1995). I would like to thank several people who have contributed to this paper in various ways: Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Elly van Gelderen, Werner Abraham, Ekkehard Koenig, Itziar Laka, Eric Reuland, Peter Siemund, Tigran Spaan, Artemis Alexiadou and the SynCom group at the Netherlands Institute of Advanced Studies in the Humanities and Social Sciences.

Notes 1. I will use the following abbreviations in the glosses: abl = ablative; abs = absolutive; acc = accusative; asp = aspect; cl = clitic; dat = dative; erg = ergative; gen = genitive; ind = indicative; inf = infinitive; na = non-active; nom = nominative; pd = past definite; pl = plural; sg = singular; subj = subjunctive. Languages that do not basically differ from English in relevant grammatical aspects are not glossed for bound morphemes. In some cases glosses of not overtly realized grammatical information has been added between brackets. 2. Note that the Condition on A-chains (10b) also excludes (7b) because both the head and the foot of the chain (him) are +R (cf. 10c). Van Gelderen (1999) and Lyutikova (1999) discuss anaphoric systems where pronouns could be classified as –R, not being fully specified for phi-features. See Reuland (1999) for an analysis of such cases. 3. Anagnostopoulou and Everaert (1999) argue a third type of anaphor, an ‘inalienable possession anaphor’ ([+R, +self]), should be distinguished.

80

martin everaert

4. See Abraham (1999) and Koenig and Siemund (1999) for criticism of this framework, and Reuland (1999) for discussion of new research issues in this framework. 5. The fact that the range argument corefers with the distributor doesn’t follow from the semantics of other per se (cf. Philip and Everaert 1995; Philip 1996). 6. See also Kennelly (1992) for discussion of similar facts in Turkish. 7. There are native speakers who do not allow Case agreement with the antecedent and take the samecase for both hvor and annar (cf. Thráinsson 1979:129, fn. 23). In some cases both variants are accepted by most native speakers (cf. Everaert 1990). 8. See Abraham (1999) for discussion of a different type of nominative reflexive. 9. Observe that in (17a) tu is glossed in three different ways. Traditional grammar takes the second tu as the weak form of the personal pronoun, i.e. the same form as the first one. The first one is a possessive pronoun in contexts which demand a ‘weak’ possessor. The third tu is an article which happens to have the same form as the 3rd person clitic personal pronoun, the second tu. In an analysis that takes determiners as the head of noun phrases (Abney 1987, and references cited there), and pronouns in the determiner position (Postal 1969), this identity does not come as a surprise. 10. See Amiridze (1997) for discussion of Georgian reflexives which can also be classified as of the inalienable possession type. 11. Note that there are certain languages that allow subject anaphors quite regularly. Clark (1992) and others have described Toba Batak as a language which has subject anaphors under certain voice restrictions. Further research has to make clear whether these languages can be subsumed under the analysis I am proposing 12. The reflexive in Albanian consists of the singular definite noun vetja or vetvetja, marked for Case just like other definite feminine singular nouns. To stress identity a possessive pronoun can be added (postnominally). If we want to maintain that the Albanian reflexive is, like the Greek reflexive, a case of inalienable possession NP, we would have to assume that the structure of vetja is in fact [NP [N vetja] proPOSS]. We will not pursue this line of argumentation here. 13. Chomsky introduces the notions BT-compatible (i) and Complete Functional Complex (ii) which, roughly speaking, replace the notions accessible subject and governing category (cf 1c). (i) Complete Functional Complex ( is a Complete Functional Complex if all the grammatical functions compatible with a head dominated by ( are contained in (. (ii) Binding Theory-compatible Indexing I is Binding Theory-compatible with (", () if: (i) " is an anaphor and is bound in ( under I (ii) " is a pronominal and is free in ( under I On the basis of these notions, the binding conditions are now redefined as in (iii): (iii) a. For some domain ( and an anaphor ", " must be bound in (, where ( is the least Complete Functional Complex containing * for which there exists an indexing I Binding Theorycompatible with (",() b. For some domain ( and a pronominal ", " must be free in (, where ( is the least Complete Functional Complex containing * for which there exists an indexing I Binding Theorycompatible with (",(). 14. Note that Broekhuis (1994) observes that, in some cases, reciprocals do escape their governing category. He gives small clause examples with possessive reciprocals: dagboek lezen. (i) Ziji lieten mij stiekem elkaari’s They let me secretly each other’s diary read ‘They let me read each other’s diaries in secret.’


81

15. One should keep in mind that the grammaticality of examples as in (37a) can change depending on the type of predicate involved. Furthermore, Broekhuis (1984) observes that there are speakers who always reject such cases. 16. More detailed study should make clear whether ‘pseudo-reciprocity’ could be conflated with the collective readings that reciprocals can have in some languages (McGregor, this volume, Lichtenberk, this volume).

References Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Abraham, Werner. 1999. ‘‘The structural space between reflexive binding and logophorics: sundry paradigms of reflexives and anaphora’’. In Frajzyngier and Curl (eds.), 75–101. Amiridze, Nino. 1997. Nostalgia for being a noun. A case of Georgian reflexives. MS, Georgian Academy of Sciences, Tblisi. Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Martin Everaert. 1995. ‘‘How exceptional are nominative anaphors? A case study of Greek’’. In Léa Nash, George Tsoulas, and Anne Zribi-Hertz (eds), Actes du deuxieme colloque de Langue & Grammaire, University Paris 8, Dept. des Sciences du Langage, 19–32. —— —— 1996. Asymmetries in binding: configurational and thematic effects on anaphora’’. Paper presented at the 19th CLOW Colloquium, 5 Apr., Athens. —— —— 1999. ‘‘Towards a more complete typology of anaphoric expressions’’, Linguistic Inquiry 30: 97–114. Belletti, Adriana. 1982. ‘‘On the anaphoric status of the reciprocal construction in Italian’’. The Linguistic Review 2, 101–38. Broekhuis, Hans. 1994. ‘‘The referential properties of noun phrases, i’’. Modern Grammar of Dutch, vol. i. Tilburg: Tilburg University. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. —— 1982. Some Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. —— 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger. —— 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Clark, Robin. 1992. ‘‘Towards a modern theory of coreference’’. In C.-T. James Huang and Robert May (eds.), Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 49–78. Dalrymple, Mary. 1993. The Syntax of Anaphoric Binding. CSLI Lecture Notes 36 . —— Sam A. Mchombo, and Stanley Peters. 1994. ‘‘Semantic similarities and syntactic contrasts between Chichew ˆ a and English reciprocals’’. Linguistic Inquiry 25, 145–63. Dougherty, Ray. 1970. ‘‘A grammar of coordinate conjoined structures’’, Language 46(4). Everaert, Martin. 1986. The Syntax of Reflexivization. Dordrecht: Foris. —— 1990. ‘‘Nominative anaphors in Icelandic: Morphology or syntax?’’ In Werner Abraham, Wim Kosmeier, and Eric Reuland (eds), Issues in germanic Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

82

martin everaert

Everaert, Martin, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 1997. ‘‘Thematic hierarchies and Binding Theory: Evidences from Greek’’. In Francis Corblin, Danièle Godard, and Jean-Marie Marandin (eds.), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics. Bern: Peter Lang. 43–60. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1997. ‘‘Pronouns and agreement: Systems interaction in the coding of reference’’. In Hans Bennis, Pierre Pica, and Johan Rooryck (eds), Atomism and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris, 115–40. —— and Traci Curl (eds.) 1999. Reflexives: Forms and functions [Typological Studies in Language 40]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Harbert, Wayne. 1983. ‘‘On the definition of binding domains’’. In Proceedings of the WestCoast Conference of Formal Linguistics 2, 102–13. Heim, Irene, Howard Lasnik, and Robert May. 1991. ‘‘Reciprocity and plurality’’. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 63–101. Helke, Michael. 1979. The Grammar of English Reflexives. New York: Garland Publications. Hellan, Lars. 1988. Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Hestvik, Arild. 1990. LF-movement of Pronouns and the computation of Binding Domains. Doctoral dissertation, Brandeis University. Higginbotham, James. 1980. ‘‘Reciprocal interpretation’’. Journal of Linguistic Research 1: 97–117. Iatridou, Sabine. 1988. ‘‘Clitics, anaphors and noun phrase interpretation’’. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 698–703. Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice [Typological Studies in Language 23]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kennelly, Sarah D. 1992. ‘‘Reciprocity in Turkish: Evidence against AGR as a definition of finiteness’’. In D. Bates (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford Linguistics Society, 269–82. König, Ekkehard, and Peter Siemund. 1999. ‘‘Intensifiers and Reflexives: A typological perspective’’. In Frajzyngier and Curl (ed.), 41–74. Koster, Jan. 1988. Domains and Dynasties. Dordrecht: Foris. Kuno, Susumo. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, discourse and emphaty. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Langendoen, Terence. 1978. ‘‘The logic of reciprocity’’, Linguistic Inquiry 9: 177–97 Lebeaux, David. 1983. ‘‘A distributional difference between reciprocals and reflexives’’. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 723–30 Lichtenberk, Frantisek. This volume. ‘‘Reciprocals without reflexives’’. Lyutikova, Ekatarina. 1999. ‘‘Reflexives and emphasis in Tsaxur (Nakh-Dagestanian)’’. In Frajzyngier and Curl (ed.), 227–55. Maling, Joan. 1984. ‘‘Non-clause bounded reflexives in Icelandic’’, Linguistics and Philosophy 7: 211–41. McGregor, William. This volume. ‘‘Reflexive and reciprocal constructions in the Nyulnyulan languages’’ (Dampier Land and Kimberley, Western Ausralia). Philip, William. 1996. Children who know elkaar. MS, Utrecht University.


83

—— and Martin Everaert 1995. Pseudo Reciprocity, 11th Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop, 4 Nov. 1995, Rutgers University. Pollard, Carl, and Ivan Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford: CSLI, and Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Postal, Paul. 1969. ‘‘On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English’’. In David Reibel and Sanford Schane (eds), Modern Studies in English. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 210–04 Reinhart, Tanya, and Eric Reuland. 1993. ‘‘Reflexivity’’. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4): 657–720. Reis, Marga. 1976. ‘‘Reflexivierung in deutsche A.c.I.-Konstruktionen. Ein transformationsgrammatisches Dilemma’’, Papiere zur Linguistik 9: 5–82. Reuland, Eric. 1997. ‘‘Logophoricity as orientation’’, In Jan Don and Ted Sanders (eds), Utrecht Institite of Linguistics OTS Yearbook 1997, Utrecht: Led, 71–81. —— 1999. ‘‘The fine structure of grammar: anaphoric relations’’. In Frajzyngier and Curl (eds.), 1–40. Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Safir, Ken. 1996. ‘‘Semantic atoms of anaphora’’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 545–89. Sells, Peter. 1988. ‘‘Thematic and grammatical hierarchies: Albanian reflexivization’’. In Hagit Borer (ed.), Proceedings of WCCFL 7. Stanford, CSLI, 293–304. Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1976. ‘‘Reflexives and subjunctives in Icelandic’’, Proceedings of NELS 6: 225–39. Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1979. On Complementation in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University (Also published as Outstanding dissertations in Linguistics 23, New York: Garland). Van Gelderen, Elly. 1999. ‘‘Bound pronouns and non-local anaphors: the case of earlier English’’. In Frajzyngier and Curl (eds.), 187–225. Vikner, Sten. 1984. Anaphors in Danish as compared to English seen from the point of view of the Government-Binding Theory. MS, University College London. Williams, Kemp. 1988. ‘‘Exceptional Behaviour of Anaphors in Albanian’’. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 161–8.

Reflexive and reciprocal constructions in Nyulnyulan languages WILLIAM McGREGOR

1.–Introduction This paper investigates the grammar and semantics of reflexive/reciprocal constructions in the Nyulnyulan languages, a small family of about ten languages traditionally spoken on the Dampier Land peninsula and adjoining parts of the Kimberley region, in the far north-west of Western Australia. As in most Australian languages, the same grammatical construction is employed with both reflexive and reciprocal senses (with a slight wrinkle in the case of Yawuru); this construction is marked by verbal affixes, and shows the hallmarks of an intransitive construction.ə Figure 1 shows the languages, and the genetic relationships among them, according to Stokes and McGregor (forthcoming). (Dotted lines indicate probable, though not entirely certain genetic relationships.) The genetic relationships are quite close, and the family itself seems no more genetically diverse than the Romance or Germanic languages in the Indo-European family. The Nyulnyulan languages are all in precarious states; most are either dead, or nearly dead. Bardi is the strongest, with perhaps fifty or so speakers; the other Western languages have (to the best of my knowledge) no full speakers. Of the Eastern languages, Nyikina has at most fifty speakers, Yawuru maybe half this number, Jukun none, and Warrwa two. The main sources of data for this investigation are: my own field notes for Nyulnyul and Warrwa; Stokes (1982) for Nyikina; Hosokawa (1991) for Yawuru; Metcalfe (1975, 1979) for Bardi; Nekes and Worms (1953) and Nekes (nd) for Nyulnyul, Bardi, Jabirrjabirr, Nimanburru, Yawuru and Nyikina. Virtually no information is available on reflexive/reciprocal constructions in Jukun, Jawi, or Ngumbarl, and these languages are excluded from the paper; it is, however, unlikely that they showed significant differences from the other Western Nyulnyulan languages in these constructions.

Nimanburru Ngumbarl Nyulnyul Jabirrjabirr

Nyulnyulic

Western

Mainland Island

Bardi Jawi

Bardic

Figure1.–Genetic relationships among the Nyulnyulan languages (after Stokes and McGregor, forthcoming).

Small

Yawuru Jukun

Warrwa Nyikina

Big

Yawuric

Nyikinic

Eastern

Nyulnyulan

86 william mc gregor

reflexive and reciprocal in nyulnyulan languages

87

2.–Grammatical outline The Nyulnyulan languages are not only closely related genetically, but they are also typologically quite similar. Like other non-Pama-Nyungan Australian languages, they are ‘‘prefixing’’: that is, they have both prefixes and suffixes—the PamaNyungan languages are exclusively (almost) suffixing (Capell 1940). Unlike a number of non-Pama-Nyungan languages (e.g. the nearby Worrorran and Jarrakan languages), however, they do not distinguish noun classes. Nominal morphology is simple. All languages show a small number of nominal derivational suffixes, and a set of around a dozen postpositions. The latter are phraselevel enclitics which attach to the first word of an NP, and mark case-relationships; the Eastern languages also have one or two number-marking postpositions. Each language has at least the following postpositions: ergative; instrumental (distinct from the ergative); dative; locative (distinct from both the ergative and instrumental); allative; perlative; two ablatives; and one or more comitatives (also distinct from the instrumental). All Nyulnyulan languages are morphologically ergative: each possesses a postposition, some reflex of *-nima (Stokes and McGregor, forthcoming), which prototypically marks the ‘‘subject’’ of a transitive clause, but not the ‘‘subject’’ of an intransitive clause, as illustrated by examples (1) and (2) respectively.1 Nyulnyul (1) Urany-in ingirrlungkan baanyjud. woman-erg 3:aug:dug [bush:food] ‘The women used to dig baanyjud roots.’ (2) Mird baab lakarl inji kalb bardangk-uk. male child climb 3:min:did on:top tree-loc ‘The little boy climbed up the tree.’ Verb morphology, by contrast, is reasonably complex. There are two types of verbal construction, simple and compound. The simple verbal construction consists of a single inflecting verb. Order class formula (3) illustrates the structure of Warrwa inflecting verbs, examples of which are given in (4) and (5). Such constructions are typical of the languages of the family. There are a few differences in terms of the ranges of morphemes available in each language and precisely which position they occupy; however, by and large the relative positions are almost identical across the languages—see e.g. Metcalfe (1979: 204) for an order-class description of the inflecting verb in Bardi; Stokes (1982: 237, 293) for Nyikina; Hosokawa (1991: 114) for Yawuru; and McGregor (1996: 38) for Nyulnyul. In initial position is a pronominal prefix, obligatory in all languages; there are different allomorphs

88

william mc gregor

according to tense, mood, and transitivity.2 The pronominal prefix may be followed by a mood marker, a number marker, the transitive marker, a tense marker, and/or a reflexive/reciprocal marker, in that order. Immediately before the root (obligatory in all languages) there may occur an optional epenthetic nasal in certain environments in many of the languages. Following the root are various optional items, including a reflexive/reciprocal suffix, tense and aspect suffixes, an accusative or oblique pronominal enclitic, and (in the Eastern languages) a dual marker. Warrwa (3) nom pro + (mood) + (number) + (tr) + (tense) + (ref) + (e:nasal) + root + (ref) + (tense) + (aspect) + (marker) + (pro) + (du) (4) Ngi-rr-murungu-ny-jina. 3:nom-aug-look:for-pst-3:min:obl ‘They were looking for him.’ (5) Ku-la-rra-yala-na-yirr. 2:nom-irr-aug-see-pst-3:aug:acc ‘You lot might have seen them (but didn’t).’ Various co-occurrence dependencies and restrictions obtain between the order classes. The only one which need be mentioned here is that the transitive prefix ni- ~ na- ~ n- cannot co-occur with either the ref prefix or suffix. The compound verb construction consists of an inflecting verb together with an almost invariant verbal element. This almost always precedes the inflecting verb, and accordingly is referred to as a preverb. (6) and (7) are examples. Warrwa (6) Marlu ngij nga-la-ama-na. not smile 1:min:nom-irr-laugh-pst ‘I didn’t smile.’ Bardi (7) Dudul i-n-ju-na-na. knocking:sound 3:min:nom-tr-say-dur-pst ‘It kept on making a knocking noise.’ (Metcalfe 1975: 58) As argued in McGregor (1997a), in the compound verb construction in Nyulnyulan languages the inflecting verb serves as a classifier, categorising the process referred to by preverbs into about a dozen subtypes according to inherent valence, Aktionsart, and various abstract configurational characteristics of the action. Word order in Nyulnyulan languages, as in other Australian languages, is quite free, and is not employed to mark grammatical relationships such as ‘‘subject’’,


89

‘‘object’’, etc. NPs may occur in virtually any order within a clause, and in any order with respect to the verbal complex (simple or compound). However, the order of words within NPs and VPs (which term I use in reference to verbal complexes, not to verb plus object etc. (see McGregor 1997b) is more restricted; in particular, the preverb almost always immediately precedes the inflecting verb.

3.–Morphology of reflexive/reciprocal verbal constructions 3.1.–The fundamental reflexive/reciprocal construction As in the majority of Australian Aboriginal languages, the Nyulnyulan languages show a single grammatical construction covering both reflexive and reciprocal senses (Dixon 1980: 433). No systematic grammatical differences exist between instances of the construction that convey reflexive meanings, and instances that convey reciprocal meanings. The two are in an etic, rather than an emic, relationship with one another. There is a single exception, namely Yawuru, which, according to Hosokawa (1991), shows a construction that is specifically reciprocal; this is discussed in Section 3.2 below. The reflexive/reciprocal construction is, moreover, marked in the verb, and not by means of reflexive and/or reciprocal pronominals, particles, or enclitics. As per (3), there are, in Warrwa, two ‘‘slots’’ in which morphemes marking reflexive/reciprocal meanings occur, one preceding the verb root, the other directly following it. The former position is filled by the reflexive/reciprocal prefix ma-; the quality of the vowel can vary according to the quality of the vowel of the immediately following syllable of the inflecting verb root. The latter position is filled by the reflexive/reciprocal suffix -nyji. The only thing that may intervene between the root and either morpheme is an epenthetic nasal, which sometimes separates the prefix from the root. Some examples are: Warrwa (8) Ngayu nga-ma-ng-ka-nyji-ny. 1:min 1:nom-ref-e:nasal-hit-ref-pst ‘I hit myself.’ (9) Ngi-rr-ma-ng-ka-nyji-na. 3:nom-aug-ref-e:nasal-hit-ref-pst ‘They were fighting together’; or ‘They hit themselves’. (10) Ngi-rr-ma-yama-nyji-ny-bili. 3:nom-aug-ref-argue-ref-pst-du ‘They two argued together.’

90

william mc gregor

Example (8), of course, admits only a reflexive interpretation, the ‘‘subject’’ being singular in number. However, both interpretations, reflexive and reciprocal, are available for (9), with non-singular ‘‘subject’’. This is normally the case for reflexive/reciprocal constructions involving a non-singular ‘‘subject’’. There is a set of exceptions, however, which admit only reciprocal interpretations: these involve certain verbs of vocalisation—(10), for example, does not admit the interpretation that each person was arguing with himself or herself. And in keeping with this, reflexive/reciprocal forms of such inflecting verbs do not exist with singular ‘‘subjects’’. Occasionally other interpretations are available for reflexive/reciprocal constructions, as the following example illustrates (see also Section 5 below): the dogs could have followed one another around in a single file, rather than interacted reciprocally or reflexively with one another, or themselves. Lichtenberk (1985: 19) refers to such actions as ‘‘chaining situations’’. More likely, however, they moved around one after the other in a pack: in what might be regarded as a generalised chaining situation involving multiple strands, possibly with changes in the sequence of animals in the chains. There are a few examples in my Warrwa corpus that demand either the chaining or generalised chaining interpretations, although most examples in which the ‘‘subject’’ is augmented in number presumably admit them. There is no reason to believe that these senses are emically distinct from either reflexive or reciprocal. (In what follows I will generally use the term ‘‘reciprocal’’ to cover chaining as well.) Warrwa (11) Yila ngi-rr-ma-wara-nyji-na. dog 3:nom-aug-ref-follow-ref-pst ‘The dogs followed each other around.’ Similar remarks hold for the reflexive/reciprocal construction in the other Nyulnyulan languages, as illustrated by the following examples (although no unequivocal examples of chaining situations have been found): Nyikina (12) Nyi-ma-ngadi-nyji-na wababgurru-ngany. 2:nom-ref-cover-ref-pst blanket-inst ‘You covered yourself with a blanket.’ (Stokes 1982: 289) (13) Yirrka yi-rr-ma-kama-nyji-n-mirri. 3:aug 3:nom-aug-ref-laugh-ref-pres-aug ‘They are mocking one another.’ (Stokes 1982: 289)


91

Bardi (14) Arra ku-l-urru-m-ugul-inyji-na-jan. not 2:nom-irr-pl-ref-break-ref-pst-1:min:obl ‘You were not breaking yourselves (i.e. being deeply concerned) for me.’ (Metcalfe 1975: 5) Nimanburru, Nyulnyul (15) Nga-ngka-mi-jal-inyj. 1:nom-fut-ref-see-ref ‘I will see myself.’ (Nekes and Worms 1953: 385) Nyulnyul (16) Kurr irrjiwar arri ku-li-rr-mi-jal-inyj. 2:aug three no 2-irr-aug-ref-see-ref ‘Don’t you three look at one another.’ Or: ‘Don’t you three look at yourselves.’ As examples (14)–(16) indicate, the forms of the prefix and suffix in the Western Nyulnyulan languages are slightly different from the Eastern languages, which are as in Warrwa. The suffix appears to be universally -inyj in the Western languages, instead of the more regular syllabic form -nyji of the Eastern languages. This is a consequence of a phonological change that occurred in the Western languages which metathesised proto-Nyulnyulan suffixes of the form -C(C)V to -VC(C). The prefix shows allomorphs mi- ~ ma- ~ m- in Nyulnyul and apparently also Jabirrjabirr, and Nimanburru. What conditions the choice of allomorph is not certain—it does not appear to be solely the phonological environment. (For instance, neither the quality of the following C nor V fully determines the vowel of the prefix.) In Bardi, according to Metcalfe (1975: 95–6), the prefix shows the invariant form m-. This can only be maintained if certain sandhi rules of vowel epenthesis are adopted—see the forms in Table 1. Not only are both the reflexive/reciprocal prefix and suffix in complementary distribution with the transitive prefix ni- (as pointed out in Section 2) but also the forms of the nominative pronominal prefixes which are employed in reflexive/ reciprocal inflecting verbs are those which are associated with intransitive (monovalent) inflecting verbs, rather than with transitive inflecting verbs. Thus, the forms in the second column (reflexive/reciprocal) of Table 1 are identical with those in the third column (intransitive), but differ in the second person singular from those in the fourth column (transitive). Note also the presence of an ng- prefix in the reflexive/ reciprocal and intransitive (but not transitive) minimals, including 1&2 minimal; Metcalfe (1975: 85ff) analyses this as an intransitive prefix, alternating with the n- transitive prefix of transitive minimals.

william mc gregor

92

Table 1.–Future tense forms of three Bardi inflecting verbs (after Metcalfe 1975:170)

1sg 2sg 3sg 1&2 1pl 2pl 3pl

Reflexive/Reciprocal -juluk ‘wash’

Intransitive -mi ‘look about’

Transitive -andi ‘pick up’

nga-ng-k-um-uluk-inyj-a ng-a-m-uluk-inyj-a u-ng-k-um-uluk-inyj-a a-ng-k-um-uluk-inyj-a ang-k-urr-m-uluk-inyj-a a-rr-m-uluk-inyj-a ung-k-urr-m-uluk-inyj-a

nga-ng-ki-mi-y-a ng-a-mi-y-a u-ng-ki-mi-y-a a-ng-ki-mi-y-a ang-k-irr-mi-y-a a-rr-mi-y-a ung-k-irr-mi-y-a

nga-n-k-and-a a-n-k-and-a u-n-k-and-a a-n-k-and-a ang-k-arr-and-a a-arr-and-a ung-k-arr-and-a

Similar and additional commonalities with the intransitive pronominal prefixes, and differences from the transitive prefixes, can be found in other languages. Compare, for instance, the following third person minimal forms in Warrwa: i-mu-kudali-nyji-ny i-nga-land ø-na-ra-ny-ø 3:nom-ref-hide-ref-pst 3:nom-pst-sit 3:nom-tr-spear-pst-3:min:acc ‘He hid himself’. ‘He sat’. ‘He speared (him)’. The prefix to transitive (bivalent) inflecting verbs is always ø; to intransitive (monovalent) inflecting verbs, ø ~ i- ~ ngi-. And according to Stokes’ analysis of Nyikina, the reflexive/reciprocal affixes cooccur only with what she refers to as Set II prefixes—the paradigm of pronominal prefixes which occur without the transitive marker, in monovalent verbs (Stokes 1982: 287). 3.2.–The special case of Yawuru The two reflexive/reciprocal markers, the prefix and suffix, normally co-occur, and thus serve as a discontinuous marker of the reflexive/reciprocal category. Occasionally, however, only the suffix is found; this seems to happen in all of the languages—e.g. Nyikina (Stokes 1982: 287), Yawuru (Hosokawa 1991: 114), Nyulnyul (McGregor 1996: 44), Bardi (Metcalfe 1975: 93), and Jabirrjabirr and Nimanburru (Nekes and Worms 1953: sect. 5.2). (Warrwa is a possible exception: my corpus contains no reflexive/reciprocal inflecting verbs without both prefix and suffix.) Only Hosokawa (1991: 114) proposes an explanation for the presence vs. absence of the reflexive/reciprocal prefix. He suggests that the prefix is obligatory (in


93

Yawuru) for the reflexive, but not the reciprocal. Thus inflecting verbs with the reflexive/reciprocal prefix normally admit both reflexive and reciprocal interpretations (providing the number of the ‘‘subject’’ is appropriate, and that it is semantically feasible), whereas inflecting verbs without this prefix admit only reciprocal interpretations.3 The inflecting verb construction involving a reflexive/reciprocal suffix and no reflexive/reciprocal prefix is thus a specifically reciprocal construction, as illustrated by examples (17) and (18). On the other hand, (19), which involves the prefix ma- admits the reflexive interpretation.4 Yawuru (17) Marlu wa-rr-a-balu-nji. not 2:nom-aug-tr-hit-ref ‘Don’t you lot hit each other.’ (Hosokawa 1991: 130) (18) Inga-rr-a-bura-nji-n kamba-rri. 3:nom-aug-tr-see-ref-imp that-du ‘They two see each other.’ (Hosokawa 1991: 173) (19) Inga-rr-ma-bura-nji-n kamba-rri. 3:nom-aug-ref-see-ref-imp that-du ‘They two see themselves.’ (Hosokawa 1991: 173) Interestingly, in (17) and (18) the transitive prefix occurs in place of the ref prefix —in Yawuru this prefix shows the allomorph a- in non-minimal numbers (the regular ni- being restricted to minimal numbers). It thus seems that formally the reciprocal verbal construction of Yawuru is higher in transitivity than the reflexive/reciprocal construction (cf. Hosokawa 1991: 174)—which makes sense intuitively. Irrespective of the facts of Yawuru, it is not the case that in other Nyulnyulan languages the absence of the reflexive/reciprocal prefix signals a reciprocal meaning. For instance, Nekes and Worms (1953: 242) cite the Jabirrjabirr form makanbakanbanjin ‘adorn oneself’ which clearly admits a reflexive meaning—indeed, forces one, when the ‘‘subject’’ is singular in number, as in ngakanbakanbanjin ‘I adorn myself’. The cognate Bardi inflecting verb -anbanb ‘adorn’ likewise does not take the ma- prefix, and nor do the inflecting verbs -bangar (Jabirrjabirr, Nimanburru, Nyulnyul) ‘praise’ and -ong (Bardi) ‘praise’ (Nekes and Worms 1953: sect. 5.3.2). According to Metcalfe (1975: 273), the inflecting verb -kanb(u) ‘growl’ occurs with the suffix only. And in Nyikina it seems that -ra ~ -da ‘spear’ may not take the reflexive prefix (Stokes 1982: 295). 3.3.–Some irregularities and exceptional forms Aside from the occasional irregularity relating to the occurrence or not of the

94

william mc gregor

reflexive/reciprocal prefix, there are just a few other irregularities in the formation of reflexive/reciprocal inflecting verbs. A few inflecting verb roots apparently occur only in reflexive/reciprocal form. For instance, -ri ‘quarrel’ in Nyikina has not been observed without both reflexive/ reciprocal prefix and suffix, according to Stokes (1982: 290). Nor has the inflecting verb -rr ‘fight’ in Nyulnyul. Metcalfe (1975: 63) mentions half a dozen Bardi inflecting verbs that are invariably found in the reflexive/reciprocal form: -bind ‘put oneself forward’, -ilbir ‘echo’, and -kudal ‘disappear, lose oneself’, which force the reflexive interpretation; and -mand ‘embrace’, -bir ‘copulate’ and -mal ‘even score, hit in turn’, which force the reciprocal interpretation. On the other hand, not all normally bivalent inflecting verbs have corresponding reflexive/reciprocal forms. -ma ‘put’ does not have a reflexive/reciprocal form in Yawuru—and possibly any Nyulnyulan language. In Nyikina the most generic inflecting verb -I ‘do, say’ does not have a corresponding reflexive/reciprocal form (Stokes 1982: 290); nor am I aware of a reflexive/reciprocal form for this verb in either Nyulnyul or Warrwa. In Bardi, Ejai (1986: 144) uses the plain non-reflexive/reciprocal form i-ngi-rr-i-ni-jirr ‘they said to them’ with the meaning ‘they said to themselves’. The only instance of a reflexive/reciprocal form for this verb which I have found is in Nimanburru, where, according to Nekes and Worms (1953), it is regular: Nimanburru (20) Wamburiny i-rr-mi-j-inyj-in jamar(r)-jamar(r). people 3:nom-pl-ref-say-ref-pst whisper-whisper ‘The people talk to one another whispering.’ (Nekes and Worms 1953: 137) One irregularity characteristic of Nyulnyulan languages is in the form of the reflexive/reciprocal inflecting verb corresponding to -w(u) ~ -ø ‘give’—in all languages other than Nyikina, where it shows up as the unrelated form –mi ‘give’ (Stokes 1996: 185). The form generally appears as -banj(i) ~ -wanj(i) ‘exchange, give to one another (reciprocally)’,5 instead of the expected regular forms -ma-w(u)inyj and-ma-ø-inyj. It seems most reasonable to consider -banj(i) ~ -wanj(i) ‘exchange’ a distinct inherently reflexive/reciprocal root, rather than an inflectional form of-w(u) ~ -ø (see also Hosokawa 1991: 175).6 Examples of the use of this root are (21)–(23). Yawuru (21) Yanga-rr-banji-n kunyjurung. 1&2:nom-aug-exchange-imp gift:ceremony ‘We exchange things in the Kunyjurung ceremony.’ (Hosokawa 1991: 175)


95

Jabirrjabirr (22) Ya-ngka-banj may jay. 1&2:nom-fut-exchange food 1&2:obl ‘Let us exchange our food.’ (Nekes and Worms 1953: 45) Nyulnyul (23) Wilamay i-ngi-rr-banj. food 3:nom-pst-aug-exchanged ‘They gave each other food.’ Hosokawa (1991: 175) indicates that -banji in Yawuru occasionally occurs with the reflexive prefix ma- (though without an additional instance of the suffix -nyji) coding what he calls a ‘‘collective-reciprocal action’’, as in (24).7 Yawuru (24) Inga-rr-ma-banji-nda yangki-bardu yangki 3:nom-aug-ref-exchange-pf what-still what kunyjurung-nyurdany gift:giving-caus ‘They exchange all kinds of goods on the occasion of the Kunyjurung ceremony.’ (Hosokawa 1991: 175) Finally, -banji ~ -wanji admits the reflexive interpretation, ‘give oneself (up), surrender’ (Nekes and Worms 1953: Sect. 5.3.1): Jabirrjabirr (25) Nga-banj-in-ji wa-n-dab-ngay. 1:nom-exchange-imp-2:min:obl 2:nom-tr-hit-1:min:acc ‘I surrender to you; hit me.’ (Nekes and Worms 1953: 45) 3.4.–Reflexive/reciprocal forms of compound verbs So far we have restricted attention to inflecting verbs, for which reflexive/reciprocal categories are usually regularly formed by affixes. Compound verbs consist, as mentioned in Section 2 above, of an invariant preverb, followed by an inflecting verb. In most Nyulnyulan languages there are (or were) several hundred preverbs, and usually around a dozen inflecting verbs which can occur with them. (This represents only a small fraction of the inflecting verbs in a given language: most occur only in simple verb constructions (see e.g. Stokes 1982: 182–3, Hosokawa 1991: 203, and McGregor 1994: 49, 1996: 48).) The most common, and generic inflecting verb that occurs in compound verb constructions (in all of the languages for which there is sufficient information available) is -j(i) ~ -y(i) ~ -i ‘say, do’. This inflect-

96

william mc gregor

ing verb, as mentioned in Section 3.3, does not have a corresponding reflexive/ reciprocal form in any Nyulnyulan language, other than Nimanburru. A number of other inflecting verbs quite commonly found in compound verb constructions likewise do not have reflexive/reciprocal forms; this is the case for -m(a) ‘put’, -nyu (Western Nyulnyulan) ~ -andi (Eastern Nyulnyulan) ‘get, catch’, -n ~ -nga ‘be’, -ngara ‘become’, and -jid (Western Nyulnyulan) ~ -arnda (Eastern Nyulnyulan) ‘go’. Thus it is not usually possible to construct the reflexive/reciprocal form of a compound verb by pairing the preverb with the reflexive/reciprocal form of the inflecting verb. Instead, the reflexive/reciprocal form of a compound verb is formed by pairing the preverb with the inflecting verb -banj(i) ~ -wanj(i) ‘exchange, give to one another’. This inflecting verb serves as a verbal classifier, classifying the action as reflexive/reciprocal (see McGregor 1997a); no other attribute of the action is specified. A selection of examples from various languages is provided below to illustrate this construction: Yawuru (26) Ngaw inga-rr-banji-nda. kiss 3:nom-aug-exchange-pf ‘They kissed one another.’ (Hosokawa 1991: 175) Nyikina (27) Jub nga-m-banji-ny. cut 1:nom-e:nasal-exchange-pst ‘I cut myself.’ (Stokes 1982: 291) Warrwa (28) Ngayu warru nga-m-banji-ny. 1:min scratch 1:nom-e:nasal-exchange-pst ‘I scratched myself.’ Nyulnyul (29) Kinyingk wamb kaad i-m-banji karrkuj this man stab 3:nom-e:nasal-exchange dead jumbarraari-nyirr. knife-inst ‘This man stabbed himself dead with a knife.’ Jabirrjabirr (30) Wirr-wirr ma-banj-in. scratch-scratch gen-exchange-imp ‘Scratch oneself.’ (Nekes and Worms 1953: 45)


97

Bardi, Nimanburru (31) Mad a-m-banj a-marl. shake 1&2:nom-e:nasal-exchange 1&2-hand ‘We shook hands.’ (Nekes and Worms 1953: 45) Rarely, a compound verb construction involves a preverb in combination with the reflexive/reciprocal form of an inflecting verb other than -banj(i) ~ -wanj(i) ‘exchange’. In Warrwa, the only other inflecting verb attested in reflexive/reciprocal form in a compound verb construction is -jala ‘see’, as in (32). However, as (33) indicates, the same preverb kanyjirr ‘look’ can also occur with -banji ‘exchange’. How these differ in meaning is not yet known. Warrwa (32) Ngayu kanyjirr nga-ma-yala-nyji-ny. 1:min look 1:nom-ref-see-ref-pst ‘I looked at myself.’ (33) Kinya kujarra kanyjirr ngi-rr-wanji-ny-bili. this two look 3:nom-aug-exchange-pst-du ‘They two stared at one another.’ Examination of Stokes (1982) reveals no examples in Nyikina of preverbs in combination with the reflexive/reciprocal form of any inflecting verb other than -banji ‘exchange’. Hosokawa (1991), however, cites examples comparable to the Warrwa example (32) above, involving the preverb kanyjirr ‘stare’ and the inflecting verb -bura ‘see’: Yawuru (34) Kanyjirr i-ma-bura-nyji-nda. stare 3:nom-ref-see-ref-pf ‘She looked at herself.’ (Hosokawa 1991: 173) However, as in Warrwa, kanyjirr ‘stare’ may also occur with -banji ‘exchange’, as illustrated by: Yawuru (35) Kamba jarndu kanyjirr i-m-banji-n. that woman stare 3:nom-e:nasal-exchange-imp ‘That woman is looking at herself.’ (Hosokawa 1991: 175) Likewise, my own fieldnotes show the reflexive/reciprocal form of -arl ‘see’ as the only reflexive/reciprocal inflecting verb other than -banj ‘exchange’ that can occur with a preverb in Nyulnyul:

98

william mc gregor

Nyulnyul (36) Wukurl i-mi-jal-inyj. pity 3:nom-ref-see-ref ‘He pities himself.’ (i.e. ‘He is lonely.’) Nekes notebooks (Nekes nd) contain a Bardi example also pairing a preverb—in this case mongorr ‘jealous’—with the reflexive/reciprocal form of -al ‘see’. A similar Jabirrjabirr example is cited in Nekes and Worms 1953: Jabirrjabirr (37) Jarrakurr nga-mi-jal-inyj.8 recover 1:nom-ref-see-ref ‘I see myself recovering’—i.e. ‘I feel better now.’ (Nekes and Worms 1953: 149) It thus seems likely that, in addition to -banj(i) ~ -wanj(i) ‘exchange’, the reflexive/reciprocal form of -jal(a) ~ -bura ‘see’ can be (or could have been) used in compound verb constructions in every Nyulnyulan language. The only other reflexive/reciprocal inflecting verbs attested in this environment are: the exceptional reflexive/reciprocal form of -j ‘say, do’ which appears to be restricted to Nimanburru—see example (20) above; -mu ‘fight’ in Bardi, as in example (38); -ka ‘carry’ in Yawuru, as in (39); and -r ‘spear’ in Nyulnyul and Nimanburru, as in (40)—my own Nyulnyul corpus, however, shows darr ‘arrive’ in collocation with -banj ‘exchange’ exclusively. Bardi (38) Lorrb-lorrb ingi-rr-mu-nyj. dispute-dispute 3:nom-pl-fight-ref ‘They quarreled.’ (Nekes and Worms 1953: 340) Yawuru (39) Dukub inga-rr-ma-ka-nyji-n kamba-yirr punish 3:nom-aug-ref-carry-ref-imp that-du jarndi-yirr wamba. woman-and man ‘The couple (who had eloped) let the people punish them (so that they could belong again to the community).’ (Hosokawa 1991: 169) Nyulnyul, Nimanburru (40) Darr anga-rr-ma-ri-nyj. arrive 1:aug:nom-aug-ref-spear-ref ‘We met each other.’ (Nekes and Worms 1953: 106)


99

Further field investigations will be necessary in each surviving language to ascertain the full range of inflecting verbs that can occur in compound verb constructions in their reflexive/reciprocal form, and how they contrast semantically with one another.

4.–Reflexive/reciprocal verbs in clauses 4.1.–Transitivity and grammar of clauses with reflexive/reciprocal inflecting verbs We saw in the previous section that reflexive/reciprocal inflecting verbs in Nyulnyulan languages show the hallmarks of intransitivity, the pronominal prefixes occurring with them being those closest associated with intransitive inflecting verbs, and the transitive prefix ni- being in complementary distribution with both reflexive/reciprocal affixes. Furthermore, reflexive/reciprocal inflecting verbs never host accusative pronominal enclitics. The only qualification is that in Yawuru the specifically reciprocal construction occurs with the marked a- allomorph of the transitive prefix. This pattern is replicated at clause-rank: clauses involving reflexive/reciprocal inflecting verbs are prototypically intransitive. Specifically, they have a single inherent participant role (i.e. argument), which is almost always unmarked (does not occur in conjunction with a case-marking postposition)—i.e. it occurs in absolutive rather than ergative form, in accordance with Edmonson (1978: 646–7). Examples (8), (18)–(20), (28), (29) and (35) illustrate this point. Occasionally, however, the NP serving in this single inherent participant role is ergatively marked.9 Stokes (1982: 135) provides the following Nyikina example, and comments that ‘‘[t]here does not appear to be a correlation between active suffixing [i.e. ergative marking] of the NPpref [i.e. the NP cross-referenced by the nominative pronominal prefix] and intentional (in contrast with unintentional) reflexive or reciprocal activity’’ (her emphasis): Nyikina (41) Yulburru-karra karrkija-ni muk long:ago-multiple chicken:hawk-erg hit yi-m-banji-na. 3:nom-e:nasal-exchange-pst ‘Long, long ago, the chickenhawk mutilated himself.’ (Stokes 1982: 135) My fieldnotes include a single example of ergative marking of the inherent participant role of a reflexive/reciprocal clause in Nyulnyul:

100

william mc gregor

Nyulnyul (42) Yil-in i-ma-kandakand-inyj. dog-erg 3:nom-ref-scratch-ref ‘The dog is scratching itself.’ And Hosokawa (1991: 169) provides a few examples in Yawuru, including: Yawuru (43) I-na-nya-n banikin, bibi-ni i-ma-bilka-nyji-n 3:nom-tr-catch-imp billycan mother-erg 3:nom-ref-hit-ref-imp baba-yi jina. child-dat her ‘The mother picked up a billycan and hit herself with it for her daughter.’ He suggests that the ergative marking is . . . considered to be due to the discourse structure. Although a pause (indicated by the comma) exists between the words banikin and bibini, the latter is a constituent of the preceding transitive clause (inanyan banikin bibini). This interpretation is supported by the fact that, in an isolated utterance cut off from discourse, as given in [99′] below, the ergative marker disappears.—(Hosokawa 1991: 169) [99′] Bibi dyina i-ma-bilka-ndyi-n baba-yi djina. mother(abs)i 3j(gen) 3i-int-hit-rcp-impf childj-dat 3 i(gen) ‘The mother hits herself, missing [i.e. feeling the absence of] the daughter.’

It is not unusual for ergative marking in Kimberley languages to be at least partly motivated by discourse considerations (e.g. McGregor 1992). Perhaps such considerations motivate the presence of the ergative postposition in Nyikina and Nyulnyul examples such as (41) and (42) above—although more research is required to substantiate this suggestion. Given the dearth of examples involving ergative marking of the single inherent participant role, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no justification for setting up a reflexive/reciprocal category for clauses in Nyulnyulan languages, as there is in Gooniyandi (see note 9). The facts can be accounted for under the assumption that the clause in which a reflexive/reciprocal-marked inflecting verb occurs is intransitive. A couple of qualifications are, however, necessary. First, it is possible for a reflexive/reciprocal-marked verb to occur in a transitive clause, provided that it is simultaneously marked by the applicative (Section 4.2). Second, reflexive/reciprocal inflecting verbs sometimes occur in clauses that contain what appears to be an additional role, other than the one cross-referenced by the nominative prefix to the inflecting verb—see examples(21)–(23), and (31). In no example is this additional role ever cross-referenced by a pronominal enclitic to the inflecting verb, suggesting that it is not in fact an Undergoer participant role. Admittedly, this does not clinch the case, since in all instances the additional


101

role is realised by an NP representing an entity of low animacy, which accordingly would not be expected to be cross-referenced in the inflecting verb. And if it were indeed an Undergoer, ergative marking would be expected on the NP kinyangka wamba ‘this man’ in example (44): Yawuru (44) Nyimba i-ma-kurla-nyji-n kinyangka wamba. hair:belt 3:nom-ref-tie-ref-imp this man ‘The man puts a hairbelt on.’ (Hosokawa 1991: 169) But neither does this definitely resolve the issue, since ergative marking of the Agent NP in transitive clauses is not obligatory in Nyulnyulan languages. In any case, I have found one instance in Yawuru (example (45)), and three similar examples in Warrwa (including (46) and (47)), where the Actor NP (i.e. the NP crossreferenced by the nominative pronominal prefix to the inflecting verb) is ergatively marked, when there is an additional unmarked NP in the clause. Yawuru (45) Kamba-ni nganyju rarrb i-m-banji-n marru that-erg girl comb 3:nom-e:nasal-exchange-imp head kinyangka-bardu-ngalana. this-still-ref ‘The girl grooms her hair.’ (Hosokawa 1991: 176) Warrwa (46) Ngayi-na jub nga-m-banji-ny ngajanu jakarra. 1:min-erg cut 1:nom-e:nasal-exchange-pst 1:min:obl hair ‘I cut my hair.’ (47) Ngayi-na nga-ma-wula-nyji-ny jangkurru. 1:min-erg 1:nom-ref-put-ref-pst hat ‘I put on my hat.’ One possibility is that the morphological marking of the Actor NP be taken seriously, and the presence of the ergative postposition regarded as diagnostic of transitivity.10 (45)–(47) would then be analysed as transitive clauses, the unmarked NPs serving as Undergoers. If this is the case, the inflecting verb should have a -ø pronominal enclitic cross-referencing this NP. Whether this is a reasonable analysis can be settled empirically; for instance, if the Actor were plural in (47), it ought to be permissible for the 3:aug:acc enclitic -yirra ‘them’ to occur on the inflecting verb, cross-referencing the plurality of hats. This issue will need to be investigated in the field. This test will, of course, only work if there is actually an NP designating the

102

william mc gregor

Actor in the clause. More often than not, there is no such NP, and the clause contains just an unmarked NP and a verbal complex—see examples (21)–(23) and (31) above. The existence of such undecidable cases does not, of course, argue against the existence of two construction types, a transitive one and an intransitive one. Irrespective of whether or not clauses such as (45)–(47) are transitive, the unmarked NP which is not cross-referenced by the nominative pronominal prefix to the inflecting verb may be analysed, following McGregor (1997b), as serving in a non-participant Medium role—where the Medium (realised by an unmarked NP) represents something through which an action, event, or whatever is realised or comes about. This semantic interpretation, of course, makes perfect sense for all of the examples cited above: the reflexive/reciprocal action is clearly brought about through the thing represented by the unmarked NP, which serves as a type of intermediary. The same NP may perhaps simultaneously serve in the participant role of Undergoer in examples such as (45)–(47); this also makes sense intuitively, as these examples admit the interpretation that action actually is directed to the Medium. In other cases—including (22), (23), and (44)—however, the NP serves in the nonparticipant Medium role only, and not as an Undergoer. (See further Rumsey 1982: 144; McGregor 1990: 334–5; 1994: 57, 1996: 58, for discussion of the grammar of the verb ‘give’ in various Kimberley languages.12) A noteworthy characteristic of all clauses of this type, which involve a reflexive/reciprocal inflecting verb and both an Actor and a Medium, is that the former is a human being, and the latter either some part of their body, or some item closely associated with it, some entity falling within their personal domain or sphere, typically clothing (Bally 1995; Chappell and McGregor 1995b). (I exclude example (21), where the unmarked NP does not appear to be serving in a Medium role.) These clauses always involve reflexive action on the person resulting in some change in state or appearance of the person, achieved through the involvement of a part of their body, or some accoutrement. Further illustration of this observation is provided by the following two examples—both putting on shoes and washing the hands may be seen as actions that change the condition of the person, through the intermediary of the associated item: Warrwa (48) Nga-yambala-wurru darrjak nga-m-banji-ny. 1:min-foot-asc put:on 1:nom-e:nasal-exchange-pst ‘I put on my shoes.’ Yawuru (49) Wanyji kulkul nga-ngka-banji nimarla. later wash 1:nom-fut-exchange hand ‘I’ll wash my hands later.’ (Hosokawa 1991: 174)


103

The following example represents an interesting variation on this theme. Here what is being hidden might appear (from the free translation) to be the disease the person suffers from. However, the fact is that the person is attempting in the first place to conceal themselves from the white authorities, so that they not be taken away to the leprosarium—and again the unmarked NP represents the Medium through means of which the action is brought about: that is, the person is concealing themself by concealing their disease. Jabirrjabirr, Nyulnyul, Nimanburru (50) Nga-ma-lk-inyj-in yiik jan. 1:nom-ref-hide-ref-imp sick 1:min:obl ‘I conceal my sickness (leprosy).’ Summing up, it appears that reflexive/reciprocal verbs can occur with the participant role configurations, and in the types of clause shown in Table 2. Nothing has yet been said about an issue that has been accorded a primary place in most discussions of reflexive and reciprocal constructions since the advent of generative grammar: argument coreferentiality. One thing that is perfectly obvious about the Nyulnyulan reflexive/reciprocal construction is that there is never a second role whose realising NP is coreferential with the Actor of the clause, as might arguably be the case in English constructions such as he hit himself. At best, if there is an additional role in the clause, it is something associated in some way with the Actor’s personal domain. Nor is there any justification for assuming that the Nyulnyulan reflexive/reciprocal construction is derived from an underlying transiTable 2.–Types of clause in which reflexive/reciprocal verbs may occur Inherent roles

Characteristics of the clause

Actor/Medium Actor/Medium plus Medium

Normal intransitive, with a single participant role. Apparently intransitive, with additional non-participant role—typically actions on the person achieved thorough the intermediary of something closely associated with the person, but which is not represented as taking part in the ‘‘directionality’’ of the action; also exchanging of items in reciprocal giving. Apparently transitive actions of a person in which the activity impinges on them, but which are enacted through things seen to be associated with the Actor’s personal domain, by activity that is actually directed towards the item of the personal domain.

Actor/Agent plus Undergoer/Medium

104

william mc gregor

tive clause (as per various generative approaches), in which the Actor/Agent (‘‘subject’’) and Undergoer/Medium (‘‘object’’) are coreferential (see also Wierzbicka 1996: 411). Aside from the fact that such structure-changing derivations are not permitted within my theoretical framework, Semiotic Grammar (McGregor 1997b), there are language internal reasons supporting the non-derived status of the reflexive/reciprocal construction. For one thing, there are, as has already been noted in Section 3.3, a number of inflecting verbs which invariably appear in reflexive/reciprocal form, for which there are no corresponding transitive clauses which they might be derived from.13 (See Kemmer 1993: 33–4 for a similar argument against the derived status of middle constructions.) In addition, in various Nyulnyulan languages there is at least one reflexive/ reciprocal marked inflecting verb that corresponds with a monovalent inflecting verb which occurs in ordinary intransitive clauses. This is the case, for instance, for the inflecting verb -bula ‘come, emerge’ in the Eastern languages, which may occur in an intransitive clause with this meaning, in a reflexive/reciprocal clause with the meaning ‘meet, come together’, but not in a transitive clause (unless it is also applicativised—see example (62) below). This is illustrated by the Nyikina examples: Nyikina (51) Wamba yi-m-bula-ny. man 3:nom-e:nasal-come-pst ‘A man came.’ (52) Wanyjiy yana-rr-ma-bula-nyji marraj-an. later 1&2:nom-aug-ref-come-ref shade-loc ‘We’ll meet later in the shade.’ (Stokes 1982: 290) And finally, as we have seen, there are also bivalent inflecting verbs which, unpredictably, do not show corresponding reflexive/reciprocal forms. It thus seems preferable not to regard reflexive/reciprocal constructions as being derived from ‘‘underlying’’ transitives; they are just as ‘‘basic’’ as transitive and intransitive constructions. 4.2.–Applicatives of reflexive/reciprocals It was mentioned previously that in Eastern Nyulnyulan languages reflexive/ reciprocal inflecting verbs can be further marked by the applicative suffix, -ngany. My own fieldnotes on Warrwa contain a number of examples, and both Stokes (1982) and Hosokawa (1991) cite examples. I begin by describing the situation in Warrwa, since it is this one that I am most familiar with, and have most examples


105

for. Having done this, I will turn briefly to Nyikina and Yawuru, and make some remarks based on the few examples cited in the secondary sources. As argued in McGregor (1998), there are two primary applicative constructions in Warrwa, a comitative applicative, and an instrumental applicative. In the former the clause usually has one additional role vis-à-vis the corresponding non-applicative clause, typically an Undergoer/Medium (i.e. roughly ‘‘object’’). The construction indicates that there is a close relationship of association between the NP serving in this role and some other NP in the clause. In the latter there is an additional inherent Instrument role in the clause, which is stipulated as being in close association with the Actor/Agent of the clause (usually). Instrumental applicative constructions normally do not differ in transitivity from the corresponding nonapplicative clause. Just a few reflexive/reciprocal inflecting verbs are attested with the comitative applicative -ngany: -ka ‘fight’, -yama ‘argue’, and jirrmbil . . . -banji ‘meet together’. Just as with intransitive inflecting verbs, this suffix apparently registers an increase in clausal transitivity, in this case from intransitive to transitive. As (53) shows, the Actor/Agent can normally be referred to by an erg PP, the other participant by an unmarked NP, which is cross-referenced in the verb (see (54)). Warrwa (53) Yirra-na wardal jirrmbil ngi-rr-wanji-ny-ngany. 3:aug-erg boss meet 3:nom-aug-exchange-pst-app ‘‘They met up together longa him.’’ (speaker’s gloss) (54) Yirra-na jirrmbil ngi-rr-wanji-ny-ngany-ngayu. 3:aug-erg meet 3:nom-aug-exchange-pst-app-1:min:acc ‘They all met up with me.’ What (53) and (54) indicate is that not only is action being directed amongst the Actors themselves as a group, but it is also being directed simultaneously to another individual who is involved in the situation as an Undergoer/Medium. The person who is being met up with is not (represented as) doing anything to bring about the meeting; their involvement is a consequence of the involvement of the others. This point is reinforced by the speaker’s gloss for another utterance almost identical with (54), ‘‘They all came to me mixed’’. Similarly for examples (55) and (56), which also appear to be transitive. In (55), rather than the action being reciprocated among the Actors, and simultaneously between them as a group and an Undergoer, it seems—given the narrative context—that the action is reciprocated between each of the workers and their boss, but not amongst the workers themselves (although this interpretation is not ruled out by the grammar). And in (56) the fighting is reciprocated between the Actor and vari-

106

william mc gregor

ous members of the set of Undergoers, separately; but there is no suggestion that the latter group fought amongst themselves (or that the action was reflexive). Warrwa (55) Ngi-rr-ma-yama-nyji-na-ngany kinya wardal, jirra. 3:nom-aug-ref-argue-ref-pst-app this boss 3:aug:obl ‘They argued together with their boss.’ (56) Wajbal mi-ma-ng-ka-nyji-n-ngany-jirr. white:person 2:nom-ref-e:nasal-hit-ref-pst-app-3:aug:acc ‘You used to fight with the white people.’ Similarly, just a few reflexive/reciprocal-marked verbs are attested in the instrumental applicative construction: the inflecting verbs -ka ‘hit’, -bula ‘tie up, get dressed’, and -wandiwandi ‘cover’; and the compound verb ngul . . . -banji ‘spear one self/one another’. (57) and (58) are examples. Warrwa (57) Ngi-rr-ma-ng-ka-nyji-na-ngany kinya-ngany. 3:nom-aug-ref-e:nasal-hit-ref-pst-app this-inst ‘They bin fighting with it now.’ (58) Nga-ma-wandiwandi-nyji-ny-ngany blanket-ngany. 1:nom-ref-cover-ref-pst-app blanket-inst ‘I covered myself with a blanket.’ These have agnate intransitive clauses with reflexive/reciprocal verbs and inst pps designating the instrument employed to effect the action; this role is, however, optional, rather than inherent, as in the case of instrumental applicatives. Here also -ngany apparently signals the presence of an additional inherent role in the clause —except that it is an Instrument rather than an Medium, and there is no effect on clausal transitivity. Instrumental applicative clauses with reflexive/reciprocal inflecting verbs remain intransitive, and admit both reciprocal and reflexive interpretations, as illustrated by (57) and (58) respectively. In this respect they contrast with comitative applicatives of reflexive/reciprocal clauses, which are transitive, and (as far as I can tell) admit only reciprocal interpretations for the interaction among one of the participant groups. It seems that -ngany app indicates an associative relationship between the Actor/ Agent and Instrument (McGregor 1998). There are insufficient examples to make an entirely convincing case for this suggestion, although examples such as (58) are clearly consistent with it. (59) and (60) add further support: in the former the Actors appear to be closely related to the spears, as owners and manufacturers (in fact, the same holds true of (57)), while in the latter the clothing will obviously be closely


107

associated with the wearer. (The inst pp designating the clothing in second clause has presumably been ellipsed, as it conveys given information.) Warrwa (59) Kanka ngul ngi-rr-wanji-na-ngany kinya; kinya-ngany that spear 3:nom-aug-exchange-pst-app this this-inst yina. 3:min:obl ‘They speared one another with those ones now.’ (i.e. the good spears they had made).’ (60) Balya ma-ma-wula-nyji-ny, ma-ma-wula-nyji-ny-ngany. clothes gen-ref-tie-ref-pst gen-ref-tie-ref-pst-app ‘He got dressed; he is wearing clothes now.’ Similarly, in Nyikina, the app suffix may mark a clause with a reflexive/ reciprocal inflecting verb as transitive, an Undergoer/Medium being added: Nyikina (61) Warany-nil nying-a-ma-ri-nyji-ngany-jirr. other-pl 2:nom-fut-ref-quarrel-ref-app-3:aug:acc ‘You’re going to growl at that other lot.’ (62) Yi-rr-ma-bula-nyji-na-da-ngany-mirri mangarriy. 3:nom-aug-ref-come-ref-pst-hab-app-aug food ‘They used to bring each other tucker.’ These examples are very similar to the Warrwa comitative applicatives cited above. The following example, from a story about a man who went around provoking snakes, is more unusual: although the Actor/Agent is minimal (singular) in number, the interpretation is clearly reciprocal—the man and snake meet together—although the man is represented as bearing ultimate responsibility. Nyikina (63) Yi-ma-bula-nyji-na-ngany yibirirr . . . inyja 3:nom-ref-come-ref-pst-app king:brown going yi-n-ba-na 3:nom-tr-see-pst ‘He came upon a king brown snake . . . he saw it moving.’ (Stokes 1982: 288) I have found just two instances of applicativised reflexive/reciprocal inflecting verbs in Hosokawa’s (1991) grammar of Yawuru:

108

william mc gregor

Yawuru (64) Yang-ka-rr-ma-bula-nyji-ngany-ji-jirra-yirra. 1:nom-fut-aug-ref-come-ref-app-dat-3:aug:obl-pl ‘We might bring it together for them.’ (Hosokawa 1991: 27) (65) Inga-rr-banji-n-ngany nganka. 3:nom-aug-exchange-imp-app word ‘They are chatting.’ (Hosokawa 1991: 177) Example (64) resembles Warrwa example (55) above, and, less closely, Nyikina example (62). As to (65), Hosokawa (1991: 177) suggests that it illustrates ‘‘jointedness’’ of action, and indicates that the conversation took place in an intimate or amicable atmosphere. How this example is best analysed grammatically remains unclear, however. In the absence of further examples, it is, unfortunately, impossible to say anything more about the applicative construction involving reflexive/reciprocal inflecting verbs in either Nyikina or Yawuru. Quite likely applicative forms of reflexive/reciprocal inflecting verbs are/were also permissible in Western Nyulnyulan languages, although there are no good examples in the corpora at my disposal. Metcalfe 1975 does not seem to contain any examples, and nor are there any in my Nyulnyul field notebooks. The best candidate comes from Nekes and Worms (1953: 19), who cite the Jabirrjabirr, Nimanburru, and Nyulnyul forms ma-baband-inyj-in-ang ~ ma-band-inyj-in-ang (gen-coverref-imp-app), which they gloss ‘dress, cover oneself’. However, they do not exemplify the word in a sentence, and I can only guess that it represents an instrumental applicative construction indicating a close relationship between the Instrument (an item of apparel) and the Actor (the person getting dressed).

5.–Semantics of reflexive/reciprocal constructions The reflexive/reciprocal construction in Nyulnyulan languages prototypically conveys the information that the referent action was enacted by some entity or entities (person, animal, or, rarely, inanimate object) and this action was directed either from the entity or entities each to themself, or among themselves. Like transitive actions, reflexive/reciprocal actions are directed; but like intransitive actions, they are immanent to the actants engaged in them, considered as a unit—where actant refers to someone or something involved in any capacity in the action. An action described by a reflexive/reciprocal construction is one that is conceived of as being self-directed, rather than other directed (transitive) or non-directed (intransitive). This characterisation applies to what I will refer to as a going-on (following McGregor 1997b: 88–9, 122)—that which is designated by the verbal construction


109

itself, rather than the entire clause, the referent of which I will term ‘situation’. This is because it is the verbal construction, rather than the clause which is marked as reflexive/reciprocal by the morpheme complex ma- . . . -nyji ~ ma- . . . -inyj (etc.). The specifically reciprocal construction of Yawuru could be characterised in a similar way, with slight changes to the wording to admit only non-singular (or non-minimal) groups of actants, who engage in action directed towards one another. It is suggested that the semantic feature ‘self-directed action’ characterises the semantics of the reflexive/reciprocal construction of Nyulnyulan languages, and represents the inherent meaning invariably associated with it. Various actional schemata satisfy this feature, including those represented diagrammatically in Figure 2. Note that as (c)–(g) indicate, it is not necessary for there to be inter-action between each pair of entities, or even that each action from one entity to another be reciprocated. (c), of course, schematises a standard reciprocal configuration. (d)–(f) represent possible types of ‘‘chaining situations’’ (Lichtenberk 1985: 19), relatively natural interpretations of Warrwa example (11). Figure 2 (g)–(i) represent unattested, but expected senses: situations involving one or more reflexive actions in addition to action(s) directed towards another entity—i.e. some combination of (b) and (c)). These are instances of what Tsunoda (forthcoming) refers to as extended reflexives. (I am grateful to Tasaku Tsunoda for drawing this to my attention.) Many other such configurations are imaginable which one expects might be referred to by the reflexive/reciprocal construction (since conceptually they are selfdirected), including combinations of chaining and reflexive (e.g. where each of a group of dogs is chasing after another, except for one that is running around in circles chasing itself), and instances in which the action is performed sequentially, by each actant following another. Examination of the action schemata for the available examples reveals that two conditions must be met in order for an action to be construable as ‘self-directed’: (i) every member of the group of actants engaged in the action must either direct action towards some actant, or have action directed towards them from some actant; and (ii) there must be at least one member of the group which both directs action towards something, and has action directed towards them. Condition (i) specifies the directedness of reflexive/reciprocal actions,14 while condition (ii) ensures at least a minimum of self-directedness. (Without (ii) any action conceivable as transitive would also be conceivable as reflexive/reciprocal.) Of course, the choice of reflexive/reciprocal construction rather than something else (such as a plain transitive or intransitive clause) is not always forced by the material properties of the referent situation; it depends in part on the way in which the speaker wishes to represent it. For instance, even an action of movement,

william mc gregor

110

A

A B

B

C

A

C

D

D E

F

E

F a.

b.

A B C

c.

A

B

C

D

E

F

D

H

E F d. A

A

I

C

E

J

D

e.

f. A

B

B

C D

C D

C D

F

F E

g.

F

A

B

E

B G

F E

h.

i.

Figure 2.–Schematic diagrams for some reflexive/reciprocal verbs


111

prototypically intransitive, can be represented as a reflexive/reciprocal, as (66) illustrates. Although Nekes and Worms (1953) do not provide any discussion of this example, it seems reasonable to presume that the reflexive/reciprocal construction has been chosen to highlight the fact that the speaker, being ill and presumably unable to move as readily as normal, needs to act on themself—perhaps force themself to move—rather than merely act, in order to achieve the relocation. Jabirrjabirr (66) Ka-ma-ka-nyj jalngkakurr-ung. 1:nom:fut-ref-carry-ref doctor-all ‘I’ll take myself to the doctor.’ (Nekes and Worms 1953: 135–6) Similar diagrams can be employed to represent interpretations not only of the normal intransitive reflexive/reciprocal clause, but also of the other types discussed in Section 4 above. Figure 3 shows a few possible senses of reflexive/reciprocal constructions involving an additional Medium role (represented by a smaller circle on the circumference of the larger circle representing the Actor, indicating that the Medium falls within the domain of the Actor, while being seen as a (partly) distinct entity.) (a′)–(c′) represent situations in which the clause remains intransitive, while (a′′)–(b′′) represent situations in which the clause is transitive. (The reciprocal interpretation appears never to be available in the latter case.) The Mediums in (a′)–(c′) are represented as plain intermediaries in the action, which do not take part in its direction; on the other hand, in (a′′) and (b′′) the arrows indicate that action is directed to the Medium, and that this further impinges back on the Actor themselves, as a result. The three different interpretations outlined for comitative applicative reflexive/reciprocal clauses in Warrwa can be represented schematically in a similar fashion, as shown in Figure 4 (a)–(c). (Internal boxes surround entities grouped together by the conjunctive relationship ‘and’.) (a) indicates that A, B, C, D, E and F both interact with one another, and collectively on X, who serves as an Undergoer (as in example (53)) above); (b) that they collectively act on X, and at the same time, X reciprocally interacts with each of them (as in example (55)); and (c) that X acts on them collectively, and simultaneously reciprocally interacts with each of them (as in example (56)). (d) represents an expected (but not attested) scheme, a variant of (a) in which the action is directed from the single individual to the interacting group. Finally, (e) represents the rather different situation in which the Undergoers are involved as intermediaries in the reciprocal action (as in example (62)). Other configurations are no doubt required for examples such as (63)–(65), but these are too poorly understood to permit diagrammatic representation. In each case, two perspectives are provided on the action, a reciprocal one and a transitive one. There is nothing remarkable about this in the case of (a), (d), and (e);

william mc gregor

112

however, for (b) and (c), there is an apparent inconsistency: X has both double headed and single headed arrows attached to it. In fact, the inconsistency is more apparent than real. It is only the black arrow that indicates directed action preformed by the referent of the NP serving in the clausal role of Agent; the grey arrows merely indicate directed action. Clausal characteristics are as it were overlain on characteristics of the going-on. (Recall that transitive is a clausal feature, whereas reflexive/reciprocal is a verbal one.) Putting things in a slightly different way, what we have in both (b) and (c) is mutual interaction between (a subset) of the actants in the situation, but one (subset) of them is singled out as bearing responsibility for the situation. In (53) and (54) ‘‘they’’ are responsible for the meeting; in (55) ‘‘they’’ instigate the argument; and in (56) the addressee is indicated as causing the fights. Any referent situation satisfying one of the schemata of Figure 4 also satisfies a

A

A

Z

Z X

A

Z

B

Y

C

X

B

Y

C V

D a ′.

A

V

b′.

Z

B

c ′.

A

Z

Y

C

D a′′.

D

X

V

b′′.

Figure 3.–Schematic diagrams for reflexive/reciprocal verbs with an additional clausal role


A

B D

E

A C

B D

F

E

C F

X

X

a. ‘meet together with’

b. ‘argue together with’

A

B D

E

A C

B D

F

E

C F

X

X

c.‘ght (together) with’

d. Hypothesized alternative to a. A Z

R

Y

C

V X

B

U S

T

D e. ‘bring (things) to each other’

Figure 4.–Schematic diagrams for some clauses with reciprocal APP verbs

113

114

william mc gregor

schema for the reflexive/reciprocal. But in the applicative, one (subset) of the entities is singled out from the others, and represented as ultimately responsible for the action. As far as I am aware, it is only for examples such as (62) that there exist agnate reflexive/reciprocal clauses in which the non-Actor may be referred to by a comit PP, and thus could be said to be ‘with’ the Actor. For the other examples, there is an agnate reflexive/reciprocal clause whose Actor is the union of the two sets of actants in the applicative of the reflexive/reciprocal, and here the Actor and Undergoer could also be said to be together. (See also McGregor 1997b, which suggests that ‘and’ and ‘with’ are subtypes of a general logical relationship of extension.) Rarely, a clause with a reflexive/reciprocal inflecting verb apparently designates what Lichtenberk refers to as a ‘‘collective situation’’—that is, one in which ‘‘two or more participants are jointly involved in a situation in identical roles’’ (Lichtenberk 1985: 28). Examples of this usage are found in the Eastern Nyulnyulan languages Nyikina (Stokes 1982) and Yawuru (Hosokawa 1991). For example: Nyikina (67) Yangki-yunu yi-rr-ma-kama-nyji-n-mirri. what-abl 3:nom-aug-ref-laugh-ref-pres-aug ‘Why are those two (lovers) laughing together?’ (Stokes 1982: 288) It seems, however, that more than Lichtenberk’s simple collective sense is involved in such uses of the reflexive/reciprocal. In particular, some interaction appears to be necessarily involved between the actants: they also act in some way on one another. This, I suggest, accounts for the meaning difference between (67) and the plain intransitive yi-rr-kama-n-mirri ‘they two laughed’—in the former the laughter of each individual is caused by, or brought about by, the other, through their mutual interaction, while in the latter it need not be. Similarly, Hosokawa (1991: 170) speaks of a ‘collective’ or ‘collaborative’ sense associated with the reflexive/reciprocal form of -bula ‘come’, in Yawuru examples virtually identical with the Nyikina example (52) above. In such cases also the action is apparently perceived of as reciprocating between the actors; otherwise, a plain intransitive clause would be used, conveying the meaning that some people arrived as a group together at some place. A limiting case of the collective sense may perhaps be involved in examples such as (68)–(70) with minimal-number Actors, the implication being that the Actor performed the action alone or by themselves. Yawuru (68) Nga-ma-kilbira-nyji-n. 1:nom-ref-sing-ref-imp ‘I sing alone.’ (Hosokawa 1991: 170)


115

(69) Nga-ma-luka-nyji-n ngayu-bardu-ngalana. 1:nom-ref-cry-ref-imp 1:min-still-ref ‘I cried by myself.’ (Hosokawa 1991: 170) (70) Wanyji nga-ma-kalbanya-nyji juyi-bardu-ngalana. soon 2:nom-ref-drop-ref 2:min-still-ref ‘You’ll soon get lost by yourself.’ (Hosokawa 1991: 170) Hosokawa (1991: 170) comments that more commonly the adverbial ngurdirn ‘alone’ is employed to convey this meaning, as in (71). My own fieldnotes show no examples of the use of the reflexive/reciprocal construction in Warrwa in the ‘alone’ sense; usually, this meaning is conveyed by layi ‘one, single’, used much as ngurdirn ‘alone’ in Yawuru. Yawuru (71) Wangkurr i-ny-ju-n ngurdirn. cry 3:nom-e:nasal-say-imp alone ‘She is weeping alone.’ (Hosokawa 1991: 170) Nor do my Nyulnyul fieldnotes show reflexive/reciprocal constructions used in the sense ‘alone’. Instead, the adverbial ngidirrngin ‘alone’ or the inflecting -malk ‘self’ is normally used to express this meaning. The same constructions are used in other Western Nyulnyulan languages. Nekes and Worms (1953) provides further examples of the construction, illustrating the use of -malk ‘self’ with the meaning ‘voluntarily, on purpose, self, by oneself’—i.e. not just that the action was performed by the person themself, but that they are responsible for its performance (as in the use of the English reflexive pronoun myself in the translation of the reply of (72)): Nyulnyul (72) A: angk-in i-ni-ng-kalid jii jiib. who-erg 3:nom-tr-e:nasal-broke 2:min:obl boomerang B: ngay-in nga-ni-ng-kalid nga-malk 1:min-erg 1:nom-tr-e:nasal-broke 1:min-self A: ‘Who broke your boomerang.’ B: ‘I broke it myself.’ (Nekes and Worms 1953: 433–4) Jabirrjabirr (73) Arri nga-li-kunbikunb-an-juy bind-an nyi-malk not 1:nom-irr-send:send-imp-2:min:acc bush-loc 2:min-self mi-n-jid mung-ung. 2:nom-e:nasal-go honey-all ‘I didn’t send you bush; you went spontaneously [of your own accord], for honey.’ (Nekes and Worms 1953: sect. 5.8)

116

william mc gregor

Summing up, it seems reasonable to conclude that the reflexive/reciprocal construction in Nyulnyulan languages rarely, if ever, conveys just the meaning that the action was performed by someone acting alone, without the meaning component that they also directed action to themselves—and even Yawuru examples such as (68)–(70) are not inconsistent with the latter interpretation. Normally, the sense of acting alone is conveyed by means of an adverbial word meaning ‘alone’, or by some word meaning ‘self’. Nekes and Worms (1953) also cite the Jabirrjabirr and Nyulnyul reflexive form -ngakal, which can be attached to personal pronouns, as in ngay-ngakal ‘I myself’. This can occur in reflexive/reciprocal constructions, possibly with an emphatic reflexive sense—cf. the Yawuru example (69) above: Jabirrjabirr, Nyulnyul (74) Arri ku-lu-rr-ngalk-ngay wa-rr-mi-ngalk-inyj not 2:nom-irr-aug-cry-1:min:acc 2:nom-aug-ref-cry-ref kurr-ngakal. 2:aug-self ‘Don’t weep about me, but about yourselves.’ (Nekes and Worms 1953: 396, 453) Various other meanings often associated cross-linguistically with reflexive and/or reciprocal markers are not conveyed by the Nyulnyulan reflexive/reciprocal verbal morphemes. For instance, the Nyulnyulan morphemes never show the emphatic or intensifier sense of reflexive markers in, among others, English, Japanese, Caucasian languages, and Dravidian languages (König and Siemund 1999). This meaning is instead conveyed by either the prefixing -malk ‘self’ or the enclitic -ngakal ‘self’. The meaning ‘act to benefit oneself’—as in He made the coolamon for himself—is also not marked by the reflexive/reciprocal construction. Instead, a plain transitive clause is used, with an oblique pronominal enclitic coreferential with the nominative pronominal prefix to the inflecting verb, as in: Yawuru (75) Nga-ni-ngany-jiya (juyu-ni). 2:nom:fut-be-app-2:min:acc 2:min-erg ‘You keep it for yourself.’ (Hosokawa 1991: 171) Warrwa (76) Jinal ø-na-ng-kalalma-ny-jina. spear 3:nom-tr-e:nasal-make-pst-3:min:obl ‘He made the spear for himself.’ In fact, as (77) illustrates, this construction is not restricted to the meaning ‘act to benefit oneself’, but includes other semantic relationships covered by the oblique pronominal enclitics—most generally, ‘act to affect oneself’. (Recall


117

also that -ma ‘put’ does not have a reflexive/reciprocal form in Yawuru.) Yawuru (77) Kangarr wal-a-ma-jiya. black:paint 2:fut-tr-put-2:min:obl ‘Paint yourself with charcoal.’ [Literally: ‘Put charcoal on you(rself).’] (Hosokawa 1991: 171) (Note that whereas in (75) and (77) the two pronominals must be co-referential, this is not necessarily the case for (76), which also admits the interpretation ‘hei made the spear for himj’. The acceptability of the reflexive interpretation has, however, been verified in the field.) Finally, it is remarked that according to Hosokawa (1991: 172), non-voluntary actions tend not to be encoded by the reflexive/reciprocal construction in Yawuru. (Instead, the medio-active construction is generally employed to express this meaning—see McGregor forthcoming.) While this seems to be generally the case, Nekes nd. cites the form ma-ma-judubu-nyji-n ‘drown oneself, get drowned’ in Yawuru and Nyikina, which (from his gloss) would seem to admit a non-voluntary interpretation, that the person drowned unintentionally. (78) is presumably also an unintentional action. Jabirrjabirr, Nimanburru, Nyulnyul (78) Juurr i-ng-kumb-inyj. snake 3:nom-e:nasal-wedge-ref ‘The snake wedged itself fast (between stones).’ (Nekes and Worms 1953: 294)

6.–Conclusions This paper has presented a description of reflexive/reciprocal construction in the Nyulnyulan languages of Dampier Land, Western Australia. It has attempted to be as descriptively comprehensive as possible, given the inadequacies in the available data. We have seen that the Nyulnyulan reflexive/reciprocal construction is prototypically intransitive: the inflecting verb takes nominative pronominal prefixes that are associated with monovalent, intransitive inflecting verbs, and no accusative pronominal enclitic (unless the inflecting verb is also marked by the applicative suffix). Moreover, the NP which is cross-referenced by the nominative pronominal prefix is almost never marked by the ergative postposition. Reflexive/reciprocal inflecting verbs sometimes, however, occur in clauses with an additional Medium role; in such cases there is an apparent increase in transitivity. It has been argued that reflexive/reciprocal constructions in Nyulnyulan languages are not ‘‘derived’’ from transitive constructions, as is frequently presumed

118

william mc gregor

these days, both in theoretical linguistics (especially of the generative varieties) and in the Dixonian descriptivist tradition which dominates Australianist linguistics. Rather, they must be considered as basic constructions in their own right. Issues of argument coreferentiality thus emerge as irrelevant to the Nyulnyulan reflexive/ reciprocal construction. It is semantics which is crucial to the use or non-use of the construction. So also is the lexicon important: as we have seen, there are various lexical restrictions and irregularities in the formation of the reflexive/reciprocal. The reflexive/reciprocal construction is a linguistic sign in the Semiotic Grammar sense (McGregor 1997b): it is characterised by an inextricable association between a linguistic form (namely the two verb constructions in an allo-relationship with one another, the reflexive/reciprocal marked inflecting verb, and the compound construction involving -banj ‘exchange’) and an invariant meaning, captured by the semantic feature ‘self-directed action’. This means that specific senses such as reflexive, reciprocal, chaining, etc. are contextual senses of the general meaning of the reflexive/reciprocal; the construction is not polysemous, and there is no ambiguity—merely vagueness—among the various senses depicted in Figures 2–4 (cf. Lichtenberk 1985: 29ff).15 A number of questions remain unanswered, and require further depth investigations in the field. These include: (a) What motivates the presence vs. absence of the reflexive/reciprocal prefix ma-? Is Yawuru unique in associating its absence with the reciprocal meaning? (b) What range of reflexive/reciprocal inflecting verbs can occur with preverbs, and what factors motivate the choices? In particular, where choices are available, do they parallel choices between the corresponding non-reflexive/reciprocal forms of the inflecting verbs? (c) What is the full range of meanings associated with the reflexive/reciprocal construction in the various languages? In particular, can the construction be used in the extended reflexive senses (as per Figure 2 (g)–(i))? And do characteristics (i) and (ii) of Section 5 adequately constrain the actional configurations that may be described by the reflexive/reciprocal construction? Finally, an interesting typological question concerns the extent to which similar ranges of meanings are associated with reflexive/reciprocal constructions that are verbally encoded, rather than by means of reflexive and/or reciprocal pronominals, particles enclitics, etc.

Acknowledgements This is a revised version of a paper presented to the International Symposium on Reflexives and Reciprocals, held at University of Colorado at Boulder, August 1997. I am grateful to Zygmunt Frajzyngier for inviting me to participate, thus stimulating me do the long-intended research and write the paper, and to


119

the audience for a number of useful comments. For comments on an earlier draft I thank Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Bernd Heine, Fritz Schweiger, and Tasaku Tsunoda. My fieldwork on Nyulnyul and Warrwa was supported by grants from the Australian Research Council (Grant A58930745 and A59332055), the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, and the National Aboriginal Languages Program; an ARC Research Fellowship (A9324000) provided the opportunity to carry out the research away from the field, and write up the paper. The Pallottine Mission Society is also thanked for permission of access to unpublished manuscripts of Fathers Herman Nekes and Ernest Worms. My greatest debts are, of course, to my Nyulnyul teacher, Carmel Charles, and my Warrwa teachers, Maudie Lennard and Freddy Marker.

Notes 1. The following abbreviations are used: abl = ablative; acc = accusative; all = allative; app = applicative; asc = associative; aug = augmented number (i.e. one or more additional entities); caus = causal; dat = dative; du = dual; dur = durative; e:nasal = epenthetic nasal; erg = ergative; fut = future; gen = generic prefix (forming non-finite verbs); hab = habitual; imp = imperfective; inst = instrumental; irr = irrealis; loc = locative; min = minimal number (i.e. the smallest number of entities that a given category admits); nom = nominative; obl = oblique; pf = perfective; pl = plural; pres = present; pro = pronominal; pst = past tense; ref = reflexive/reciprocal marker; and tr = verbal transitive marker. The first three integers indicate the three persons; free translations are given in single quotes, double quotes when they represent the speaker’s translation verbatim; inflecting verb roots are cited in the text (but not example sentences) in all capitals. For convenience, a single orthography is employed for all of the languages, namely that recommended for Nyulnyulan languages generally in McGregor (1988). This differs slightly for the orthography currently in use in Bardi, which uses oo instead of u for the high back vowel. Sources for all numbered examples are indicated, except for those that come from my own field notebooks. Where an example sentence is attributed to Nekes and Worms (1953), the page number refers to the page number in Parts II–III; reference to Part I is by section number. 2. Various complexities are glossed over in this brief overview. The shapes of the pronominal prefixes are not always obvious, and different analyses are often possible. Pronominal prefixes in Western Nyulnyulan languages distinguish different person-number categories from the free pronouns and bound pronominal enclitics: whereas the latter show an Ilokano type system, distinguishing four persons (1, 1&2, 2, 3) and two numbers (minimal and augmented), the former show an Assiniboyne system (Greenberg 1988), in which there are just three persons (1, 2, 3), two numbers (singular and plural), and an additional form for the speaker-hearer dyad (1&2). The Eastern languages, by contrast, maintain an Ilokano type system throughout most of the pronominal prefix paradigms. 3. Thus when the ‘‘subject’’ is singular the prefix is obligatory. In fact, it seems that this is so even when it is 1&2 minimal, when the prefix ma- invariably occurs, and the transitive prefix ni- is precluded (Hosokawa 1991: 174), even though reciprocal interpretations are admissible. On the other hand, both prefix and suffix not infrequently occur in circumstances in which only the reciprocal interpretation is admitted—one example involves -bula ‘come’, the reflexive/reciprocal form of which means ‘meet together’ (Hosokawa 1991: 27, 170). 4. In places Hosokawa appears to assume the stronger claim that the presence of both prefix and suffix marks the inflecting verb as reflexive, disallowing the reciprocal interpretation. Thus he provides only the reflexive interpretation for example (19), and seems to suggest in the accompanying discussion that this is the only interpretation available.

120

william mc gregor

5. The w-initial allomorph occurs in some languages (including Warrwa) following vowels; in other languages (e.g. Nyulnyul) only the first allomorph occurs. The final nasal-stop cluster is uncertain. I have generally transcribed it in my Nyulnyul and Warrwa fieldnotes as a homorganic palatal cluster. However, according to Stokes (1982) and Hosokawa (1991) it is a heterorganic cluster: the former has it as an apico-post-alveolar nasal followed by a palatal stop in Nyikina, while the latter has it as an apico-alveolar nasal followed by a palatal stop. For consistency, I write the cluster as nj in each language. 6. The transitive prefix never occurs with -banj(i) ~ -wanj(i) ‘exchange’, and, as elsewhere, the pronominal prefixes used with this inflecting verb are those associated with monovalent inflecting verbs. 7. This is one of only a couple of examples in the entire corpora which show the ref prefix in the absence of the ref suffix. And given that it is the absence of the ref prefix main Yawuru that specifies the reciprocal interpretation, its occurrence here is strange. 8. Nekes and Worms (1953) give the form Îamedjalen which they gloss ‘I see myself’. I suspect that the final n is either a mistake in perception or a typographical error, since (as mentioned above) mavirtually never occurs in the absence of -(i)nyj(i). 9. Interestingly, in Gooniyandi, a nearby non-Pama-Nyungan language of the Bunuban family which also shows a verbally-marked reflexive/reciprocal construction, the single inherent participant role is quite frequently ergatively marked—and there is reason to set up reflexive/reciprocal clauses as a distinct type (McGregor 1990: 318ff). 10. Strangely, in view of his treatment of examples such as (43), Hosokawa (1991: 442) proposes that ergative marking is possible in examples like (45) when the action is unusual, and the wilfulness of the agent is emphasised. 11. Essentially, the recipient of the gift is treated grammatically as an Undergoer (it is referred to by an unmarked NP and cross-referenced by an accusative pronominal in the verb), while the gift is designated by an unmarked NP, but not cross-referenced in the verb. I have suggested that the gift serves in the role of (non-participant) Medium—roughly, ‘‘cognate object’’ (see McGregor 1990: 332–6). 12. As Tasaku Tsunoda has pointed out to me (pers.comm.), it could be argued that in such cases the reflexive/reciprocal construction could be derived by an obligatory rule of reflexivisation/reciprocalisation. The problem with this is that there is no empirical support for this proposal; and worse, it is unfalsifiable. There is simply no evidence that clauses involving the inflecting verbs -ilbir ‘echo’ or -kudal ‘disappear’ derive from transitive clauses with these inflecting verbs as bivalent—they might just as well be seen as deriving from underlying intransitive clauses, as in English The noise echoed and He disappeared. 13. In fact, (i) is too strong as it stands. The stipulation that the entirety of the actant group is involved in the action in a relevant way correctly precludes ngirrmangkanyjina ‘they fought’ in (57) from describing a situation in which one person in a group is hitting themself, and the others are sitting around watching. However, also precluded would be a situation in which there were some hangerson, not actually engaged in the fight, but avoiding it, or standing in the side-lines. I strongly doubt that such a situation could not be described by a reflexive/reciprocal construction. 14. This means that there is no systematic grammatical difference associated with the contrast between reflexive, reciprocal, and other senses of the reflexive/reciprocal construction. It does not mean that speakers are unable to distinguish between actions performed among a group acting on one another, and actions performed by members of a group each acting on themself. Thus, in Warrwa and Nyulnyul it is possible to precisely specify the reciprocal sense by adding a pair of explanatory clauses:


121

Warrwa (i) Mayi ngi-rr-wanji-na-wili warany-ma ø-na-a-na tucker 3nom-aug-exchange-pst-du other-erg 3nom-tr-give-pst warany-ma ø-na-a-na. other-erg 3nom-tr-give-pst ‘They gave each other tucker.’ Nyulnyul (ii) I-ngi-rr-banj kumbarr war-in i-na-w aa 3nom-pst-aug-exchange money one-erg 3nom-tr-give and war-in i-na-w. one-erg 3nom-tr-give ‘They exchange money, giving it to one another.’

References Bally, Charles. 1995. ‘‘The expression of concepts of the personal domain and indivisibililty in Indo-European languages’’. In Chappell and McGregor (eds), 1995a, 31–61. Capell, Arthur. 1940. ‘‘The classification of languages in north and north-west Australia’’. Oceania 10: 241–72, 404–33. Chappell, Hilary, and William McGregor (eds). 1995a. The Grammar of Inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. —— —— 1995b. ‘‘Prolegomena to a theory of inalienability’’. In Hilary Chappell and William McGregor (eds.), 3–30. Dixon, R.M.W. 1980. The Languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edmonson, J.A. 1978. ‘‘Ergative languages, accessibility hierarchies governing reflexives and questions of formal analysis’’. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Valence, Semantic Case, and Grammatical Relations, vol. i. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 633–60. Ejai, Tudor. 1986. ‘‘The killing of the ‘Bilikin’ brothers’’. In Luise Hercus and Peter Sutton (eds), This is what Happened: Historical narratives by Aborigines. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, 140–9. Greenberg, Joseph. 1988. ‘‘The first person inclusive dual as an ambiguous category’’. Studies in Language 12: 1–18. Hosokawa, Komei. 1991. The Yawuru language of West Kimberley: A meaning-based description. PhD thesis, Australian National University. Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. König, Ekkehard, and Siemund, Peter. 1999. ‘‘Intensifiers and Reflexives: A typological perspective’’. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier and traci Curl (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and Functions [Typological Studies in Language 40]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 41–74.

122

william mc gregor

Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1985. ‘‘Multiple uses of reciprocal constructions’’. Australian Journal of Linguistics 5: 19–41. McGregor, William. 1988. Handbook of Kimberley languages, vol. 1. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. —— 1990. A Functional Grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. —— 1992. ‘‘The semantics of ergative marking in Gooniyandi’’. Linguistics 30: 275–318. —— 1994. Warrwa. Munich: Lincom Europa. —— 1996. Nyulnyul. Munich: Lincom Europa. —— 1997a. Verb classification in north-west Australia. Paper presented to ALT II, University of Oregon, September 1997. —— 1997b. Semiotic grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. —— 1998. ‘‘Applicative constructions in Warrwa’’. In Anna Siewierska and Jae J. Song (eds), Case, Typology, and Grammar: In honour of Barry J. Blake. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 171–199. —— Forthcoming. ‘‘The medio-active construction in Nyulnyulan languages’’. To appear in Studies in Language. Metcalfe, Christopher D. 1975. Bardi Verb Morphology. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. —— 1979. ‘‘Some aspects of the Bardi language: A non-technical description’’. In Ronald M. Berndt and Catherine H. Berndt (eds), Aborigines of the West: Their past and their present. Perth: University of Western Australia Press, 197–213. Nekes, Herman. nd. Field notebooks. Unpublished manuscripts. —— and Ernest A. Worms. 1953. Australian Languages. Fribourg: Anthropos Institut. Rumsey, Alan. 1982. An Intra-Sentence Grammar of Ungarinjin, North-Western Australia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Stokes, Bronwyn. 1982. A description of Nyigina: A language of the West Kimberley, Western Australia. Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University. —— 1996. ‘‘The top ten Nyulnyulan verb roots: Further evidence for language classification’’. In William B. McGregor (ed.), Studies in Kimberley Languages in Honour of Howard Coate. München and Newcastle: Lincom Europa, 176–87. —— and William McGregor. Forthcoming. ‘‘Classifying the Nyulnyulan languages’’. To appear in Nicholas Evans (ed.), Comparative Studies in Non-Pama-Nyungan. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Tsunoda, Tasaku. Forthcoming. ‘‘Reciprocal-reflexive constructions in Djaru’’. To appear in Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Typology of Reciprocal Constructions. München and Newcastle: Lincom Europa. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Reciprocal marking with deictic verbs come and go in Mandarin MEICHUN LIU National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan

1.–Introduction This paper aims to report an interesting case of reciprocal marking in Mandarin, where the deictically complementary verbs ‘come’ and ‘go’ are used in a compound to signal reciprocal relation. In Mandarin, the common way of marking reciprocal is to add an adverbial (e.g., xiang-hu or hu-xiang ‘mutually’ in front of the verb. However, a reciprocal reading can also be obtained with the use of lai ‘come’ and qu ‘go’ in a fixed VP pattern: V-lai-V-qu ‘V-come-V-go’. The two basic-level verbs ‘come’ and ‘go’ are among the most attested verbs that undergo grammaticalization as well as metaphorization in all languages. The deictic-path distinction coded in the two verbs provides the conceptual basis for functional extensions into various nonspatial domains (cf. Fleischman 1982; Sweetser 1988; Bybee et al. 1988; Lichtenberk 1991). The semantic properties of Mandarin lai ‘come’ and qu ‘go’ have also been detailed in previous work (e.g. Huang 1977; Biq 1992; Wei 1994). However, none of these major studies on lai ‘come’ and qu ‘go’ mentioned their potential function in marking the reciprocal relation. Teng (1994) touched upon the use of V-lai-V-qu in coding ‘repeated action’, but failed to address the possibility of reciprocal interpretation. In this paper, the full range of usage of the V-lai-V-qu pattern will be explored and it ultimately aims to establish semantic as well as discourse motivations for the form-function correlation. The data for the analysis of this paper come from a Mandarin corpus, the Sinica Balanced Corpus, which is the largest balanced corpus of both written and spoken contemporary Mandarin, containing a total of 3.5 million words, developed by the CKIP (Chinese Knowledge and Information Processing) group in Academia Sinica, Taiwan. The relevant data for this paper consist of 197 occurrences of the target pattern.

meichun liu

124

2.–The Issue The reciprocal relation in Mandarin is typically marked by a reciprocal adverbial, xiang-hu (or hu-xiang) meaning ‘each other; mutually’, which always precedes the verb, as shown in (1): (1) Tamen hu-xiang gong-ji. they mutually attack ‘They attacked each other.’ In addition, there is a non-lexicalized way of marking reciprocals, with the use of lai ‘come’ and qu ‘go’ in the form of V-lai-V-qu ‘V-come-V-go’, as shown in (2): (2) Tamen da -lai-da -qu. they hit-come-hit-go ‘They hit each other.’ The reciprocal use of the pattern is sometimes accompanied overtly with the reciprocal adverb xiang-hu or hu-xiang: Dajia xiang-hu deng -lai-deng -qu, deng dao yanjing buman xiesi. people mutually stare-come-stare-go, stare to eyes filled blood ‘People stared at each other until their eyes turned blood-red.’ b. Wuzhe hu-xiang cai -lai-cai -qu. dancer mutually step-come-step-go ‘The dancers were stepping on each other’s feet.’

(3) a.

The presence of the overt marker of reciprocal relation (i.e. adverbs hu-xiang or xiang-hu) seems to indicate that the use of V-lai-V-qu may not be taken as lexically or inherently marking reciprocal function. In other words, the lexical combination of V-lai-V-qu does not guarantee a reciprocal sense. The major source for its reciprocal reading lies, not in lexical semantics, but rather in ‘cognitive or conceptual manipulation’ (cf. Lakoff and Johnson 1981; Langacker 1987) and ‘contextual reinterpretation (cf. Heine et al. 1991), which will be discussed in detail in Section 3. Basically, this reciprocal reading is derived or inferred from the primary meaning of the pattern V-lai-V-qu ‘V-come-V-go’, that is, ‘to do something repeatedly’. As illustrated below, the verbs lai ‘come’ and qu ‘go’, when combined with a (usually) monosyllabic verb, may be used to mark ‘repeated motion in opposite directions’: (4) Ta zai wuzi-li zou -lai-zou -qu. 3ps at room-inside walk-come-walk-go ‘He’s walking back and forth in the room.’ It seems that many languages use similar patterns to form phrases relevant to repeti-

reciprocal marking with deictic verbs

125

tive events, e.g. English ‘day-in-day-out’; German ‘Tag-ein-tag-aus’; Spanish ‘el ir y venir de los’. And it is interesting to note that in Spanish it is ‘go-come’, instead of ‘come-go’. This V-lai-V-qu pattern in Mandarin is quite productive and current and it has the following distributional characteristics. 2.1.–Distribution of V-lai-V-qu The V-lai-V-qu pattern may also occur with non-motional verbs (e.g. ‘eat’, ‘sing’, as in (5a), or even with non-physical verbs (e.g. ‘think’, ‘look at’), as in (5b): (5) a.

With non-motional V ‘eat’: che -lai-che -qu, hai shi che-dao dalu-cai. eat-come-eat-go, still be eat-to mainland-food ‘(They) ate and ate (at different places), but it’s all Mainland food.’ b. With non-physical V ‘think’: Ta xiang -lai-xiang -qu, yizhi mei-you shemo hao zhuyi. 3ps think-come-think-go, always neg-have any good idea ‘He thought and thought (for quite a while), and could not come up with any good solutions.’

It is also noted that with respect to Vendler’s taxonomy of aspectual distinction (cf. Vendler 1967; Smith 1991), the V element in the V-lai-V-qu pattern is restricted to activity and accomplishment verbs, which are non-stative and non-instantaneous. Examples below illustrate that state and achievement verbs are incompatible with the pattern:1 (6) a.

Stative V ‘be beautiful’: *Ta mei -lai-mei -qu. 3ps beautiful-come-beautiful-go. ‘She became beautiful and became beautiful again.’ b. Achievement V ‘die’: *Ta si -lai-si -qu. 3ps die-come-die-go. ‘She died and died.’

It seems that both state and achievement verbs involve an endpoint which cannot be repeated or instantly re-initiated, while the aspectual feature implied in the V-laiV-qu pattern, i.e. repetition or progression (with or without intervals) of a given activity over time, is non-stative and non-instantaneous. As Verkuyl (1993: 35) suggested, both state and achievement verbs share the feature [−process]. This might explain why state and achievement verbs rarely occur in the V-lai-V-qu pattern, which is inherently [+process].2

meichun liu

126 2.2.–Aspectual marking

With non-spatial V-elements in the V-lai-V-qu ‘V-come-V-go) pattern, the two verbs ‘come’ and ‘go’ apparently cease to function as motion verbs. Their verbal status is greatly reduced. From coding deictically opposing orientations, they are grammaticalized into marking ‘repetition’ without spatial-orientational specification. With this inseparable V-lai-V-qu sequence, lai and qu ‘come’ and ‘go’ together undergo grammaticalization and metaphorization from spatial to aspectual domain. Their semantic changes can be represented as follows: (7) Coding Functions of LAI and QU in the V-lai-V-qu pattern V-element

Coding domain of LAI-qu

Coding function of LAI-qu

Motional

Spatial/orientational

Repeated motion in opposing directions Continuous or repeated activity

Non-Motional Aspectual

It should be noted that while the spatial/orientational opposition of lai/qu is always implied with a motional V-element, the aspectual reading of lai/qu tends to be present, too. This could be viewed as a case where ‘pragmatic strengthening’ (cf. Traugott 1988) plays a role. 2.3.–Reciprocal marking with V-lai-V-qu As mentioned above, besides the motional and aspectual functions of V-lai-V-qu, most relevant to our concern here is the potential reciprocal reading with the pattern. When the V-element is transitive and accompanied with a plural subject, the pattern may render a reciprocal meaning: (8) Women/nimen/tamen da -lai-da -qu. 1pl/2pl/3pl fight-come-fight-go ‘We/you/they fought with each other.’ For the above reciprocal reading to be borne out, there have to be certain co-occurrence requirements. Most importantly, there must be plural participants. If the same V in (8), i.e. ‘fight’, occurs with a singular subject, the reciprocal reading will then be absent: (9) Wo/ni/ta da -lai-da -qu. 1s/2s/3s fight-come-fight-go ‘I/you/he fought several times (or for a while).’


127

In the database, all reciprocal uses of the pattern occur with a plural subject: Lao-niu han shizi ma -lai-ma -qu, yinlai xuduo dongwu old-bull and lion scold-come-scold-go, attract many animals weiguan. watch ‘The old bull and the lion called each other’s names, which attracted many bystanders.’ b. Liang ju-zhang xiang ti piqiu yiyang, ti -lai-ti -qu. two bureau-head like kick ball same, kick-come-kick-go. ‘The two bureau directors threw the case to each other as if they were kicking a ball.’ shi shizhang powei buyue. c. San-ge danwei tui -lai-tui -qu, three-cl units push-come-push-go, make mayor pretty unhappy ‘The three offices pushed (the case) to each other, which made the Mayor quite unhappy.’

(10) a.

Besides the general phonological requirement of the V-element (preferably monosyllabic), the transitivity variables of the whole clause (as defined in Hopper and Thompson 1984), including number of participants, semantic properties of the V, and affectedness of the patient, are all involved in triggering the reciprocal reading.

3.–Semantics and pragmatics of reciprocal marking 3.1.–Cognitive Basis The potential of marking reciprocal with V-lai-V-qu has a lot to do with the conceptual opposition characteristic of both the reciprocal relation and of the semantic contrast of lai/qu. In general, a reciprocal relation such as ‘Mary and John hit/love/ push each other’ has the following semantic specifications: (11) Semantic features of reciprocal relation a. Regarding the participants/parties: • two or more animate participants/parties involved; • play a dual role: both serve as activity-initiator and activity-receiver; • mutually and equally interacting. b. Regarding the activity: • normally involves a semantically two-argument verb: the activity involved may be carried to the other party.

meichun liu

128

The mutually-affecting relation between participants in a reciprocal event can be represented with a simplified schema as in (12): (12) Semantic Schema of Reciprocal Relation: B A Similarly, if we take the semantic features of lai ‘come’ and qu ‘go’ into consideration, lai ‘come’ signals motion toward a reference, while qu ‘go’ signals motion away from the reference. Their spatial-orientational opposition can also be schematically represented as in (13): (13) Schematic opposition between ‘come’ and ‘go’ (in relation to the deictic reference A:

COME A

GO

Comparing (12) and (13), we see how it is conceptually plausible that ‘back-andforth movement’ can be taken as the basis for coding reciprocal relation. It is commonly recognized that the spatial domain is cognitively more basic and is often utilized to help conceptualize non-spatial relations. Familiar examples may be found in Lakoff and Johnson (1981). (For example, the spatial-orientational opposition up vs. down often serves to describe the emotional opposition: happy vs. sad.) Here, the spatial directionality is mapped unto the relational directionality. lai and qu, originally marking directionally opposing motions, are utilized to mark interactionally opposing and mutually affecting relations, i.e. the reciprocal function. In other words, the use of lai/qu to mark reciprocals provides another example of metaphorical transfer based on spatial-orientational relations, whereby the deictically opposite motion ‘back and forth’ is used to conceptualize interpersonal or mutually interacting relations.3 3.2.–Contextual variables Semantically, the orientational opposition coded by ‘come’ and ‘go’ is compatible with the interactive feature required for reciprocal relation. It is, however, discourse context that facilitates a reciprocal interpretation. Relevant to the specification in (11), contextual factors required for reciprocal relation may be spelled out as follows: (14) Discourse-contextual requirement for reciprocal reading of V-lai-V-qu • the Subject of V-lai-V-qu refers to multiple (more than one) participants that hold equal ‘animacy’ status (e.g. human to human);


129

• the V-element reports a transitive activity that does not imply an irreversible relation between participants (e.g. an antonym pair mother and child with the verb bear or give birth to). These two requirements have to be met for the V-lai-V-qu pattern to render a reciprocal reading. Examples below illustrate that with either factor missing, the reciprocal reading will not hold: (15) a. Transitive V, with singular human subject and non-human object: Ta la -lai-la -qu, jiushi la-bu-kai. 3ps pull-come-pull-go, just pull-not-open ‘He pulled and pulled (the door) in vain, without being able to open it.’ b. Transitive V, with singular human subject and human object (similar to (9)): zhui -lai-zhui -qu, ta ye bu li ta. Ta 3ps-mm chase-come-chase-go, 3ps-ff still not care 3ps-m ‘He chased (her) in vain; she still ignored him.’ c. Intransitive V, with Plural Human Subject: Xiao pengyou-men pao -lai-pao -qu. small children-pl run-come-run-go ‘Small kids were running around.’ What makes the picture more complicated is that given the conceptual capacity and under the condition that all contextual requirements are satisfied, the above observation still does not guarantee an obligatory reciprocal reading of the V-lai-V-qu pattern. It is conceivable to native speakers that there are cases where the participants are plural and the activity is potentially reciprocal, but subsequent discourse may cancel out the reciprocal potential and force a non-reciprocal interpretation of the event: (16) Laoshi-men ma -lai-ma -qu, xuesheng haishi bu ting. teacher-pl scold-come-scold-go, students still not listen ‘The teachers kept scolding (the students), (but) the students were still not listening.’ To me, the existence of (16) indicates the crucial role of ‘context’ in the interpretation of V-lai-V-qu. As we have already seen, from deictic opposition to repetitive aspect, lai and qu are abstracted out of the spatial-orientational sense and serve to describe progression of any sort of non-static, non-instantaneous activity (with or without intervals). On the other hand, the orientational opposition between lai and qu is conceptually comparable to the two-way interactive nature of reciprocal relation. However, given the conceptual capacity of V-lai-V-qu with reciprocal reading,

130

meichun liu

there still needs to be an appropriate discourse context which is capable of triggering the reciprocal association. While in some cases conceptual structure (semantics) and discourse (pragmatics) may work hand in hand to facilitate the reciprocal reading of V-lai-V-qu, there are still cases where the conceptual ‘potential’ is not realized due to contextual manipulation.

4.–Interaction between conceptual structure and discourse The present study focuses quite narrowly on one particular marking strategy of reciprocals in Mandarin. It bears, nevertheless, some significant implication on the interaction between form and function. There is an extensive amount of literature on the relationship between meaning and use as well as the role of cognition and context on grammaticalization. However, I would particularly like to draw attention to the interaction between conceptual structure and discourse. There has long been a debate between cognitive semanticists and discourse functionalists about whether a line can be drawn between semantics and pragmatics. According to Cumming (1997), ‘meaning’ and ‘use’, or in her terms, ‘conceptual structure’ and ‘discourse’, cannot be completely equated. The two components of language are to a certain extent independent but interacting. Language is multi-layered. Conceptual structure constitutes an intermediate level between ‘speech goal’ or ‘communicative intent’ and the actual discourse utterance. Hence, the lexicon with relatively fixed semantic specifications may feed ‘words’ for utterance production. On the other hand, a particular discourse context may highlight certain meaning components that feed back to the conceptual structure of a certain lexical entity. Cognitive semanticists concern themselves with the question: what cognitive motivations make up the semantic range of a certain word or pattern, and discourse functionalists try to answer why and how the semantic association comes into being. In this study, the not-yet-grammaticalized reciprocal sense in the interpretation of V-lai-V-qu seems to present an interesting example of the fluid, two-way interaction between conceptual structure and discourse. Conceptual structure of a given pattern prepares cognitive capacity for the rise of a potential sense, while discourse in turn helps to strengthen the semantic association of the pattern. The two are dynamically and ‘reciprocally’ interacting.

Notes 1. There is one rather idiomatic expression that uses nouns (referring to ‘eye’ and ‘eyebrow’) with this pattern:


131

(i) Tamen mei-lai-yan-qu. 3pl eyebrow-come-eyebrow-go. ‘They looked seducingly at each other.’ 2. There is also a phonological restriction in the use of V-lai-V-qu, i.e., it rarely occurs with disyllabic (or non-monosyllabic) verbs. While most of the achievement verbs in Mandarin (e.g. ‘break’ or ‘arrive’) consist of more than one syllable, it is not clear if the restriction is due to semantic or phonological reasons. 3. The utilization of spatial motion verbs to mark reciprocal is not exclusive for Mandarin. As also noted in Lichtenberk (to appear), the verb liu ‘walk past/around’ in To’abai’ta is also used for marking periphrastic reciprocals.

References Biq, Yung-O. 1992. ‘‘LAI gen QU de yuyi tantao’’ [A study on the semantics of ‘come’ and ‘go’]. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Chinese and Chinese Teaching, vol. i, 73–9. Bybee, Joan, W. Pagliuca, and R. Perkins. 1988. ‘‘Back to the future’’. In Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds), Approaches to Grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Cumming, Susanna. 1997. When do discourse-functional and cognitive explanations differ? Keynote speech at the Third Conference on Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language (CSDL-3). University of Colorado, Boulder. Fleischman, Suzanne. 1982. ‘‘The past and the future: Are they coming or going?’’ BLS 8: 322–34. Heine, Bernd, U. Claudi, and F. Hunnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson 1984. ‘‘The discourse basis for lexical categories in Universal grammar’’. Language 60(4): 703–52. Huang, Shuanfan. 1977. ‘‘Space, time and the semantics of LAI and QU’’. In R. Cheng et al. (eds), Proceedings of the Conference on Chinese Linguistics. Also in Papers in Chinese Syntax (1982), 145–64. Taipei: Crane. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1981. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. i. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1991. ‘‘Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization’’. Language 67: 475–509. —— To appear. ‘‘Reciprocals and related meanings in To’aba’ita’’. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov and Z. Guentcheva (eds), Typology of Reciprocal Constructions. Munich: Lincom Europa. Smith, C.S. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Sweetser, Eve. 1988. ‘‘Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching’’. BLS 14: 389–405.

132

meichun liu

Teng, Shou-Hsin (ed.). 1994. Chinese Synonyms Usage Dictionary. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co. Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1988. ‘‘Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization’’. BLS 14: 406–16. Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Verkuyl, Henk J. 1993. A Theory of Aspectuality: The interaction between temporal and atemporal structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wei, Wen-zhen. 1994. Lai-qu xiaoying [The effect of ‘come’ and ‘go’]. Paper presented at International Conference on Chinese Linguistics (ICCL–3). Hong Kong.

Combinatory restrictions on Halkomelem reflexives and reciprocals DONNA B. GERDTS Simon Fraser University

1.–Introduction This paper discusses reflexives and reciprocals in Halkomelem, a Salishan language spoken in southwestern British Columbia, Canada. Halkomelem has three reflexive and reciprocal suffixes: -Tət ‘reflexive’ (1), -namət ‘limited control reflexive’ (2), and -təl ‘reciprocal’ (3).1 (1) qayTət / cə / yx / wTət ləˇx wəTət laləmTət xˇ iqəTət /

‘kill self’ ‘dry self’ ‘cover self’ ‘look after self’ ‘scratch self’

(2) qaynámət / q/ wəqwnámət qa / námət / yəˇxwnámət ʔəG wnámət

‘kill self accidentally’ ‘hit self accidentally’ ‘manage to get self in with them’ ‘manage to set self free’ ‘hook self accidentally’

(3) cawətəl / ʔiG wətəl maləqwtəl łicətəl / xˇ iqətəl /

‘help each other’ ‘separate from each other’ ‘mix with each other’ ‘cut each other’ ‘scratch each other’

The above examples illustrate what I refer to as ‘‘core’’ reflexives and reciprocals. They are used in constructions in which the patient (or other suitable argument) is

134

donna b. gerdts

semantically coreferent to the subject of the clause. In such cases, the reflexive or reciprocal transparently means ‘self’ or ‘each other’. The first two sections of this paper focus on core reflexives and reciprocals from the viewpoint of semantic, morphological, and syntactic transitivity. In Section 2, I show that each reflexive and reciprocal suffix is composed of a transitive element plus a referential element. It is therefore not surprising that core reflexives and reciprocals occur on the same verb bases that transitive suffixes do, namely process unaccusatives. Nevertheless, Halkomelem reflexive and reciprocal constructions, like those in many of the world’s languages, are syntactically intransitive. Thus, the Halkomelem reflexive and reciprocal suffixes are both transitivizers and intransitivizers. The transitivizing element allows for two arguments in the predicate’s semantic argument structure. The intransitivizing element decreases the valence to a single argument in the syntactic structure. Given that the first element of each reflexive or reciprocal suffix is a transitive suffix, we might expect that reflexive and reciprocal counterparts would be available for every transitive construction of the language, as long as the meaning of reflexive or reciprocal would make sense for the action. Furthermore, we might expect that reflexive and reciprocal suffixes could only be used when a transitive counterpart was possible. We find that the Halkomelem data, in fact, counterexemplify both of these expectations. Section 3 discusses counterexamples of the first type. For simple transitive actions involving an agent and a patient, it is indeed the case that counterparts with the three reflexive and reciprocal suffixes are possible. However, transitive clauses of other sorts are possible in Halkomelem, including applicative constructions and external possessor constructions containing a lexical suffix, the Salish equivalent of noun incorporation. In these constructions we find that reflexives differ from reciprocals and limited control reflexives, since the latter can appear following applicatives and lexical suffixes, but the former cannot. I account for these facts with a constraint that restricts reflexives to themes. In Section 4, I discuss examples with reflexives or reciprocal suffixes that systematically violate the generalizations made concerning core reflexives and reciprocals in Section 2. I show examples of reflexives and reciprocals appearing in environments in which the transitive suffixes cannot. However, in each case the meaning deviates from the standard ‘self’ or ‘each other’ meaning of core reflexives. In this use, which I refer to as grammaticized reflexives and reciprocals, the suffixes do not affect argument structure, but rather have an aspect-like meaning. The reflexive is used as an inchoative (4a), the limited control reflexive means ‘manage to’ (4b), and the reciprocal is a collective (4c).

halkomelem reflexives and reciprocals (4) a. ʔayəmTət b. nemnámət / c. ʔəłtəntəl

135

‘get slow’ ‘manage to go’ ‘eat together’

I show that core and grammaticized forms are distributionally distinct. Core reflexives and reciprocals appear only on process unaccusatives, while grammaticized reflexives and reciprocals appear on other verb classes, including unergative verbs and states. I conclude that a detailed discussion of Halkomelem reflexives and reciprocals needs to illustrate the different uses and meanings of the suffixes, taking the verb class of the base into consideration. I also make generalizations about which suffixes can occur before and after the reflexive and reciprocal suffixes. Combinatory restrictions on affixation are an important feature of the grammar of a polysynthetic language such as Halkomelem.

2.–Core reflexives and reciprocals In Halkomelem reflexive and reciprocal constructions, the patient (or other suitable argument) is semantically coreferent to a clausemate subject antecedent: (5) niʔ niʔ niʔ niʔ niʔ

cən cˇ ct ce:p

ləˇx wə-Tət. ləˇx wə-Tət. ləˇx wə-Tət. ləˇx wə-Tət. ləˇx wə-Tət.

‘I covered myself.’ ‘You (sg.) covered yourself.’ ‘We covered ourselves.’ ‘You (pl.) covered yourselves.’ ‘He/she/it/they covered self.’

(6) niʔ niʔ niʔ niʔ niʔ

cən cˇ ct ce:p

k wələš -námət. k wələš -námət. k wələš -námət k wələš -námət k wələš -námət.

‘I accidentally shot myself.’ ‘You (sg.) accidentally shot yourself.’ ‘We accidentally shot ourselves.’ ‘You (pl.) accidentally shot yourselves.’ ‘He/she/it/they accidentally shot self.’

(7) niʔ ct cawə-təl. / niʔ ce:p cawə-təl. / niʔ cawə-təl. /

‘We helped each other.’ ‘You (pl.) helped each other.’ ‘They helped each other.’

The reflexive and reciprocal suffixes, which are undifferentiated for person or number, appear in the same place in the verb morphology as the transitive object suffixes, as discussed in Section 2.1. Like the object suffixes, they consist of a combination of two elements: a transitive suffix and a referential suffix. Nevertheless,

136

donna b. gerdts

Halkomelem reflexive and reciprocal constructions are syntactically intransitive, as discussed in Section 2.2. I summarize the morphosyntactic structure of reflexive and reciprocal constructions in Section 2.3. 2.1.–Transitivity and reflexives and reciprocals Transitivity is overtly marked on verbs by one of three suffixes: the general transitive suffix -t, the limited control suffix -n, or the causative suffix -st (Hukari 1976; Leslie 1979).2 Causatives are discussed in Section 2.2. The first two suffixes are illustrated in (8) and (9): (8) a. niʔ q/ waqw-ət-əs łə słeniʔ ʔə kwTə sqəməH / l. aux club-tr-3erg det woman obl det paddle ‘He clubbed the woman with the paddle (on purpose).’ łə słeniʔ ʔə kwTə sqəməH / l. b. niʔ q/ wəqw-nəxw-əs aux club-l.c.tr:3obj-3erg det woman obl det paddle ‘He accidentally clubbed the woman with the paddle.’ (9) a. niʔ cən lem-ət Tə słeniʔ. aux 1sub see-tr det woman ‘I looked at the woman.’ b. niʔ cən ləm-nəxw Tə słeniʔ. aux 1sub see-l.c.tr:3obj det woman ‘I saw the woman.’ The general transitive is illustrated in the (a) examples. The limited control transitive, which is used to express an action that is performed unintentionally, accidentally, or with difficulty, is illustrated in the (b) examples. The majority of verb roots in Halkomelem are patient-oriented unaccusatives (Gerdts 1991, Hukari 1976), for example, q/ wəl ‘to bake’ (as in ‘the bread bakes’) and Gwes ‘to burn’ (as in ‘the house burns’). There are about one thousand verb roots of this type in Halkomelem, and they consistently form transitives with -t and -n. These verb roots also always form reflexives and reciprocals whenever the semantics is plausible. The examples in (10)–(15) are illustrative of the Halkomelem verbal paradigm. (10) kH wes ‘burn’; G wesət ‘burn it’; G wəsnəxw ‘burn it accidentally’; G wesəTət ‘burn self’; G wesnámət ‘burn self accidentally’; G westəl ‘burn each other’ (11) həlí ‘be alive’; həlít ‘bring it to life’; həlínxw ‘manage to save its life’; həlíTət ‘save self’; həlinámət ‘manage to save self’; həlítəl ‘save each other’ w (12) məq/ ‘get full of food’; məqət / ‘fill him/her up’; məqnəx / ‘swallow it accidentally’; məqəTət / ‘fill self up’; məqnámət / ‘manage to fill self up’; məq/ ətəl ´ ‘fill each other up’

halkomelem reflexives and reciprocals

137

(13) ʔiyéʔq ‘change’; ʔiyéʔqt ‘change it’; ʔiyéʔqnəx w ‘get it changed’; ʔiyáʔqTət ‘change places with someone’; ʔiyeʔqnámət ‘manage to change places with someone’; ʔiyáʔqtəl ‘change with each other’ (14) qH waqw ‘get clubbed’; q/ waqwət ‘club it’; q/ wəqwnəxw ‘club it accidentally’; q/ waqwəTət ‘club self’; q/ wəqwnámət ‘club self accidentally’; q/ wəqwətəl ‘club each other’ (15) ʔaG w ‘get hooked, snagged, hung up’, ʔaG wət ‘hook it’, ʔaG wnəxw ‘manage to hook it’, ʔaG wəTət ‘hook self’, ʔəG wnámət ‘hook self accidentally’, ʔaG wtəl ‘get hung up with each other’ The two reflexive forms are distinguished on the basis of control: -Tət is the general reflexive and -namət is the limited control reflexive. Unlike the reflexive, the reciprocal -təl does not have a limited control counterpart. Throughout this paper I refer to these suffixes as -Tət, -namət, and -təl, as these are the forms most often seen in the data. However, the morphophonological evidence shows that these are forms composed of at least two parts. The first part is a transitive suffix, -t or -n, and the second part is a reflexive or reciprocal pronominal form.3 In fact, Gerdts (1988b) gives the following template for Halkomelem verb morphology:4 (16) –1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 prefixes root applicative transitivity object suffixes; subject +aspect suffixes; suffixes reflexive suffixes; suffixes lexical reciprocal suffixes suffix The suffixes -Tət, -namət, and -təl are actually portmanteau forms consisting of combinations of +2 and +3 morphemes. In this regard, the reflexive and reciprocal suffixes are identical to the pronominal object suffixes, which are also portmanteau forms. See, for instance, the examples in (17) with first person objective suffixes. niʔ q/ waqw-əTámš-əs / łə słeniʔ. aux club-tr:1obj-3erg det woman ‘The woman clubbed me (on purpose).’ b. niʔ q/ wəqw-námš-əs / łə słeniʔ. aux club-l.c.tr:1obj-3erg det woman ‘The woman accidentally clubbed me.’

(17) a.

Comparative evidence (cf. Newman 1979) allows us to reconstruct the underlying form of the objects as given in the first column in (18). The combination of the general transitive suffix -t and the object suffixes results in the forms in the T-objects column, and the combination of the limited control transitive

donna b. gerdts

138

suffix -n and the object suffixes results in the forms in the N-objects column. (18) 1sg 2sg 3sg/pl 1pl 2pl ref rec

Objects -samš / -samə Ø -aHlxw -alə -sat -al

T- objects -Tamš / -Tamə -t -taHlxw -talə -Tat -tal

N-objects -namš / -namə -nexw -naHlxw -nalə -namət –

We see that the reflexive forms pattern with the the first and second person singular forms. In T-objects, the sequence of /t + s/ is realized as T. This is a morphophonemic process occurring only in the context of the pronominal paradigm. Elsewhere, ts sequences are permitted, for example, in himat-s / ‘his/her costume’ and šxwitət-s ‘his/her bed’, where the third person genitive suffix -s follows a noun ending in t. The forms -Tat and -tal appear with the vowel a when they are stressed, as in qəˇxTát ‘get to be lots’, pəłtál / ‘sobered each other up’, and xˇ əłtál ‘hurt each other’. When unstressed, the vowel reduces to schwa.5 Furthermore, the vowel of the reflexive and reciprocal triggers vowel harmony, changing an e in the stem to a. (19) Ken xweʔ ʔeK Tət ʔeK Tət cewət / lemət

‘be out of sight’ ‘decrease’ ‘wipe it’ ‘wipe it’ ‘help him/her’ ‘look at him/her’

Ka:nTət xwaʔTət ʔaK TəTət ʔaK Tətəl cawətəl / lamtəl

‘conceal self’ ‘cut one’s weight down’ ‘wipe self’ ‘wipe each other’ ‘help each other’ ‘look at each other’

In sum, the morphophonological evidence suggests that the reflexive form -Tət is underlyingly /t + sat/ and the reciprocal form -təl is underlyingly /t + al/. Determining the underlying form for the limited control suffix -namət is less straightforward. As seen in (18), in N-objects the sequence of /n + s/ is realized simply as n. The deletion of s after n is a morphophonemic process, since ns sequences are otherwise allowed, as in men-s ‘his/her father’. So the form at rather than sat is expected for limited control. The am is still unaccounted for. We notice, however, that the third person form nexw is also problematic, since only n is expected, based on other persons. So it is clear that there are allomorphs of the limited control transitive suffix that consist of more than n. If the underlying form of the limited control of the reflexive is something like /nem + sat/, vowel harmony, reduction of the unstressed vowel to ə, and deletion of the s in the context of limited


139

control would yield namət. Perhaps a study of the comparative-historical evidence on the limited control reflexive in Salishan languages will yield a more satisfactory account of the Halkomelem form. In the meantime, we can surmise that the n derives from the limited control transitive marker and the ət derives from the reflexive pronoun. To summarize, I have argued that the forms -Tət ‘reflexive’ , -namət ‘limited control reflexive’, and -təl ‘reciprocal’ are complex. They consist of a transitive suffix followed by a suffix marking reflexive or reciprocal objects. These suffixes are fused together morphophonemically to function as a portmanteau morph (as indicated by the use of : in glosses) paralleling other forms in the object paradigm. 2.2.–Final intransitivity As in many languages of the world, the Halkomelem reflexive and reciprocal constructions are syntactically intransitive. This section presents several arguments for this claim. First, the agent exhibits absolutive (as opposed to ergative) agreement, indicating that it is the subject of an intransitive rather than a transitive clause. Compare the intransitive clause in (20) with the transitive clauses in (21) and (22). / (20) niʔ ʔiməš kwTə swəyqeʔ. aux walk det man ‘The man walked.’ (21) niʔ kwələš-t-əs kwTə swəyqeʔ / kwTə speʔəT. aux shoot-tr-3erg det man det bear ‘The man shot the bear.’ (22) niʔ kwələš-Támš-əs / kwTə swəyqeʔ. / aux shoot-tr:1obj-3erg det man ‘The man shot me.’ Third person ergatives, that is, subjects of transitives, determine ergative agreement, as in the transitive clauses in (21) and (22). Third person absolutives, that is, subjects of intransitive clauses, do not, as (20) shows. We see that reflexive and reciprocal constructions with third person subjects do not allow ergative agreement: (23) niʔ kwələš-Tət(*-əs) kwTə swəyqeʔ. / aux shoot-tr:ref-3erg det man ‘The man shot himself.’ (24) niʔ kwələš-namət(*-əs) kwTə swəyqeʔ. / aux shoot-L.C.tr:ref-3erg det man ‘The man accidentally shot himself.’

140

donna b. gerdts

(25) ʔiʔ ha:qwə-təHl(*-əs) tə sqwəmqwəméy. / aux smell:cont-tr:rec-3erg det dogs ‘The dogs are smelling one another.’ This follows from an analysis positing syntactic intransitivity for Halkomelem reflexive and reciprocal constructions. Also, as discussed in Gerdts (1988a), many speakers of Halkomelem have a ban against clauses where the final ergative is a proper noun, so (26) is ungrammatical.6 (26)*niʔ kwələš-t-əs kwTə John kwTə speʔəT. aux shoot-tr-3erg det John det bear ‘John shot the bear.’ But speakers with this constraint have no difficulty in producing reflexive and reciprocal constructions with proper noun subjects: kwTə John. (27) niʔ kwələš-Tət aux shoot-tr:ref det John ‘John shot himself.’ (28) niʔ kwələš-namət kwTə John. aux shoot-l.c.tr:ref det John ‘John accidentally shot himself.’ (29) niʔ cawə-təl / kwTə John ʔiʔ Bob. aux help-rec det John and Bob ‘John and Bob helped each another.’ This provides evidence that the subject must be absolutive, not ergative, which follows from the intransitivity of the clause. Furthermore, forms derived from reflexive and reciprocal suffixes can serve as bases for further derivational morphology, such as the causative suffix -st. Gerdts (1988b) has shown that Halkomelem causatives can be formed on intransitive bases (30), but not on transitive bases (31):7 (30) niʔ cən ʔiməš-stəx w tTə swiwləs. / aux 1sub walk-cs:tr:3obj det boy ‘I made the boy walk.’ (31)*niʔ cən q/ wəl-ət-stəxw łə słeniʔ (ʔə) kwTə səplíl. aux 1sub bake-tr-cs:tr:3obj det woman obl det bread ‘I had the woman bake the bread.’ Halkomelem reflexives (32) and reciprocals (33) parallel intransitives in this respect, since they can serve as bases for causatives:


141

(32) niʔ cən kwələš-Tət-stəxw łə Mary. aux 1sub shoot-tr:ref-cs:3obj det mary ‘I made Mary shoot herself.’ (33) ʔiʔ cən ha:qwə-təHl-stəxw tə sqwəmqwəméy. / aux 1sub smell:cont-tr:rec-cs:3obj det dogs ‘I am making the dogs smell one another.’ The speakers I have worked with have rejected causatives formed on limited control reflexives. The Halkomelem causative carries with it the meaning that the causer is instructing the causee to do something, and it would be illogical to ask someone to do something accidentally. However, causatives formed on reflexives and reciprocals are quite common. I give additional examples in (34) and (35). (34) łicaTət / qiqəTət / cə / yx / wTət xˇ iqəTət / haqwəTət qiG / wəTət ʔaKəTət

‘cut self’ ‘bind self’ ‘dry self’ ‘scratch self’ ‘smell self’ ‘bite self’ ‘wipe self’

w łicəTətstəx / w qiqəTətstəx / w cə / yx / Tətstəxw w xˇ iqəTətstəx / w haq əTətstəxw qiG / wəTətstəxw ʔaKəTətstəx w

‘make him/her cut self’ ‘make him/her bind self’ ‘make him/her dry self’ ‘make him/her scratch self’ ‘make him/her smell self’ ‘make him/her bite self’ ‘make him/her wipe self’

w (35) cawətəl / ‘help each other’ cawətəlstəx / ‘make them help e.o.’ w ci:təl / ‘thank e.o.’ ci:təlstəx / ‘make them thank e.o’ KTeGwətəl ‘shine light on e.o.’ KTeGwətəlstəxw ‘make them shine light on e.o.’ w xˇ iqətəl / ‘scratch e.o.’ xˇ iqətəlstəx / ‘make them scratch e.o.’ haqwətəl ‘smell each other’ haqwətəlstəxw ‘make them smell e.o.’ w łicətəl / ‘cut each other’ łicətəlstəx / ‘make them cut e.o.’ w w ʔiG ətəl ‘separate from e.o.’ ʔiG táləstəxw ‘make them separate from each other’ łišətəl ‘bite each other’ łišətəlstəxw ‘make them chew e.o. up’

We see then that the data from causatives, agreement, and proper noun subjects show that Halkomelem reflexive and reciprocal constructions behave syntactically as intransitive. 2.3.–The structure of Halkomelem reflexive and reciprocal constructions The evidence from the preceding two sections has shown that the reflexive and reciprocal suffixes are complex forms. The first element is a transitive marker, sig-

donna b. gerdts

142

nalling general transitivity or limited control. The second element is a referential suffix appearing in the position of an object pronominal suffix. Unlike object suffixes, the referential suffixes cancel argument structure, and thus Halkomelem reflexive and reciprocal constructions are syntactically intransitive. The Halkomelem reflexive and reciprocal suffixes parallel morphological reflexives and reciprocals found in many languages. For example, the French reflexive clitic se and the Italian reflexive clitic si pattern like object pronoun clitics except for the fact that reflexive constructions are syntactically intransitive.8 The two elements of the Halkomelem reflexive and reciprocal suffixes might seem contradictory; these suffixes are both transitivizers and intransitivizers. However, the transitivizing element allows for two arguments in the predicate’s semantic argument structure. This assures that the NP argument of the reflexive and reciprocal construction is both the agent and the theme of the transitive action. The intransitivizing element decreases the valence to a single argument in the syntactic structure. In this respect, reflexive and reciprocal constructions are like passive constructions. The Halkomelem passive (Gerdts 1989a) similarly shows stacked morphology: a transitive suffix -t is followed by an intransitivizing suffix -əm, as seen by comparing the active clause in (36a) with the corresponding passive in (36b). kwTə swəyqeʔ / kwTə speʔəT. niʔ kwələš-t-əs aux shoot-tr-3erg det man det bear ‘The man shot the bear.’ b. niʔ kwələš-t-əm kwTə speʔəT ʔə kwTə swəyqeʔ. / aux shoot-tr-intr det man obl det man ‘The bear was shot by the man.’

(36) a.

Thus, the first suffix correlates with the semantic transitivity of the argument structure, while the second suffix correlates with the syntactic intransitivity of the construction. We see then that passives, reflexives, and reciprocals pattern similarly in that they contain both a transitivizing and an intransitivitizing suffix. However, they differ from other constructions that are semantically transitive and syntactically intransitive, for example, antipassives and lexical suffix constructions (see Section 3.2), which do not have transitive suffixes. As pointed out in Gerdts (1989b, 1993) the generalization that distinguishes these two types of construction is that in passives, reflexives, and reciprocals either the patient or an NP coreferent to the patient is an argument of the VP in the surface syntax.9The patient in antipassives and lexical suffix constructions, however, is not an argument in the surface syntax.


143

3.–Complex transitives The three reflexive and reciprocal constructions in Halkomelem share many properties. Nevertheless, they also differ from each other. For example, we have seen above that limited control reflexives, unlike the other two reflexive and reciprocal constructions, cannot serve as bases for causatives. In this section I point out a difference between the reflexive on the one hand and the reciprocal and limited control reflexive on the other. Drawing on data involving goal and benefactive applicatives (Section 3.1) and lexical suffixes (Section 3.2), I show that reflexives are limited to constructions where the coreferenced object is the theme, that is, the nominal playing the role of patient in a semantically transitive event. Reciprocals and limited control reflexives are possible even when the coreferenced object is not the patient. 3.1.–Applicatives As discussed in Gerdts (1988b), Halkomelem goals and benefactives are expressed in applicative constructions formed by the addition of a verbal suffix, which appears before the transitive suffix. The goal (37) or benefactive (38) is the object, and hence is cross-referenced by the object agreement suffix, while the theme is an oblique nominal introduced by the all-purpose preposition ʔə. (37) niʔ ʔa:m-əs-Tá mš-əs / ʔə kwTə pukw. aux give-goal-tr:1obj-3erg obl det book ‘He gave me the book.’ (38) niʔ q/ wəl-əłc-Támš-əs / ʔə kwTə sce:łtən. aux bake-ben-tr:1obj-3erg obl det salmon ‘He baked the salmon for me.’ The suffix -as, which appears as -əs when it is unstressed, marks the goal applicative, while the suffix -łc marks the benefactive applicative.10 Additional examples of these suffixes are given in (39) and (40): (39) ʔeʔəm xwayəm ʔi w/ yəTGwəł

‘give’ ‘sell’ ‘instruct’ ‘tell’ ‘spill’

ʔa:məst xwayəməst ʔi wəst / yəTəst Gwłast

‘give it to him/her’ ‘sell it to him/her’ ‘show it to him/her’ ‘tell him/her about it’ ‘throw liquid on him/her’

donna b. gerdts

144 (40) q/ wələt Təyt xˇ əHlət kwənət peK / Tət

‘bake it’ ‘fix it’ ‘write it’ ‘take it’ ‘sew it’

q/ wələłcət Təyəłcət xˇ əHləłcət kwənəłcət peK / Təłct

‘bake it for him/her’ ‘fix it for him/her’ ‘write it for/to him/her’ ‘take it for him/her’ ‘sew it for him/her’

As the data in (41) and (42) show, the reflexive suffix -Tət cannot follow an applicative suffix. (41)*niʔ cən q/ wəl-əłc-Tət. aux 1sub bake-ben-refl ‘I cooked it for myself.’ (42) *ʔa:məsTət *ʔiwəsTət *yəTəsTət *TəyəłcTət *peK / TəłcTət

‘give it to self’ ‘show it to self’ ‘tell self about it’ ‘fix it for self’ ‘sew it for self’

Thus, we see the reflexive cannot refer to a goal or benefactive. The generalization is expressed in (43).11 (43) The reflexive -Tət can only refer to a theme nominal. However, as pointed out in Gerdts (1989b), it is possible to express the idea of coreference between the agent and goal or benefactive by means of another construction, the object cancellation construction, in which the suffix -əm appears instead of the transitive suffix. (44) niʔ cən q/ wəl-əłc-əm. aux 1sub bake-ben-intr ‘I cooked it for myself.’ (45) ʔiləqəłcəm qi / wəłcəm / Təyəłcəm Kq/ wəłcəm KTxˇ əłcəm

‘buy it for self’ ‘hang it for self’ ‘fix it for self’ ‘break it for self’ ‘wash it for self’

The suffix -əm, sometimes called the middle voice marker in the Salish literature, is a general purpose intransitive suffix that marks a wide variety of constructions, including main clause passives and antipassives.12 It also regularly appears with verb roots to form a verb stem, as seen in the forms for ‘give’ and ‘sell’ in (39). Tom Hukari has pointed out to me that, to his knowledge, Halkomelem speakers


145

can only use this construction with first person singular reference. Thus, the examples in (45) mean ‘buy it for me,’ ‘hang it for me,’ etc. This meaning is possible even when the subject is not first person, for example in the following imperative: (46) nem/ cˇ ʔiləq-əłc-əm. go 2sub buy-ben-intr ‘Go buy it for me!’ Thus, the object cancellation contruction is not a true reflexive, but rather a logophoric construction, which refers back to the speaker, not the subject. A second property of object cancellation is also suggestive of logophoricity. As Gerdts (1989b) notes, object cancellation is not clause-bounded. The cancelled object can be coreferential with the main clause subject if the main clause contains a speech-act verb, as in the following example: ʔə kwTə (47) cse-t cən ceʔ łə słeniʔ ʔə w/ q/ wəl-əłc-əm-əs tell-tr 1sub fut det woman comp bake-ben-intr-3ssub obl det sce:łtən. salmon ‘I’m telling the woman to bake the salmon for me.’ In contrast, reflexive and reciprocal constructions do not show long-distance effects. They are always controlled by a clausemate subject: (48)*cse-t cən ceʔ łə słeniʔ ʔə w/ q/ wəl-əłc-Tət-əs ʔə tell-tr1 sub fut det woman comp bake-ben-tr:ref-3ssub obl kwTə sce:łtən. det salmon ‘I’m telling the woman to bake the salmon for me.’ (49)*cse-t ct ceʔ łə słeniʔ ʔə w/ q/ wəl-əłc-təl-əs ʔə tell-tr 1plsub fut det woman comp bake-ben-tr:rec-3ssub obl kwTə sce:łtən. det salmon ‘We’re telling the woman to bake the salmon for each other.’ This array of facts shows that the object cancellation construction does not pattern with the reflexive and reciprocal constructions. That this construction occurs in the context of speech act verbs and that it may be limited to referring to the speaker in main clause contexts suggests that it is a logophoric construction rather than a true reflexive. The above discussion shows that the reflexive cannot appear in an applicative construction (see *(41) and *(42)). Limited control reflexives and reciprocals differ from reflexives in this respect, since they can appear in applicative constructions:

donna b. gerdts

146

(50) niʔ cən q/ wəl-əłc-námət. aux 1sub cook-ben-l.c.ref ‘I managed to cook for myself.’ (51) niʔ ct qwəl-əłc-təl. / aux 1pl cook-ben-tr:rec ‘We cooked for each other.’ Combinations of applicative and limited control reflexive are not common and are quite difficult to elicit. Speakers most commonly use a periphrastic expression to express this idea. However, the example in (52) arose in a conversational context. (52) niʔ ʔə cˇ ʔiləq-əłc-námət? aux int 2sub buy-ben-l.C.refl ‘Did you manage to buy it for yourself?’ Combinations of applicative and reciprocal are more common. Several additional examples are given in (53). (53) ʔa:məstəl ʔiwəstəl ʔa:łcətəl peK / Təłctəl ʔiləqəłctəl

‘give it to each other’ ‘show it to each other’ ‘ask each other for it’ ‘sew it for each other’ ‘buy it for each other’

We see then that reciprocals and limited control reflexives differ from plain reflexives in that the former can combine with applicatives, while the latter cannot. To express the meaning of a goal or benefactive reflexive, speakers use the object cancellation construction, which is probably better treated as a logophoric construction than a true reflexive. 3.2.–Lexical suffixes Salishan languages, and other indigenous languages of the Pacific Northwest, are well-known for their lexical suffixes. These are substantival suffixes that bear little or no resemblance to free-standing nominals with the same or similar meaning.13 Some lexical suffixes and the corresponding free nouns in Halkomelem are given in (54): (54) -as -cəs -šən -ʔe xˇ ən -wil

‘face, round object’ ‘hand, finger’ ‘foot, leg’ ‘arm, wing’ ‘rib, vessel’

sʔaTəs celəš sˇxenə / Kelə ləwəˇx

‘face’ ‘hand’ ‘foot’ ‘arm, wing’ ‘rib’

halkomelem reflexives and reciprocals -Tən ‘mouth, edge’ -ewtx / w ‘building, room’ -əyəł ‘baby, child’

147

TaTən ‘mouth’ leləm/ ‘house’ qeq ‘baby’

The lexical suffix always has a broader, more abstract meaning than the noun. Most Salishan languages have approximately one hundred lexical suffixes denoting body parts (hand, foot, heart, nose), basic physical/environmental concepts (earth, fire, water, wind, tree, rock, berry), cultural items (canoe, net, house, clothing), and human/relational terms (people, spouse, offspring). Lexical suffixes are robustly used to form compound-like nouns: (55) Kiwiʔəł-é / wtx / w Kələm-əłp / ʔitət- əlwət ´ təməł-əpsəm ´ / qwłey-šən šeləm-cəs

‘church’ (pray + building) ‘wild cherry tree’ (wild cherry + plant) ‘pajamas’ (sleep + clothing) ‘woodpecker’ (ochre + neck) ‘shoe’ (log + foot) ‘ring’ (encircle + finger)

Furthermore, lexical suffixes frequently appear as part of the verb complex of a clause. (56) qws-eyən / səw/ q-i / ws / łəc/ əlqən ´ q/ wəm-əws / KTxˇ w-eʔł pK / T-əlməxw

‘set a net’ (throw out + net) ‘search for a lost person’ (seek + body) ‘shear wool’ (cut + hair) ‘pluck a bird’ (pluck + body) ‘wash diapers’ (wash + flexible material) ‘milk a cow’ (wring out + breast)

Lexical suffixation parallels incorporation phenomena found in many languages of the world. Lexical suffixes generally refer to the theme of the clause. When the lexical suffix is the notional object of a transitive verb, the resulting clause is intransitive. For example, the lack of ergative agreement in (57) and the presence of a proper noun subject show that the clause is syntactically intransitive. (57) niʔ yəqw-əl/cəp łə Mary. aux burn-wood det mary ‘Mary made a fire.’ As is the case with noun incorporation in many languages, heads of possessed themes can appear as lexical suffixes. This gives rise to an external possession construction. That is, the semantic possessor appears as an argument of the verb. Thus, in (58) and (59) the notional possessor is the syntactic object of the clause.

148

donna b. gerdts

(58) niʔ tši-ʔq w-t-əs łə słeniʔ kwTə sqwəméy. / aux comb-hair-tr-3erg det woman det dog ‘The woman combed the dog’s hair.’ (59) niʔ ʔə cˇ Təy-eʔł-Tá mš? / aux int 2obj make-flexible.material-tr:1obj ‘Did you make my bed?’ Now let us turn to cases involving the coreference of the notional possessor and the agent of the clause. Clauses with lexical suffixes do not allow reflexives formed with the suffix -Tət (60a, 61a); instead they use a middle construction, based on the general intransitive suffix (60b, 61b).14 (60) a. *niʔ cən KTəˇxw-šé-Tət. aux 1sub wash-foot-tr:refl ‘I washed my feet.’ b. niʔ cən KTəˇxw-šén-əm. aux 1sub wash-foot-intr ‘I washed my feet.’ (61) a. *niʔ ʔə xˇ -ayTí(n)-Tət. aux scrape-con:mouth-tr:refl ‘He shaved.’ b. niʔ ʔə xˇ -ayTín-əm. aux scrape-con:mouth-intr ‘He shaved.’ Lexical suffixes with non-coreferent (third person) external possessors and coreferent external possessors are illustrated in (62): (62) ʔeʔK T-šə-t šGw-əyəł-t Kəmš-ənə-t / sew/ q-ə / wtx / w-t

‘wiping his/her feet’ ‘bathe his/her baby’ ‘braid his/her hair’ ‘looking for a house for him/her’

ʔeʔK T-šən-əm/ šGw-əył-əm Kəmš-ə / nə-m / sew/ q-ə / wtx / w-əm/

‘wiping one’s feet’ ‘bathe one’s baby’ ‘braid one’s hair’ ‘looking for a house for oneself’

The external possession construction is extremely common in Halkomelem. I give some additional examples of coreferent external possessors in (63): (63) seʔ-šén-əm seʔ-cs-əm KTxˇ w-cs-əm w łic-áʔq / -əm w tš-iʔq -əm

‘raise one’s foot’ ‘raise one’s hand’ ‘wash one’s hands’ ‘get a haircut’ ‘comb one’s hair’

halkomelem reflexives and reciprocals Kq/ w-eHlcə-m / xwKTəł-qín-əm KTxˇ w-əlnəs-əm qp-as-əm / xwʔəK T-əlqsən-əm

149

‘cut one’s hair’ ‘quench one’s thirst’ ‘brush one’s teeth’ ‘assemble, gather face to face’ ‘wipe one’s nose’

Furthermore, as in the case of applicative suffixes, we find that lexical suffixes can be followed by limited control reflexives (64) and reciprocals (65). (64) xwKəˇxwəw/ –iʔc-námət ‘manage to wash one’s back’ xwKiq/ w-əs-námət ‘manage to punch oneself in the face’ (65) kwənə-cəs-təl Kəmš -əńə-təl / xwKTəKTq/ w-ás-təl xwIəyk / w-əs-təl w w x Tq/ -as-təl xwməkwə-Tə-təl xwłiˇx -əs-təl

‘hold hands’ ‘braid each other’s hair’ ‘boxing’ (punch + face) ‘wink eye at each other’ ‘meet each other face to face’ ‘kiss each other’s mouths’ ‘paint each other’s faces’

We see then that while reflexives do not follow lexical suffixes, limited control reflexives and reciprocals do. If we assume an analysis of these constructions following Gerdts (1981), then the external possessor originates as the possessor of the theme and ascends to the object position.15 Thus, the host of the possessor ascension, not the external possessor, is the theme. It follows that reflexives are banned from this construction by the constraint in (43) above, which states that the reflexive -Tət can only refer to a theme nominal. Limited control reflexives and reciprocals, because they are not constrained in the manner of (43), can appear as external possessors. 3.3.–Summary The data discussed above show the following distribution of reflexive and reciprocal constructions in Halkomelem: (66) Reflexives Limited control reflexives Reciprocals

Simple transitives yes yes yes

Applicatives Lexical suffixes no no yes yes yes yes

The fact that applicatives and lexical suffixes pattern identically is not surprising for two reasons. First, the object in both applicatives and in the lexical suffix plus

150

donna b. gerdts

external possessor construction is not the semantic theme. Rather it is a semantic oblique or possessor that has advanced or ascended to object.16 Thus, constraint (43) rules out reflexives in these constructions, though reciprocals and limited controlled reflexives are allowed. Second, Gerdts and Hinkson (1996) hypothesize that the applicative markers are actually lexical suffixes. The goal applicative suffix, -as, is the lexical suffix for ‘face’. Forms for ‘face’ have developed into grammatical markers in other languages, for example, in Mixtec (Brugman to appear) and Zapotec (MacLaury 1989). The benefactive suffix may be the lexical suffix for ‘belly’. The stomach is the metaphorical seat of the emotions in Halkomelem. If the applicative markers are in fact grammaticized lexical suffixes, then the parallel behavior of applicative and lexical suffix constructions is accounted for by their common history. We have seen above that transitive clauses form reflexives with the suffix -Tət, but applicative clauses use object cancellation (67), and clauses with lexical suffixes use a middle construction (68). (67) niʔ cən q/ wəl-əłc-əm. aux 1sub bake-ben-intr ‘I cooked it for myself.’ (68) niʔ ʔə xˇ -ay-Tín-əm. aux scrape-con-mouth-intr ‘He shaved.’ Object cancellation and middle, which are marked with the same general intransitive marker, may, in fact, be the same construction. However, we have seen that object cancellation is a logophoric construction. It may be limited to cases where the antecedent is the speaker in a simple clause or the subject of a speech act verb in a complex sentence. The middle construction is not limited in this way. It allows subjects of any person (cf. (68)), not just first person singular, and, like reflexive and reciprocal constructions, it is clause-bounded as (69) shows. (69) cse-t cən ceʔ łə słeniʔ ʔə w/ tš-iʔq w-əm-əs. tell-tr 1sub fut det woman comp comb-hair-intr-3ssub ‘I’m telling the woman to comb her hair.’ /*‘I’m telling the woman to comb my hair.’ In (69) the external possessor cancelled by the middle is coreferential with the subject of the embedded clause, not the subject of the speech act verb. Thus, object cancellation and the middle construction may be different constructions, though clearly their shared morphology suggests a common origin. I have accounted for the difference in behavior between general reflexives on the one hand and reciprocals and limited control reflexives on the other by positing a constraint that states that reflexives can only refer to themes. Why should reflexives


151

be limited to themes while other reflexive and reciprocal constructions are not? I can provide no answer to this question from a Halkomelem perspective but perhaps cross-linguistic research on reflexives and reciprocals may suggest a rationale.17

4.–Grammaticized reflexives and reciprocals All of the examples of reflexives, limited control reflexives, and reciprocals discussed so far have transitive counterparts in which the subject and object are distinct. In this section, I discuss examples of reflexive and reciprocal suffixes appearing in environments in which transitive suffixes cannot appear. This might at first seem paradoxical, since I have claimed above that the first element of the reflexive and reciprocal suffixes is a transitive marker, and that the intermediate structure on which the reflexive and reciprocal construction is based is a transitive form. However, based on the examples brought up in this section, I claim that the combination of transitive suffix and reflexive or reciprocal suffix has been reanalyzed into a single suffix. This suffix has a grammaticized meaning that is more aspectual than referential in nature. The reflexive suffix -Tət has the grammaticized meaning of ‘inchoative’ (Section 4.1). The limited control reflexive -namət has the grammaticized meaning of ‘manage to’ (Section 4.2). The reciprocal -təl has the grammaticized meaning of ‘collective’ (Section 4.3). 4.1.–The reflexive as inchoative As discussed above, the majority of verb roots in Halkomelem are process unaccusatives, for example, q/ wəl ‘to bake’ (as in ‘the bread bakes’) and Gwes ‘to burn’ (as in ‘the house burns’), and these always have transitive counterparts, for example, q/ wəl-ət ‘to bake it’, and Gwes-t ‘to burn it’. These verb roots also always form reflexives and reciprocals whenever the semantics is plausible. In addition, we find that the reflexive suffix can sporadically appear on another type of unaccusative verb, namely statives, and in this case, as in many languages of the world, the reflexive suffix takes on the meaning of inchoative, that is, change of state.18 (70) ʔayəm Ti qi:ləm / scəwét / xˇ eI Iəˇxw słeHlp/

‘slow’ ‘big’ ‘old’ ‘adept, clever’ ‘stormy’ ‘hard’ ‘floppy’

ʔayəmTət TiTát qi:ləmTət / scəwátTət / xˇ aITət IəˇxwTát łəHlpTət /

‘get slow’ ‘get big’ ‘get old’ ‘become clever’ ‘get stormy’ ‘get hard’ ‘go flat (a tire)’

donna b. gerdts

152 Iam ʔəyáʔT ʔiyəs qəˇx

‘be enough’ ‘sharp’ ‘happy’ ‘be lots’

IaməTət ʔəyáʔTTət ʔiyəsTət qəˇxTát

‘ease up a little (e.g. widthwise)’ ‘get sharp’ ‘get happy’ ‘get to be lots’, ‘be too many’

The use of the reflexive here is unexpected from a structural point of view, since there are no corresponding transitive forms which can serve as a basis for the reflexives. The forms in the first column cannot appear with the transitive suffix -t; examples like *ʔayəmət ‘slow it’, *Tit ‘big it’, * qi:ləmət / ‘old it’, etc. are all ill-formed. However, if we propose that the combination of transitive plus reflexive in these examples has undergone reanalysis to form a single suffix meaning ‘inchoative’ in cases like (70), then the lack of a transitive counterpart is not an issue. In other words, a form like ʔayəmTət does not have the structure in (71a), but rather the structure in (71c), which derives from the reanalysis of the structure in (71b). (71) a. [[[ʔayəm] t] sat] b. [ʔayəm [t + sat]] c. [ʔayəm [Tat]]

[[[slow] transitive] reflexive] [slow [transitive + reflexive]] [slow [inchoative]]

Since the reanalyzed form has the grammaticized meaning of ‘inchoative’, it should only occur on states, as in (70), and not in transitive contexts. Thus, the reflexive and inchoative uses of -Tət occur on distinct verb classes. We have seen that the reflexive suffix is used in two ways, as a core reflexive meaning ‘self’ and as an inchoative. The question arises, which is the original use of the suffix and which is the innovative or secondary use? Based on the fact that the reflexive morphology patterns with the transitive objective morphology, I claimed above that the core use was original. Furthermore, it is easy to see how this usage could extend to a more aspectual use such as the inchoative. The transitive element of the suffix is obscured by morphophonological fusion. In addition, although reflexive constructions involve two argument structure positions, they are syntactically intransitive and thus have no additional inflectional requirements beyond those of a statives or other verbs that have a single argument structure position. Positing the opposite history, that the inchoative became a reflexive, is more problematic and contrary to other cases in the grammaticization literature. A second argument that the core reflexive is the primary use of the suffix is based on productivity. As mentioned above, the majority of verb roots in Halkomelem are process unaccusatives that allow transitive counterparts formed with the transitive suffix -t. In addition, whenever the semantics is plausible, a core reflexive counterpart is possible. In contrast, the inchoative use of reflexive is fairly rare. Although probably not exhaustive, the list in (70) includes most of the forms in my data. Inchoative forms are more normally represented by the prefix xwə-, as in the following examples taken from Hukari and Peter (1995):

halkomelem reflexives and reciprocals xwəqá / qiʔ / xwəʔəx wín/ xwəxwətəs ´ xwəGwámG / wam/ w x əsíʔe m/ xwəstətés xwəxwTíqən b. xwəˇxwánc / ˇ ənəm/ xwəʔí məš / xwəqwáqwəHl c. xwənéʔənt xwəšnéʔə m/ xwəsIíʔIqəł

(72) a.

153

‘get sick’ ‘become small’ ‘get heavy’ ‘get strong’ ‘become important, respected’ ‘get near’ ‘get loud’ ‘start running’ ‘start walking’ ‘start talking’ ‘become evening’ ‘become a shaman’ ‘turned into a child’

The inchoative prefix is used on a variety of categories, including stative verbs (72a), unergative verbs (72b), and nouns (72c). Further research is needed to determine the distinction between the two Halkomelem inchoatives. Relevant to this paper is the point that the inchoative use of the reflexive suffix is a relatively limited phenomenon. 4.2.–The ‘manage to’ use of the limited control reflexive We have seen above that the limited control reflexive -namət can carry the meaning of performing an action on oneself unintentionally, accidentally, or with difficulty. This suffix also productively occurs on unergative verbs, that is, intransitive verbs whose single argument is prototypically an animate agent that is in control of the action. Unergative verbs in Halkomelem include verbs of activity and motion (Gerdts 1991). When -namət appears on an unergative verb, it carries the meaning ‘manage to’, that is, to succeed in performing an action despite difficulty. Here are just some of the many examples of this use of -namət: (73) ʔəłtənnámət ya:ysnámət q/ wəyələšnámət KaG wnámət pək / wnámət nəqəmnámət šaqwəlnámət tecəlnámət təsnámət łəmceH / lsnámət

‘manage to eat’ ‘manage to work’ ‘manage to dance’ ‘manage to come home’ ‘manage to come to the surface’ ‘manage to dive’ ‘manage to get across’ ‘manage to get here’ ‘manage to get there’ ‘manage to pick (berries)’

donna b. gerdts

154 xˇ wcˇenəmnámət te:mnámət Kiləmnámət Kiwiʔəłnámət / xwiyəne:mnámət / q wəlnámət ʔəmətnámət łˇxiləšnámət ca:mnámət Kaxwnámət ʔənəx wnámət

‘manage to run’ ‘manage to call’ ‘manage to sing’ ‘manage to pray’ ‘manage to listen’ ‘manage to speak’ ‘manage to sit down’ ‘manage to stand’ ‘manage to go up into the mountains’ ‘manage to go down to the beach’ ‘manage to stop’

The extension of -namət to intransitive verbs is reminiscent of what has been referred to as the ‘fake reflexive’ phenomenon in English. As Levin (1993) and others have noted, resultative constructions are generally limited to transitive (We painted the town red) or unaccusative (The can squashed flat) contexts. Unergatives do not straightforwardly serve as a base for resultatives (*She danced silly). However, an unergative can form a resultative if it is turned into a fake reflexive: (74) The children danced themselves silly. He laughed himself blue in the face. Mary ran herself ragged. John cried himself to sleep. Such expressions are not true reflexives, since they do not appear except in resultatives: (75) *The children danced themselves. *He laughed himself. *Mary ran herself. *John cried himself. Likewise, in Halkomelem, unergative verbs generally do not form transitives or reflexives: *ʔəłtənTət ‘eat self’ (76) ʔəłtən ‘eat’ *ʔəłtənt ‘eat it’19 ya:ys ‘work’ *ya:yst ‘work it’ *ya:ysTət ‘work self’ q/ wəyələš ‘dance’ *q/ wəyələšt ‘dance it’ *q/ wəyələšTət ‘dance self’ Thus, we see that there are no corresponding transitive or reflexive forms for the examples in (73). As in the case of the grammaticized use of the reflexive discussed in the previous section, this is not a puzzle if we assume that the limited control transitive suffix and the reflexive suffix have undergone reanalysis into a single morpheme -namət with the grammaticized meaning of ‘manage to’.


155

Additional evidence for a grammaticized form -namət meaning ‘manage to’ comes from double reflexive examples: (77) Ka:nTət ‘conceal self’ TxwaTət ‘take self out of sight’

Ka:nTətnámət ‘manage to conceal self’ TxwaTətnámət ‘manage to take self out of sight’

The data in (77) show examples of the core use of the reflexive followed by -namət. Since the reflexive meaning is conveyed by -Tət, it is clear that -namət must serve some other function. The grammaticized use of the reflexive meaning ‘inchoative’ can also be followed by -namət: (78) ʔiyəsTət ‘get happy’ qi:ləmTət / ‘get old’

ʔiyəsTətnámət ‘manage to cheer up’ qi:ləmTətnámət / ‘manage to grow old’

The data in (78) show that once a state is turned into a process via inchoative, it functions like other process unaccusatives in allowing -namət, but semantically it patterns with unergatives, since the resulting form does not have a referential meaning. Clearly, more research on the semantics of -namət and the conditions on its use is necessary. However, we can conclude that its function has extended beyond its core use as a limited control reflexive. 4.3.–The reciprocal as a collective As noted above, unaccusative verbs with process semantics have transitive counterparts with the general transitive suffix -t. They also form reciprocals with -təl, provided the action can be performed by plural agents on each other. The vast majority of verb forms that are not process unaccusatives do not allow a corresponding reciprocal. However, the suffix -təl does appear on a few verbs that are not process unaccusatives, but in these cases the meaning is not ‘each other’ but rather ‘together’. The following examples show unergative verbs (79a), unergative verbs with body part lexical suffixes (79b), and a stative verb (79c) that allow -təl with a collective meaning. ʔəłtəntəl ya:ystəl ʔiməštəl q/ wəyíləštəl b. ʔəmšástəl waʔšətəl c. ʔiyəstəl

(79) a.

‘eat together’ ‘work together’ ‘walk together’ ‘dance together’ ‘walk around together’ [−as ‘face’] ‘dance together (Indian dance)’ [−šən ‘foot’] ‘happy together’ [−as ‘face’]

156

donna b. gerdts

None of these forms has a counterpart with the transitive suffix -t: *ʔəłtənt, *ya:yst, etc. Apparently, reciprocals taking on a collective meaning is well-attested in other languages of the world, for example, in Oceanic languages as documented by Lichtenberk (1985, to appear). It is a reasonable path for grammaticization, according to Kemmer (1997). After all, the core meaning of reciprocal is that each of the agents denoted by the plural subject is doing the same action (that is, doing something to another member of the set) at approximately the same time and, in the case of prototypical transitive verbs involving contact or closeness, in the same place. Thus, agents of reciprocals are often engaging in a transitive action collectively. Once the notion of transitivity is dropped, the reciprocal simply represents a collective activity. The reciprocal marker is then taken to signal collectivity rather than reciprocity. Of course, this would be accompanied by the reanalysis of the two suffixes into a single suffix. The process is no doubt encouraged by the fact that core reciprocals are finally intransitive in Halkomelem.

5.–Conclusion We have seen that each of the Halkomelem reflexive and reciprocal suffixes is historically composed of two elements, a transitive suffix and a referential suffix. We see the function of each of these elements when we study their use in core constructions, that is, in cases where they appear in reflexive or reciprocal constructions with a transparent meaning of ‘self’ or ‘each other’. The transitive suffix indicates that the predicate has (at least) two semantic arguments. Furthermore, transitive suffixes in Halkomelem indicate the degree of control of the agent over the action. The general transitive suffix -t indicates transitivity with the implication of control by an animate agent, while the suffix -n signals lack of control, that is, that the action was done unintentionally, accidentally, or with great difficulty. The referential suffixes, which appear in the position of object agreement suffixes, provide the meaning of ‘reflexive’ or ‘reciprocal’. Also, the reflexive and reciprocal suffixes reduce the transitivity of the clause. The morphosyntactic evidence shows that reflexive and reciprocal constructions are syntactically intransitive. Given that the first element of each reflexive or reciprocal suffix is a transitive marker, we might expect that reflexive and reciprocal constructions would be available for every transitive construction of the language, as long as the meaning of reflexive or reciprocal would make sense for the action. We find that this is indeed the case for simple transitive actions involving an agent and a theme. However, transitive clauses of other sorts are possible in Halkomelem, including applicative constructions and external possessor constructions containing a lexical suffix, the


157

Salish equivalent of noun incorporation. In these constructions we find that reflexives differ from reciprocals and limited control reflexives, since the latter can appear following applicatives and lexical suffixes, but the former cannot. The general intransitive marker -əm appears instead of -Tət following applicatives and lexical suffixes. I claim that these facts follow from a constraint in Halkomelem that restricts the reflexive to themes. We might also expect, given that the first element of each reflexive or reciprocal suffix is a transitive marker, that reflexive and reciprocal suffixes would never appear on forms that do not have transitive counterparts. However, we find examples of this type for all three suffixes. The two elements of a reflexive or reciprocal suffix, I claim, undergo reanalysis into a unit which takes on a grammaticized meaning. The reflexive -Tət means ‘inchoative’, the limited control reflexive -namət means ‘manage to’, and the reciprocal -təl means ‘collective’. The chart in (80) summarizes the differences between the core (A) and the grammaticized (B) uses of the reflexive and reciprocal suffixes. (80) Form/Meaning Reflexive -Tət A: action on self B: inchoative Limited control reflexive -namət A: accidental action on self B: ‘manage to’ Reciprocal -təl A: action on each other B: collective

Base verb class

t-Transitive Counterpart

Process unaccusatives Statives

yes no

Process unaccusatives Unergatives

yes no

Process unaccusatives Unergatives, statives

yes no

In their core use, the reflexive and reciprocal suffixes productively appear on verb forms that can take transitive suffixes, namely the process unaccusatives, and always straightforwardly mean ‘self’ or ‘each other’. The grammaticized suffixes appear only sporadically, on verb forms where the -t transitive suffix is impossible, such as unergatives and statives, and they have meanings that are more aspectual than referential. What this paper has shown is that a crucial aspect of the study of reflexives and reciprocals is the documentation of what verb bases or other suffixes the reflexive and reciprocal can combine with, under what meanings. This is an aspect of the topic that has been largely overlooked since much of the literature on reflexives and reciprocals addresses languages that use independent pronouns or clitics for these

158

donna b. gerdts

functions. Hence, the research has focussed on conditions on antecedents stated in terms of binding domains, word order, and grammatical relation hierarchies. Halkomelem reflexives and reciprocals, which allow only clausemate subject antecedents, are of little interest in that respect. However, we have seen that the notion of verb class, especially the difference between unergatives, process unaccusatives, and statives, is relevant to the analysis of Halkomelem reflexives and reciprocals. In addition, we have seen that complex transitives such as applicatives and lexical suffix constructions cannot combine with all of the reflexive and reciprocal suffixes. Also we have seen that reflexives and reciprocals can themselves be bases meeting the criteria for subsequent suffixation. Halkomelem is a polysynthetic language with a dozen prefixes, several infixes, and over two hundred suffixes. This paper, in documenting some of the combinatory restrictions on Halkomelem affixation, is a step toward developing a theory of morphosyntax able to account for polysynthetic languages.

Acknowledgements I am deeply indebted to all the speakers of the Island dialect of Halkomelem (HəHlqəmí / nə / m) / who have supplied data and judgments. The majority of the data here come from the late Wilfred Aleck, the late Arnold Guerin, Margaret James, Dora Sampson, Steve Sampson, Sr., Bill Seward, and Theresa Thorne. I hope to have reported their opinions accurately. My research on Halkomelem has been supported by grants from the Jacobs Research Fund, the Phillips Fund, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and the President’s Research Fund, Simon Fraser University. Many thanks to the participants of the Colorado Symposium on Reflexives and Reciprocals for their comments and questions. I especially thank Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Thomas Hukari, Charles Ulrich, and Richard Waltereit for their comments and suggestions.

Notes 1. The following abbreviations are used in glossing the Halkomelem examples: 1 = first person, 2 = second person, 3 = third person, aux = auxiliary, ben = benefactive, comp = complementizer, con = connective, cont = continuative, cs = causative, det = determiner, erg = ergative, fut = future, int = interrogative, intr = intransitive, l.c. = limited control, obj = object, obl = oblique, pl = plural, rec = reciprocal, ref = reflexive, sg = singular, sub = subject, ssub = subordinate subject, tr = transitive. 2. The causative suffix -st probably consists of a causative suffix -s and the transitive suffix -t. 3. Another form, the reflexive causative, -stənamət, which can mean ‘manage to make self do something’ or ‘pretend to do something’, is not discussed here. See Gerdts (1995). 4. This chart only covers basic forms. In other forms, such as passives or causatives based on reflexives, the transitivizing and intransitivizing suffixes stack up in complex ways that are difficult to represent in the template format.


159

5. I do not mark primary stress when it falls on the first syllable, the most common location of stress in Halkomelem. Otherwise it indicated by an acute accent. 6. The passive, antipassive, or cleft equivalent of this clause could be used to bypass the constraint against proper noun ergatives. 7. Gerdts (1988b, 1991) details further restrictions on causatives. Not all intransitives form causatives. To express causatives on notional transitives, an antipassive base is used. 8. Gerdts (1989b) gives a Relational Grammar analysis of Halkomelem reflexives involving multiattachment and cancellation, following Rosen’s (1988) analysis of Italian reflexives. 9. Actually, this generalization is stated more precisely making use of the Relational Grammar notion of multiattachment. The restriction in RG terms is that transitive marking occurs where there is a nominal heading both a 2-arc and a final term arc. 10. Gerdts (1988b) also discusses two other applicative constructions, involving stimuli and directionals. 11. Gerdts (1988b) couches this generalization in Relational Grammar. The reflexive can only refer to an initial 2, not a 2 that arises from 3-to-2 or ben-to-2 advancement. 12. As Gerdts (1988b) points out, antipassives of applicative constructions are not possible in Halkomelem. So the translation ‘I cooked it for someone’ is not available for (44). 13. If there is a resemblance, as in the case of ‘face’ and ‘mouth’ in (57), it is because the noun contains the lexical suffix. 14. The final -n of a lexical suffix is deleted before a suffix starting with the transitive -t. 15. Alternatively, we could posit that the external possessor is semantically an oblique nominal—the affectee (Farrell 1994). This nominal would then advance to object position in the same fashion as goal and benefactive applicatives. Under this analysis, the affectee is not the theme and therefore could not be reflexivized, per (43). 16. It does not matter whether the rules deriving applicative objects and external possessors as objects are considered lexical or syntactic, since the condition in (43) is stated in terms of thematic roles. 17. Gerdts (1993) proposes that applicatives and reflexives are mutually exclusive in Halkomelem because the first requires linking an object position, while the second requires the cancellation of the object position. This would be a coding conflict. A comparison of similar constructions across languages would be necessary in order to substantiate this proposal. 18. The reflexive suffix can also appear on nouns and in this case takes on the meaning of ‘acting like’, as in IiʔIqəłTət ‘acting childish’, x wəlməxwTət ‘acting like a First Nations person’, spəpéʔəTTət ‘acting like a bear.’ Van Eijk (1988) discusses this use of the equivalent form in Lillooet, an Interior Salish language. 19. There are two verbs ‘eat’ in Halkomelem: intransitive ʔəłtən and transitive łəy xˇ -t.

References Brugman, Claudia. To appear. Metaphor in the Elaboration of Grammatical Categories in Mixtec. Farrell, Patrick. 1994. Thematic Relations, Relational Networks, and Multistratal Representations. New York: Garland. Gerdts, Donna B. 1981. A Syntactic Analysis of Lexical Suffixes in Halkomelem Salish. Paper presented at the 7th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. —— 1988a. ‘‘A nominal hierarchy in Halkomelem clausal organization’’. Anthropological Linguistics, 30.1: 20–36.

160

donna b. gerdts

Gerdts, Donna B. 1988b. Object and Absolutive in Halkomelem Salish. New York: Garland. —— 1989a. ‘‘Object agreement in the Halkomelem Salish passive: A morphological explanation’’. In M. R. Key and H. Hoenigswald (eds.), General and Amerindian Ethnolinguistics: In remembrance of Stanley Newman (Contributions to the Sociology of Language). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 185–200. —— 1989b. ‘‘Relational parameters of reflexives: the Halkomelem evidence’’. In D. Gerdts and K. Michelson (eds.), Theoretical Perspectives on Native American Languages. New York: State University of New York Press, 259–80. —— 1991. ‘‘Unaccusative mismatches in Halkomelem Salish’’. International Journal of American Linguistics 57(2): 230–50. —— 1993. ‘‘Mapping Halkomelem grammatical relations’’. Linguistics 31: 591–622. —— 1995. Halkomelem causatives revisited. Paper presented at the 30th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, University of Victoria. —— and Mercedes Q. Hinkson. 1996. ‘‘Salish lexical suffixes: A case of decategorialization’’. In A. Goldberg (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language. Stanford, California: CSLI, 163–76. Hukari, Thomas E. 1976. ‘‘Transitivity in Halkomelem’’. Working Papers for the 11th International Conference on Salishan Languages, Seattle, Washington. —— and Ruby Peter (eds). 1995. Hul’q4umi’num Dictionary. Cowichan Tribes. Kemmer, Suzanne. 1997. Reciprocals and their semantic affinities: Where unity meets multiplicity. Paper presented at the Symposium on Reflexives and Reciprocals, University of Colorado, Boulder. Leslie, Adrian R. 1979. A grammar of the Cowichan dialect of Halkomelem Salish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Victoria. Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1985. ‘‘Multiple uses of reciprocal constructions’’. Australian Journal of Linguistics 5: 19–41. —— To appear. ‘‘Reciprocals and related meanings in To’aba’ita’’. In V. Nedjalkov and A. Guentcheva (eds.), Typology of Reciprocal Constructions. Munich: Lincom Europa. MacLaury, Robert E. 1989. ‘‘Zapotec body-part locatives: Prototypes and metaphoric extensions’’. International Journal of American Linguistics 55: 119–54. Newman, Stanley. 1979. ‘‘The Salish object forms’’. International Journal of American Linguistics 45.4: 299–308. Rosen, Carol G. 1988. The Relational Structure of Reflexive Clauses: Evidence from Italian. New York: Garland. van Eijk, Jan P. 1988. ‘‘Lillooet forms for ‘pretending’ and ‘acting like’ ’’. International Journal of American Linguistics 54, 106–10.

Reciprocals and set construal ELENA MASLOVA University of Bielefeld

1.–The problem The focus of my concern in this paper is one ‘‘coincidence’’ which, in my view, calls for a functional account, namely, a formal identity of verbal reciprocal markers and nominal comitative markers attested in clearly unrelated languages, Bantu1 and Yukaghir, cf. the following examples (relevant items are underlined): Venda (Poulus 1990: 188) (1) a. Musidzana na mutukana vha-khou-rw-ana. girl com boy 3pl-pres.cont-hit-recp ‘The girl and the boy are hitting each other.’ b. Musidzana u-khou-rw-ana na mutukana. girl 3sg-pres.cont-hit-recp com boy ‘The girl and the boy are hitting each other.’ (lit. ‘The girl is hitting each other with the boy.’). Kolyma Yukaghir (field notes; Nikolaeva 1989: T9)) (2) a. Odu-pe kukujerd’i-pe-n’e n’e-nuk-telle Yukaghir-pl Even-pl-com recp-find-ss:pfv n’e-lejtej-ngi. recp-learn-3pl:intr ‘Yukaghirs and Evens met each other and got to know each other.’ b. Qristos lebie-gen tude šoromo-pul-n’e egužu-j. Christ earth-prol his man-pl-com walk-intr:3sg ‘Christ walked around the earth together with his men.’ From the typological point of view, such cross-linguistic data are enough to look for some general semantic category under which both the reciprocal and the comitative

162

elena maslova

could be subsumed. To put it the other way round, each meaning should be given a characterization which would account for the marking pattern exemplified in (1)–(2). The category to be looked for must be general enough to ‘‘override’’ the distinctions which are, in principle, very significant for natural languages, e.g., it can operate on both nouns (referential expressions) and verbs (relational expressions); it can both open a new participant slot (in its comitative instantiations, see 2.1) and decrease the number of such slots (in its reciprocal instantiations, see 3.5), etc. My major claim in what follows will be that it is the concept of participant set that is saliently involved both in the reciprocal and the comitative meaning and thus constitutes the overarching category which licenses the marking pattern under consideration. In other words, both the reciprocal and the comitative modify the configuration of an event by establishing the relation of inclusion between some of its elements and a set, which can thus be conceived as a single whole, as the participation in the event is concerned (see 2.2). The reciprocal semantics can be then described in terms of a relation-oriented set construal, the comitative semantics, in terms of a participant-oriented set construal (3.5). Basically, my proposal is in agreement with the analysis of reciprocal and sociative (collective) sentences proposed by Anna Wierzbicka (1980: 223–64), although she prefers to speak about the part-whole relationship, not about sets. It seems, however, that typological data on reciprocal marking suggest even more radical changes in our understanding of the semantics of this phenomenon than those suggested by Wierzbicka. In this sense, the formal coincidence exemplified above seems to reveal semantic features of reciprocal marking in natural languages which are commonly overlooked or underestimated. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 deals with the comitative and closely related sociative semantics; these phenomena make it possible to introduce the concept of participant set and to establish its essential properties on the basis of its relatively ‘transparent’ instances. Section 3 applies these findings to a more intricate case of the reciprocal semantics. First, I will try to show that the semantics associated with the reciprocal marking across languages cannot be appropriately rendered by the widely assumed type of representation, which can be reduced to the conjunction of some relation between two participant referents and its reverse counterpart (see 3.2–3.3). Instead, I suggest a representation based on the concept of participant set, which subsumes the former one as a particular case and which appears to conform better to the cross-linguistic behavior of the reciprocal marking. Finally, Section 4 shows how the reciprocal and the comitative can interact within one clause; the output of this interaction is a construction type which might have given rise to the reciprocal/comitative marking pattern attested in Bantu and Yukaghir.

reciprocals and set construal

163

2.–Comitative and set construal 2.1.–A preliminary definition The clause type essential for cross-linguistic identification of the comitative marking is defined by the following conditions (cf. Stassen forthcoming): • one type of participation in the same event is ascribed to two separate entities, and • these entities are represented by two noun phrases which are not part of the same constituent; one of the noun phrases can take any case role (comitative target), while the other is invariably encoded as a constituent with a lower structural rank (comitative participant). A grammatical item can be identified as an instance of the comitative marking, if it serves to introduce the comitative participant, as in (2b) and in the following examples: Kolyma Yukaghir (field notes, Nikolaeva 1989: T31) juode-je. (3) a. Met irk-in pajpe+uö-n’e I:nom one-attr female+child-com play-intr:1sg ‘I played with a girl (=who was also playing).’ b. Amun-pe-n’e petr berbekin-gele pude peššej-m. bone-pl-com P. B.-acc outside throw:out-tr:3sg ‘(Together) with the bones (=which he threw out), (he) threw out Petr Berbekin.’2 Note that this definition does not rule out the cases of verbal comitative marking, whereby the comitative participant is introduced by attaching a morpheme to the verb stem, cf.: Nkore-Kiga (Taylor 1985: 67) (4) Y-a-ija-na embwa. 3sg-pst-come-com dog ‘He came with a dog (= who also came)’. Abkhaz (Hewitt 1979: 115, cited according to (Stassen forthcoming)) (5) A-cˇken se-ye-c-ce-yt’. the-boy 1sg-3sg-com-go-aor ‘I went with the boy (= who also went).’ Such examples highlight a property of the comitative marking which is essential for the discussion below, namely, although the comitative target and the comitative participant are ascribed the same type of participation in the event, they elaborate different participant slots.

164

elena maslova

Finally, it must be noted that in some languages comitative markers can be used in non-comitative functions, like Manner or Instrument (suffice it to mention the English comitative marker with). This polysemy pattern is outside the scope of this paper. 2.2.–The concept of participant set In a number of languages, the comitative marker can serve as a coordinate nominal conjunction, that is, it is able to create a single nominal constituent (cf. Mithun 1988; Stassen forthcoming), cf.: Venda (Poulus 1990: 220–1) (6) a. Vele u-khou-shuma na kotsi anga giratsi-ni. Vele 3sg-pres.cont-work com father my garage-loc ‘Vele is working with my father in the garage.’ b. Vele na kotsi anga vha-khou-shuma giratsi-ni. Vele com father my 3pl-pres.cont-work garage-loc ‘Vele and my father are working in the garage.’ This polysemy pattern is licensed by the fact that the nominal conjunction and the comitative instantiate essentially the same phenomenon: two entities, which are conceived as separate individuals, are ascribed the same type participation in an event (cf. Stassen forthcoming). According to Wierzbicka (1980: 229–39), this phenomenon should be explicated in terms of a part-whole relation; more specifically, the entities related by means of a nominal conjunction or a comitative marker are conceived as ‘‘parts of the same whole’’. It is clear, however, that the concept of ‘‘whole’’ in this characterization has to be understood in a very broad sense; at least, it is a whole that is easily conceivable in terms of its distinct parts. Furthermore, this relationship is not construed as an inherent property of the related entities, but rather as a property of the situation being described. In other words, the phenomenon under discussion involves an obviously lesser degree of ‘unity’ than it might be expected in the case of the part-whole relationship. Therefore, it appears more plausible to employ the concept of set, that is, very roughly, something which is conceivable both as a group of separate individuals and as a single whole at the same time. The set construal instantiated by the coordinate conjunction leaves the configuration of the event itself intact, just as other types of multiple-entity participants (e.g., plural noun phrases), i.e., the set of entities involved into the event in the same role elaborates a single participant slot. In contrast with this, the comitative set construal involves separate participants of the event, which are nevertheless construed as a single whole, as their participation in the situation is concerned. Such a phenomenon


165

will be referred to below as ‘‘participant set’’ (or P-set for short). The comitative can be then described as a form signifying that an entity is included into some P-set involved in the situation being described. This implies existence of another element of the P-set within the same event (= comitative target, see 2.1), which has to be identified in order to obtain the proper role interpretation of the comitative participant. Thus, the P-set construal is incorporated into the event configuration. 2.3.–Sociative The comitative is clearly related to the so-called sociative (‘‘collective’’) meaning. The sociative marker can be defined as a form signifying that a group of entities participate in a single event jointly, in the same role (cf. Kemmer 1997: 231), cf.: Kolyma Yukaghir (field notes) qodo:-pe-gi. (7) As’e-gi kurcˇeng-n’e n’aγa: amdo:-t deer-poss crane-com soc be:dead-ss:ipfv lie-pl-poss ‘. . . (that) his deer and the crane, together, lay dead.’ (8) N’aγa: kebej-ngi. soc leave-intr:3pl ‘They left together.’ The unmarked (non-sociative) counterpart of a sociative clause can render a situation conceivable as several separate identical sub-events in which each of the multiple associated participants is involved independently (cf. They left vs. They left together), or otherwise it can contain a single-entity participant (hence, a singleevent interpretation, cf. He left). The latter option is impossible for a sociative clause, inasmuch as the sociative semantics implies multiplicity of participants playing the same role (cf. *He left together). Thus, the semantic impact of the sociative is to construe a single event with multiple participants in the same role, i.e., we are faced with essentially the same semantics as in the case of the comitative marking (cf. 2.1). There are, however, two significant distinctions: • The associated participants of a sociative event can be represented by any multiple-entity noun phrase, which elaborates a single participant slot. • As a result, the number of the associated participants in a sociative event is unlimited; no particular number of participants constitutes a part of the sociative semantics (except for the mere fact that it cannot be one single participant). The latter property of the sociative event type is particularly challenging for semantic analysis, since it apparently requires a potentially ‘‘infinite’’ semantic representation (see Wierzbicka 1980: 260–4 for a detailed discussion of this problem). In fact, the multiple associated participants of a sociative event cannot be dealt with

166

elena maslova

in terms of one ‘multiple-entity’ participant, which enters the same relation as a ‘single-entity’ participant, simply because the sociative marking changes the configuration of the event in such a way as to force the presence of minimally two separate participants. The multiplicity of associated participants constitutes a property of the event construal, not only of the item elaborating a participant slot of this event. Thus, we have to assume that natural languages are able to construe events with an unspecified number of participants, and this has to be accounted for in the semantic characterization of such event types. Since each of the multiple participants is ascribed the same role, it appears that the concept of P-set, as introduced in Section 2.2, provides a plausible solution of this problem. More specifically, we can assume that the sociative marking implies that one participant slot of the event has to be elaborated by a P-set (a set slot, or S-slot for short). This slot is linked to the relational expression by means of the universal quantifier (cf. Wierzbicka 1980: 236–8, 260–3). Note that this account makes use of a property which has not been employed in the case of the comitative P-set construal, but is inherent in the concept of set. Namely, this concept imposes no constraints in terms of the number of its elements, except for the requirement that it must be conceivable in terms of its separate elements (hence, the multiplicity of participants). This is exactly what is needed to account for the configuration of the sociative event type. To sum up this section, the idea of the set construal integrated into the configuration of an event provides an account for both the comitative and the sociative semantics. The latter is particularly important in the context of this paper, given the semantic affinity between the sociative and the reciprocal, as manifested by the pervasive polysemy pattern, whereby these meanings are subsumed under the same marking pattern (see Lichtenberk 1985). The set construal in a language might be assumed to comprise the relation of inclusion (as manifested by the comitative P-set construal) and quantifiers which link sets to relational expressions (as manifested by the sociative P-set construal).

3.–Reciprocal 3.1.–Definition of the domain The reciprocal constructions are commonly defined in terms of a propositional formula like in (9): (9) V(a,b) and V(b,a), or its equivalent in another apparatus of semantic representation; that is, the recipro-


167

cal situation is defined as involving two participants (say, a and b) and some binary relation (V(x,y)) in which a stands to b and b to a (Lichtenberk 1985: 21; Kemmer 1993: 96–7). Although I will claim that this semantics is rather epiphenomenal for the reciprocal marking in natural languages, I will nevertheless take this definition as the starting point, for two reasons. First, this approach guarantees that the scope of the term ‘‘reciprocal’’, as employed here, would comprise more or less the same range of linguistic phenomena as that to which it is commonly applied, which constitutes a necessary prerequisite for any further discussions. Secondly, this characterization serves as a powerful heuristic, that is, as a convenient tool for cross-linguistic identification of reciprocal markers. Thus, a pair of sentences like in (10) will be taken to identify the feature which distinguishes (b) from (a), in this case, the suffix -ana, as an instance of the reciprocal marking, cf.: Swahili (Vitale 1981: 147) (10) a. Juma a-na-m-penda Halima. J. 3sg.sbj-pres-3sg.obj-love H. ‘Juma loves Halima.’ b. Juma na Halima wa-na-pend-ana. J. com H. 3pl-pres-love-recp ‘Juma and Halima love each other.’ There are two essential properties of the reciprocal marking which are implied by this definition, but have to be stated explicitly. First, a form will be considered an instance of the reciprocal marking only if it can be applied to an event with strictly opposed participant roles, that is, in terms of the formula in (9), V(a,b) clearly differs from V(b,a). This feature rules out so-called ‘naturally reciprocal events’ (Kemmer 1993: 102), i.e., events which are either necessarily or very frequently semantically reciprocal. Their participants play essentially the same role in the situation, so that V(a,b) normally implies V(b,a) and vice versa (as represented by the predicates like meet, talk, quarrel, marry, and the like). Kemmer (1993: 102–5) has shown that that natural reciprocals and the ‘reciprocals proper’ are regularly opposed cross-linguistically by use of distinct marking patterns, that is, there exist markers which can be applied for a reciprocal-like modification of a naturally reciprocal event, but not for the reciprocal modification of other event types; her observations are confirmed by rich typological data to appear in (Nedyalkov and Guentcheva forthcoming). Since the naturally reciprocal events instantiate an event type distinct from the prototypical reciprocal (Kemmer 1993: 102–19), such items will not be taken into account in the semantic analysis of the reciprocal marking. Secondly, if a reciprocal situation is expressed by a conjunction of two clauses built up according to general clause-linkage rules of the language, this will not be

168

elena maslova

considered an instance of reciprocal marking. This situation is illustrated by the following examples from Russian, cf.: Russian (11) a. Oni ljubi-t ejej, a onaj egoi. he love-pres:3sg she:acc conj she he:acc ‘hei loves herj, and shej (loves) himi.’ b. Oni ljubi-t ejej, a onaj egoi net. he love-pres:3sg she:acc conj she he:acc no ‘Hei loves herj, but shej (does) not (love) himi.’ c. Oni ljubi-t ejej, a onaj Vasjuk. he love-pres:3sg she:acc conj she V.:acc ‘Hei loves herj, but shei loves Vasjak.’ The first sentence apparently renders a reciprocal situation, yet no special reciprocal marking is employed to express this, as shown by the contrasting non-reciprocal sentences in (11b)–(11c), which follow exactly the same pattern as (11a). In (11a) the reciprocal interpretation arises just as a result of cross-coreference of the NPs in the conjoined clauses. This note might seem trivial and hence superfluous; in particular, sentences like in (11a) seem to be never viewed as examples of a reciprocal construction in Russian. However, similar structures are commonly referred to as ‘‘reciprocal’’ if a language has no reciprocal marking. For example, a grammar of Cantonese (Matthews and Yip 1994: 87) states that a reciprocal construction in this language is formed by repeating the clause with the subject and object reversed: Cantonese (Matthews and Yip 1994: 87) (12) Ngóh béi-min kéuih kéuih béi-min ngóh. I give-face him he give-face me ‘He and I respect each other.’ What is apparently shown by languages like Cantonese is just that the reciprocal marking is not a universal property of natural languages, or, in other words, that a language need not grammaticalize the reciprocal meaning. This evokes a range of questions which are outside the scope of this paper, e.g., what are the factors which favor or block reciprocal marking, etc. Yet it does not seem reasonable to include into a cross-linguistic investigation of reciprocal marking sentences like (12) (given that those like (11a) are excluded). Finally, there are two cross-linguistically attested syntactic variants of the reciprocal construction: in a simple reciprocal construction all reciprocal participants are represented by a single constituent, while a discontinuous reciprocal construction comprises two demonstrably separate constituents referring to the


169

reciprocal participants; this distinction is exemplified in (1). According to the data collected in (Nedyalkov and Guentcheva forthcoming), the simple construction is the typologically unmarked option for reciprocal constructions, i.e., whenever a language has a reciprocal marker, it has the simple reciprocal construction, while the discontinuous option is not available in a number of languages (e.g., English is a case in point). This distribution licenses the following approach to analysis of the reciprocal semantics: in this section, I will discuss only the reciprocal semantics as manifested in the simple reciprocal constructions, which can be taken to represent the prototypical reciprocal event construal; the results of this discussion will be applied to account for the discontinuous option in Section 4. 3.2.–Two-participant vs. multiple-participant reciprocals A semantic representation like in (9) applies only to the two-participant reciprocal situations, and, furthermore, does not seem to entail any natural account of the multiple-participant reciprocals. This issue may appear irrelevant, since such a representation is assumed to characterize only the prototypical reciprocal situation, that is, the existence of multiple-participant reciprocals is not excluded, but is taken to represent an extension from the two-participant prototype (cf. the approach to a cross-linguistic investigation of reciprocals accepted in (Lichtenberk 1985: 21; Kemmer 1993: 96–7)). Yet available cross-linguistic data on the reciprocal marking appear not to give any direct evidence in favor of the prototypical status of the twoparticipant reciprocals in the natural language. As far as I see it, the assumption of the two-participant prototype for reciprocals entails two typological predictions. First, we might predict that in some languages the reciprocal marking is applied to the two-participant reciprocal situations only. A further prediction would be that in a language with formally distinct reciprocal and sociative marking, the multiple-participant reciprocal situation might be subsumed under the sociative marking, insofar as the multiplicity of participants is a prototypical feature of the sociative (see Section 2.3), cf. (Kemmer 1993: 97–8). As it seems, neither of these predictions holds. On the contrary, any productive and regular reciprocal marking applies to a multiple-participant situation, independently of whether or not this marking can be applied to sociative situations as well. Compare, e.g., the following examples from Kolyma Yukaghir, where the reciprocal prefix cannot mark the sociative meaning (cf. the sociative marker in (7), (8)): Kolyma Yukaghir (field notes) (13) Ataqlo:-t n’e-šörileš-ngi. be:two-ss:ipfv recp-paint-3pl:intr ‘Two of them painted each other.’

170

elena maslova

(14) Kimd’i:-t cˇumut n’e-leng-ngi. fight-ss:ipfv all recp-eat-3pl:intr ‘In fighting, they all ate each other.’ There are, in fact, some languages where one of the reciprocal markers is claimed to be restricted to the two-participant type, but this seems to happen only if this marker is applicable to verbs denoting naturally reciprocal events only, i.e., such cases cannot support the two-participant prototype hypothesis (cf. Section 3.1). The only example I am aware of which appears to confirm one of the predictions formulated above is that of Lamba, a Bantu language reported to have two distinct reciprocal suffixes: a ‘‘light’’ reciprocal suffix -an(a), which denotes reciprocal relations between exactly two participants (individuals or bodies), and a ‘‘heavy’’ marker -an-syany(a), which denotes interaction between many participants, cf.: pama ‘‘strike’’ > pam-ana ‘‘strike one another’’, pam-ansyanya ‘‘strike each other indiscriminately, as in a melée’’; ipaya ‘‘kill’’ > ipay-ana ‘‘kill one another’’, ipayansyanya ‘‘indulge in mutual slaughter’’ (Doke 1938: 196–7). What is notable, however, is that the common Bantu reciprocal marking -(a)n(a)- combines the reciprocal and the sociative meaning (Dammann 1954), hence we might hypothesize that, originally, it could be applied to both two-participant and multiple-participant situations. It is thus not the case that the heavier marker has arisen to mark a situation type not covered by the light one; on the contrary, it took over one of the functions originally associated with the light marker. The development is thus opposite to that entailed by the two-participant prototype hypothesis: what we observe is not an extension of a marking originally restricted to the two-participant situations, but a newly developed distinction which restricts the applicability of an original marking. Furthermore, the distinction is apparently unstable, so that the heavy marker continues to acquire the functions of the light one: two heavy reciprocals are reported to be commonly used for two-participant situations, so that the distinction in question seems to be neutralized by means of extension of the multipleparticipant marking to the two-participant sub-type, cf.: temwa ‘love’ > temwansyanya ‘love one another, live in harmony’, fitilwa ‘hate’ > fitilw-ansyanya ‘hate one another’. Thus, the Lamba data also works against the two-participant prototype hypothesis. To sum up, the available typological data appear not to justify the two-participant prototype approach to semantic characterization of the reciprocal marking. Of course, given the current state of our cross-linguistic knowledge, such observations cannot be conclusive. We might still find a language where a reciprocal marking is restricted to the two-participanttype, while multiple-participant reciprocal situations are subsumed under a formally distinct sociative marking. However, the existing evidence seems to suggest that no fixed number of participants constitutes a part of


171

the reciprocal semantics; in fact, the only constraint in terms of number is that there should be more than one reciprocal participant (exactly like in the sociative situation type, see Section 2.3). Although the two-participant prototype approach provides an effective preliminary definition for the cross-linguistic identification of the reciprocal markers, it appears to oversimplify their semantics, since there is just no attested reciprocal marker whose semantics would be fully explicated by a representation like in (9). From the point of view of a linguist, the two-participant case is singled out simply by the fact that it is the easiest one to describe. Yet it does not seem to play any special role in natural languages; thus, we have to look for a characterization which would not make reference to any specific number of participants. 3.3.–Reciprocals without reciprocity The assumption of unspecified number of reciprocal participants (in contrast with that of the two-participants prototype) entails some far-reaching consequences for understanding the semantics of reciprocal marking. As Kemmer (1993: 97) puts it, ‘‘once multiple entities are involved, possibilities for distributive relations and unreciprocated relations between individual pairs begin to arise.’’ (italics mine), see also (Wierzbicka 1980: 255–7). As a clear example, consider the Yukaghir sentence in (14), repeated here: (14) Kimd’i:-t cˇumut n’e-leng-ngi. fight-ss:ipfv all recp-eat-3pl:intr ‘In fighting, they all ate each other.’ Due to the semantics of the verb, it cannot be the case that, for each individual pair of participants, each ate the other. Furthermore, it even cannot be suggested that each member of the group was eaten by some other participant (that this is impossible becomes clear if we consider the last pair of participants who remained alive in that fight). Yet the group of animals participating in the fight is described as a whole, and both participant roles in the situation of eating are ascribed to all members of the group: those who ate are not distinguished from those eaten, since the result was more or less the same for all of them, although apparently not each participant in fact played the both roles. These observations bring me to a next situation type which is commonly rendered by means of the reciprocal marking across languages, namely, the chaining situation, which can be preliminarily represented as in (15): (15) V(a,b) and V(b,c) and . . . ,. i.e., there is some relation V(x,y) in which one participant stands to another one, the latter, to a next one, etc., cf.:

172

elena maslova

Kolyma Yukaghir (field notes) (16) a. Tudel met jela: kewe-s’. he I after leave-intr:3sg ‘He left after me.’ b. N’e-jela: n’e-kewe-s’i:l’i. recp-after recp-leave-intr:1pl ‘We are leaving one after another.’ As shown by Lichtenberk (1985) and Kemmer (1993: 100–1), such situations are cross-linguistically often expressed by means of a reciprocal marker, independently of whether or not any other kind of polysemy is associated with this marker. These observations are supported by the collection of papers on reciprocals in various languages to appear in (Nedyalkov and Guentcheva forthcoming). What is notable is that such situations do not involve ‘‘two-participant reciprocity’’ like in (9) at all: for any pair of participants a and b, it is impossible that a stands in the same relation to b as b to a. Further, exactly as in the case of the multiple-participant reciprocal, it is not the case that each participant really plays both relevant roles: in each chaining situation there are at least two participants, the first and the last, who can participate only in one relation each, and in one role only. This is particularly striking when a ‘‘chain’’ comprises only one relation, as in (17), cf.: Luvale (Horton 1939: 117) (17) Vali na-ku-li-hangasana. they fut-3pl-refl-chase:recp ‘They are chasing one another; one running and another pursuing.’ As highlighted by the gloss, there are two participants which play converse roles in the situation; however, the sentence is construed in such a way as not to distinguish who is running and who is pursuing, and it is the reciprocal marking that is used for this construal (similar examples of ‘‘converse’’ reciprocals are discussed in (Lichtenberk: this volume)). Of course, it may be assumed that the chaining situation type represents an extension from the reciprocal prototype, although a very pervasive one. Yet this assumption still leaves us with the unsolved problem of multiple participants and, consequently, unreciprocated relations. Anyhow, the reciprocal semantics has to be given such a characterization that would naturally account for its extension to ‘chaining’ events. 3.4.–Reciprocals and set construal I hope to have shown that neither the dual number of reciprocal participants nor the


173

‘direct’ reciprocity in the sense of (9) constitutes an essential element of the semantics associated with reciprocal marking cross-linguistically. Which features, then, remain constant across all event types outlined in Sections 3.2–3.3 and are thus to be accounted for in a semantic characterization of reciprocals? First, there is always a group of more than one participant associated with the same type of participation in the situation: whatever is said about these participants, is said about all of them; we can thus assume that the reciprocal marking makes reference to the P-set construal (see Sections 2.2–2.3). Secondly, both reciprocal proper events and chaining events are always construed in terms of some binary relation V(x,y): more specifically, each reciprocal participant can occupy either participant slot of V(x,y), whereby the other slot is occupied by another element of the same P-set, cf. the following approximation of the reciprocal/chaining semantics: (18) VRECP(S) ≅ ∀ x ∈ S {∃ y ∈ S \ {x}: V(x,y)} or {∃ y ∈ S \ {x}: V(y,x)}, where S is a P-set. It can be easily observed that the formula in (18) covers all situation types outlined in Sections 3.2–3.3. Yet it is apparently too ‘weak’ for the reciprocals proper, in particular, for the two-participant reciprocals: in this case, the ‘or’ has to be replaced by ‘and‘ (that is, both roles must be ascribed to the both reciprocal participants). Yet, in the case of two participants, the second (reverse) term of the formula is obviously not needed, since, if S comprises two elements only, the reciprocity like in (9) is directly entailed just by (19), cf.: (19) VRECP(S) ≅ ∀ x ∈ S ∃ y ∈ S \ {x}: V(x,y). Indeed, if a and b are the only elements of S, such a formula entails both V(a,b) and V(b,a). On the other hand, it covers the multiple-participant case as well, and, in this case, licenses unreciprocated relations (exactly like the reciprocal marking in a natural language). Thus, it seems plausible to assume that a representation like in (19) gives a more appropriate approximation of what may be called the reciprocal prototype than that like in (9). Noteworthy, once the concept of set is involved, it turns out superfluous to include the reverse relation into a semantic representation of the reciprocal, which seems to be in accordance with cross-linguistic data on the reciprocal marking.3 Both the reciprocal proper semantics, as represented in (19), and its ‘weaker’ approximation in (18), which covers chaining situations as well, make reference to a P-set which is linked to two participant slots of an underlying binary relation. The formulae in (18) and (19) differ only in the exact semantics of the links established between the P-set and these slots. This feature can be considered relatively insignificant, if compared with the set construal imposed on the event configuration in such a way as to ‘merge’ two participant slots, which constitutes the essence of both semantic representations. Thus, these representations provide an account for the

174

elena maslova

reciprocal-to-chaining extension which licenses the commonly attested reciprocal/ chaining marking pattern (see Section 3.3). 3.5.–Relation-oriented vs. participant-oriented set construal The semantic representation in (19) implies that a reciprocal event involves an Sslot, that is, a participant slot to be occupied by a P-set (as was introduced to account for the sociative event type, see Section 2.3). The S-slot replaces two participant slots of the underlying relational expression, hence the valence-decreasing effect, which is well-known to be characteristic of reciprocal constructions. We might therefore hypothesize that the P-set involved into the configuration of a reciprocal event is construed in terms of participant slots, rather than in terms of referential entities filling these slots. This hypothesis is directly confirmed by the fact that the reciprocal marking can be applied independently of whether or not the S-slot is actually filled by a referential expression, e.g., in impersonal constructions, cf.: Kolyma Yukaghir (field notes) (20) Olbut i:s’e-le n’e-kigiji:-l ingl’i-s’. dead:tree sharp:edge-instr recp-jab-anr be:terrible-intr:3sg ‘It is terrible to jab each other with the sharp edges of a dead tree.’ A reciprocal marker can be then described as a form signifying that some relational slot is included in (= put in a correspondence with) a P-set represented by the S-slot. Given that the comitative marking was described above in terms of inclusion of an entity into a P-set (see Section 2.2), the puzzle which has inspired this paper (cf. Section 1) seems to be solved. Both the reciprocal and the comitative construe a Pset by establishing the relation of inclusion between an item in the scope of the marker and this P-set, which licenses the use of formally identical items for both meanings. The distinction is that the reciprocal marking is applied to a relational expression and its participant slots (‘‘relation-oriented’’ P-set construal), while the comitative marking is applied to a participant itself (‘‘participant-oriented’’ P-set construal). The rest of the paper is intended to show how these two set-construal options can interact within one clause.

4.–Reciprocal and comitative: semantic interaction As mentioned in Section 3.1, the S-slot is not an obligatory component of the reciprocal event construal. Another option is the discontinuous reciprocal construc-


175

tion, in which a reciprocal relational expression opens two separate slots for reciprocal participants (hence, exactly two reciprocal participants), cf.: Swahili (Vitale 1981: 147) (21) Juma a-na-penda-ana na Halima. J. 3sg.sbj-pres-love-recp com H. ‘Juma and Halima love each other.’ (lit. ‘Juma loves each other with Halima.’). Roughly, a discontinuous reciprocal sentence is synonymous to its simple counterpart, whereby (cf. (21) and (10b) and the similar pair of examples in (1)); although the secondary participant is ‘backgrounded’ (by virtue of the fact that it is manifested by an oblique noun phrase), it is assigned the same type of participation in the event as the primary participant. The type of participation is determined by the reciprocal semantics of the relational expression, i.e., it is appropriately described by the formula in (19), once the P-set involved in this formula is assumed to comprise the primary and the secondary reciprocal participant: each of them stands to the other in the relation signified by the verb stem. On the other hand, the marker introducing the secondary reciprocal participant in such a construction is a comitative marker by virtue of the definition given in 2.1: it signifies that this participant is included in a P-set associated with the primary participant (that is, ascribes to the former the same type of participation in the situation). Thus, the discontinuous reciprocal constructions are naturally accounted for in terms of an interaction of the comitative semantics and the reciprocal semantics, as represented by the following formula: (22) VRECP(a, bCOM) = VRECP(S), where S = {a, b}, that is, the semantic impact of the comitative marker is to construe a P-set comprising the primary participant and the comitative participant (S = {a,b}), while the reciprocal marker modifies the configuration of the event as rendered by (19). In this argumentation, the marker introducing the secondary reciprocal participant was identified as comitative just by definition. Now, it is indeed regularly represented by exactly the same grammatical item that is employed in the ‘plain’ comitative function (as described and exemplified in Section 2.1). Unfortunately, I have not enough data to discuss the cross-linguistic distribution of this pattern, although its universal relevance might turn out a feasible hypothesis. Suffice it to note at the moment that it is the case in the languages which are in the focus of the present paper (see Section 1), that is, the Bantu languages and the Yukaghir languages, cf., e.g. (6a) and (21), (2b) and (23):

176

elena maslova

Kolyma Yukaghir (field notes) (23) Irkid’e ti: modo-je lige-je pulut-n’e once there live-attr old-attr old:man-com n’e-nu:-l’el. recp-find-infr(intr:3sg) ‘Once he met (= found each other) with a very old man living there.’ The feasibility of the proposed account of the reciprocal semantics is supported by the typological markedness of the discontinuous reciprocal option: a language can have the discontinuous reciprocal construction only if it has the simple one, but not vice versa (see Section 3.1). Yet the discontinuous option evidently conforms better to most general event schema employed by natural languages: it comprises a fixed number of participants; each participant occupies its own slot; one of the participants is accorded primary prominence (cf., e.g., Croft 1994: 89–91). Furthermore, as shown by Leon Stassen (forthcoming), the comitative strategy of conjoining noun phrases (hence, the grammatical resource needed for the discontinuous reciprocal construction) can be assumed to be universally available. Why, then, is the simple construction, which contains an S-slot with unspecified number of participants and thus saliently deviates from the general event schema, clearly preferential for reciprocals? This preference appears to be straightforwardly predicted by the semantic representation suggested in (19) and (22). The formula in (19) entails that the reciprocal event configuration applies to a P-set, rather than to some separate participants, while the semantics of the discontinuous reciprocal construction (as rendered by (22)) contains an internal reference to the S-slot reciprocal semantics (as in (19)), hence, it can be construed only on the basis of the simple reciprocal. The very existence of the discontinuous option for reciprocals can be then viewed as an output of the conflict between the general properties of event construal and the set-oriented reciprocal semantics, and it is the comitative semantics that makes this compromise possible. Presumably, the discontinuous reciprocal construction constitutes a necessary condition of the reciprocal/comitative marking pattern characteristic of the Bantu languages and the Yukaghir languages (see Section 1). Indeed, it seems noteworthy that this pattern entails co-occurrence of the both items within one clause. Furthermore, due to the basic constituent order (SVO for Bantu and SOV for Yukaghir) and the positions of the relevant grammatical items with respect to the stems, the reciprocal and the comitative immediately follow each other in both cases, cf.: (24) Bantu: S V-recp com+O. Yukaghir: S O-com recp+V These formal properties can probably serve as an indication of how this marking


177

pattern might have arisen. Although any articulated diachronic hypotheses are clearly outside the scope of this paper, I hope to have shown that the formal identity (or similarity) of the comitative and reciprocal marking mirrors their intimate semantic relatedness and therefore can be hardly considered an accident.

Abbreviations acc anr aor attr com conj cont fut infr instr intr ipfv loc nom

accusative action nominalizer aorist attributive comitative conjunction continuous future inferential instrumental intransitive imperfective locative nominative

obj pfv pl poss pres prol pst recp refl sbj sg soc ss tr

object perfective plural possessive present prolative past reciprocal reflexive subject singular sociative same-subject converb transitive

Notes 1. I am indebted to Vladimir Nedyalkov for having drawn my attention (in 1988) to the formal affinity between the reciprocal and comitative in Bantu. An account of this phenomenon in terms of a grammaticalization path has been proposed by Mathias Schladt in a draft sent to V. Nedyalkov in 1996. This account, although hardly compelling, has nevertheless inspired me to look more closely at the striking parallel between Bantu and Yukaghir, for which I am most thankful. I would also like to thank Leon Stassen for the opportunity to read his revealing paper on NP-conjunction (forthcoming), as well as for his encouragement at the moments when it was most severely needed. 2. This piece of a fairy tale tells about a giant who threw out some human bones without noticing an alive human being among them. 3. In particular, it can be easily observed that the formula in (19) is in a transparent iconic correspondence with reciprocal marking option of each other’ type.

References Croft, William. 1994. ‘‘Voice: Beyond control and affectedness’’. In: Barbara Fox and Paul J. Hopper (eds.). Voice. Form and function [Typological Studies in Language 27]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 89–118.

178

elena maslova

Dammann, Ernst. 1954. ‘‘Reziprok und Assoziativ in Bantusprachen’’. Zeitschrift des deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 104(1): 163–74. Doke, C.M. 1938. Textbook of Lamba grammar. Johannesburg. Horton, A.E. 1949. A grammar of Luvale [Bantu Grammatical Archives, edited by C.M. Doke II.]. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice [Typological Studies in Language 23]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. —— 1997. ‘‘Collective and distributive marking, or: Where unity meets multiplicity’’. In Alan K. Melby (ed.), The twenty-third LACUS Forum 1996. Chapel Hill, NC: Linguistics Association of Canada and the United States, 231–49. Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1985. ‘‘Multiple uses of reciprocal constructions’’. Australian Journal of Linguistics 5: 19–41. Lichtenberk, Frantisek. This volume. ‘‘Reciprocals without reflexives’’. Matthews, Stephen, and Virginia Yip. 1994. Cantonese. A comprehensive grammar. London and New York: Routledge. Mithun, Marianne. 1988. ‘‘The grammaticalization of coordination’’. In John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson (eds), Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 331–59. Nedyalkov, Vladimir P., and Z. Guentcheva (eds.). Forthcoming. Typology of Reciprocal Constructions. Munich: Lincom Europa. Nikolaeva, Irina (ed.). 1989. Fol’klor Jukagirov Verhnej Kolymy [a collection of texts]. v. 1–2. Jakutsk. Poulus, G. 1990. A Linguistic Analysis of Venda. Pretoria. Stassen, Leon. Forthcoming. ‘‘Some universal characteristics of noun phrase conjunction’’. In Frans Plank (ed.), The Noun Phrase in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [EUROTYPE Publications 7]. Taylor, Ch. 1985. Nkore-Kiga [Croom hel;m descriptive Grammars]. London: Croom Helm. Vitale, Anthony J. 1981. Swahili Syntax. Dordrecht and Cinnaminson: Foris Publications. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1980. Lingua Mentalis. The semantics of natural language. Sydney: Academic Press.

Coding of the Reciprocal Function: Two solutions ZYGMUNT FRAJZYNGIER University of Colorado

1.–Terms and problems The term ‘‘reciprocal’’ in the present paper refers to the situation or event, when A acts on B and B acts on A. A and B may each be singular or plural, as always assumed in the literature on reciprocals (cf. Lichtenberk 1994: 3508). A reciprocal marker is one that has been grammaticalized to encode such a situation. More generally perhaps, reciprocal function refers to the function when two or more participants in an event share more than one semantic relation to the verb, e.g. agent and patient, agent and benefactive, possessives, etc. However, not every marker that is deployed to code a reciprocal situation is a reciprocal marker. The aim of the present paper is to examine why some rather than other grammatical markers are deployed for the coding of reciprocal function. The factors responsible for the choice of the markers may be morphological, syntactic, semantic (i.e. resulting from inherent semantic properties of lexical items and grammatical morphemes), or cognitive, i.e. resulting from the speakers evaluation of the situation and evaluation of the means available in the language. The discovery of the factors involved can give insight into the functioning of language and of the human mind. The scope of this paper supplements generalizations proposed in Heine (this volume) by providing specific motivation for various processes. While discussing motivation I will also present the coding of the reciprocal in some Chadic languages. Data for three of these languages have not been previously available. A prerequisite for the coding of the reciprocal is the plurality of participants. By definition this prerequisite is met by all constructions under consideration, and it is not going to be noted each time it occurs. It appears that regardless of whether the

180

zygmunt frajzyngier

language has a dedicated grammatical form for the coding of the reciprocal or exploits grammatical means already existing for the coding of other functions, there exist only a limited number of characteristics that a language explores in the search of forms to code the reciprocal. The first characteristic is the coding of the collective participation in the event. The second characteristic is the repetitive event (Liu, this volume). Consequently, any form that encodes these characteristics may be deployed for the coding of the reciprocal. In the search for these characteristics, languages employ several strategies: One of the most familiar for the scholars of Western Indo-European languages is the deployment of forms that have been often labeled ‘‘reflexive.’’ Another is the deployment of adverbial expressions corresponding to ‘‘mutually,’’ ‘‘one another’’ (one of the means deployed in Polish), ‘‘together’’ (Mupun, Frajzyngier 1993). The third one is the grammaticalization of markers whose primary function is that of coding reciprocal (Halkomelem, Gerdts, this volume). This paper focuses on two strategies in the expression of reciprocal: through the point of view of an argument (the reflexive) and through the markers whose reciprocal function is the first product in the grammaticalization chain. The two strategies are in contrast in that in the first case one cannot talk about the existence of reciprocal markers. The second case is important because, contrary to the implications of Heine’s grammaticalization chain (Heine, this volume), the reciprocal may be the first product of grammaticalization, unrelated to the reflexive function. The second case is also important because at least on face value, the selection of the form was not motivated by the collective or repetitive characteristics. I will attempt to discover what characteristics motivate the choice of the second form. The scope of this paper is as follows: For the reflexive strategy I discuss Polish and Amharic (EthioSemitic). For the grammaticalization of the reciprocal I discuss Chadic languages.

2.–Point of view 2.1.–The possibilities Starting from a situation with two sets of participants A and B, the speaker of a language can choose to represent the event from the point of view1 of A or of B. This choice, which can be motivated by a number of discourse or cognitive factors, is essentially responsible for the distinction between nominative-accusative and absolutive-ergative languages in their grammatical systems, and also in the choice of reflexive markers in the nominative-accusative. The unmarked form in these languages represents the point of view of the goal. Consider now two sets of participants A and B such that A has the same semantic relationship to B as B has to A.

coding of the reciprocal function

181

If the speakers want to encode this fact, i.e. the existence of the same kind of relationship, choosing the point of view of A or the point of view of B will not achieve the desired result, because these points of view are identical. In a number of languages the reflexive form is selected for the coding of reciprocal because it is a default form that, by representing the point of view of the subject, without any other participants mentioned, excludes the existence of other participants. So when the verb allows it, the result is a reciprocal interpretation. Here is a description of the coding of the reciprocal that supports the proposed hypothesis from Polish and Amharic. 2.2.–Polish In Polish the reciprocal function is coded by the plural form of the verb in any person accompanied by the point of view of the subject (reflexive) clitic siv (but not the coreferential marker siebie), which may occur before or after the verb.2 The reciprocal meaning is a result not only of the combination of plural participants and the reflexive marker but also of the inherent properties of the verb. If the verb allows a reciprocal situation, then the clause is interpreted as reciprocal. The reciprocal interpretation is assured provided no other argument is present: (1) Spotkamy siv na Nowym S´wiecie, meet:1pl:fut refl on N.S´. (street name) ‘We shall meet on Nowy Swiat.’ (Sources)3 If another argument is present, the scope of the reciprocal is automatically extended to include the other argument as a co-participant: (2) Spotkamy siv na Nowym S´wiecie z Michałem. meet:1pl:fut refl on N.S´. (street name) conj michal:instr ‘We shall meet Michal on Nowy S´wiat.’ (The first participant is plural but members of its set are not in reciprocal relationship to each other, but rather all are in reciprocal relation with Michal.) (3) O przeciez˙ sto lat juz nie widziałys´my siv. oh but hundred years already neg see:1pl:f:past refl ‘Oh, we (f.) have not seen each other for ages’ (Sources) (4) O przeciez˙ sto lat juz nie widziałys´my siv z oh but hundred years already neg see:1pl:f:past refl conj Magdu. Magda ‘Oh, we (f.) and Magda have not seen each other for ages.’

182

zygmunt frajzyngier

(5) To wysćie siv tutaj poznali. so 2pl refl here know:perf ‘So you met here?’ (Sources) (6) To wysćie siv tutaj poznali z jej rodzinu. so 2pl refl here know:m:pl:perf with her family:instr ‘So you met her family here?’ (7) A załoz˙ymy siv. conj bet:1pl refl ‘Do you want to bet?’ (Sources) (8) A załoz˙ymy siv z nim. conj bet:1pl refl with him ‘Shall we make a bet with him?’ The above examples might suggest that Polish has a reciprocal marker siv whose scope is determined by the presence or absence of another noun phrase in addition to the subject. But this is not the case, because the marker siv actually codes the point of view of the subject. Since this function is discussed in Frajzyngier (1999), here are just a few examples. First singular subject, which automatically rules out the reciprocal function: (9) Niech siv Pan lepiej nie zakłada. let refl sir better neg bet ‘Sir, you better not bet.’ Plural subject but not reciprocal: (10) Mys´lv sobie młodzi pobiegli siv bawic´. think:1sg 1sg:dat young:pl:m run:pl:m refl play ‘So I think: young ones ran to play.’ (Sources) (11) Z miejsca poznali siv na mnie wszyscy. from place learn:pl:m refl on 1sg all ‘Everybody immediately recognized what kind of person I am’ (Sources) (12) Bywa i tak, z˙e pieniudze siv znajdu, uchwała jest, be:freq conj such comp money refl find:pl:fut decision is ‘It also happens that money can be found, that there is a decision.’ (Sources)


183

(13) Potem to juz˙ bys´my siv umówili later dem already hyp:1pl refl agree:pl:m:past co do warunków. what prep conditions ‘Later we could agree regarding the conditions.’ (Sources) (14) W tym roku chybasćie siv dobrze przygotowali, in dem year probably:2pl refl well prepare:pl:m:past ‘I assume this year you are well prepared.’ (Sources) (15) Bo my konćzymy juz˙ zaporv w przyszłym roku i because 1pl finish:1pl:pres already dam:acc in coming year and likwidujemy siv. liquidate:1pl:pres refl ‘Because we are going to finish the dam next year and then we will cease to exist.’ (Sources) Reflexive verbs are verbs that always occur with a reflexive marker. The deployment of such verbs does not evoke a reciprocal or even collective interpretation: (16) Dlaczego my tak siv dobijamy o jakis´ lokal na wystvpy? why 1pl so refl fight prep some place prep show ‘Why are we fighting so much to get a place for our show?’ (Sources) (17) Bo gdyby firanki ofajczyły siv to byłaby szkoda wivksza. because if drapes burn refl then be:hyp damage great:comp ‘If the drapes had caught fire the damage would have been greater.’ (Sources) (18) Jak siv wujkowi podobaju. how refl uncle:dat please:3pl:pres ‘So how does uncle like them?’ (Sources) 2.3.–An explanation of Reuland’s question Reuland (1999) has drawn attention to the puzzling question as to why in Dutch and German one can use the equivalent of the se reflexive with some verbs but not with others. One can say: (19) Oscar schaamt zich. Oscar shames se ‘Oscar is ashamed.’ But one cannot say:

184

zygmunt frajzyngier

(20) *Oscar haat zich. Oscar hate se ‘Oscar hates himself.’ (both examples from Reuland 1999) The same facts hold for Polish: (21) Oskar siv wstydzi. Oskar refl be ashamed ‘Oskar is ashamed.’ (22) *Oskar siv nienawidzi. Oskar refl hate For ‘Oskar is in the state of hate’ (or any other meaning) Reuland’s answer to the question of ungrammaticality of the reflexive with the verb ‘‘hate’’ is that se (unlike the self anaphor) does not allow local binding. König and Siemund’s explanation is that ‘‘hate’’ is an other-oriented verb. Both of these explanations can be subsumed by a more general one that also sheds light on why the ‘‘short’’ reflexive form has been selected for the coding of reciprocal function. In order to assure the accuracy of data and interpretation I will limit the discussion here to Polish. In addition to the verb nienawidziec´ ‘hate’ several other verbs may not be used with the singular participant and the reflexive marker siv, viz, nie cierpiec´ ‘not to tolerate’, nie znosic´ ‘not to bear’. (23) *On siv nie znosi. he refl neg bear For ‘he cannot bear himself.’ (or any other meaning) Without the marker siv the preceding clause would also be ungrammatical unless one were to add a direct object. The next example is also ungrammatical with the form siv: (24) *On siv nie cierpi. he refl neg suffer For ‘he cannot tolerate himself.’ (or any other meaning) The preceding clause is grammatical without siv and without any additional object, but then it means ‘he does not suffer’. In order to obtain the interpretation ‘he does not tolerate X’, one would need to add an object to serve in the function of X. With plural participants, however, the verbs nienawidziec´ ‘hate’, nie cierpiec´ ‘not to tolerate’, nie znosic´ ‘not to bear’ can be used with the reflexive form siv , just like any other verb:


185

(25) Oni siv nienawidzu. they refl neg:hate:pl ‘They hate each other.’ (26) Oni siv nie znoszu. they refl neg bear:pl ‘They cannot bear each other.’ (27) Oni siv nie cierpiu. they refl neg suffer:pl ‘They cannot tolerate each other.’ The explanation of ungrammaticality in the singular and grammaticality in the plural follows from two observations: the observation that verbs are other-oriented (cf. König and Siemund 1999 and references there) and the fact that the reflexive form excludes other participants. The requirement of other-orientation and the exclusion of other participants together force the interpretation that the plural participants of the event ‘‘hate,’’ etc., hate each other. 2.4.–Amharic In Amharic the reciprocal function is coded by a combination of two markers: the marker tä, which otherwise codes passive/reflexive function, and the marker a added after the first consonant of the verb (my analysis of examples provided in Leslau 1968 and Cohen 1970): (28) Tä-g-a-ddäl-u. refl-kill-con-kill-3pl ‘They killed each other.’ (verb gäddälä ‘kill’) (Leslau 1968: 409) The form does not necessarily indicate X acting on Y and Y acting on X, but may code the participation of many participants together in the event: (29) Täqallädu. ‘They joked with each other.’ (30) Tälammädu. ‘They got used to each other.’ Lämmädä ‘get used to’ While we know that the reflexive/passive marker is subject-oriented, the function of the vowel a is more elusive. The stems with this vowel are considered one of the three fundamental types of stems whose functions in contemporary language are not productive. Cohen (1970: 208) states that the vowel a represents the old conative

186

zygmunt frajzyngier

(i.e. increased effort) or extensive form that indicates ‘‘un effort vers quelque chose.’’ The examples Cohen gives do not provide a clear picture of the function of this form: (31) Barräkä ‘bless’ qaµtµta ‘threaten’

vs. bärräkä ‘kneel’ vs. qaµtµtä ‘punish’ (Cohen 1970: 210)

The stem with the vowel a after the first consonant does not occur without the reflexive prefix tä, except in verbs that have this vowel as a part of the underlying form (Mengistu Amberer, p.c.). The two markers that are deployed in the coding of reciprocal, even taken together, do not necessarily code the reciprocal function. The evidence that the form with the prefix tä and the plural form of the verb does not encode reciprocity is provided by the fact that the form can be used with a singular subject. All examples are in the imperfective aspect, i.e. in the aspect that implies non-boundedness of the event: (32) Yä-mmatt-al. 3m:sg-hit:refl:con-impf ‘He has the habit of hitting, he is liable to hit.’ mätta ‘hit’ (the prefix tä assimilated to the following consonant resulting in geminated first consonant of the stem) (33) Yä-ssaddäb-al. 3m:sg-hit:refl:con-impf ‘He has the habit of insulting.’ säddäbä ‘insult’ (Leslau 1968: 410)

3.–Reciprocal coding in Chadic: Body as a marker of exclusion 3.1.–The grammaticalization of ‘body’ Schladt (1999) postulates that reflexive markers in many languages across the world derive from the name for ‘‘body’’ or from the name for part of the body, most often ‘‘head.’’ Heine (this volume) postulates that in the grammaticalization chain the reciprocal markers occupy the middle position, between reflexive and the middle (in the sense of Kemmer 1993) markers: nominal source → emphatic marker → reflexive → reciprocal → middle → passive. Chadic reciprocal markers are interesting because in the great majority of cases they are different from reflexive markers. One cannot say, therefore, that they are derived, in any sense of the word, from reflexive markers. Moreover, there is no indication that the reciprocal markers be-


187

long to the same grammaticalization chain as reflexive markers. The third point about reciprocal markers in Chadic is that they have been grammaticalized from the same source from which other languages have grammaticalized their reflexive markers (cf. Schladt 1999; Heine this volume). The global picture for Chadic languages for which we have data, whether published or gathered in the field, is as follows: Some languages have markers coding the point of view of the subject, whether controlling or not, i.e., the subject’s control is not affected by the addition of the point-of-view markers. The point-of-view marker is realized by a morpheme derived from or identical with the lexeme ‘‘head.’’ Some languages have also a reciprocal marker. The reciprocal marker is derived from or identical with the lexeme ‘‘body.’’ The explanation for the use of the lexeme ‘‘body’’ for the reciprocal is as follows: The lexeme ‘‘body,’’ whether followed by possessive pronouns or not, rules out participation in the event of anyone but the participants already mentioned, whether the third person plural subject or an associative noun phrase. Table 1 presents a selection of languages from different branches of Chadic. The column ‘‘Reflexive’’ includes the point-of-view, coreferentiality, and intensifier functions, the last one often in conjunction with independent pronouns or nouns. In what follows is the illustration of the properties listed in Table 1 and comments and discussion of some interesting cases included in the table. I shall start with a language that appears to represent a typical Chadic situation, viz. coding of the reflexive by the lexeme ‘‘head’’ and of reciprocal by the lexeme ‘‘body.’’ Then a Language

‘‘Reflexive’’

Hausa

kai ‘head’

Kanakuru (Newman 1974) Pero (Frajzyngier 1989) Mupun (Frajzyngier 1993) Ngizim (Schuh 1972) Pa’a (Skinner 1979) Margi (Hoffmann 1963) Gude (Hoskison 1983)

ko ‘head’

Gidar (field notes) Xdi (field notes) Mina (field notes) Lele (field notes) Bidiya (Alio 1986)

Reciprocal junaa ‘each other’

gàtkáu ‘each other’; təkà ` ‘body’ kwur ‘body’ Reflexive + plural participants -shi (verbal extension) = verb ‘come’ (cf. Liu, this volume) no reflexive marker zə´ ‘body’ ugbá ‘body’ vghá ‘body’ ksəm ` ‘body’ ksəm ` ‘body’ cà ‘head’ ku¯su¯ ‘body’ ké ‘solitude, unity’ milo ‘owner’

áäâ ‘head’ Èama ‘head’ kə´r ‘head’ na ‘head’

188

zygmunt frajzyngier

few less typical cases will be discussed to illustrate (1) the independence of the two functional domains and (2) the limited number of characteristics that guide the speakers in the choice of reflexive marker. 3.2.–Gidar Gidar is an SVO language. It provides an interesting piece of evidence against the derivation of the reciprocal from the reflexive, in that the language does not have a reflexive marker. Instead the unmarked form of the transitive verb has the subject undergoing the event. In order to indicate that the subject is controlling, one has to add a pronominal object to the verb. The reciprocal in Gidar is coded by the same means as the affected subject of the transitive verb, viz. by the lexeme zə´ ‘‘body’’: (34) Á mù là zə-m ´ pùmpùm sà. fut 1pl see body-1pl tomorrow q ‘Will we see each other tomorrow?’4 (35) Á kù là-nə-n ´ zú-kùm pùmpùm sà. fut 2 see-3–pl body-2pl tomorrow q ‘Will you see each other tomorrow?’ This form is deployed in various grammatical functions, as in the following example in which the reciprocal is beneficiary: (36) À-zó-Îgù-k ká bbó sə-n ´ zí-tì. 3-come-pl-pl purp help dat-3pl body-3pl ‘They came to help each other.’ 3.3.–Lele Similarly in Lele (East-Chadic) the reciprocal is marked by the same means through which the coreferentiality of subject and object is marked, viz. through the word kús ‘body’ followed by appropriate possessive pronouns: (37) Ngá gól-é ku¯sı¯-ngà wàyáÎ-gà. 1pl see-nom body-1pl tomorrow-interr ‘Will we see each other tomorrow.’ (38) Ngù gól-é ku¯su¯-ngu¯ wàyán gà. 2pl see-nom body-2pl tomorrow interr ‘Will you see each other tomorrow?’


189

(39) Éjè-gé kòlò ój-è ku¯sı¯-ge¯. come-3pl because help-nom body-3pl ‘They came to help each other.’ Compare the coding of coreference of subject and object: (40) Ná éjé-dí ná Î-jé mágl-è ku¯sı¯-Î mbóbè-ì. if come-3m then 1sg-prog prepare-nomin body-1sg wait-3m ‘If he comes I should prepare myself to wait for him.’ (41) Tèy-dı¯ ku¯s-ı¯ hit-3m body-3m ‘He hit himself.’ The form ku¯s ‘body’ serves as intensifier in constructions Pronoun body-poss, where the possessive pronoun is coreferential with the preceding independent pronoun: (42) Ne¯ dàì ku¯s-ı¯ bà ne¯ bè-Î. ` cop 3m body-3m contr cop give-1sg ‘It was he himself who gave it to me.’ (43) Tòb dí ná Î¯-ìrà Î¯-dı¯Îlá-ì dàÎ ku¯s-ı¯Î. want 3m comp 1sg-go 1sg-hear-3m 1sg body-1sg ‘He wants me to go, I heard him myself [say so].’ 3.4.–Xdi In Xdi the verb can encode an event from the point of view of the subject. If the subject is affected, it is so marked by the point of view of the source marker -u. This form, however, is not used in the coding of the reciprocal. Instead the reciprocal is coded by a construction that involves coding of the point of view of the goal, which implies subject control. The object in reciprocal constructions is the form vγá, which may be added to verbs whose unmarked form implies the existence of an object different from the subject: (44) Sá-γà-sá-xən ` ngá kátá vγá-tán. come-lev-come-3pl for help body-3pl ‘They came to help each other.’ (45) Tská-tská-xən. ` gather-gather-3pl ‘They gathered [the harvest].’

190

zygmunt frajzyngier

Cf. the reciprocal: (46) Tá tà tsk-áy-lù tá vγá tà hldày mántsà γàlyá rà. com impf gather-uo-unsp obj body prep often like once q ‘Do people gather as they used to?’ Once the coreference of the subject and the object has been established by the object vγá, subsequent sentences do not have the marker vγá repeated, even if the subject and the object are the same. Thus the preceding sentence is followed in the conversation by the following sentences: (47) Tà tsk-áy-xən ` dé. (← dái Hausa) impf gather-uo-3pl indeed ‘They gather indeed.’ (48) Tà tsk-áy-xə`n-wà. impf gather-uo-3pl-neg ‘They gather, don’t they?’ Margi is a Chadic language that does confirm to Heine’s chain where the reciprocal derives from the reflexive. Hoffmann (1963: 106) states that the reflexive marker combined with the dual or plural possessive forms codes reciprocal. 3.5.–Mupun Mupun has two means within the domain of reflexive: one codes point of view of subject, and the other codes coreferentiality. Neither of these means is used for the coding of the reciprocal. Moreover, unlike many other Chadic languages, Mupun does not deploy the lexeme ‘‘body’’ for the coding of the reciprocal function. Instead the language uses an adverb šak ‘together’. When this adverb occurs with a plural subject and a verb that allows a reciprocal event, the meaning is reciprocal: (49) âwét ám gíà á ár äè síyè äé nə¯ mbə` kám lá mís kə´ là réèp pour water on anaph fut show child man assc child girl nə¯ Îá pə` dém šák. def 3pl:l prog like together ‘Pouring water on [on each other] is a way of showing that the boy and the girl love each other.’ (50) Kàt á zlàÎ mò kə´ jìráp mò mò jì káat šàk âè mò yà when man pl assoc girl pl 3pl come meet recip seq 3pl start təkòk ` kə´ nə¯. spoil assoc anaph ‘When boys and girls meet they spoil it [language]’


191

Compare Polish and French, which have reflexive markers for the same types of clauses: (51) Gdy chłopcy i dziewczyny spotykaju siv. when boys:nom conj girls:nom meet:pl refl ‘When boys and girls meet.’ (52) Quand les garçons et les filles se rencontrent. when boys conj girls refl meet:pl ‘When boys and girls meet.’ (53) Àšiyè səm ` mó nə¯ yák šàk fá. indeed (H) name pl def match rec indeed ‘Their names match each other indeed,’ i.e., ‘their names are similar.’ Cf. French: (54) Leur noms se ressemblent. their names refl be similar:pl ‘Their names are similar.’ The evidence that the marker šak is an adverb meaning ‘together’ is provided by the following clauses where the reciprocal interpretation is ruled out: (55) N-klən ´ mò sát nə¯ mò wáyyà pák màkaràntá nə¯ mò lé šak I hear 3pl say comp 3pl bind some school def 3pl put together máa. together ‘I heard it said that they merged some schools’ The implication of the facts in Mupun is that when it comes to the coding of reciprocal, the language deploys a marker that codes a very general collective notion rather than point of view of the subject. 3.6.–Conclusions repeating ‘‘body’’ The marker ‘‘body’’ thus functions as a marker excluding the participation of persons or animals other than the ones mentioned in the subject position. This is the same function that is performed by the point-of-view marker se in many IndoEuropean languages. The marker of coreferentiality, equivalent of the Polish siebie, Dutch zichzelf, etc., does not have the function of ruling out other participants. The evidence for this is provided by the fact that such markers can be followed by an associative or conjoined phrase:

zygmunt frajzyngier

192

(56) Henryk wybawił siebie i jego z przykrej sytuacji. Henry extricate:3m:past coref conj him from unpleasant situation ‘Henry extricated himself and him from an unpleasant situation.’ (57)*Henryk wybawił siv i jego z przykrej sytuacji. Henry extricate:3m:past refl conj him from unpleasant situation For ‘Henry extricated himself and him from an unpleasant situation.’

4.–Conclusions There have been a number of cognitive motivations proposed for the grammaticalization of reciprocal markers. The collective, associative coding has been deployed in many unrelated languages. This papers has demonstrated that the development from the point-of-view marker and from the word ‘‘body’’ in a number of Chadic languages is motivated by quite different cognitive considerations. What is involved in both grammaticalizations is the notion of the exclusion of other participants. Once other participants are excluded as potential objects, the only objects that remain available are the same as the subjects.

Abbreviations acc affect anaph appl assc assoc com comp con conj contr cop coref dat def dem f

accusative affected anaphor applicative associative associative comment complementizer conative conjunction contrastive copula coreferential dative definite demonstrative feminine

for freq fut gen habit hyp impf instr interr lev m neg nom nomin perf pl

benefactive position frequentative future genitive habitual hypothetical imperfective instrumental interrogative extension encoding movement on a level masculine negative nominative nominalized perfective plural

coding of the reciprocal function poss prep pres prog purp q quant recip

possessive preposition present progressive purpos question quantifier reciprocal

refl rel sg subj unsp up

193

reflexive relative singular subjunctive unspecified human subject extension encoding movement upwards

Acknowledgements The work on the present paper was inspired by Frank Lichtenberk’s paper in the present volume and by the issues raised in Reuland (1999) and König and Siemund (1999). The influences of these and other papers read at the Symposium in Boulder bear witness of how inspiring was the symposium for this author. The work on Mupun, Xdi, Gidar, Lele, Pero was at various times supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities, American Philosophical Society, National Science Foundation, Fulbright-Hays Grant for Faculty Research Abroad, and by the University of Colorado. The most current work on Lele, Gidar, and Mina is supported by the National Science Foundation. I am very grateful to all these institutions.

Notes 1. For a more general discussion of the point of view cf. Frajzyngier (1999) and references there, especially Zribi-Hertz 1989. 2. Polish also has an adverbial marker of reciprocity nawzajem ‘mutually’. It is not used very often. Kurcz et al. 1991 list only 8 instances of the occurrence of this adverb in the written corpus of a half million words. This is not the frequency of a grammatical morpheme. Consider that the form siv, which codes the point of view of the subject, occurs 9,302 times in the sample of 500,000 words. For comparison, in the Brown Corpus of one million words, the form ‘‘each other,’’ which codes reciprocal, occurs 217 times. I am grateful to Michelle Gregory for running the string ‘‘each other’’ in the Brown Corpus. 3. Examples from Polish, when no source is given, are from sources for Kurcz et al. 1990 (cited as ‘Sources’). Grammaticality judgments in Polish are mine. 4. Data for Gidar, Lele, Xdi, and Mina come from my own field notes.

References Alio, Khalil. 1986. Essai de description de la langue bidiya du Guéra (Tchad). PhonologieGrammaire [Marburger Studien zur Afrika- und Asienkunde, Serie A: Afrika 45]. Berlin: Reimer.

194

zygmunt frajzyngier

Cohen, Marcel. 1970. Traité de langue amharique (2nd ed.). Paris: Institut d’Ethnologie. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1993. A Grammar of Mupun. [Frankfurter Studien zur Afrikanistik 4]. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. —— 1999. ‘‘Domains of point of view and coreferentiality: system interaction approach to the study of reflexives’’. In Frajzyngier (ed.), 125–52. —— and Traci Curl (eds.). 1999 Reflexives: Forms and functions [Typological Studies in language 40]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hoffmann, Carl. 1963. A Grammar of the Margi Language. London: Oxford University Press. Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice [Typological Studies in Language 23]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. König, Ekkehard, and Peter Siemund. 1999. ‘‘Intensifiers and reflexives: A typological perspective’’. In Frajzyngier and Curl (eds.), 41–74. Kurcz, Ida, Andrzej Lewicki, Jadwiga Sambor, Krzysztof Szafran, and Jerzy Woronczak. 1990. Słownik Frekwencyjny Polszczyzny Wspólczesnej. Kraków: Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut Jezyka Polskiego. Leslau, Wolff. 1968. Amharic Textbook. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz; Los Angeles: University of California Press. Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1994. ‘‘Reflexives and reciprocals.’’ R. E. Asher and J. M. Y. Simpson (eds), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. vii. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 3504–9. Newman, Paul. 1974. The Kanakuru Language. Leeds: Institute of Modern English Studies and West African Linguistic Society. Reuland, Eric. 1999. ‘‘The Fine Structure of Grammar: Anaphoric Relations.’’ In Frajzyngier and Curl (eds.), 1–40. Schladt, Mathias. 1999. ‘‘The typology and grammaticalization of reflexives’’. In Frajzyngier and Curl (eds.), 103–24. Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1989. ‘‘Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexives pronouns in sentence and discourse.’’ Language 65: 695–727.

Subject index

absolute reflexive 58 (see also depatientive function) agreement 77, 141 absolutive vs. ergative 139 ergative 139, 147 object agreement 143, 156 restrictions in Icelandic 68–69, 80 anaphoric expressions typology of 65–69 applicative marking for reflexive/ reciprocal 100, 104–108 associative relationship between Actor/ Agent and Instrument 106, 107 commitative applicative 105–107, 111 instrumental applicative 105–106, 108 applicatives 104, 145 autocausative 58 Binding Theory 69 Binding Theory-compatibility 80 redefinition of binding conditions 80 Brown Corpus 193 chaining 35, 49 chaining situation 171 vs. collective and reciprocal situations 55 collective 34, 35–37, 39, 44–45, 48, 54, 60 and direct reflexive 57 and dispersive 50 and distributive 40 and plurality 57 reciprocal 50, 155–156 situation 114 verbs 52–53 (see also reflexive/reciprocal construction) comitative 164–165 comitative participant 163 and reciprocal marker 161 and set construal 163–166 Complete Functional Complex (see governing body) complex transitives 143–151

compound verb construction 88 Condition on A-chains 66, 79 constructions viii (see also situations) control: distinguishes reflexives 137 converse relation 34, 37–38, 44, 49–50, 51, 55 kinship terms 44–45 symmetry 44 converse reciprocals 172 core reflexives and reciprocals 135–142 core reciprocals 135 core reflexives 135 coreferentiality x, 4, 103, 135, 143–150, 187, 188–191 argument status 142 clitic-prefix 116 irrelevance in Australian languages 118 subject-object 4, 42, 133–134 cross-linguistic chain 10 decategorialization 13 depatientive function 42–44, 51, 54, 58 and repetitive 55 dispersive 39, 49–50 distinguishibility of participants 34, 43, 55–57 distributed situations 39–41, 51, 54, 55 each movement 68, 77 elaboration of situations/events 32–35, 56 vs. plurality of relations 57 emphatic reflexive 3 Empty Category Principle 77 Endpoint 34, 42–43, 56 and Initiator 48 implied 58 (see also Initiator) extended reflexives 109 external possession 147 ‘fake reflexive’ phenomenon 154 final intransitivity 139 for-to infinitives 74

196

subject index

Generalized Chain Condition 66 gerund 75 governing category 63, 64, 66, 74, 75 redefinition 74 grammaticalization viii–xi, 8, 168 of ‘body’ 17, 18, 186–192 chains viii, 10, 11, 186 erosion 8, 15–16 grammaticized reflexives and reciprocals 151–156 and metaphorization 123 path 177 precedence 16–17 reflexive to reciprocal 8 reflexive/reciprocal in African languages 11–19 of repetition 126 spatial to aspectual 126 inchoative 134, 151–153, 157 inflecting reflexive/reciprocal verbs 89f. Initiator 34, 35, 41, 42, 43, 47 and Endpoint 48, 56 undirected events 48 joint action 37 kinship terms 44–46, 56 lexical suffixes 146–149 limited control reflexive 134, 145, 137 ‘manage to’ use 153–155 Logical Form 67, 68, 77 logophoricity 66, 78, 145 markers 5 evolution 7–17 meaning 11–13; morpho-syntax 13–15; phonological 15–16 medio-active construction 117 middle 2, 4, 34, 46–48, 55, 56, 150 lexical restrictions 51–52 and plurality of relations 48, 55 reflexive as source of 57 spontaneous events 48 object cancellation 150 overlap 11, 14 participant set 162, 164–165, 166 participant-oriented set construal 162 relation-oriented set construal 162 partitive 58

passive 4 and reflexive 142 encoding reciprocal situations 38 impersonal passive 76 phonological heaviness 6–7 plurality of relations 32–35, 48, 52 and collective 37 and converse relations 38, 44 and degree of elaboration 55, 57 and depatientive function 43 and middle 48, 55 as a uniting factor 56 source of polysemy in Oceanic 58 plurality 179–180 (see also reciprocity and plurality) point of view 180–186 polysemy 48–52, 53 basic underlying notions 55 development 58 vs. monosemy 19 plurality-of-relations 54, 57 reciprocal-middle 56 reflexive-reciprocal 31, 33, 56 reflexive-reciprocal-collective 48, 57 reflexive–reciprocal–depatientive 58 types of in individual languages 49 possession, inalienable 70, 79 possessive 64, 70, 71, 75–76, 77 possessive reciprocal 75 possessor ascension 149 Principle Complementarity Principle 55 Principle of Gradual Change in Function 55 Quantifier Raising 67 reciprocal adverbial 124–125 reciprocal construction as anaphors 63 discontinuous 174–175 grammaticized reflexives and reciprocals 151–156 in Mandarin 126 vs. reflexive reciprocal coding 180 without reciprocity 171–172 Reciprocal Rule 64 simple vs. discontinuous 168–169 reciprocal situations multi-participant vs. two-participant 169–171 and comitative 161

subject index reciprocity and plurality distributor 67 reciprocator 67 scope 67 reflexive/reciprocal constructions in clauses 99–108 collective situation 114 compound verbs 95–99 grammaticized reflexives and reciprocals 151–156 reflexive verbs 183 self-directed action 109 semantics in Australian languages 108–117 reflexives as anaphor 63 vs. reciprocal 75 typology of nominal anaphors 69 reflexivity conditions 66 Reinhart and Reuland 65–67 repetitive events 124–125 repetitive function 55 (see also depatientive function) reversive function 39 self-directed action 47

Semiotic Grammar 104 set construal 172–174 relation-oriented vs. participantoriented 174 situations vii vs. markers and constructions vii sociative semantics 162 Specified Subject violations 73–75 spontaneous events 48 and middle 48 successive action 53 successive events 41 successive sense 37 Tensed-S Condition 64 Tensed-S violations 73–75 unaccusatives 70–71 patient-oriented 136 process 134–135, 151, 155 stative 151 undirected events 48 unergative 70–71, 135, 153–158 vs. unaccusative 158 verbal plurals 57–58

197

Author index

Amberer, Mengistu 186 Amiridze, Nino 19 Anagnostopoulou, Elena 68, 70, 79 Awoyale, Yiwola 13 Belletti, Adriana 67 Blust, Robert A. 32, 58 Bril, Isabell 48 Broekhuis, Hans 80, 81 Brugman, Claudia 150 Campbell, Lyle 55 Childs, G. Tucker 2, 15 Chomsky, Noam 63–64, 68, 74, 75–77, 80 Churchward, C. Maxwell 36 Clark, Robin 80 Claudi, U. 8 Cohen, Marcel 185 Cumming, Susanna 130 Dalrymple, Mary 68 Davis, Karen 44, 50 Dench, Alan C. 52–53 Dixon, R.M.W. 37–38, 49 Dougherty, Ray 63, 67–68 Dureau, Christine 50 Edmonson, J.A. 99 Ejai, Tudor 94 Emanatian, Michele 3 Essien 12 Everaert, Martin 70, 74, 78, 79 Faltz, Leonard M. 4, 47 Fitzsimons, Matthew 36 Frajzyngier, Zygmunt 18, 54, 57 Gelderen, Elly van 79 Geniušiene˙, Emma 31, 42, 56, 58 Geraghty, Paul A. 60 Gerdts, Donna B. 140, 150 Goddard, Ives 53–54

Harris, Alice C. 55 Heim, Irene 65, 67–69, 76 Heine, Bernd 8, 10, 180, 186, 190 Helke, Michael 63 Hinkson, Mercedes Q. 150 Hoffmann, Carl 16, 17, 18, 190 Hopper, Paul 127 Hosokawa, Komei 85, 89, 92–93, 95, 97, 104, 108, 114, 115, 117, 120 Hukari, Thomas E. 136, 144, 152 Hünnemeyer, Friederike 8 Jones, Alan A. 40, 49 Kemmer, Suzanne 1ff., 31, 34, 47, 48, 56, 57, 104, 156, 167, 172, 186 Kirk-Greene, A.H.M. 9 König, Ekkehard 184 Kraft, Charles H. 9 Kuno, Susumo 74 Kurcz, Ida 193 Laka, Itziar 71 Lakoff, George 3 Lasnik, Howard 65, 67–69, 76 Lebeaux, David 73 Leslau, Wolff 185 Leslie, Adrian R. 136 Levin, Beth 154 Lewis, G.L. 54 Lichtenberk, Frantisek vii, 3, 31, 35, 42, 45, 55, 60, 90, 131, 156, 172 Lyutikova, Ekatarina 79 MacDonald, Lorna 53 McGregor, William 11, 87, 88, 102, 105 MacLaury, R. 150 Maling, Joan 78 Maslova, Elena 60 May, Robert 65, 67–69, 76 Mchombo, Sam A. 68 Metcalfe, Christopher D. 85, 91, 93, 94

author index Milner, G.B. 49, 60 Mosel, Ulrike 38 Moyse-Faurie, Claire 37, 40, 46–47, 49, 51 Nekes, Herman 85, 93, 94, 98, 108, 111, 115, 116, 117, 120 Pawley, Andrew 32, 55–56, 60 Peter, Ruby 152 Peters, Stanley 68 Philip, William 74, 78 Redden, James 2 Reh, Mechtild 13, 14–15 Rijk, Rudolf de 71 Reinhart, Tanya 65, 72, 78, 79 Reuland, Eric 65, 72, 78, 79, 183–184 Rizzi, Luigi 77 Ross, Malcolm 32 Santandrea, Stefano 2, 12 Schladt, Mathias 11, 186

199

Schlie, V. 37 Schlie, P. 37 Schütz, Albert J. 43, 49, 60 Siemund, Peter 184 Stokes, Bronwyn 85, 87, 97, 99, 104, 120 Stroomer, Harry 17 Teng, Shou-Hsin 123 Thompson, Sandra A. 127 Traugott, Elizabeth C. 3 Tsuchida, Shigeru 58 Tsunoda, Tasaku 109, 120 Tucker, A.N. 12 Verkuyl, Henk J. 125 Wierzbicka, Anna 162, 164 Wolff, Ekkehard 17 Worms, Ernest A. 85, 93, 94, 108, 111, 115, 116, 120

Language index

Abkhaz 163 Albanian 72–73, 80 Amharic 185–186 Anywa 13 Austronesian 32, 52 proto-Austronesian 58

Italian 142

Bantu languages 11, 19, 176 Bardi 85, 88, 91, 92, 97, 98 Basque 71

K’emant 9 Kara 2, 37 Kimberley languages 100 Kisi 15 Kolyma Yukaghir 161, 163, 165, 169, 172, 174, 176 Koromfe 16 Krongo 12, 13–14 Kusaghe 50 (see also Hoava) Kwa languages 12

Cantonese 168 Chadic languages 54, 57, 187–192 Chichew ˆ a 68 Delaware 53–54 Dutch 65, 66, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 183–184

Jabirrjabirr 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 103, 111, 115, 116, 117 Jarrakan 87 Jukun 85

English 65, 68ff., 79, 125 Fijian Boumaa 37, 49, 60 Eastern 60 standard 38ff., 55–56, 60 French 142, 191 Ful 16 Futunan 35, 37, 40–41, 46–47, 49, 51 Georgian 80 German 66, 69, 125, 183 Germanic 64 Gidar 188 Gooniyandi 100, 120 Greek 68, 69–71, 72, 73 Halkomelem 133–158, 180 Hausa 9, 13–14 Hoava 36, 41, 43–44 Hoava-Kusaghe 50 Ibibio 4, 5, 12, 14 Icelandic 64, 68–69

Lamang 17 Lamba 170 Lango 15 Lele 188–189 Lingala 19 Luo 12 Luvale 60, 172 Mandarin 123–131 Margi 3, 16, 17, 18 Martuthunira 52 Mekeo 40–41, 49, 51, 54–55, 60 Mixtec 150 Mupun 54, 180, 190–191 Nêlêmwâ 35, 41, 48, 49 Nimanburru 91, 92, 97, 98, 103, 117 Nkore-Kiga 163 Norwegian 64 Nyikina 85, 90, 93, 94, 96, 99, 104, 107, 114, 120 Nyulnyul 85, 87, 91, 94, 95, 96, 98–100, 103, 115, 116, 117, 121

language index Nyulnyulan languages Eastern vs. Western languages 91 genetic relationships 85

Southern-Tsouic Proto-Southern-Tsouic 58 Swahili 19, 167, 175

Oceanic 31–34, 156 genetic relationships 33 Proto-Oceanic 55 Oromo 17 Oron 12

Tauya 53 Tigak 46, 56 To’aba’ita 35, 42–43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 56 Tolai 38 Tongan 36–37, 51 Turkish 54

Pama-Nyungan languages 87 non-Pama-Nyungan languages 87 Pero 18 Polish 180, 181–185, 191, 193 Polynesian 55–56 Eastern Fijian-Polynesian 60 Eastern-Malayo-Polynesian Proto-Eastern-Malayo-Polynesian 32, Malayo-Polynesian Proto-Malayo-Polynesian 32, 58 Russian 168 Salishan languages 147–149 Samoan 41 Shilluk 3 Simbo 50

Usak Edet 12 Venda 161, 164 Warrwa 85, 88ff., 116, 121 Worrorran 87 Xdi 189–190 Yawuru 85, 89, 92ff., 108, 114ff. Yoruba 13, 14 Yukaghir 171, 176 Zabana 36 Zande 19 Zapotec 150

201

In the series TYPOLOGICAL STUDIES IN LANGUAGE (TSL) the following titles have been published thus far: 1. HOPPER, Paul J. (ed.): Tense-Aspect: Between semantics & pragmatics. 1982. 2. HAIMAN, John & Pamela MUNRO (eds): Switch Reference and Universal Grammar. Proceedings of a symposium on switch reference and universal grammar, Winnipeg, May 1981. 1983. 3. GIVÓN, T.: Topic Continuity in Discourse. A quantitative cross-language study. 1983. 4. CHISHOLM, William, Louis T. MILIC & John A.C. GREPPIN (eds): Interrogativity: A colloquium on the grammar, typology and pragmatics of questions in seven diverse languages, Cleveland, Ohio, October 5th 1981-May 3rd 1982. 1984. 5. RUTHERFORD, William E. (ed.): Language Universals and Second Language Acquisition. 1984 (2nd ed. 1987). 6. HAIMAN, John (Ed.): Iconicity in Syntax. Proceedings of a symposium on iconicity in syntax, Stanford, June 24-26, 1983. 1985. 7. CRAIG, Colette (ed.): Noun Classes and Categorization. Proceedings of a symposium on categorization and noun classification, Eugene, Oregon, October 1983. 1986. 8. SLOBIN, Dan I. & Karl ZIMMER (eds): Studies in Turkish Linguistics. 1986. 9. BYBEE, Joan L.: Morphology. A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. 1985. 10. RANSOM, Evelyn: Complementation: its Meaning and Forms. 1986. 11. TOMLIN, Russel S.: Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Outcome of a Symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984. 1987. 12. NEDJALKOV, Vladimir (ed.): Typology of Resultative Constructions. Translated from the original Russian edition (1983). English translation edited by Bernard Comrie. 1988. 14. HINDS, John, Shoichi IWASAKI & Senko K. MAYNARD (eds): Perspectives on Topicalization. The case of Japanese WA. 1987. 15. AUSTIN, Peter (ed.): Complex Sentence Constructions in Australian Languages. 1988. 16. SHIBATANI, Masayoshi (ed.): Passive and Voice. 1988. 17. HAMMOND, Michael, Edith A. MORAVCSIK and Jessica WIRTH (eds): Studies in Syntactic Typology. 1988. 18. HAIMAN, John & Sandra A. THOMPSON (eds): Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. 1988. 19. TRAUGOTT, Elizabeth C. and Bernd HEINE (eds): Approaches to Grammaticalization, 2 volumes (set) 1991 20. CROFT, William, Suzanne KEMMER and Keith DENNING (eds): Studies in Typology and Diachrony. Papers presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th birthday. 1990. 21. DOWNING, Pamela, Susan D. LIMA and Michael NOONAN (eds): The Linguistics of Literacy. 1992. 22. PAYNE, Doris (ed.): Pragmatics of Word Order Flexibility. 1992. 23. KEMMER, Suzanne: The Middle Voice. 1993. 24. PERKINS, Revere D.: Deixis, Grammar, and Culture. 1992. 25. SVOROU, Soteria: The Grammar of Space. 1994. 26. LORD, Carol: Historical Change in Serial Verb Constructions. 1993. 27. FOX, Barbara and Paul J. Hopper (eds): Voice: Form and Function. 1994. 28. GIVÓN, T. (ed.) : Voice and Inversion. 1994. 29. KAHREL, Peter and René van den BERG (eds): Typological Studies in Negation. 1994.

30. DOWNING, Pamela and Michael NOONAN: Word Order in Discourse. 1995. 31. GERNSBACHER, M. A. and T. GIVÓN (eds): Coherence in Spontaneous Text. 1995. 32. BYBEE, Joan and Suzanne FLEISCHMAN (eds): Modality in Grammar and Discourse. 1995. 33. FOX, Barbara (ed.): Studies in Anaphora. 1996. 34. GIVÓN, T. (ed.): Conversation. Cognitive, communicative and social perspectives. 1997. 35. GIVÓN, T. (ed.): Grammatical Relations. A functionalist perspective. 1997. 36. NEWMAN, John (ed.): The Linguistics of Giving. 1998. 37. RAMAT, Anna Giacalone and Paul J. HOPPER (eds): The Limits of Grammaticalization. 1998. 38. SIEWIERSKA, Anna and Jae Jung SONG (eds): Case, Typology and Grammar. In honor of Barry J. Blake. 1998. 39. PAYNE, Doris L. and Immanuel BARSHI (eds.): External Possession. 1999. 40. FRAJZYNGIER, Zygmunt and Traci S. CURL (eds.): Reflexives. Forms and functions. 2000. 41. FRAJZYNGIER, Zygmunt and Traci S. CURL (eds): Reciprocals. Forms and functions. 2000. 42. DIESSEL, Holger: Demonstratives. Form, function and grammaticalization. 1999. 43. GILDEA, Spike (ed.): Reconstructing Grammar. Comparative Linguistics and Grammaticalization. 2000. 44. VOELTZ, F.K. Erhard and Christa KILLIAN-HATZ (eds.): Ideophones. n.y.p. 45. BYBEE, Joan and Paul HOPPER (eds.): Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. 2001. 46. AIKHENVALD, Alexandra Y., R.M.W. DIXON and Masayuki ONISHI (eds.): Noncanonical Marking of Subjects and Objects. 2001. 47. BARON, Irene, Michael HERSLUND and Finn SORENSEN (eds.): Dimensions of Possession. n.y.p. 48. SHIBATANI, Masayoshi (ed.): The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation. n.y.p. 49. WISCHER, Ilse and Gabriele DIEWALD (eds.): New Reflections on Grammaticalization. n.y.p.

Reciprocals: Forms and Functions

Insect Hemocytes: Development, Forms, Functions and Techniques

The Japanese Copula: Forms and Functions

Modular Functions and Forms 001.ps.gz

Topics in arithmetical functions: asymptotic formulae for sums of reciprocals of arithmetical functions and related results

Representation Theory and Automorphic Functions: Representation Theory and Automorphic Forms

The Gift: forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies

Forms of Fermat Equations and Their Zeta Functions

Automorphic forms, representations, and L-functions, Part 1

Non-Archimedean L-Functions and Arithmetical Siegel Modular Forms

Integral theorems for functions and differential forms in Cm

Non-Archimedean L-Functions of Siegel and Hilbert Modular Forms

Elliptic curves, modular forms, and their L-functions

Automorphic forms, representations, and L-functions, Part 2

Automorphic forms, representations, and L-functions, Part 2

Multiple Dirichlet Series, L-functions and Automorphic Forms

Normal forms, Melnikov functions and bifurcations of limit cycles

Reflexives: Forms and Functions (Typological Studies in Language)

Differential forms orthogonal to holomorphic functions or forms, and their properties

Differential Forms Orthogonal to Holomorphic Functions or Forms, and Their Properties (Translations of Mathematical Monographs)

Differential Forms Orthogonal to Holomorphic Functions or Forms, and Their Properties (Translations of Mathematical Monographs)

Differential forms orthogonal to holomorphic functions or forms, and their properties

Differential Forms Orthogonal to Holomorphic Functions or Forms, and Their Properties

Topics in Arithmetical Functions: Asymptotic Formulae for Sums of Reciprocals of Arithmetical Functions and Related Results (North-Holland Mathematics Studies)

Mathieu functions and spheroidal functions

Matrices and Quadratic Forms

Automorphic forms and representations

Automorphic Forms and Representations

Manifolds and differential forms

Differential Forms and Connections

Differential forms and connections

Reciprocals: Forms and Functions

Insect Hemocytes: Development, Forms, Functions and Techniques

The Japanese Copula: Forms and Functions

Modular Functions and Forms 001.ps.gz

Topics in arithmetical functions: asymptotic formulae for sums of reciprocals of arithmetical functions and related results

Representation Theory and Automorphic Functions: Representation Theory and Automorphic Forms

The Gift: forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies

Forms of Fermat Equations and Their Zeta Functions

Automorphic forms, representations, and L-functions, Part 1

Non-Archimedean L-Functions and Arithmetical Siegel Modular Forms

Integral theorems for functions and differential forms in Cm

Non-Archimedean L-Functions of Siegel and Hilbert Modular Forms

Elliptic curves, modular forms, and their L-functions

Automorphic forms, representations, and L-functions, Part 2

Automorphic forms, representations, and L-functions, Part 2

Multiple Dirichlet Series, L-functions and Automorphic Forms

Normal forms, Melnikov functions and bifurcations of limit cycles

Reflexives: Forms and Functions (Typological Studies in Language)

Differential forms orthogonal to holomorphic functions or forms, and their properties

Differential Forms Orthogonal to Holomorphic Functions or Forms, and Their Properties (Translations of Mathematical Monographs)

Differential Forms Orthogonal to Holomorphic Functions or Forms, and Their Properties (Translations of Mathematical Monographs)

Differential forms orthogonal to holomorphic functions or forms, and their properties

Differential Forms Orthogonal to Holomorphic Functions or Forms, and Their Properties

Topics in Arithmetical Functions: Asymptotic Formulae for Sums of Reciprocals of Arithmetical Functions and Related Results (North-Holland Mathematics Studies)

Mathieu functions and spheroidal functions

Matrices and Quadratic Forms

Automorphic forms and representations

Automorphic Forms and Representations

Manifolds and differential forms

Differential Forms and Connections

Differential forms and connections

Recommend Documents