Syntax: A Functional-typological Introduction: Volume II

Syntax

Syntax An Introduction Volume II

T. Givón

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 Givón, Talmy. Syntax : An introduction / T. Givón.--Rev.ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Grammar, Comparative and general--Syntax. 2. Typology (Linguistics) 3. Functionalism (Linguistics) I. Title. P291.G5
2001 isbn 90 272 2579 6 (v.2) (Eur.) / 1 58811 067 2 (v.2) (US) (Hb; alk. paper) isbn 90 272 2580 X (v.2) (Eur.) / 1 58811 068 0 (v.2) (US) (Pb; alk. paper)

2001035857

© 2001 – T. Givón 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 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

To Ken Hale, a linguist’s linguist, a cowboy’s cowboy.



Table of contents

Chapter 11 Noun phrases1 11.1 Introduction1 11.1.1 Heads and modifiers1 11.1.2 Syntactic complexity2 11.2 Linear order and constituency in the noun phrase3 11.2.1 Rigid order within the NP3 11.2.2 Pre-nominal modifiers4 11.2.3 Post-nominal modifiers9 11.3 Restrictive vs. non-restrictive modifiers10 11.3.1 Restricting the domain of reference10 11.3.2 Restriction and word-order flexibility12 11.4 Scattered NPs13 11.5 Syntactically complex noun phrases15 11.6 Noun phrase conjunction15 11.6.1 Joint participation in a single event15 11.6.2 Relative order of conjoined NPs16 11.6.3 The syntactic amalgamation of conjoined NPs18 11.6.4 Group nouns and their agreement22 11.6.5 Placement of the conjunction morpheme22 11.7 Nominalized noun phrases24 11.7.1 Finiteness and nominalization24 11.7.2 Typological variation in nominalized structure26 11.7.3 Nominalization and indirect objects34 11.7.4 Nominalization and noun complements35 11.7.5 Word-order in nominalized clauses36 11.7.6 Verb-phrase nominalizations36 Chapter 12 Verbal complements and clause union39 12.1 Introduction39 12.2 Event integration40 12.2.1 The overall scale40 12.2.2 Semantic dimensions of event integration44

viii Table of contents

12.3

12.4

12.5

12.6

12.2.3 The lower portions of the complementation scale51 12.2.4 Modality verbs54 The syntactic coding of complementation59 12.3.1 Recapitulation59 12.3.2 The syntactic coding of clause-union59 Causativization and clause-union74 12.4.1 Co-lexicalization and the complementation scale74 12.4.2 Semantic distinction in morphological causatives75 12.4.3 The case-marking of the manipulee in morpho-lexical causativization77 Two typological routes to clause-union78 12.5.1 Preamble78 12.5.2 Grammaticalization and clause-union79 12.5.3 Relational constraints on clause-union80 12.5.4 Degree of grammaticalization and the re-analysis of GRs in clauseunion87 Closure89

Chapter 13 De-transitive voice91 13.1 Overview91 13.1.1 Major themes91 13.1.2 The functional domain of de-transitive voice92 13.2 Semantic de-transitive voice constructions95 13.2.1 Reflexives and reciprocals95 13.2.2 Middle-voice constructions116 13.3 Pragmatic de-transitive voice constructions122 13.3.1 Preliminaries122 13.3.2 Passive voice125 13.3.3 The inverse voice154 13.3.4 The antipassive voice168 Chapter 14 Relative clauses175 14.1 Orientation175 14.2 Functional dimensions175 14.2.1 Definite head nouns: Referential accessibility, presupposition, and anaphoric grounding175 14.2.2 REF-indefinite head nouns: Cataphoric grounding177 14.2.3 Non-referring head nouns: Irrealis and the problem of strict coreference178 14.2.4 Non-restrictive relative clauses179 14.3 Syntactic dimensions180 14.3.1 Deletion under co-reference and the case recoverability problem180 14.3.2 Typology of REL-clauses: Case-recoverability strategies182 14.3.3 Mixed relativization strategies198

Table of contents

14.3.4 Oblique role relativization and head-noun specificity201 14.3.5 Relativization and grammatical relations: Summary202 14.3.6 The syntax of non-restrictive Rel-clauses202 14.3.7 Headless relative clauses205 14.3.8 Extraposed relative clauses207 14.4 Relative clauses and syntactic complexity211 14.4.1 Preamble211 14.4.2 Ross’s complex-NP constraint211 14.4.3 Recursive center embedding217 14.4.4 Parataxis as a mechanism for decreased complexity218 Chapter 15 Contrastive focus constructions221 15.1 Orientation221 15.2 The functional domain of contrastive focus221 15.2.1 Predictability, expectation and contrast221 15.2.2 Identifiability vs. presupposition222 15.2.3 Assertion scope vs. contrastive focus222 15.2.4 Normative expectations vs. contrast223 15.2.5 Contrastive strength224 15.2.6 Contrastive focus, reference and topicality227 15.2.7 Assertion scope and contrastive focus: Negation and yes/no-questions230 15.2.8 Other focus-attracting grammatical devices232 15.3 Syntactic and typological dimensions234 15.3.1 Preamble234 15.3.2 Contrastive focus and relativization234 15.3.3 Focus and wh-questions237 15.3.4 Diachronic simplification and the vestigial copula238 15.3.5 Other typological features of contrastive focus240 15.4 The use of intonation, word-order and morphology in contrastive-focus constructions: Some typological predictions247 15.5 Cognitive-iconic considerations249 15.5.1 Attention and contrastive stress249 15.5.2 Attention and word-order250 Chapter 16 Marked topic constructions253 16.1 Orientation253 16.2 Topicality: A brief recapitulation253 16.3 Marked-topic constructions254 16.3.1 Preamble254 16.3.2 Existential-presentative constructions255 16.3.3 Y-movement (‘contrastive topicalization’)262 16.3.4 Left dislocation265 16.3.5 Right dislocation267

ix

x

Table of contents

16.3.6 Dative-shifting269 16.3.7 Raising272 Chapter 17 Non-declarative speech-acts287 17.1 Introduction287 17.2 Communicative focus, presupposition and speech-act prototypes: The truth-value test289 17.3 Epistemics and deontic features of declarative speech-acts290 17.4 Interrogative speech-acts291 17.4.1 Epistemic and deontic features291 17.4.2 Yes/no-questions292 17.4.3 Wh-questions300 17.5 Manipulative speech-acts311 17.5.1 Preamble311 17.5.2 Functional dimensions311 17.5.3 Syntactic and typological dimensions313 17.6 The speech act continuum318 17.6.1 Preamble: Syntactic prototypes vs. functional continuum318 17.6.2 From imperative to interrogative319 17.6.3 From imperative to declarative319 17.6.4 From declarative to interrogative320 17.7 The interaction between epistemic and deontic aspects of speech-acts321 17.7.1 Preamble321 17.7.2 Certainty, power and status322 17.7.3 Negation, authority and politeness322 17.7.4 Certainty, responsibility and blame323 Chapter 18 Inter-clausal coherence327 18.1 Introduction327 18.1.1 Subordination vs. coordination327 18.1.2 Coherence and grounding328 18.2 Adverbial subordinate clauses330 18.2.1 Functional dimensions330 18.2.2 Participial adverbial clauses338 18.2.3 Discourse-pragmatic connectivity of adverbial clauses342 18.2.4 Conjoined (‘chained’) clauses348 18.3 Syntactic and typological dimensions of inter-clausal connectivity352 18.3.1 Finiteness and control352 18.3.2 Finiteness and clause-chaining355 18.3.3 Finiteness, dependence and control385 References389 Index 401



Chapter 11

Noun phrases

11.1

Introduction

11.1.1 Heads and modifiers Throughout the various chapters of Volume I, we dealt with noun phrases (NPs) rather informally, focusing on two major aspects of their grammar: syntactic or semantic case-role in the clause •
their
their • referential status — anaphoric, definite or indefinite. In terms of structure, we have thus far dealt mostly with their morphology, glossing over finer details of syntactic structure. To this end, we have cited mostly examples with the two NP types most commonly found in natural discourse — pronouns and names. Because these two NPs enjoy such unique and well-specified reference, they seldom require any further modification. In contrast, the NPs covered in this chapter take a lexical noun as their head and some modifier. Indeed, the fact that modification is so dispensable in the case of pronouns and names already hints at the major function of noun modifiers — they are used to further specify or narrow down the domain of reference of their head nouns. Such further specification is necessary because nouns, unlike pronouns and names, do not of themselves refer to unique token entities. Rather, they connote types of entities. They thus require further modification in order to become uniquely referring expressions. Most syntactic descriptions of the noun phrase do not distinguish clearly between its morphological and syntactic structure, a persistent legacy of the mis-analysis of written English (see Vol. I, Chs 2, 5). Unfortunate though this lapse may be, it is understandable in the light of the lexical origins of bound morphology. In the discussion below, we will do our best to gloss over the problem.1 The most common type of noun modifiers are listed in (1) below, together with their functional scope:

2

Syntax

(1) Type of modifier

Functional scope

a. Bound morphemes: • classifiers • number • case-markers • determiners/articles b. Lexical words: • demonstratives • adjectives • compounding nouns • numerals • quantifiers c. Phrases: • prepositional phrases • relational phrases d. Clauses: • noun complements • relative clauses

lexical semantic phrasal semantic clausal semantic, pragmatic

pragmatic phrasal semantic, pragmatic lexical & phrasal semantic phrasal semantic, pragmatic phrasal semantic, pragmatic clausal semantic, pragmatic clausal semantic, pragmatic clausal semantic, pragmatic pragmatic

11.1.2 Syntactic complexity Syntactic complexity manifests itself at several levels in the structure of noun-headed NPs. To begin with, the mere presence of a modifier already reveals the existence of an extra hierarchic level, whereby the head noun and the modifier are sister nodes under the higher NP node. Further hierarchic complexity is added when two or more modifiers cluster around the same head noun. Thus consider: NP

(2) Det

N

the

barn NP

(3)

AP

Det

the

Adj

N

big

barn

Further complexity is added when a phrasal modifier comes with its own syntactic structure:

Noun phrases

3

NP

(4) Det Adj

the

PP

AP

big

N

barn

P

behind

NP Det

N

the

house

And more complexity yet is introduced when a modifier is derived from — or at least analogically invokes — a full-fledged clause whose syntactic structure is still reflected, in the structure of the noun phrase, as in the case of noun complements and relative clauses: (5) Noun complement a. Noun phrase Her wanting to see him b. Source clause She wanted to see him (6) Relative clause a. Noun phrase The man she wanted to see b. Source clause She wanted to see the man True, noun-headed NPs are relatively rare in natural communication, where the most common nominal referent is anaphoric — thus coded as pronoun or zero. But this should not in any way impinge on the reality of full NPs, whose hierarchic constituency structure still needs to be described and understood. And calling them apositional or ‘external to clausal constituency’ does not absolve us of the need to account for their internal structure.2

11.2

Linear order and constituency in the noun phrase

11.2.1 Rigid order within the NP We have already noted one major aspect of ordering within the noun-phrase, namely that modifiers in many languages tend to either precede or follow the head noun (Vol. I, Ch. 5). But ordering constraints often also govern the ordering of modifiers vis-a-vis each other, a phenomenon for which English may serve as an excellent illustration. Simple modifiers — bound morphemes or lexical words — precede the head noun in English. Complex modifiers — phrasal or clausal ones — follow. The general rule, glossing over a number of specific co-occurrence restrictions and other potential complications and excluding case-markers (prepositions), is roughly this:

4

Syntax

(7) Rigid order of modifiers in English Ï
¸ NP = (Quant) (Det) (AP*) (N*) N (Pl) (

Rel
) Ô
Ô

PP Ì
˝ Ô
Ô

N-Comp Ó
˛ Rule (7) states that modifiers that precede the head noun are, in order, quantifiers (Quant), determiners (Det), adjectival phrases (AP) and modifying nouns (N). Modifiers that follow the head noun are the plural morpheme (Pl), relative clauses (Rel), prepositional phrases (PP) or noun complements (N-Comp). The parentheses (
) around a constituent in rule (7) indicate optional — conjunctive — choice, in the given order. The curly brackets {
} indicate exclusive — disjunctive — choice of only one of the bracketed items. The asterisk stands for optional recursion, as in the case of modifying nouns (N*) or adjectives (AP*).3 11.2.2 Pre-nominal modifiers 11.2.2.1
Quantifiers English has two distinct types of pre-nominal quantifiers, partitive-definite and indefinite. At first glance, the two appear to occupy distinct syntactic slots, with the partitive-definite quantifiers typically followed by the possessive ‘of ’ and a definite determiner: (8) Partitive definite quantifiers a. some of the people b. all of that nonsense c. none of my friends d. any of those people e. most of this work f. lots of their suggestions g. one of the men h. two of the men i. a number of these books An indefinite head noun, whether referring or non-referring, is incompatible with partitive-definite quantifiers, as is evident from the unacceptability of: (9) a. b. c. d.

*none of a man *several of some friends *all of women *lots of any cows

Indefinite quantifiers seem to occupy the determiner (Det) syntactic slot, and when destressed may indeed function as indefinite determiners: (10) Indefinite quantifiers/determiners a. some women b. one man

Noun phrases

5

c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m.

two men another day only men all soldiers many flowers every person much unhappiness little luck a little help any suggestion no response

As can be seen above, English numerals can occupy either quantifier slots — as partitivedefinite (8g,h) or as indefinite quantifiers (10b,c). Further, numerals and some other quantifiers can also occupy the adjective slot, following the determiner: (11) a. b. c. d.

the many houses these two women the other day the only child

While the two quantifier slots appear distinct, members of one cannot be combined with members of the other, in a sense thus invoking the behavior of a single syntactic slot. However, the restriction may be merely due to the inherent incompatibility of ‘definite’ and ‘indefinite’. While seemingly subject to rigid ordering constraints, a few quantifiers in English, most conspicuously the contrastive ‘only’, ‘even’ and ‘just’, can be floated outside the NP. Thus compare the behavior of ‘only’ in (12) below, with contrast scope marked with italics: (12) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

Only she could have said this (> but not anybody else) She only could have said this (> but not anybody else) She only could have said this (> but in fact she didn’t) *She could only have said this *She could only have said this She could have only said this (> but not really meant it) She could have said only this (> rather than something else) She could have said this only (> rather than something else)

In addition, quantifiers can also float within the NP itself: (13) a. Only the red book on the floor [got wet] (> but not the blue one) b. Only the red book on the floor [got wet] (> but not the red pad) c. Only the red book on the floor [got wet] (> but not the red one on the couch’)

6

Syntax

11.2.2.2
Determiners As noted above, English determiners follow the definite quantifier slot. Various occupants of the determiner slot in English are: (14) a. Deictic that horse, this horse b. Definite the woman c. Indefinite a girl, some children d. Non-referring any milk, no trouble e. Possessive my boy, John’s work, the woman’s son The best evidence that all these determiners belong to the same syntactic slot in English is their mutual exclusivity: (15) a. b. c. d. e. f.

*the my house *my some children *the that house *this her room *his that book *no a solution

That this restriction has little to do with semantic or pragmatic incompatibility is apparent from the fact that in other languages the definite article may coexist with other definite determiners, as in Hebrew: (16) a. ha-isha ha-zot the-woman the-this ‘this woman’ b. ha-bayit shel-o the-house of-3masc ‘his house’ 11.2.2.3
Adjectives and the adjectival phrase English adjectives are wedged between the determiner and the head noun slot. Since an adjective may be preceded by an adverb or intensifier, and since two or more adjectives may appear together in this slot, the slot itself is technically that of an adjectival phrase (AP), whose constituency may be described as, roughly: (17) Adjectival phrase (AP) AP = (Adv) (Adj*) Adj

Noun phrases

7

The optional constituent (Adj*) signifies one or more added adjectives. When this option is exercised, the order of pre-nominal adjectives is often rigid, although that rigidity interacts with the use of stress and intonation (or punctuation): (18) a. a big red ball ?a red big ball b. a tiny little mouse ?a little tiny mouse c. a large African elephant *an African large elephant d. a disgusting new rule ?a new disgusting rule The factors that govern the rigid order of modifying adjectives in English are complex, involving the following considerations (Gruber 1967): (19) Relative order of adjectives An adjective will be placed closer to the noun stem if it is:
more central to the meaning of the noun;
more inherent, durable quality of the noun;
more generic (rather than specific) information;
more given (rather than new) information;
non-restrictive (rather than restrictive).

• • • • •

The adverbial or intensifier in the AP serves as a quantifier on the adjective. Typical adverbs in this slot are: (20) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

a very big house a rather large audience a not very beautiful garden a really fine performance a less than candid response an unusually high rate an incredibly tall man an unbelievably ugly picture

11.2.2.4
Nouns as modifiers The last modifier slot preceding the head noun in English is that of nouns used as modifiers. A noun — or several nouns — may be used in English to modify a head noun, as in: (21) Multiple modifying nouns a. the Panama invasion surprise decision b. the federal bank inspection fiasco c. the university president selection committee

8

Syntax

In (21), each modifying noun carries its own primary lexical stress, and thus retains its independence as a lexical word. But modifying nouns may eventually fuse with their head to yield noun compounds, a highly productive lexical derivation pattern in English: (22) Noun compounds a. bird-house (‘a house where birds live’) b. shoe-polish (‘gooey stuff with which one polishes shoes’) c. riding-horse (‘horse which one rides’) d. buffalo-gun (‘a gun used to shoot buffalo’) e. wheat-field (‘a field where one grows wheat’) f. apple-core (‘the core inside the apple’) g. mail-man (‘a person who delivers the mail’) Noun-noun compounds in English have a characteristic stress pattern: The primary wordstress is invariably placed on the first noun — the modifier — in the compound: (23) a. b. c. d.

BIRD-house *bird-HOUSE MAIL-man *mail-MAN

Compounding in English does not involve only modifying nouns but also modifying adjectives. In such cases, the characteristic compound stress-pattern tells the difference between a compounding and a modifying use of the adjective: (24) a. b. c. d. e. f.

a black bird (= any bird that is black) a BLACK-bird (= a species of birds) a long house (= any house that is long) a LONG-house (= a special house-type) a white house (= a house that is white) the WHITE House (= the President’s residence)

The fact that modifying nouns, even when not compounded, must be adjacent to the head noun probably reflects the fact that nouns typically code more inherent, generic, durable qualities (see (19) above). The same is true of compounding adjectives, which thus mirror the fusion behavior of noun compounds. Thus compare: (25) a. Modifying noun a white shingle roof *a shingle white roof b. Noun compound a large BIRD-house *a bird LARGE-house c. Compounding adjective a small BLACK-board *a black SMALL-board

Noun phrases

9

11.2.3 Post-nominal modifiers Post-nominal modifiers in English are large and syntactically more complex, falling into three major groups: clauses •
relative
noun complements •
prepositional phrases. • Either syntactically or semantically, these phrase-size or clause-size modifiers bear a systematic relation to full-fledged clauses. The relation is most obvious with relative clauses (see Ch. 14), a bit less so with noun complements, and less so with prepositional phrases. Thus consider: (26) Relative clauses a. The man who came to dinner (The man came to dinner) b. The woman I met yesterday (I met the woman yesterday) c. The boy sitting there (the boy was sitting there) (27) Noun complement a. The suggestion that we should quit (Someone suggested that we should quit) b. Her periodic attempts to find a job (She periodically attempted to find a job) The status of prepositional phrases used as noun modifiers is a bit more murky. Semantically, they may resemble either of the other two types. When the preposition is locative and the head noun not a nominalized verb, analogy to REL-clauses seems more appropriate: (28) Rel-clause-like modifying PPs a. The fiddler on the roof (> The fiddler that is on the roof ) b. The horse in the barn (> The horse that is in the barn) When the head noun is a nominalization (see §11.5 below), the analogy to N-complements seems more appropriate: (29) Modifying PPs analogous to indirect objects a. Her work at the university (She worked at the university) b. Their contract with the Agency (They contracted with the agency) c. His transfer to Cleveland (He was transferred to Cleveland) Modifying PPs analogous to direct objects d. His respect for authority (He respected authority) e. Their love of extravagance (They loved extravagance) f. Her knowledge of math (She knew math) As can be seen from (29e,f ) above, a modifying PP may also exhibit the possessive pattern, one whose analogical connections are the most heterogenous. Those with a nominalized head noun are analogous to N-complements, as in (29e,f ). Others involve the notoriously open-ended grammatical relation genitive or possessive:

10

Syntax

(30) Possessive modifying PPs a. A bucket of oranges (there were oranges in the bucket) (the bucket was full of oranges) (the bucket had oranges in it) b. Two parts of his body (his body had parts) (his body was made of parts) (the two parts belonged to his body) c. A house of ill repute (the house was ill reputed) (the house had a bad rep) (the house was of ill repute) d. The headquarters of the oil company (the company had a headquarters) (the company occupied the headquarters) (the headquarters belonged to the company)

11.3

Restrictive vs. non-restrictive modifiers

11.3.1 Restricting the domain of reference Many types of modifiers, particularly those that are not bound morphemes, may be used either restrictively or non-restrictively, a distinction that has to do with scope. Restrictive modifiers are used to narrow down the domain of reference, in this way resembling definite determiners. The head noun may be semantically compatible with other referents in the relevant discourse context, and this may interfere with unique identification. The restrictive modifier rules out such conflicting interpretations. Thus consider: (31) Context:

There were two men standing at the bar. One was tall, the other short. They were just minding their own business. That is, until the tall man opened his mouth and said…

Non-restrictive modifiers are used to enrich the description of the referent with further characteristic attributes, but without narrowing down the domain of reference. Thus consider: (32) Context:

There was a man standing at the bar. He was exceedingly tall, his head almost scraping the ceiling. It was a quiet evening, the place practically empty, even the TV was off. We were falling asleep with boredom. That is, till the tall man opened his mouth and said…

Noun phrases

When the modifier is marked with contrastive stress, it can only be interpreted restrictively. This is natural, given the use of restrictive modifiers to differentiate a noun from competing referents. Thus (33a) below, with an unstressed adjective, can be interpreted either restrictively or non-restrictively. On the other hand, (33b), with the adjective stressed, can only be interpreted restrictively: (33) a. Unstressed The industrious Chinese did well in California (> All the Chinese were industrious = NR) (> Only some Chinese were industrious = R) b. Stressed The INDUSTRIOUS Chinese did well in California (*> All the Chinese were industrious = *NR) (> Only some Chinese were industrious = R) The quantifiers ‘only’ and ‘all’ can be used as a test for restriction, since the former is typically restrictive and most often contrastive, while the latter is typically inclusive and thus non-restrictive. Names, and to a lesser extent pronouns, likewise serve as a good test for restrictive modification. Since they denote unique referents, no further narrowing of their referential domain is necessary. Consequently, they can only take non-restrictive modifiers. Thus compare: (34) Restrictive Rel-clauses a. The woman who left early missed the Finale b. *Mary who left early missed the Finale c. *I who left early missed the Finale (35) Non-restrictive Rel-clauses a. The woman, who left early, missed the Finale b. Mary, who left early, missed the Finale c. I, who left early, missed the Finale When a name or a pronoun takes a restrictive modifier, it simply points out to its referential non-uniqueness: (36) a. Plinny the Younger (> as against Plinny the Older) b. Let he who is without sin (> As against he who is with sin) Otherwise, when adjectives modify proper names, they are most commonly interpreted as non-restrictive, most often forming a holistic compound name with the head: (37) Alexander the Great Gay Paris Beautiful downtown Burbank The ubiquitous Joe Blow

11

12

Syntax

11.3.2 Restriction and word-order flexibility In Spanish, where the adjective slot in the noun phrase remains somewhat flexible, nonrestrictive adjectives precede the head noun and restrictive ones follow. Quite often, the pre-nominal non-restrictive adjectives change their sense and form a compound, in the process becoming phonologically reduced: (38) a. un hombre pobre un pobre hombre b. una ciudad grande una gran ciudad c. un amigo bueno un buen amigo d. su ojo malo el malojo

‘a poor man’ (R) ‘an unfortunate man’ (NR) ‘a large city’ (R) ‘a great city’ (NR) ‘a friend who is good’ (R) ‘a real friend’ (NR) ‘his bad (defective) eye’ (R) ‘the Evil Eye’ (NR)

The non-restrictive nature of pre-nominal adjectives in Spanish is underscored by the fact that they reject intensifying adverbs. Thus: (39) a. un hombre muy pobre *un muy pobre hombre b. una ciudad tan grande *una tan gran ciudad c. un amigo muy bueno *un muy buen amigo d. un ojo muy malo *un muy malojo

‘a very poor man’ (R) ‘a city so large’ (R) ‘a very good friend’ ‘a very bad eye’ (R)

A similar ordering contrast can be seen in Ute, where pre-nominal adjectives are stripped of all their suffixes and become compounded with the head noun, an analysis supported by their stress pattern (Givón 1980):4 (40) a. kavá sá-gha-ru =-m b. sá-gava

‘a white horse’ (R) ‘a white-horse’ (NR)

The opposite word-order variation is used in Ute to distinguish restrictive demonstratives from definite articles: (41) a. ’ú ta’wách b. ta’wách-’u

‘that man (invis.)’ (R, Dem) ‘the man’ (NR, Def)

A similar contrast with Ute numerals involves compounding but no order variation: (42) a. wáy-ni mamáchi-u b. wá-mamaci-u

‘two women’ (R) ‘the two-women’ (NR)

Noun phrases

11.4

13

Scattered NPs We have noted earlier that grammatical agreement within the noun phrase — in gender and number, case, or definiteness — can serve as a means for binding NP constituents together; that is, of signalling the noun-modifier relation (see Vol. I, §9.7). The most universal means of binding all NP constituents together is adjacency, a transparently iconic device that keeps together structurally what belongs together functionally (Haiman 1985a,b; Givón 1991a). Thus, all other things being equal, examples such as (43a) below are vastly preferable to those such as (43b): (43) a. My red horse jumped over the back fence b. *My jumped over red the back fence horse Still, some scattering of members of the noun phrase is allowed even in a language as rigidly ordered as English. For example, under certain conditions, the extraposition of restrictive REL-clauses in English (see Ch. 14) is possible: (44) a. b. c. d.

He delivered a lecture yesterday that no one could understand I sent a book to Sally that I hope she’ll read A man came in with no shirt on A woman came in next who spoke no English

In languages with more flexible word-order, scattered NPs are reported to be common.5 As an illustration, consider Fox (Algonquian), where a modifier may be expressed first, while its head noun is post-posed (Dahlstrom 1987): (45) a. neswi e.h=ayo.wa-chi nakamo.nani three use-3pl/asp songs ‘They use three songs’ (‘They used three, songs’) b. ma.haki kenenohtamwihene wi.teko.waki these cause-understand-1/2/ind owl-pl ‘I made you understand these owls’ (‘These I made you understand, the owls’) c. ma.ne=meko e.h=pya.wachi asha.haki many-emph come-3pl/asp Sioux-pl ‘Many Sioux came’ (‘Many came, Sioux’) d. ma.haki a.neta e.h=sakisakihpokowa.chi ihkwe-wahi these some redup-bite/obv/3/asp woman-obv/pl ‘Some women bit these (people) again and again’ (‘Some bit these people again and again, the women’) e. “nesate=cha.h=mani wa.patano” e.h=inechi, “macha.hini” “kill-2/3/irr-this look-at/2/in/imp say/3/asp “finery ‘“And if you kill him, look at this finery” he said’ (‘“And if you kill him, look at this” he said, “the finery”’)

14

Syntax

f.

nekoti=pi pe.hki=meko e.h=owi.hka.nichi kwi.yese.hani one-quot very-emph befriend-3/asp boy-obv ‘He was very friendly with one boy, they say’ (‘He was very with one, they say, a boy’) g. manahka ochi-pye.wa we.ta.paniki mahkwa yon-loc come-from-3/asp where-it-is-east bear ‘A bear came from yon east’ (‘He came from yon, from the East, a bear’ In each example in (45), a modifier is used as an anaphoric pronoun, and the post-posed head noun is then right dislocated (see Ch. 16), as in spoken English: (46) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Mine was faster, the Chevy. This one will do, the sheep-dog. I’d like to think about that one a little longer, the red book. The little one is more reliable, the Frenchman. One was particularly interesting, a Tudor mansion. Some didn’t finish, perennial stragglers. All came across, enlisted men and officers.

Examples such as (46) are rigidly constrained to avoid semantic confusion. Most characteristically, they may occur either when the clause has only a single participant NP, or when semantic considerations rule out confusion. Thus, contrast the potentially confusing (47b) and (48b) below with the relatively transparent (47a,c,d) and (49a,c,d). Respectively: (47) a. b. c. d. (48) a. b. c. d.

That one ran away, the poodle ?That one bit the female, the poodle.

That one bit my friend, the poodle. That one bit my friend, the artist. One disappeared last year, an art professor. ?I introduced one once to Gina, an art professor.

I gave one once to Gina, a real antique. I gave one once to Gina, an art professor.

Consider, finally, the tradeoff between constituent adjacency and morphological binding of the NP (see Vol. I, §5.7), as in the optional case agreement in Walpiri (Hale 1976): (49) a. Adjacent, optional case agreement tjantu wiri-nki tji yalku-nu dog big-erg me bite-past ‘The big dog bit me’ b. Non-adjacent, obligatory case agreement tjantu-nku tju yalku-nu wiri-nki dog-erg me bite-past big-erg ‘The dog bit me, the big one’

Noun phrases

15

c. Non-adjacent, objigatory case agreement wiri-nki tji yalku-nu tjantu-nku big-erg me bite-past dog-erg ‘The big one bit me, the dog’

11.5

Syntactically complex noun phrases Above and beyond the presence of multiple modifiers, the most conspicuous sources of syntactic complexity in the NP are due to the importation, by whatever means, of clauselevel syntactic organization into the noun phrase. The three structures most commonly responsible for such complexity are: clauses •
relative
NP conjunctions •
nominalizations • The first of these will be discussed in full further below (Ch. 14). We will deal here with the other two in order.

11.6

Noun phrase conjunction

11.6.1 Joint participation in a single event The traditional linguistic analysis of NP conjunction takes its major premises from propositional logic, where the following two-way implication holds: (50) F(x) & F(y) ¤ F(x & y) As long as one deals with timeless predicates coding inherent properties, and with propositions detached from discourse context, implication (50) seems to hold: (51) a. Mary is tall, and John is tall b. John is a linguist, and Mary is a linguist

¤

John and Mary are tall

¤

John and Mary are linguists

The neat logic of (50) and (51) begins to break down, however, when more realistic examples are considered: (52) a. John and Mary left together ? ¤ John left together and Mary left together b. John and Mary left in a Cadillac ? ¤ John left in a Cadillac and Mary left in a Cadillac c. I saw John and Mary after lunch ? ¤ I saw John after lunch and I saw Mary after lunch

16

Syntax

d. I saw John and Mary kissing ? ¤ I saw John kissing and I saw Mary kissing e. He willed his house to Joe and Sally ? ¤ He willed it to Joe, and he willed it to Sally What these examples suggest is that the logic of (50) tells, at best, only part of the story of NP conjunction in human language. And further, that taking the logic of conjunction by itself may lead to an absurd characterization of NP conjunction in natural language. The most important facet of NP conjunction is in fact left unaccounted for by the logic of (50). It has to do with the fact that, particularly when events are involved, NP conjunction is not merely a syntactic device for rendering two propositions about two separate events into the more economical surface structure (so-called conjunction reduction; Chomsky 1957, 1965). Rather, it is a device for coding a single event. True, the event may be complex, with two or more participants playing the same case-role. But it is nonetheless a unified event in terms of its temporality, spatiality, modality, and other grammaticallycoded features of event coherence. At the very least, conjoining two or more NPs in a single clause indicates a higher degree of mutual relevance of the activities of the co-participants. And as J. Payne (1985) has noted, natural language has explicit devices to mark the few counter-iconic cases where a clause with conjoined NP’s nonetheless implies two separate events. Thus compare: (53) a. John and Mary got married in a civil ceremony b. Both John and Mary got married Clause (53a) is most commonly interpreted as a reciprocal single event, while the presence of ‘both’ in (53b) immediately suggests two separate, non-reciprocal events. The iconic principle that underlies the not-quite-logical behavior of NP conjunction in natural language is fairly familiar: (54) NP conjunction and separateness of events
Separate events will tend to be coded as separate clauses.
Clauses with conjoined subject or object NPs tend to code single multiparticipant events.

• •

Principle (54) will reappear periodically in our discussion of complex structures. It is a subcase of a more general principle of isomorphism between conceptual proximity and code proximity (Haiman 1985a,b; Givón 1991a). 11.6.2 Relative order of conjoined NPs There is another way in which the logical tradition again fails to characterizing the facts of NP conjunction in natural language. This concerns the logical implication: (55) A & B ¤ B & A Human language, unlike propositional logic, does not seem to be quite as neutral to serial order. The rendering of two participants in one temporal order rather than the other is a

Noun phrases

17

deliberate communicative choice reflecting, most commonly, their relative importance or relevance. This is upheld by studies of word-order pragmatics in general, suggesting that fronted NPs tend to be more topical (Givón 1988a). It is also supported by experimental studies of memory and attention (Gernsbacher and Hargreaves 1988). In many languages, a strong culturally-governed preference is shown for some conjoined orders over others. Thus, for example, Cooper and Ross (1975) noted the following hierarchies in frozen expressions with conjoined NPs: (56) a. near > far b. adult > young c. male > female d. singular > plural e. f. g. h.

animate > inanimate agent > patient large > small positive > negative

(now and then, *then and now) (here and there, *there and here) (father and son, *son and father) (man and wife, *wife and man) (one and all, *all and one) (ham and eggs, *eggs and ham) (life and death, *death and life) (cat and mouse, *mouse and cat) (large and small, *small and large) (more or less, *less or more)

These frozen ordering hierarchies reflect some culturally-stable — in many cases also human-universal — ranking of inherent topicality, generally of the same type as the topicality hierarchies that predict access to subjecthood and objecthood (Vol. I, Ch. 4) and pronominal agreement (Vol. I, Ch. 9). While ordering restrictions in NP conjunction show up in English primarily in frozen idiomatic expressions, in other languages they pervade living grammar. Thus in Bantu languages, male–female and adult–child conjunctions are ‘grammatical’ only in the order predicted in (56b,c), but not the reverse. As an illustration, consider the following from Luganda (Givón 1970): (57) a. omu-sajja no omu-ana ba-a-labwa sg-man and sg-child pl-past-seen ‘The man and the child were seen’ b. ?omu-ana no omu-sajja ba-a-labwa sg-child and sg-man pl-past-seen (‘The child and the man were seen’) c. omu-sajja no omu-kazi ba-a-labwa sg-man and sg-woman pl-past-seen ‘The man and the woman were seen’ ? d. omu-kazi no omu-sajja ba-a-labwa sg-woman and sg-man pl-past-seen (‘The woman and the man were seen’) e. y-a-laba omu-sajja no omu-ana sg-past-see sg-man and sg-child ‘She saw the man and/with the child’

18

Syntax

f. ?y-a-laba omu-ana no omu-sajja sg-past-see sg-child and sg-man (‘She saw the child and/with the man’) 11.6.3 The syntactic amalgamation of conjoined NPs Noun phrase conjunction raises special problems when the conjoined NPs carry conflicting grammatical features. We have already noted one strong constraint on NP conjunction, that of equi case-role: The two conjoined NPs must share both their semantic and syntactic role. Thus compare: (58) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

I gave a book to Sally and Joe I gave Sally and Joe a book *I gave Sally and to Joe a book *I gave Sally a book and to Joe He worked with Joe and Sally He worked with diligence and enthusiasm *He worked with Sally and enthusiasm *He worked with diligence and Joe

The conjoined NPs in (58c,d) share the dative semantic role, but cannot be conjoined because they don’t share the same grammatical role of direct or indirect object. The conjoined NPs in (58g,h) are both indirect objects and share the very same preposition, but cannot be conjoined due to their disparate semantic roles (associative, manner). At least in some languages, the single vs. double marking of case-role in conjoined NPs may signal the degree of unification of the event. Thus compare: (59) a. They gave the prize to Joe and Sally b. They gave the prize to Joe and to Sally There is a strong tendency to interpret (59a) as a joint award for joint work — more like a single event. Conversely, there is a stronger tendency to interpret (59b) as two separate awards, more likely for separate works, though presumably given on the same occasion and thus still a joint event. Likewise with the definite accusative (DO) case in Hebrew: (60) a. rainu et-Yosi ve-Zipora saw-we acc-Yosi and-Zipora ‘We saw Yosi and Zipora’ (together) b. rainu et-Yosi ve-et-Zipora saw-we acc-Yosi and-acc-Zipora ‘We saw Yosi and also Zipora’ (separately) Conjoined NPs must also share the same definiteness status. Technically speaking, the conjunction of definite with indefinite is ‘grammatical’. It is, however, pragmatically and cognitively rather odd. Thus compare:

Noun phrases

(61) a. b. c. d.

19

I saw a man and a woman there I saw the man and the woman there ?I saw the man and a woman there ?I saw a man and the woman there

The pragmatic and cognitive difficulties involved in processing clauses such as (61c,d) may be understood in terms of the grammar of definiteness and reference (Vol. I, Ch. 10): conjoining two NPs at the subject, object or oblique role in a single clause, one •
By intends the clause to code a single event, within which those NPs participated together in the same capacity.
One thus expects the two NPs to be of relatively equal status, in terms of topicality, thematic importance or cognitive accessibility.
But conjoining an indefinite with definite would create a confusion in precisely those terms, and would confound the anaphoric and/or cataphoric grounding of the disparate referents.

• •

As in the case of case-roles, finer gradation of event unification in NP conjunction may be signalled in English by the use of single vs. multiple articles: (62) a. b. c. d.

Did you wash the pots and pans? Did you wash the pots and the pans? I bought some bread and butter. I bought some bread and some butter.

But when the two conjuncts are semantically dissimilar, the use of two separate articles is preferred over a unifying one. Thus compare: (63) a. b. c. d.

Did you feed the kids and the horses? ?Did you feed the kids and horses?

Did you wash the porch and the dog? ?Did you wash the porch and dog?

In Hebrew, the option of using a single article in a conjoined NP is impossible, perhaps due to the fact that a bare noun can be interpreted as a non-topical or non-referring indefinite. Thus compare: (64) a. hu kana et-ha-basar ve-ha-yerakot he bought acc-the-meat and-the-vegetables ‘he bought the meat and (the) vegetables’ b. ?hu kana et-ha-basar ve-yerakot he bought acc-the-meat and-vegetables Both number and class/gender create special grammatical problems in NP conjunction, most strikingly in pronominal agreement. In the case of number, a seemingly universal convention treats the conjoined NP as plural (or dual):

20

Syntax

(65) a. John is married b. Mary is married c. John and Mary are married In the case of class/gender, language-specific rules of gender resolution are often required when the two conjuncts are of different genders. Consider first a two-gender language, such as Hebrew. The masculine/feminine conflict in NP conjunction is resolved, rather predictably, in favor of the socially-dominant masculine: (66) a. ha-yelad-im oxl-im the-boy-masc.pl eat-masc.pl ‘The boys eat’ b. ha-yelad-ot oxl-ot the-girl-fem.pl eat-fem.pl ‘The girls eat’ c. ha-yeled ve-ha-yald-a oxl-im the-boy/masc.sg and-the-girl-fem.sg eat-masc.pl ‘The boy and the girl eat’ d. *ha-yeled ve-ha-yald-a oxl-ot the-boy/masc.sg and-the-girl-fem.sg eat-ot In Bantu languages, with a more extensive class/gender system, conflict resolution strategies are considerably more complex. In Luganda, if non-human nouns of varying genders are conjoined as objects, or as subjects of the passive, the conflict is neutralized into the non-human gender 9/10 (Givón 1970): (67) a. ente zy-a-labwa (class 9/10 Pl) cow(s) they-past-seen ‘The cows were seen’ b. ebibe by-a-labwa (class 7/8 Pl) cats they-past-seen ‘The wild-cats were seen’ c. amaato ya-a-labwa (class 5/6 Pl) canoes they-past-seen ‘The canoes were seen’ d. ente, ekibe ne elyato zy-a-labwa (class 9/10 Pl) cow cat and canoe they-past-seen ‘The cow, the wild-cat and the canoe were seen’ When humans of different genders are conjoined, the conflict resolves into the human gender (1/2): (68) a.

abakazi ba-a-labwa women they-past-seen ‘The women were seen’

(class 1/2 Pl)

Noun phrases

21

b. amasajja ya-a-labwa (class 5/6 Pl) fat.men they-past-seen ‘The fat men were seen’ c. inyana zy-a-labwa (class 11/10 Pl) thin.children they-past-seen ‘The thin children were seen’ d. omukazi, essajja no oluana ba-a-labwa (class 1/2 Pl) woman fat.man and thin.child they-past-seen ‘The woman, the fat man and the thin child were seen’ The conjunction of human with non-human subjects is considered either ungrammatical or infelicitous in most Bantu languages. In Luganda, neutralizing the conflict into gender 9/10 is somewhat more acceptable than into the human gender 1/2. But the preferred strategy is still to not conjoin, but rather to mark the non-human NP as an associative object: (69) a. ?omusajja ne embwa bi-a-labwa man and dog they-past-seen b. *omusajja ne embwa ba-a-labwa man and dog they-past-seen c. omusajja y-a-labwa ne embwa man he-past-seen with dog ‘The man was seen with the dog’

(9/10 Pl) (1/2 Pl) (Sg + Assoc)

On the face of it, one could also conjoin a human with a non-human object in Luganda. However, the same restrictions on object pronominal agreement emerge: (70) a. omukazi y-a-laba omusajja ne embwa woman she-past-see man and dog ‘The woman saw the man and/with the dog’ b. ?omusajja ne embwa, omukazi y-a-bi-laba man and dog woman she-past-them-see ‘The man and the dog, the woman saw them’ c. *omusajja ne embwa, omukazi y-a-ba-laba man and dog woman she-past-them-see d. omusajja, omukazi y-a-mu-laba ne embwa man woman she-past-him-see with dog ‘The man, the woman saw him with the dog’

(9/10 Pl)

(1/2 Pl) (Sg + Assoc)

One may view restrictions on the conjunction of disparate-gender NPs as an extension of the restrictions on case-role and definiteness. But one may also view them as a device for insuring that entities that don’t have the same capacity to perform jointly the same role in an event cannot be conjoined as arguments of a predicate that is semantically compatible with one — say the human/agent — but not the other. These two explanations may reflect a single principle:

22

Syntax

(71) The joint participation principle In order for two participants to perform jointly the same function in a single event, they must have substantially the same inherent capacity to perform their joint task. Principle (71) is, of course, consonant with the idea that NP conjunction codes a single event, albeit with two or more co-participants. A more formal expression of principle (71) may be couched as the following constraint: (72) The relational consolidation constraint In NP conjunction, it is the higher NP node, rather than its subordinate conjuncts, that bears all semantic, pragmatic and syntactic relations to the predicate. 11.6.4 Group nouns and their agreement Another set of facts that reflects on the degree of event unification in clauses with conjoined NPs involves the verb-agreement of group nouns, such as ‘team’, ‘crowd’, ‘audience’, ‘group’ etc. To illustrate their behavior, consider: (73) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j.

Sally and Joe are a good team. Sally and Joe is the winning team. Peter, Paul and Mary are trying to get back together. ‘Peter Paul and Mary’ is a folk group. The majority is against it. (The election speaks for itself). The majority are against it. (They asked each one for their reaction). The team is winning. The team are bickering among themselves. The crowd was in an ugly mood. The crowd were all running in different directions.

The distinction made here is between group events viewed as unified joint actions, and group events viewed as a collection of separate individual actions. Rather iconically, the unified group perspective on the event is coded by a singular verb agreement, the multiple individual perspective by plural agreement. 11.6.5 Placement of the conjunction morpheme So far we have seen only NP conjunctions where the conjunction-marking morpheme was placed between the two conjoined NPs, thus perhaps prefixed to the second conjunct, a pattern found most often in VO languages. But the conjunctive particle may be also suffixed to the second NP, a pattern most often found in OV languages. The ontology of these two patterns most likely derives from two factors: morphemes most commonly arise out of the associative or instrumental •
Conjunctive case-marker ‘with’. •
Case-markers tend to be prefixal in VO languages and suffixal in OV languages.

Noun phrases

The Luganda data in (70) above illustrate the VO pattern. The OV pattern may be illustrated with Walapai (Yuman; J. Payne 1985, following Redden 1966): (74) a. na-ch nikwai-ch-a avon-a-m tao-k-wil I-nom clothes-pl-def soap-def-with wash-I-asp ‘I washed the clothes with the soap’ b. hato-au-ach hman-m hwak tiatavm yu-ch-ak-yu puppy-def-nom boy-and two happy be-pl-3-prog ‘The puppy and the boy are very happy’ b. Walpaikwauk haikukwauk-m iche Walapai English-and we-speak ‘We speak English and/with Walapai’ A third pattern is to attach the conjoining particle to both conjoined noun. In most languages showing this pattern, it is used in special, more marked contexts to emphasize the separateness of the conjoined NPs, thus of the states or events that logically underlie the unified clause: (75) a. Either John or Mary or Paul will come. b. Neither John nor Mary nor Paul will come. c. Both Mary and John will come. The three coordinated NPs in (75a) are in fact disjoined, thus precluding the sense of a single event that is usually associated with NP conjunction. In (75b), the coordination is both disjoined and negative/emphatic, again precluding the sense of a single event. Finally, in (75c) the individuality — thus separateness — of the conjoined participants is emphasized, an effect further illustrated in the contrast: (76) a. He is coming for two or three weeks. b. He is coming for either two or three weeks. In (76a) ‘two or three’ tends to form a unit. In (76b), a disjunctive choice is more clearly emphasized. A similar use may be seen in adjectival conjunction in Russian, when one wishes to emphasize the temporal separateness of the different states (J. Payne 1985, following Svedova 1970): (77) Ja znal ego to veselym to grustnym to zadumchivym I knew him c happy c sad c thoughtful ‘I knew him (alternately, when) happy, sad and thoughtful’ In Turkish, several variants of such disjoint coordination are possible (J. Payne 1985, following Lewis 1967): (78) a. ben-de sen-de kardeshin-de I-c you-c brother.your-c ‘both I and you and your brother’

23

24

Syntax

b. hem ziyaret hem ticaret c pilgrimage c trade ‘both pilgrimage and trade’ c. ha bag, ha bahçe, ha tarla c orchard c garden c field ‘both orchard, garden and field’ Finally, one must note that many languages code NP conjunction by simple juxtaposition, with little or no use of conjunctive particles, as in Pacoh (Mon-Khmer; J. Payne 1985, following Watson 1966): (79) Nháng tiráp tilêt, callóh, acóq we prepare baskets spears knives ‘We prepare baskets, spears and knives’ However, simple juxtaposition in NP conjunction — especially without pauses or intonational separation — often yields unified group lexical items. Thus, in Chinese the conjunct compound ‘father-mother’ stands for ‘parents’, and ‘heaven-earth’ for ‘world’. Likewise, in the following large conjunctive compound Sanskrit (J. Payne 1985): (80) deva-gandharva-ma¯nus-oraga-ra¯ksas-a¯n god-heavenly.singer-man-serpent-demon-acc ‘gods, heavenly singers, men, serpents and demons’

11.7

Noun phrases derived by nominalization

11.7.1 Finiteness and nominalization The second major source of syntactic complexity in NPs may be best characterized as the product of nominalization. As a grammatical — rather than lexical-derivational — process, nominalization may be defined as: (81) Nominalization as a grammatical process: Nominalization is the process via which a finite verbal clause — either a complete clause or a subject-less verb phrase — is converted into a noun phrase. A verbal clause is nominalized most commonly when it occupies a prototypical nominal position/function — subject, direct object, indirect object or nominal predicate — within another clause. The syntactic complexity of NPs arising through nominalization merely reflects the structure of their source verbal clause. Within the nominalized NP, the erstwhile verb assumes the syntactic role of head noun, while other clausal constituents — subjects, objects, verbal complements or adverbs — assume the role of modifiers. Nominalization is best described in terms of the syntactic adjustments from the finite verbal-clause prototype to the nominal (NP) prototype (Hopper and Thompson 1984). The major components of such adjustment are:

Noun phrases

25

(82) Nominalization as the adjustment from the prototype finite verbal clause to the prototype noun phrase a. verb becoming a head noun b. verb acquiring nominalizing morphology c. loss of tense–aspect-modal morphology d. loss of pronominal agreement morphology e. subject and/or object acquiring genitive case-marking f. addition of determiners g. conversion of adverbs into adjectives As an illustration of the general pattern emerging out of (82), contrast the finite clause (83a) below with its nominalized version (83b): (83) a. Finite verbal clause She knew mathematics well. b. Nominalized NP Her good knowledge of mathematics. The syntactic structure of (83a) and (83b) is given in (84) and (85) below, respectively: (84) Finite main clause NP VP

Subj [NP]

she

V

Obj [NP]

Adv

knew

math

well

(85) Nominalized NP NP Det

her

Adj

good

N

knowledge

PP P

NP

of

math

Finiteness has been treated traditionally as a property of verbs, since many of its salient features (82a–d) indeed pertain to the verb. But the rest of the features (82e–g) pertain to other constituents of the clause. Finiteness is thus fundamentally an aggregate grammatical feature of clauses. Its converse, non-finiteness, is thus an aggregate grammatical feature of nominals, i.e. noun phrases. The same tradition also treats finiteness as a discrete, either-or distinction. But since the finite prototype (or its converse) is patently an aggregate of multiple features, finiteness

26

Syntax

must be at least in principle a matter of degree. At the very top of the finiteness scale, one finds the unmarked prototype verbal clause such as (83a) — main, declarative, affirmative, active. At the very bottom, one finds highly marked radically-nominalized clauses such as (83b). But many clause-types fall inbetween, and are thus semi-marked, exhibiting intermediate degrees of finiteness and nominalization (see chs 12, 14, 18). A quick illustration of this gradation may be seen in: least finite

(86) a. b. c. d. e. f.

Her good knowledge of math helped Her knowing math well helped For her to know math so well surely… She wanted to know math well Having known math well since highschool, she… She should have known math well most finite

At the top of the scale, (86a) displays the maximal array of non-finite features listed in (82). Next, (86b) is considerably more finite, with the object case-marked as object, the adverb marked as adverb, and the verb taking a less-extreme nominalized gerund form. In (86c,d), next, the subject is not marked as genitive and the verb is marked by the slightly more finite infinitive form. In (86e,f ) the verb displays some aspectual marking (perfect). Finally in the most finite (86f) the verb is fully marked for tense, aspect and modality. 11.7.2 Typological variation in nominalized structure As elsewhere in grammar, the universal schema given in (82) predicts only the most common features that can be associated with nominalized clauses. But the presence or absence of each feature in any particular language, and thus the degree to which the nominalized clause differs from the finite verbal clause, is subject to enormous crosslanguage variation. In the following space we will describe some of the main dimensions of this typological variation. 11.7.2.1
Nominalizing vs. finite languages The broadest cross-language typological distinction in finiteness is the veritable chasm between extreme nominalizing and extreme finite languages. In the first type, all subordinate clauses are (at least historically) nominalized. Only main clauses display fully finite structure. In the second, no clause-type is nominalized, and thus all clause-types are fully finite. 11.7.2.1.1
Extreme nominalizing (embedding) languages. The extreme nominalizing language type is found in a number of language families or sub-families — Tibeto-Burman (Watters 1998), Turkic, Carib (Gildea 1998), Quechuan (Weber 1996), some languages of the Papuan Highlands, No. Uto-Aztecan. We will illustrate this type with Ute (Uto-Aztecan). The three most conspicuous telltale signs of clause nominalization in Ute are:

Noun phrases

27

case-marking on the subject •
genitive suffix on the verb •
nominalizer
object case-marking of entire clauses • Compare first the finite verbal clause (86a) with its nominalized counterpart, serving as the subject of another clause (Givón 1980, 1993): (87) a. Finite clause ta’wach ’u yoghovu =ch-i pakha-qa-’u man/subj def/subj coyote-obj kill-perf-he/him ‘The man killed the coyote’ b. Nominalized clause ta’wach-i ’uway yoghovu =ch-i pakha-qa-na-y man-gen det/gen coyote-obj kill-perf-nom-obj ka-’áy-wa-t ’ura-’ay neg-good-neg-nom be-imm ‘It was bad that the man killed the coyote’ (lit.: ‘The man’s killing (of) the coyote was bad’) The nominalized clause in (87b) shows at least one conspicuous element of finite structure — tense–aspect-modality. Indeed, many clause-types that were historically nominalized in Ute are gradually de-marked or re-finitized precisely in this respect (Givón 1993). The very same nominalized structure as in (87b) is also found in complements of perception-cognition verbs: (88) mamach ’u pucucugwa-pu =ga woman/subj def/subj know-rem ta’wach-i ’uway yoghovu =ch-i pakha-pu =ga-na-y man-gen det/gen coyote-obj kill-rem-nom-obj ‘The woman knew that the man (had) killed the coyote’ (lit.: ‘The woman knew the man’s killing (of) the coyote’) And likewise in object relative clauses: (89) yoghovu =ch ’u [ta’wach-i ’uwáy pakha-pu =ga-na]… coyote/subj def/subj [man-gen det/gen kill-rem-nom] ‘the coyote that the man killed…’ (lit.: ‘The coyote of the man’s killing…’) Complements of modality and manipulation verbs in Ute are clearly embedded, with the complement verb marked with a nominalizer and the irrealis suffix: (90) a. Finite main clause na’acich kani pu =nikya-pu =gay-’u/-ax girl/subj house/obj see-rem-she/-it ‘The girl saw the house’

28

Syntax

b. Modality-verb complement na’acich kani pu =nikyay-vaa-ch ’ásti’i-pu =gay-’u girl/subj house/obj see-irr-nom/ss want-rem-she ‘The girl wanted to see the house’ c. Manipulation-verb complement mamach na’acich-i kani pu =nikya-vaa-ku máy-pu =ga woman/subj girl-obj house/obj see-irr-nom/ds tell-rem ‘the woman told the girl to see the house’ Many adverbial subordinate clauses in Ute are also nominalized. Some of them reveal no tense–aspect-modality marking, which is then read off the associated main clause: (91) a. Realis ‘when’-clause ta’wach-i ’uwa-y kani-naagh yu =ga-khw, man-gen def-gen house-in enter-sub mamach ’u págh-kwa-pu =ga woman/subj def/subj walk-go-rem ‘When the man entered the house, the woman took off’ (lit.: ‘(upon) the man’s entering the house, …) b. Irrealis ‘if ’/‘when’ ta’wach-i ’uwa-y kani-naagh yu =ga-khw, man-gen def-gen house-in enter-sub mamach ’u págh-kwa-vaa-ni woman/subj def/subj walk-go-irr-fut ‘If the man enters the house, the woman will take off’ (lit.: ‘(upon) the man’s entering the house, …) Subject relative clauses display their own nominalizer, the one used in subject lexical nominalizations: (92) a. ta’wach ’u [yoghovu =ch-i pakha-qa-t]… man/subj def/subj [coyote-obj kill-perf-nom/subj] ‘The man who killed the coyote…’ b. ta’wach ’u yoghobu =-pakha-mi-t ’ura-’ay man/subj def/subj coyote-kill-hab-nom/subj be-imm ‘the man is a coyote-killer’ One may suggest that in extreme nominalizing languages, the notion subordinate clause is grammaticalized to the extreme. The nominalization strategy is then akin to treating subordinate clauses — by analogy — as subject or object NPs, sometime to the point of casemarking the entire clause, as in Ute; or marking the nominalized clause with a determiner. The latter can be seen in Chuave (Papuan Highlands). In this language, all subordinate clause-types share the very same nominalizing marker, and can only appear in the chaininitial slot. Only one aspectual distinction can be marked on them — sequential vs.

Noun phrases

29

simultaneous (vis-a-vis to the following main clause). However, pronominal affixes can be still marked on the nominalized verb. Thus (Thurman 1978; see further detail in Ch.18): (93) a. Rel-clause gan moi-n-g-u-a, Gomia tei awi d-i child be-he-nom-him-seq Gomia there send leave-imper ‘Send the child who is here to Gomia!’ (lit.: ‘The child who is here, send (him) to Gomia!’ b. V-complement kasu di-in-g-a, fai-ke-∆-m-a lie say-they-nom-seq right-neg-past-it-emph ‘It’s not right that they told a lie’ (lit.: ‘That they told a lie, (it’s) not right’) c. Adv-clause ne iki-num moi-n-g-i, tei u-na-y-e you house-your be-you-nom-sim there come-fut-I-declar ‘I’ll come over when you’re at home’ (lit.: ‘While you are in your house, I’ll come there’) d. Topic clause koma du-pun-g-a-rai, niki do-m-e before say-we-nom-seq-that bad be/past-it-declar ‘That talk we had before, it was no good’. 11.7.2.1.2
Extreme finite (non-embedding) languages. At the other end of our typological chasm one finds languages in which all clause-types are finite, including in some languages even lexical nominalizations. Iroquois (Mithun 1991), So. Arawak, and Athabaskan languages are conspicuous examples of this type. But many serial-verb languages are just as radically non-embedding (cf. Senufu, Niger-Congo; Carlson 1994). We will illustrate this type with data from Tolowa Athabaskan. Consider first verb complements in Tolowa, which are all finite, with tense–aspectmodality and pronominal affixes matching the prototype finite main-clause pattern (Bommelyn and Givón 1998): (94) a. Main clause (Imperf) nn-tu =-sh-’í¸ 2sg-th-1sg-observe ‘I observe you’ b. Main clause (Perf) nn-tee-s-ii-’í¸-’ 2sg-th-perf-1sg-observe-perf ‘I observed you’

30

Syntax

c. V-complement (implicative, Imperf) nn-tu =-sh-’í¸ xa-sh-tR-sri 2sg-thm-1sg-observe incep-1sg-l-do ‘I begin to observe you’ (lit. ‘I begin-do I observe you’) d. V-complement (implicatie, Perf) nn-tee-s-ii-’í¸-’ xaa-gh-íi-R-sri¸ 2sg-th-perf-1sg-observe-perf incep-perf-1sg-l-make/perf ‘I began to observe you’) (lit.: ‘I began-did I observed you’) e. V-complement (non-implicative, Imperf) nn-tu =-sh-’í¸ ’-uu-sh-tR-te 2sg-thm-1sg-observe thm-des-1sg-l-want ‘I want to observe you’ (lit.: ‘I want I observe you’) f.

V-complement (non-implicative, Perf-Imperf) nn-tu =-sh-’í¸ ’aa-w-íi-l-te 2sg-thm-1sg-observe thm-des/perf-1sg-l-want ‘I wanted to observe you (but maybe didn’t)’ (lit.: ‘I wanted I observe you’)

g. V-complement (non-implicative, Perf-Perf) nn-tee-s-ii-’í¸-’ ’aa-w-íi-R-te 2sg-th-perf-1sg-observe-perf th-des/perf-1sg-l-want ‘I wanted to observe you (and did)’ (lit.: ‘I wanted I observed you’) While some restrictions constrain the distribution of aspectual-modal combinations in (94),6 complement clauses display the very same finite structure as main clauses. Relative clauses in Tolowa are just as finite, involving no subordinating morpheme but mere juxtaposition (Valenzuela 1996; L. Bommelyn, i.p.c.): (95) a. Main clause tr’a¸a¸xe ∆-s-ii-ts’u =ms woman 3sg-perf-1sg-kiss ‘I kissed the woman’ b. Main clause tr’a¸a¸xe te-s-∆-ch’a woman th-perf-3sg-leave ‘The woman left’ c. Rel-clause tr’a¸a¸xe [Ø-s-ii-ts’u =ms] te-s-ch’a woman [3sg-perf-1sg-kiss] th-perf-leave ‘The woman I kissed left’

Noun phrases

31

d. Main clause Tr’a¸a¸xe ch’u =sne yu =-s-∆-ts’u =ms woman man tr-perf-3sg-kiss ‘The woman kissed the man’ e. Rel-clause Ch’u =sne [Tr’a¸a¸xe yu =-s-∆-ts’u =ms] te-s-ch’a man [woman tr-perf-3sg-kiss] th-perf-away ‘The man the woman kissed left’ Adverbial clauses are just a finite, and often the adverbial subordinator itself is historically a finite serial-verbal construction (Hennesy 1996; L. Bommelyn i.p.c.): (96) daach’u =stRna-’u =n’ naa-s-ee-ya ch’a¸a¸-[n]-t’a’ store-to mov-perf-1sg-go away-rev-fly/perf ‘After I went to the store, (lit.: ‘Flying away from having gone to the store na¸a¸-[n]-nu =-sh-ch’a mov-rev-perf-1sg-go.away I came back (home)’ The extreme finiteness of Tolowa syntax is most conspicuously attested in the fact that even lexical nominalizations display full finite structure. Only in some agent nominalizations does one find an optional nominalizing suffix; and if the verb is transitive, the old antipassive (‘impersonal object’) prefix is used, as in (Givón and Bommelyn 2000): (97) a. ch’-u-R-ch’ak-ne ap-con-l-pinch-nom ‘hawk’ (‘he pinches things’) b. k’waa¸’n’-ch’-uu-le’ on-ap-con-stick ‘mosquito’ (‘he sticks something on’) Conversely, in object/patient nominalization, the old passive (‘impersonal subject’) Dprefix is used: (98) a. tu =-d-k’u =sh th-d-pull ‘bow’ (‘one pulls it’) b. ye’-na-y-d-tr’u =sh under-mov-tr-d-wear ‘underwear’ (‘one wears it under’) c. tu =-d-R-xu =t th-d-l-gulp ‘water’ (‘one gulps it’)

32

Syntax

And in oblique nominalizations of three-argument verbs, both the old passive and antipassive prefixes are used: (99) a. mu =R-ch’u =-d-R-ts’a’s with-ap-d-l-whip ‘whip’ (‘one whips things with it’) b. mi¸’-ch’u =-ghu =-d-R-t’e’sr in-ap-perf-d-l-write ‘book’ (‘one wrote things in it’) c. k’wu =t-gee-na-’-d-’a on-up-mov-ap-d-say ‘altar’ (‘one says things (prayers) on it’) 11.7.2.2
Case-marking in nominalized clause As noted earlier (82e), one of the most ubiquitous marks of nominalization is the adjustment in case-marking — indeed, in grammatical relations — of the major nominal participants, from subject or object in the finite verbal clause to genitive (‘possessor’) in the nominalized NP. As in other GR-changing processes (see chs 13, 14), such an adjustment is bound to create problems in reconstructing the case-roles of the main participants in the event. The typological variation in the way languages handle clausal nominalization may be viewed as different solutions to this recoverability problem. 11.7.2.2.1
The double-genitive strategy (English). Consider the following examples of various nominalized clauses in English: (100) a. b. c. d. e. f.

The enemy’s destruction of the city The destruction of the city This destruction of the city The city’s destruction The city’s growth The growth of the city

When the verb is transitive and both its subject and object are overtly expressed (100a), the subject claims the pre-nominal (‘Anglo-Saxon’) genitive determiner position, the object the post-nominal (‘Norman’) genitive position. Participant roles are thus differentiated well by both morphology and word-order. When the transitive subject is left unexpressed but is anaphorically accessible, the nominalization requires another determiner — a definite article (100b), a demonstrative (100c), or the object itself in the pre-nominal genitive determiner position (100d). When the verb is intransitive, the subject may occupy either one of the genitive positions (100e,f ). And if it occupies the post-nominal genitive slot, again another determiner must be used (100f). The patterns in (100b–d), with the transitive subject missing, may be augmented by overtly expressing the subject as agent-of-passive, as in:

Noun phrases

33

(101) a. The destruction of the city by the enemy b. The city’s destruction by the enemy Next, English also has a more finite nominalization pattern, in which the verb takes one of two participial forms, imperfective or perfect. In this pattern, only the subject can assume the genitive determiner role. The object retains its finite-clause accusative form: (102) Transitive a. His destroying the city like that (is a shock) b. Her leaving him (was unexpected) c. Her having left him (created quite a sensation) Intransitive d. Their growing old together (was no surprise) Pattern (102) is less disruptive in terms of case-role confusion, potentially affecting only the subject. Finally, English also has another, more finite pattern, with the verb marked with the infinitive to-. In this pattern, the subject cannot be marked as genitive any more, but either takes the object form with the prepositional combination for…to, or is an anaphoric zero: (103) Transitive a. for him to destroy the city like this… b. to destroy the city like this… Intransitive c. for them to grow old together… d. to grow old together… 11.7.2.2.2
The single-genitive strategy (Biblical Hebrew). Many languages have only one genitive slot in the NP. In such languages, the tendency is for the subject to lay first claim to the genitive role in nominalized NPs. An echo of this tendency may be already seen in English, in the sense that if only one genitive is used in a nominalized transitive clause with an overt subject, the subject lays first claim to it: (104) a. b. c. d. e.

His killing Joe was a shock *He killing of Joe was a shock *He Joe’s killing was a shock *His Joe’s killing was a shock Joe’s killing was a shock

In a language with a single genitive slot, the subject’s prior claim on the genitive case is absolute. As an illustration, consider Biblical Hebrew: (105) a. b-yom ’asot Yhwh ’elohim ’erets v-shamayim on-day-of making-of YHWH God land and-sky ‘on the day when God made earth and heaven’ (lit.: ‘on the day of God’s creating earth and heaven’) (Gen. 2:4)

34

Syntax

b. ki b-yom ’axol-xa mimen-o mot ta-mut conj on-day/of eating-your from-it death you/irr-die ‘for on the day when you ate from it, you’ll die’ (lit.: ‘for on the day of your eating from it, you’ll die’) (Gen. 2:17) c. l-bilti hofx-i ’et-ha-’ir to-neg turning/of-my acc-the-city ‘so that I will not devastate the city’ (lit.: ‘to forego my devastating the city’) (Gen. 19:21) d. ’ad-shuv-xa ’el-ha-’adama till-return/of-your to-the-soil ‘until you return to the soil’ (lit.: ‘until your return to the soil’) (Gen. 3:19) The constraint that bars non-subjects from occupying the genitive position in nominalized transitive clauses is so strong in Biblical Hebrew, that when the subject is left unexpressed, the clause must be rendered in the passive voice, with the patient now being the subject and claiming the genitive role: (106) a. b-hib-bar’-am in-pass-creation/of-their ‘when they were created’ (lit.: ‘on their being created’) (Gen. 2:4) b. b-him-mol-o bsar ’orlat-o on-pass-circumcision/of-his flesh/of foreskin-his ‘when his foreskin was circumcised’ (lit.: ‘on his foreskin’s being circumcised’) (Gen. 17:18) 11.7.3 Nominalization and indirect objects As Comrie and Thompson (1985) note, indirect objects universally retain their original finite-clause case-marking in nominalization: (107) a. b. c. d. e.

His objection to the proposal Her departure from the university The sending of aid to Ethiopia Their success through intimidation The trapping of coyotes with metal traps

When a non-patient is promoted to direct object, it cannot partake in any type of nominalizations as a post-nominal genitive. Thus compare:

Noun phrases

(108) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

35

The giving of money to charity is encouraged Giving money to charity is encouraged *The giving of charity money is encouraged Giving charities money is encouraged The showing of exhibits to special customers was common Showing exhibits to special customers is common *The showing of special customers exhibits is common Showing special customers exhibits is common

One may interpret this restriction as an attempt to recruit the genitive case in the nominalized clause to code, as much as possible, the underlying semantic case-role of patient, rather than the grammatical/pragmatic case-role of direct-object. 11.7.4 Nominalization and noun complements So far, we have considered only nominalized clauses with nominal arguments — subject, direct object or indirect object. Such clauses are easier to adapt to NP grammar via remarking the subject and/or direct object as genitive modifiers. But nominalization can and often does introduce into the NP rather incongruous constituents, such as case-marked direct and indirect objects. When the verb to be nominalized takes a verbal (clausal) complement, that complement is transported into the nominalized clause with little structural adjustment, becoming an even less prototypical constituent of a noun phrase. Such constituents are sometime called noun complements. Thus consider: (109) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

He wanted to leave fi His wanting to leave He let go of the knife fi His letting go of the knife She made him wash the floors fi Her making him wash the floor She told him to shape up fi Her telling him to shape up She did it to save Joe fi Her doing it to save Joe She wished that he would come back fi Her wish that he would come back He discovered that she was blind fi His discovery that she was blind He shouted: “Watch out!” fi His shouting: “Watch out!”

There is peculiar construction in English that shows a deceptive structural similarity to noun complements such as (109f–h): (110) a. The fact (that) she knew him didn’t surprise me b. The idea (that) he could lose finally occurred to him It may well be that the existence of such constructions is but another indication that an entrenched syntactic pattern — in this case that of nominalizations with noun complements — can be extended analogically even in the absence of a corresponding syntactic ‘source’.

36

Syntax

11.7.5 Word-order in nominalized clauses We have already noted (Vol. I, Ch. 5) that in a number of languages, word-order in subordinate clauses differs from the unmarked word-order in main clauses. To the extent that subordinate clauses are nominalized in such a language, word-order in nominalized clauses may then differ from that in the finite verbal clause. 11.7.6 Verb-phrase nominalizations So far, we have considered only nominalizations of full clauses, with either an overtlyexpressed or zero-anaphoric subject. But a well-known class of nominalizations applies only to verb phrases. Such nominalizations may superficially resemble those with zero-anaphoric subject (see (100) above). But most typically they depict generic events, and typically with an impersonal subject (‘passive’) or an impersonal object (‘antipassive’). Thus consider: (111) a. Real event, anaphoric subject The sacking of Troy (by the Greeks) b. Irrealis event, impersonal subject Sacking Troy (would be quite a task) c. Generic event, impersonal subject and object The sacking of cities (is to be discouraged) d. Impersonal subject and object Sacking cities (is a chore) e. Object-incorporating pattern City-sacking (is a dangerous job) In other languages, the two types of VP nominalization are formally a bit more distinct. Thus in Ute, the nominalizing suffix -ta marks impersonal-subject nominalizations (passive), and object incorporation marks impersonal-object nominalization (antipassive): (112) a. Finite clause sarich yoghobu =ch-i pakha-pu =ga dog/subj coyote-obj kill-rem ‘the dog killed the coyote’ b. Nominalized VP, anaphoric subject yoghobu =ch-i pakha-vaa-ch (‘ásti-kya) coyote-obj kill-irr-nom want-perf ‘(s/he wanted) to kill the coyote’ c. Nominalized VP, impersonal subject yoghobu =ch-i pakha-ta coyote-obj kill-nom/pass Ï
‘the killing of the coyote’ ¸
 Ì ‘someone killed the coyote’ ˝ Ó ‘the coyote was killed’ ˛




Noun phrases

37

d. Nominalized VP, impersonal subject and object yoghobu =-pakha-ta coyote-kill-nom ‘coyote-killing’, ‘the killing of coyotes’ ‘someone kills coyotes’ One may view the availability of more extensive nominalizing morphology and object incorporation as part of the grammatical arsenal with which a language may grammaticalize more distinctly various sub-types of nominalization.

Notes 1. In the grammaticalization of a word into a morpheme, structural change is much slower than functional reanalysis. Consequently, unstressed clitics appear to behave, at least by some criteria, as stress-bearing words. In principle, however, grammatical morphemes should not be treated formally as syntactic constituents. Even early in their diachronic trajectory, profound changes in their semantic or pragmatic scope are evident. Their physical location within the linear structure thus reflects rather poorly their operator-operand scope relations, making the whole issue of constituency rather convoluted. 2. See discussion of so-called ‘non-configurationality’ in Vol. I, Ch. 5. 3. In this particular case, disjunctive choice is not absolute, since in principle more that one postnominal modifier may occur in the same noun phrase. The most common violation of this rule involves multiple relative clauses. 4. Ute compounds, like those of English, carry only one primary lexical stress. 5. As noted in our discussion of so-called ‘non-configurationality’ (Vol. I, Ch. 5), the supposed differences in word-order flexibility and NP-scattering between ‘configurational’ and ‘nonconfigurational’ languages are yet to be documented with comparative text-frequency figures (Givón 1999). 6. If the main verb is implicative, as in (94d), an imperfective complement cannot combine with a perfective main verb, a combination that is acceptable with non-implicative main verbs (94f).



Chapter 12

Verbal complements and clause union

12.1

Introduction This chapter deals primarily with clausal — or verbal — complements of verbs. The general semantic and syntactic classification of complement-taking verbs has been given earlier (Vol. I, §3.3.7). Defined in the broadest semantic terms, verbal complements (V-Comp) are clauses that function as subject or object arguments of other clauses. But the resemblance between verbal complements and nominal arguments is only partial, and many languages distinguish syntactically between the two types of construction (see §11.7). At best, one may say that verbal complements are constructed by analogy with clausal subjects and objects. The complement clauses we deal with here are primarily those that are analogous to clausal objects. That the analogy is not spurious is evident from systematic polysemy of complement-taking verbs, most of which can take both a verbal complement and a bona fide nominal object. That is:1 (1) a. b. c. d. e. f.

She wanted an apple She wanted to eat the apple They made a chair They made her eat the apple He knew Mary He knew that Mary ate the apple

Since the prototype subject or object is nominal, it is only natural that complement clauses, even when not fully nominalized, should display some facets of non-finite, nominalized syntax. In this sense, our treatment of the syntax of complementation builds up rather naturally on our earlier discussion of finiteness (§11.7). A major theme of this chapter is the systematic isomorphism obtaining between the semantic and syntactic dimensions of complementation. Indeed, the grammar of complementation furnishes one of the best, and cross-linguistically most reliable, examples of iconicity in syntax (Haiman 1985a,b; Givón 1991a). The isomorphism between the syntax and semantics of complementation involves the two parallel dimensions: event integration (‘semantic bond’) •
semantic:
syntactic: clause integration (‘clause union’). • Our general prediction of iconicity may be given as the following principle:

40

Syntax

(2) Event integration and clause union The stronger is the semantic bond between the two events, the more extensive will be the syntactic integration of the two clauses into a single though complex clause. While principle (2) does not apply only to complementation, it certainly finds in it one of its most conspicuous expressions. Another general reflection of principle (2) is that syntactic complexity — the embedding of one clause inside another — is but a natural consequence of cognitive-semantic complexity — nesting one event inside another. We will begin by outlining the major semantic dimensions of event integration, that is the strength of the bond between the two events coded in the main and complement clause. We will then turn to the syntactic dimensions of clause integration, showing the isomorphism between the semantic and syntactic dimensions of complementation. We will lastly discuss the cross-language typological variability of clause-union, the general syntactic process of which complementation is but an instance, albeit a central one. Rather than undermining universality, our survey of typological diversity in the grammar of complementation points out to the existence of a small inventory of universal coding devices that, when combined together, yield varying degrees of clause-union. Some of these devices reflect, rather transparently, cognitive universals. Others are more conventionalized, i.e. grammaticalized. The two types most commonly intertwine in the overall grammar of complementation, as they are in the grammar of other complex syntactic constructions (Givón 1991a). As elsewhere, the apparent typological diversity in the grammar of complementation arises out of two primary sources which often interact. First, individual languages may make differential use of universally-available coding devices. Second, individual languages may display differential coding density along the very same cognitive-semantic continuum.

12.2

Event integration

12.2.1 The overall scale In this section we deal with the cognitive-semantic dimensions of complementation, which turn out to correlate closely with the semantic properties of the main verb. Our discussion here extends the rough semantic classification given earlier (Vol. I, §3.3.7). As noted there, the syntactic structure of clauses is dictated to a large extent by the semantic case-frame — argument structure — of the verbs that sit at their core. And verbal complements are just one type of argument — albeit a complex one — of the main clause. As noted in our earlier discussion, complement-taking verbs fall into three major classes: verbs •
Modality (‘want’, ‘begin’, ‘finish’, ‘try’ etc.) verbs •
Manipulation (‘make’, ‘tell’, ‘order’, ‘ask’ etc.)

Verbal complements and clause union

41

(PCU) verbs •
Perception-cognition-utterance (‘see’, ‘know’, ‘think’, ‘say’ etc.) The semantic dimension of event-integration that underlies the grammar of complementation — the semantic bond between the two events — is profoundly scalar, a fact that can be easily demonstrated for each of the three verb classes. But the scale appears to be a unified seamless continuum, with modality verbs and manipulation verbs running in parallel from the top to mid-scale, showing roughly the same semantic and syntactic transitions. Around mid-scale, both classes shade gradually into PCU verbs, which then span the bottom portion of the scale. The shape of the overall scale thus resembles that of a tuningfork: (3) PCU verbs

modality verbs

manipulation verbs Weakest Bond

Strongest Bond

We will illustrate the scale first with the gradual transition between manipulation verbs and PCU verbs. The relation between the main and complement clause may be given in terms of two broad prototypes, one semantic, the other syntactic. For manipulation verbs first: (4) Semantic prototype of manipulation verbs
The agent of the main verb manipulates the behavior of the manipulee, a potential agent.
The manipulee of the main verb is coreferent with the agent of the complement verb.
The complement clause codes the target event to be performed by the manipulee. (5) Syntactic prototype of manipulation verbs
The agent-manipulator of the main verb is the subject of the main-clause.
The manipulee of the main verb is either the direct object or indirect object of the main clause.
The manipulee of the main verb is also the subject of the complement clause.
The manipulee-subject of the complement clause is coded as zero in the complement clause.
The complement-clause verb most commonly displays less-finite or nominalized morphology.
The complement clause tends to occupy a typical object position in the main clause (OV or VO).
The complement clause tends to fall under a unified intonation contour with the main clause.

• • • • • • • • • •

42

Syntax

An example of such a structure is: (6) She told Marvin to leave The tree diagram corresponding to (6) is: (7) Tree-diagram for manipulative verbs S VP

Subj V

Obj

Comp [S] Subj

VP V

She

told

Marvin

[Ø]

to-leave

The semantic and syntactic prototypes of PCU verbs are, respectively: (8) Semantic prototype of PCU verbs
The verb in the main clause codes either a mental state or event of perception or cognition, or a verbal act of utterance.
The subject of the verb is either a dative an agent.
The state or event coded in the complement is analogous to the patient of the main-clause verb.

• • •

The syntactic definition of PCU verbs is: (9) Syntactic prototype of PCU verbs
No coreference restrictions hold between the main and complement clause.
The complement clause is more likely to have the normal main-clause finite structure, with a fully expressed subject and finite verb morphology.
The two clauses may be separated by a subordinator morpheme.
The two clauses may fall under separate intonation contours.

• • • •

A typical example of a PCU verb with its complement is: (10) He knew that she hated fish The tree diagram corresponding to (10) is:

Verbal complements and clause union

43

(11) Tree-diagram for PCU verbs S VP

Subj V

Comp [S] Subj

He

knew

that- she

VP V

Obj

hated

Wsh

We will begin the discussion by ranking a representative sample of manipulation and PCU verbs in English according to their position along the event-integration (‘semantic bond’) scale. (12) The complementation scale Semantic scale of verbs

Syntax of Comp-clause

a. She let go of the knife

co-lexicalized Comp

b. She made him shave c. She let him go home d. She had him arrested

bare-stem Comp

e. f. g. h. i. j.

infinitive Comp

She caused him to switch jobs She told him to leave She asked him to leave She allowed him to leave She wanted him to leave She’d like him to leave

k. She’d like for him to leave

for-to Comp

l. She suggested that he leave m. She wished that he would leave n. She agreed that he should leave

subjunctive Comp

o. She knew that he left p. She said that he might leave later

indirect quote Comp.

q. She said: “He might leave later”

direct quote Comp.

The finely graduated semantic transition on the left in (12) is matched by the much more discrete but still graded syntactic scale of complementation on the right.

44

Syntax

12.2.2 Semantic dimensions of event integration 12.2.2.1
Successful vs. intended manipulation In our earlier discussion of manipulation verbs (Vol. I, §3.3.7), we divided them into two groups, implicative and non-implicative. This logic-based distinction (Karttunen 1970, 1971, 1974) translates into, respectively successful vs. intended manipulation. Thus, in (12) above, (12a–e) code successful manipulations, which may be couched in the logical terms of implication: (13) Successful (‘implicative’) manipulation verbs If the main-clause state/event is true, then the complement-clause state/event must also be true. On the other hand, (12f–n) code intended manipulations that were not necessarily successful, for which implication (13) does not necessarily hold. While the logical division of implicative vs. non-implicative has been indeed useful, it has severe limits. To begin with, it cannot predict the cross-language typological variability of syntactic coding-points that span the manipulative range of the scale. Indeed, it cannot even predict the five coding-points that span the manipulative range in English (12a–n), nor even the three coding-points spanning the implicative range in English (12a–e). What is more, the logic-bound analysis tends to obscure the major semantic-cognitive sub-dimensions of event integration that do not reduce directly onto logical implication. The first three of those go to the very heart of eventhood, and the last three to the very heart of agentivity: (temporal integration) •
co-temporality
direct contact (spatial •
co-reference (referentialintegration) integration) •
intentionality •
control •
coercive power • Since these sub-dimensions are not fully independent of each other, we will discuss them below in terms of their pair-wise interactions, couching those in terms of pragmatic inference.2 12.2.2.2
Co-temporality and success The verbs at the top of our complementation scale (12a–e) are indeed logically implicative, but the relation between the two events also involves, beyond logical implication, temporal dependence. When the main verb is implicative, the two events are either co-temporal or tightly sequential. And co-temporality is a major cognitive pre-condition for construing the doings of two or more participants as a single event. This precondition may be couched in terms of the pragmatic inference:

Verbal complements and clause union

(14) Co-temporality and unified eventhood The more co-temporal the two events are, the higher is the probability that they are not independent of each other, but rather constitute a single if complex event. Inference (14) predicts the infelicity of the temporally-dispersed (15a) below for the implicative ‘make’, but not for the non-implicative ‘ask’: (15) a. *Yesterday she made him shave today b. Yesterday she asked him to shave today 12.2.2.3
Succes and agentive control Another major semantic sub-dimension relevant to the grammar of complementation is the degree of control, choice or independence ceded by the main-clause agent to the complement-clause agent/manipulee. In a successful manipulation (12a–e), the mainclause agent imposes his/her will over the manipulee, who thus displays less control, less choice, less independence of action. Such a manipulee is more patient-like, less agent-like. In contrast, the manipulee of non-implicative verbs (12f–n) is conceded more choice, control and independence, and thus resembles more closely a prototype agent. This may be couched in terms of the pragmatic inference: (16) Agentivity and manipulative success The more successful a manipulation is, the less control does the manipulee have, and the less agent-like s/he is. Inference (16) predicts the infelicity of (17a) with the implicative ‘make’, as against the felicity of (17b) with the non-implicative ‘ask’: (17) a. *She made him shave but he refused b. She asked him to shave but he refused 12.2.2.4
Intentionality and agentive control Consider next the contrast between the two equally implicative ‘make’ and ‘cause’: (18) a. John made Mary quit her job b. John caused Mary to quit her job In terms of their logical implication, the two seem rather alike. However, their compatibility with adverbs of intent is exactly the opposite: (19) a. b. c. d.

John deliberately made Mary quit her job *John inadvertently made Mary quit her job ?John deliberately caused Mary to quit her job John inadvertently caused Mary to quit her job

The manipulating agent of ‘make’, it appears, always retains control, while that of ‘cause’ does not. Our analysis is further supported by the use of intent adverbs in the complement clause. Such use is tolerated in the complement of ‘cause’, but not in the complement of ‘make’:

45

46

Syntax

(20) a. *John made Mary deliberately quit her job b. John caused Mary to deliberately quit her job The manipulee of ‘make’, it appears, retains no intentionality or control, but the manipulee of ‘cause’ does. The differences in intentionality and control between ‘make’ and ‘cause’ may be further amplified by the fact that the subject of ‘cause’ may be a non-agent, say a nominalized clause, while the subject of ‘make’ must be an agent: (21) a. *John’s behavior made Mary quit her job b. John’s behavior caused Mary to quit her job c. John’s behavior caused Mary to deliberately quit her job In light of the discussion above, let us now turn to examine the position of ‘let’ at the top of the English complementation scale (12a). One characteristic of this ‘let-V’ expression in English is that the object need not be a conscious, intending, acting agent. To drive this point home, contrast ‘let’ at the top of the scale (12a) with ‘let’ in (12c): (22) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j.

She let go of him She let go of his arm She let him go all by himself *She let go of him all by himself She let him go where he wanted *She let go of him where he wanted She let him go screaming and cussing She let go of him screaming and cussing She let go of him like a sack of potatoes *She let him go like a sack of potatoes

Expression (22d) is odd because all by himself tends to suggest, at the very least, a vestige of independent motivation. Likewise (22f) is odd because where he wanted suggests residual independent motivation. In (22g) screaming and cussing can refer to the manipulee ‘him’, but in (22h) it is more likely to refer to the manipulator ‘she’. Finally, (22j) is odd because like a sack of potatoes suggests a non-agentive ‘go’, compatible with ‘let go’, indeed compatible with (12a)/(22i) but not with ‘let… go’ (12c)/(22j). 12.2.2.5
Agentive control and temporal integration The difference in control carries with it, by some subtle and perhaps indirect pragmatic inference, other differences. For example, the complements of ‘make’ seem to require cotemporality, while those of ‘cause’ do not: (23) a. b. c. d.

Two years ago John finally made Mary quit her job. John made Mary quit her job finally yesterday. *Two years ago John made Mary finally quit her job yesterday. John’s behavior two years ago caused Mary to finally quit her job yesterday.

Verbal complements and clause union

The interaction between agentive control and co-temporality may be given as the pragmatic inference: (24) Agentive control and temporal integration If the manipulee is acting under their own motivation and control, they can act in their own good time. The subject of ‘cause’, unlike the subject of ‘make’, is thus not the causer of the manipulee’s behavior but rather the chosen reason for the manipulee’s self-controlled behavior. 12.2.2.6
Direct contact and spatio-temporal integration Consider next the contrast between two equally implicative manipulation verbs, ‘make’ and ‘have’: (25) Context: He wasn’t in the room when she entered, a. *so she made him come in b. so she had him come in The verb ‘make’ implies direct contact between the manipulator and the manipulee. It is a direct manipulation verb. The equally implicative ‘have’ does not imply such contact. It is an indirect manipulation verb. The difference between the two is further underscored by the differential acceptability of passive complements, admissible for ‘have’ but not for ‘make’: (26) a. She had him brought in (by her bodyguards) b. *She made him brought in (by her bodyguards) The manipulee in (26a) is not directly manipulated by the manipulator-agent of ‘have’, but rather by the intermediary agent-of-passive of the complement. Since ‘make’ implies direct manipulative contact, a passive complement as in (26b), with the implication of an intermediary agent, is infelicitous. The very same semantic contrast may be shown at a lower, non-implicative portion of the scale, between ‘want’ and ‘wish’. In English, ‘want’ is used rather consistently when the probability of direct communication between manipulator and manipulee — i.e. direct manipulative contact — is higher. ‘Wish’, on the other hand, is used when that probability is lower. Out of context, the meanings of the two seem rather alike: (27) a. She wanted him to hurry b. She wished that he would hurry Indeed, earlier Generative descriptions considered the direct object of ‘want’ in (27a) as an instance of syntactic raising, out of an initial deep-structure resembling (27b). The meaning difference between ‘want’ and ‘wish’ emerges once discourse context is provided. In the context of direct contact, ‘want’ seems preferable to ‘wish’: (28) Context: We kept arguing for an hour, a. I wanted her to quit, but she said she wouldn’t. b. ?I wished that she would quit but she said she wouldn’t.

47

48

Syntax

In contrast, in the context of no direct contact ‘wish’ seems preferable to ‘want’: (29) Context: He left a week earlier. Now, sitting there all alone, a. she wished that he had come back. b. she wished that he would come back. c. ?she wanted him to come back. 12.2.2.7
Direct contact and success Examples (29) also illustrate an inferential connection between direct manipulative contact and the probability of success. Note first that the complement of ‘wish’ can take either an irrealis (29b) or counter-fact (29a) modality. On the other hand, the complement of ‘want’ (28a) can only be interpreted as irrealis. When one communicates one’s wishes directly, as in ‘want’, the desired state/event is more likely to be in the realm of possibility, thus irrealis. When one’s wish is not communicated, the desired state/event may either be possible, thus irrealis (29b), or remain unrealized, thus counter-fact (29a). The non-implicative pairs ‘tell’ vs. ‘insist’ and ‘allow’ vs. ‘agree’ seem to contrast the same way: (30) a. b. c. d. e. f.

She told him to leave She insisted that he must leave She insisted that he could have left (but didn’t) She allowed him to leave She agreed that he could leave She agreed that he could have left (but didn’t)

In (30a,d) the probability of direct communication between manipulator and manipulee is higher, while (30b,c,e,f ) are more likely to have involved indirect manipulation. Again, indirect manipulation is compatible with counter-fact (30c,f ), while direct manipulation isn’t (30a,d). The interaction between direct manipulative contact and manipulative success may be given as the pragmatic inference: (31) Direct contact and manipulative success The more direct the manipulation is, the more likely it is to succeed. 12.2.2.8
Resistance, coercion and success Both ‘make’ and ‘force’ code intended, direct, successful manipulation. Nevertheless ‘force’ is ranked below ‘make’ on the syntactic complementation scale. At first glance, such ranking seems counter-intuitive, given that the agent of ‘force’ exerts higher manipulative effort, and is thus in a sense more agentive. To resolve this seeming contradiction, one must revisit the question of the manipulee’s residual independence and control. As suggested earlier above, the lower a verb is on the complementation scale, the more choice, control and independence is ceded to the manipulee. And independence implies the ability to resist manipulation. The coercive ‘force’ implies that the manipulation is meeting stiff resistance. Thus compare:

Verbal complements and clause union

(32) Context: He wasn’t putting up much of a fight, a. so they went ahead and made him do it. b. ?so they went ahead and forced him to do it. The interaction between resistance and coercive force may be expressed in terms of the pragmatic inference: (33) Resistance, coercion and success If the manipulee has the power and will to resist, then
the manipulator must resort to coercive force; and
the probability of successful manipulation is lower.

• •

12.2.2.9
Successful causation vs. co-temporality So far, the impression may have been given that causation or successful ‘implicative’ manipulation are core semantic dimensions underlying the upper portion of our complementation scale. But there are grounds for suspecting that the involvement of these features in complementation, and their apparent predictive power, is mediated rather than direct. Consider the position of the verb ‘see’ at three points on our complementation scale (12). The first two are syntactically akin to ‘make’ (12b), the third syntactically akin to PCU verbs (10L-q): (34) a. She saw him come out of the theater b. She saw him coming out of the theater c. She saw that he came out of the theater No manipulation, successful or otherwise, is involved in (34a,b). Nevertheless these expressions are logically implicative. Note, further, that (34a,b) contrast with (34c) in two important respects. First, in (34a,b), the two events — ‘see’ and ‘come out’ — are cotemporal, another core ingredient of single eventhood. In (34c), on the other hand, the two events need not have been co-temporal. Second, ‘see’ in (34a,b) is a perception verb, but in (34c) it is a cognition verb of inference or reflection. Perception is co-temporal with the perceived event. Cognition need not be co-temporal with the cognized event: (35) a. b. c. d. e.

She saw that he had come out already She saw that it would be a while before he came out She saw that he would never come out *Yesterday she saw him come out today *Today she saw him coming out yesterday

It thus seems that the fundamental feature that places a verb higher on our complementation scale is neither causation nor logical implication per se. Both of these are but instances of the more general dimension of co-temporality — the spatio-temporal integration of two events into a single if complex event.

49

50

Syntax

12.2.2.10
Referential integration Consider again the three-way contrast in (34), reproduced below: (34) a. She saw him come out of the theater (> He came) (*> She came) b. She saw him coming out of the theater (> He came) (> She came) c. She saw that he came out of the theater In (34a), the subject of the complement verb must be coreferential with the object of the main verb. In (34b), it can be co-referential with either the subject or the object of the main verb. In (34c) no co-reference between arguments of the main and complement clause is required. More broadly, we have already noted that verbs that occupy the two upper branches of our scale — modality and manipulation verbs — impose rigid co-reference restrictions between main and complement clause. PCU verbs at the bottom portion of the scale do not. The top of our complementation scale is thus characterized not only by a higher level of spatial and temporal integration, but also a higher degree of referential integration of the two events. The interaction between referential cohesion and event integration may be expressed as the pragmatic inference: (36) Referential cohesion and event integration The more two events share their referents, the more likely they are to be construed as a single event. 12.2.2.11
Manipulative speech-acts So far, we have only considered reported manipulations packaged in declarative speechacts. But the very same constructions can also be used in direct manipulative speech-acts. When so used, the relative ranking of constructions on our complementation scale (12) correlates well with their ranking as manipulative speech-acts. Constructions that are higher on scale (12) tend to be used as more direct, authoritarian, coercive speech-acts. Those lower on the scale tend to be used as indirect, tentative, softer speech-acts. To illustrate this, consider again the contrast between ‘want’ and ‘wish’, this time as manipulative speech-acts: (37) a. I want you to stop harassing her, (i) …immediately! (ii) …?it’s so unnecessary. b. I wish that you’d stop harassing her, (i) …?immediately! (ii) …it’s so unnecessary.

Verbal complements and clause union

Expression (37a) is a stronger direct manipulation, (37b) a weaker one bordering on a mere wish. In the same vein, consider the two possible complements of ‘expect’, one with a ‘raised’ manipulee and an infinitive complement (38a), the other with an unraised manipulee and a subjunctive complement (38b): (38) a. I expect you to be done by noon, (i) …so get on with it! (ii) …?if you don’t mind. b. I expect that you should be done by noon, (i) …?so get on with it! (ii) …?if you don’t mind. (iii) …if everything goes on schedule. Expression (38a) is a more direct manipulation. Expression (38b) is much less direct and borders on mere prediction. Consider lastly the contrast between the infinitive to complement form (12j), and the for-to form (12k). When used as manipulative speech-acts, the two reveal the same relative ranking as in (12): (39) a.

I’d like you to (i) …leave right away. (ii) …?be able to leave when you’re ready. b. I’d like for you to (i) …leave right away. (ii) …be able to leave when you’re ready.

The softer, less coercive (39b) is compatible with both the more authoritative infinitival complement (i) and the more accommodating modal-subjunctive complement (ii). The more coercive in (39a) is much less compatible with the modal-subjunctive (ii). 12.2.3 The lower portions of the complementation scale 12.2.3.1
From preference to epistemics We turn now to discuss the bottom portion of our complementation scale, occupied by PCU verbs. One of the best arguments for the existence of a unified scale in (12) involves the gradual semantic and syntactic transition, or overlap, found in the mid-section of the scale. This transition involves two segments of the syntactic scale: complements •
infinitival
subjunctive complements. • One way gradual transition manifests itself is through the presence of the same or similar verbs (or verb senses) on both sides of the syntactic divide. Thus, the volitional ‘want’ (12i) has its weaker counterpart in ‘wish’ (12m). The permissive ‘allow’ (12h) has its weaker counterpart in ‘agree’ (12n). And the manipulative ‘tell’ with an infinitive complement (12f) may appear with a subjunctive complement, much like its weaker relative ‘suggest’ (12L).

51

52

Syntax

The overlap between the subjunctive and indicative indirect-quote portions of the scale is just as striking. Along that segment, the deontic modality of preference shades off into the epistemic modality of certainty, belief or evidence. Thus, ‘suggest’ (10L) may be complemented by either the subjunctive complement of manipulation (40a), or the subjunctive of uncertainty (40b) (Vol. I, Chs 6,7): (40) a. Deontic (weak manipulation) She suggested that John leave right away. b. Epistemic (lower certainty) She suggested that John may have left earlier. Likewise with ‘agree’ (12n): (41) a. Deontic (weak manipulation) She agreed that he should leave immediately b. Epistemic (lower certainty) She agreed that he may have left already Prototype PCU verbs such as ‘think’, ‘know’ and ‘say’ display a similar transition, though perhaps at a lower point on the scale: (42) a. Deontic (subjunctive-modal complement) He said/thought/knew that she should leave b. Epistemic (indicative complement) He said/thought/knew that she had left Another subtle transition may be seen in deontic uses of ‘wish’, ‘hope’, ‘fear’, ‘suppose’ or ‘guess’. ‘Wish’, ‘hope’ and ‘fear’ are commonly used as preference verbs, with modalsubjunctive complementation: (43) a. She hoped that he would come b. She was afraid that he wouldn’t come c. She wished that he would come But the same verbs may also be used when the complement codes an event that had already occurred though its epistemic status is yet unresolved: (44) a. She wished that he had arrived on time b. She hoped that he did arrive on time c. She was afraid that he might not have arrived on time The semantic shift between (43) and (44) is indeed subtle — from preference for stillpossible future events (43) to epistemic anxiety about past events whose epistemic status is yet unresolved (44). This shift makes it possible for languages such as English and Spanish to use the very same subjunctive form to code both the deontics of preference and the epistemics of uncertainty (Vol. I, §7.9.3). The overlap of lexical verbs is a compelling argument for the unity of our complementation scale, and for following reason. Diachronic extension of both meaning and form

Verbal complements and clause union

tends to proceed gradually along contiguous portions of a continuum, driven by analogy and similarity. The pervasive overlap in lexical verbs along the infinitive, subjunctive and indirect-quote portions of our complementation scale suggests a continuous semantic gradation. 12.2.3.2
From cognition to utterance The last two steps on the complementation scale involve first the transition from cognition to utterance verbs, and second from indirect-quote to indirect-quote. The first step may be viewed as a move from internal speech to external speech.3 In spite of the similarities between indirect-quote constructions of cognition and utterance verbs, subtle differences persist. To begin with, the subject of ‘think’ or ‘know’ retains considerable epistemic commitment to the complement proposition, in a way that the subject of ‘say’ does not. This fact is well noted in the grammar of evidentiality (Vol. I, Ch. 6). Thus compare:
ϸ knew a. *She thought he left, though she Ì˝ he didn’t thought Ó˛ knew ϸ b. *She knew he left, though she Ì˝ he didn’t thought Ó˛
ϸ
knew c. She said he left, though she Ì˝
he didn’t
thought Ó˛ Tense–aspect restrictions between main and complement clause with ‘know’/‘think’ vs. ‘say’ are subtly different. Tense agreement — thus a unified perspective or deictic integration — seems to be more strictly required for ‘know’ and ‘think’ than for ‘say’: (45)

(46) a. b. c. d.

I knew she was coming *I knew she is coming I knew she had come *I knew she has come

(47) a. b. c. d.

I said she was coming I said she is coming I said she had come I said she has come

While seemingly independent clauses with their own finite verb, the complements of cognition verbs exhibit higher temporal and deictic integration with the main clause than do the complements of ‘say’. 12.2.3.3
From indirect to direct quote The transition from indirect- to direct-quote complementation signals the final decoupling of the two propositions. No temporal-deictic constraints bind the two clauses, thus no vestige of tense agreement. Likewise deixis and perspective are now fully decoupled: The speaker retains deictic responsibility for the main clause, the subject of ‘say’ controls the deixis of the complement:

53

54

Syntax

(48) a. She said that I was a crook (I = me, who’s telling this to you) b. She said: “I was a crook” (I = she, who said that) c. She said that this book is good (this book = the one we’re looking at now) d. She said: “This book is good” (this book = the one she was looking at then) e. She said that now is as good a time as any (now = when we are talking now) f. She said: “You better quit now” (now = when she was talking then) The control of the tense-agreement option has also subtly shifted: (49) a. b. c. d.

She said he had disappeared She said: “He had disappeared” She said he has disappeared She said: “He has disappeared”

In both (49a) and (49c) the time-axis for ‘had’ and ‘has’ is now, when I am talking to you. In (49b) and (49d) the time-axis is then, when she was talking to whoever. This de-coupling of deictic perspective in direct-quote constructions entails maximal separation between main- and complement-clause events. The opening of a direct quotation is akin to initiating another universe of discourse. The two events coded in the main and complement clause exist, in some sense, in two separate universes of discourse, in spite of the fact that one (complement) is embedded within the other (main). The gradual cognitive-semantic transition along the complementation scale involves the following main steps: (50) The complementation scale from manipulation to PCU verbs a. successful intended causation b. intended active attempted manipulation c. preference/aversion d. epistemic anxiety e. epistemic certainty/uncertainty f. indirect-quoted utterance g. direct-quoted utterance 12.2.4 Modality verbs 12.2.4.1
Overview Modality verbs span roughly the same upper portion of the complementation scale as manipulation verbs. The parallelism between the two verb types is both semantic and

Verbal complements and clause union

55

syntactic. The semantic and syntactic relation between a modality verb and its complement may be given in terms of two broad prototypes, respectively: (51) Semantic prototype of modality verbs
The main-clause verb codes the aspectual (inception, termination, continuation, success, failure) or modal (attempt, intent, obligation, ability, possibility) action, state or attitude of its subject vis-a-vis the event/state coded in the complement clause.
The subject of the main clause is co-referent to the subject of the complement clause. (52) Syntactic prototype of modality verbs
The subject of the main verb is also the subject of the complement clause.
The subject the complement clause is zero-coded.
The complement-clause verb is commonly non-finite or nominalized.
The complement clause is analogous to the object of the main clause (OV or VO).
The complement clause tends to fall under a unified intonation contour with the main clause.

• • • • • • •

A typical example of modality verb complementation is: (53) She wanted to eat dinner The tree diagram corresponding to (53) is: (54) Tree diagram for modality-verb complementation S VP

Subj V

Comp [S] Subj

She

wanted

[Ø]

VP V

Obj

to-eat

dinner

In (55) below we illustrate, again with English data, the gradual transition along the complementation scale from modality to PCU verbs. Syntactically, the point of transition here is the very same as in the transition from manipulation to PCU verbs in (12) — verbs of preference or aversion with subjunctive complements (55i).

56

Syntax

(55) The complementation scale from modality to PCU verbs Semantic scale of verbs

Syntax of complement

a. She finished building the house

nominalized Comp

b. c. d. e. f. g.

infinitive Comp

She managed to build the house She tried to build a house She had to build a house She wanted to build a house She planned to build a house She was able to build a house

h. She knew how to build a house

how-to Comp

i. She wished that he would build a house

subjunctive Comp

j. She knew that he built a house

indir. quote Comp

As the cursory survey below will show, the cognitive-semantic features underlying the modality-verb portion of our scale are substantially the same as those which underlie the manipulation-verb segment in (12). 12.2.4.2
Referential cohesion and event integration Modality verbs, in contrast with PCU verbs, impose a strict coreference condition — in this case equi-subject — on their complement clause. The connection between co-reference and event integration has already been noted in (36) above, reproduced below: (36) Referential cohesion and event integration The more two events share their referents, the more likely they are to be construed as a single event. 12.2.4.3
Implicativity The top of the modality-verb scale is occupied by implicative verbs (‘finish’, ‘start’, ‘continue’, ‘complete’, ‘manage’, ‘fail’), contrasting with non-implicative verbs further down the scale (‘want’, ‘be reluctant to’, ‘try’, ‘be able to’, ‘be obligated to’). Thus recall (Vol. I, §3.3.7.1): (56) a. Implicative She finished doing her homework (… She did her homework) b. Neg-implicative She failed to do her homework (… She didn’t do her homework) c. Non-implicative She wanted to do her homework (… / She did her homework) d. Neg-non-implicative She was reluctant to do her homework (… / She didn’t do her homework)

Verbal complements and clause union

The connection between successful manipulation (‘implicativity’) and temporal integration of the two events has been noted above (§12.2.2.1). In English, the more nominal verbform -ing is used mostly in complements of implicative modality verbs. Some of these, like ‘finish’ and ‘stop’, can only take this complement form. In verbs that can take both the -ing and the infinitive to-form, a subtle contrast in implicativity can be discerned: (57) a. Finally, he tried reciting the pledge of allegiance. Ï But the child kept crying. ¸ Ì? ˝ Ó But no sound came out. ˛ b. Finally, he tried to recite the pledge of allegiance, Ï but no sound came out. ¸ Ì? ˝ Ó but the child kept crying. ˛ The inference in (57a) is that the complement event was successfully performed, though it didn’t quite achieve the desired end. The inference in (57b) is that the complement event was attempted without success. In the same vein: (58) a. John started doing the dishes every evening, but then changed his mind. b. John started to do the dishes every evening, but then changed his mind. In (58a) the probability is higher that John changed his mind after doing the dishes for a spell, with ‘start’ thus being implicative. In (58b) the probability is higher that John changed his mind before doing any dishes, with ‘start’ being thus non-implicative. The contrast is more subtle yet with ‘manage’, which is more commonly implicative: (59) a. She barely managed to teach them Spanish that year. b. She barely managed teaching them Spanish that year. In (59a), the completion of the event ‘to teach them Spanish’ had been under some doubt, though it was eventually accomplished — just barely. In (59b), accomplishing the complement event itself was never in doubt. What remained in doubt was whether the accomplishment served its intended higher purpose. 12.2.4.4
Intentionality and success Along the non-implicative portion of the scale, verbs may be ranked in terms of intentional strength, with the order being roughly ‘want’ > ‘intend’ > ‘plan’ > ‘can’. This ranking is again related to successful accomplishment through the pragmatic inference: (60) Intentionality and success The stronger is the actor’s intent, the higher is the probability of success. 12.2.4.5
Habituality, know-how and co-reference The contrast between the infinitival to and how-to complement forms in English illustrates another transition along the scale. With an implicative verb such as ‘remember’, a three-

57

58

Syntax

step transition can be seen, from specific accomplishment, through specific skill, to generic/habitual skill: (61) a. Specific accomplishment (coreferent Comp) She remembered to lock the house b. Specific skill (coreferent Comp) She remembered how to lock the house c. Generic skill (non-coreferent Comp) She remembered how one should lock the house With a non-implicative verb such as ‘plan’, the transition is more subtle yet: from definite intent, to definite plan to generic plans: (62) a. Definite intent (co-referent Comp) She planned to lock the house b. Definite plan She planned in great detail how to lock the house c. Generic plans She planned in great detail how one may lock the house One way or another, the semantic bond between the two events is weakened through these transitions, a weakening that is paralleled by the gradual dilution of the co-reference condition. 12.2.4.6
The final transition The final transition, from equi-subject complementation to the PCU segment of the scale (55i,j), is underscored by the final loosening of the coreference (equi-subject) condition. As in the transition from manipulation to PCU verbs (12), verbs of preference with a subjunctive complement occupy the pivotal transition point, with the transition often evident in the very same lexical verb: (63) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

He wanted to leave He wished that she would leave She forgot how to run She forgot how one could run She forgot that she/Joe should run She forgot that Joe ran She decided to do it She decided that she/Joe should do it She decided that Joe did it

Once again, the use of the same lexical verbs over contiguous segments of the scale reinforces our conviction that a single cognitive-semantic continuum underlies the complementation scale.

Verbal complements and clause union

12.3

59

The syntactic coding of complementation

12.3.1 Recapitulation In the preceding sections we outlined the complex cognitive-semantic continuum underlying the scale of complementation. In rather general terms: (64) The complementation scale of event integration maximal event integration (a single event) M A N I P

successful causation attempted manipulation weaker manipulation

P C U

M accomplishment attempt O intent/obligation preference/fear D ability/know-how

preference/aversion epistemic anxiety epistemic certainty edited citation unedited citation

minimal event integration (two distinct events)

In this section we deal more explicitly with the syntactic coding of complementation. We will note the systematic isomorphism between the semantics and syntax of complementation, pointing out the relatively few syntactic coding devices that underlie the oft-baffling typological diversity in the syntax of complementation. One major typological dimension — nominalizing vs. finite languages — will be discussed at the end. 12.3.2 The syntactic coding of clause-union 12.3.2.1
Preamble The considerable typological diversity in the syntax of complementation can be still described in terms of the use — extensive, limited, or non — of four main syntactic coding devices. Each one of the four performs some distinct sub-task in the syntactic integration of the complement and main clause. Each one is, in turn, transparently related to some distinct aspects of the cognitive-semantic integration of the two events. The four devices taken together are the structural nuts and bolts of clause integration, i.e. clause-union: (65) Syntactic devices used to code clause-union a. Co-lexicalization (‘predicate-raising’) Attaching the two verbs together — main and complement — to form a single phonological word.

60

Syntax

b. Case-marking and grammatical relations The case-marking of the object of the main clause and the subject of the complement clause. c. Finite verbal morphology The finiteness status of the complement-verb morphology. d. Inter-clausal gap The separation — by subordinator morpheme or intonation break — between the main and subordinate clause. In the following sub-sections we will discuss each syntactic device in order, contrasting languages that make extensive use of a device with those that make only scant use of it. As elsewhere in syntax, the effect of such differential use of individual coding devices is that in some languages a particular segment of the cognitive-semantic scale is more densely coded, while in other languages it goes relatively under-coded. 12.3.2.2
Co-lexicalization (‘predicate-raising’) Consider the contrast between ‘let’ and ‘make’ in English, both implicative manipulation verbs at the top of the scale (12): (66) a. Co-lexicalized Mary let-go of John’s arm b. Not co-lexicalized Mary made John go Predicate-raised structures such as (66a) are relatively rare in English. In Spanish, they are found more copiously near the top of the scale. Among manipulative verbs, the implicative hacer ‘make’ can take both the co-lexicalized and subjunctive complement pattern, with a predictable gradation in the force and directness of the manipulation. The non-implicative decir ‘tell’, on the other hand, can only take the more finite subjunctive complement: (67) a. Co-lexicalized José le hizo-comer a Juan Joe him/dat made-eat/inf dat Juan ‘Joe made John eat’ (direct) b. Subjunctive José hizo que Juan comiera J. made sub Juan eat/past/subjun ‘Joe caused it that John ate’ (indirect causation) c. *Co-lexicalized *José le dijo-comer a Juan J. him/dat told-eat dat Juan

Verbal complements and clause union

d. Subjunctive José le dijo a Juan que comiera J. him/dat told dat Juan sub eat-he/past/subjun ‘Joe told John that he should eat’ A similar syntactic contrast in verb forms — co-lexicalized vs. finite — is also used with perception verbs in Spanish, coding the cognitive-semantic distinction between a cotemporal perception and non-co-temporal cognition senses of the very same verb (as in the English; see (35) above): (68) a. Co-lexicalized (perception) María le vió-caer a Juan M. him saw-fall/inf dat Juan ‘Mary saw John fall’ b. Finite (cognition) María vió que Juan había caido May saw sub John had fallen ‘M. realized that John had fallen’ While co-lexicalization is not as common on the modality-verb segment of the scale, it is found there too in some languages, in a way that parallels the Spanish contrasts in (67), (68). In Ute (Uto-Aztecan), for example, the same syntactic contrast — co-lexicalized vs. non-finite/nominalized complement verb — is used to code the distinction of implicative vs. non-implicative senses in both manipulation and modality verbs: (69) Manipulation verbs a. Co-lexicalize (implicative) mamach ta’wach-i tu =ka-ti-pu =ga woman/subj man-obj eat-caus-rem ‘The woman made the man eat’ b. Non-finite (non-implicative) mamach ta’wach-i tu =ka-vaa-ku ’asti-pu =ga woman/subj man-obj eat-irr-nom want-rem ‘The woman wanted the man to eat’ c. Non-finite (non-implicative) mamach ta’wach-i tu =ka-vaa-ku may-pu =ga woman/subj man-obj eat-irr-nom say-rem ‘The woman told the man to eat’ (70) Modality verbs a. Co-lexicalized (implicative) mamach wu == u ka-maku-pu =ga woman/subj work-finish-rem ‘The woman finished working’

61

62

Syntax

b. Co-lexicalized (implicative) mamach wu == u ka-ucaa-pu =ga woman/subj work-start-rem ‘The woman began to work’ c. Non-finite (non-implicative) mamach wu == u ka-vaa-ch ’asti-pu =ga woman/subj work-irr-nom want-rem ‘The woman wanted to work’ d. Non-finite (non-implicative) mamach wu == u ka-vaa-ch sapigya-pu =ga woman/subj work-irr-nom can-rem ‘The woman was able to work’ In Yaqui, a distant relative of Ute, the co-lexicalization pattern has been extended down to the entire scale on both the manipulation and modality side, effectively removing this device from coding semantic distinction along this portion of the scale. Thus consider (Lindenfeld 1973; Jelinek 1986): (71) Modality verbs a. Implicative aapo yi’i-taite he dance-start ‘He is starting to dance’ b. Implicative bempo bwik-su-k they sing-finish-perf ‘They have finished singing’ c. Non-implicative itepo yooko aman kat-vae we tomorrow there go-intend ‘We plan to go there tomorrow’ d. Non-implicative inepo siim-pea I leave-wish ‘I want to leave’ (72) Manipulation verbs a. Implicative apo’ik-ne siim-tua-k him-I leave-make-perf ‘I made him leave’

Verbal complements and clause union

b. Implicative anchi-ne yi’i-mahta-k you-I dance-teach-perf ‘I taught you to dance’ c. Implicative inepo-’a yi’i-vicha-k I-him dance-see-perf ‘I saw him dance’ d. Non-implicative inepo Mary-ta siim-sae-n I Mary-obj leave-tell-past ‘I told Mary to leave’ e. Non-implicative aapo Mary-ta siim-’i’a he Mary-obj leave-want ‘He wants Mary to leave’ Only toward the bottom portion of the scale, with PCU verbs, can one find detached main and complement verbs in Yaqui: (73) PCU verbs a. n-a bicha ke hu ili uusi chu’u-ta hipwe I-it see subord this little child dog-obj have ‘I see that this little child has a dog’ b. inepo hu’unea enchi tuisi aa bwika-po I know you much it sing-about ‘I know that you do much singing’ c. aapo hunen hia hu-ka hamut-ta tut’uli-tia4 he thus say this-gen woman-gen pretty-say ‘He says that this woman is pretty’ The use of co-lexicalization to code the degree of semantic integration of the two clauses may be summed up in terms of the following implicational-hierarchic prediction: (74) Co-lexicalization and the complementation scale a. The higher a verb is on the semantic-cognitive scale of event integration, the more likely it is to co-lexicalize with its complement verb. b. If a complement-taking verb is co-lexicalized, all the verbs above it on the scale will also be co-lexicalized. The iconicity principle that motivates co-lexicalization as a coding device is rather transparent, with the degree of physical proximity at the code level mapping isomorphically onto the degree of event integration at the cognitive level. The general principle underlying such iconic coding may be given as (Haiman 1985a,b; Givón 1991a):

63

64

Syntax

(75) The proximity principle The closer two linguistic entities are functionally, the more contiguously they will be coded. As we shall see further below, another coding device involved in complementation is motivated by the very same iconicity principle. Two counter-examples to predictions (74) need to be considered here. Rather predictably, both are motivated by diachrony. First, David Payne (in personal communication) has noted that when PCU verbs grammaticalize as evidentiality markers (Mithun 1986), colexicalization may be now found at the bottom segment of the complementation scale, but not necessarily above that portion. This counter-example turns out to be only an apparent one, and for the following reason: In all known cases where a language grammaticalizes PCU verbs into evidentiality markers, such verbs do not disappear from the lexicon as main verbs. Rather, they remain as main verbs with their normal — loosely bound — complementation pattern, as in the Yaqui example (73c) above. As further illustration of this, consider the grammaticalized evidentiary use of PCU verbs in spoken English in (76) below, as against their nonevidentiary lexical use in (77): (76) Grammaticalized pattern a. Say I bought you a flower and… (= suppose) b. Suppose we do it my way, OK? (= suppose) c. Guess I’ll go along with that (= tentative) d. She’s left I think (= inference) e. They might agree I imagine (= hypothesis) f. He’s back they say (= hearsay) g. She’s left I hear (= hearsay) h. He’s right y’know (= insecurity) (77) Non-grammaticalized pattern a. Mary said that John was a crook b. They all supposed he was wrong c. She guessed that he was an artist d. John thought that everybody hated spinach e. Cindy imagined that the sky was purple f. They heard that John was in town g. She knew that it was time to go home As Thompson (1991) notes, another syntactic correlate of the event integration scale (in addition to stress and intonation) distinguishes systematically between the grammaticalized (76) and non-grammaticalized (77) patterns in English: The presence vs. absence of the subordinator that, respectively (§12.3.2.5 below). The second — and real — counter example to predictions (74) involves some wellknown dynamics of grammaticalization (Heine et al. 1991; Traugott and Heine eds 1991; Givón 2000a). Briefly, if complement verbs at the top of the scale co-lexicalize first, they would also tend to be the first to undergo phonological erosion. Take the current Yaqui

Verbal complements and clause union

complementation situation as a point of departure: Suppose the top-of-the-scale ‘start’, ‘finish’ and ‘make’, which co-lexicalized first, also proceed now to the eroded first. If a new generation of new lexical verbs were now to replace the eroded verbs at the top of the scale, at least for a while their complements would be syntactically looser, as compared with the co-lexicalized verbs further down the scale. This is so because at their diachronic point of inception, complement constructions are always more loosely bound. In other words, a word in a syntactic construction is always the precursor of a co-lexicalized or grammaticalized affix. The early beginnings of exactly such a development can be seen in Matsees (Mayoruna; Panoan). In this language, there are two verb-stems each coding ‘finish’ and ‘start’ — an older one that has co-lexicalized with its complement verb, and a more recent one that is more loosely bound to its non-finite complement. Thus (Hattie Kneeland, i.p.c.): (78) a. Co-lexicalized ‘finish’ chui-bud-o-sh tell-compl-rpast-3/declar ‘He has told (a story)’ b. Loosely-bound ‘finish’ chui-quin ën-o-sh tell-ss/sim/tr finish-rpast-3/declar ‘He finished telling it’ c. Co-lexicalized ‘start’ con buchi-n dada-man-ben-o-sh my brother-erg man-make-incep-rpast-3/declar ‘May brother began to write’ (acquired the skill) d. Loosely-bound ‘start’ ti-ed dëd-quin taua-o-sh cut-nom/past chop-ss/sim/tr begin-rpast-3/declar ‘He began to cut the field’ (initiated the event) The same is also seen with the non-implicative ‘want’: (79) a. Co-lexicalized ‘want’ sëdëdquid is-tiad-qu-e-bi airplane see-desid-intens-be-pres ‘I want to see the airplane’ b. Loosely-bound ‘want’ sëdëquid is-te bon-e-bi airplane see-nom want-pres/declar-1/excl/abs ‘I want to see the airplane’ The co-lexicalized ‘finish’ in (78a) has already become grammaticalized as the perfect aspect, and the co-lexicalized ‘start’ (78c) is undergoing a semantic shift. The lexical load of the implicative ‘start’ and ‘finish’ is thus shifting to the looser complementation in

65

66

Syntax

(78b,d), while further down the scale one can still find a co-lexicalized form of the nonimplicative ‘want’ (79a). 12.3.2.3
Case-marking and GRs of the main-clause manipulee

and the complement subject The second device used systematically to code the complementation scale is the casemarking of the manipulee — as object of the main verb or subject of the complement. The general prediction here is: (80) Case-marking of the manipulee and/or Comp-clause subject a. The higher a verb is on the cognitive-semantic scale of event integration, the less likely it is that the manipulee will receive prototypical subject casemarking in the complement clause, given the case-role hierarchies below. b. The case-role hierarchies of prototype subject: (i) Semantic: Agt > Dat > Pat > others (ii) Grammatical: Subj > DO > Oblique The case-role hierarchies in (80b) are the very same ones that rank the main semantic roles in terms of their access to subjecthood (80b(i)), and the main grammatical roles in terms of their topicality (80b(ii)) (Vol. I, Ch. 4). From another perspective, (80b(i)) is also the hierarchy of agentivity. With that in mind, prediction (80) may be re-cast as: (81) Event integration and agent-like marking of the complement-clause subject The more integrated the two events in the main and complement clauses are, the less likely is for the subject of the complement clause to receive prototypical agent case-marking. The facts of English complementation, surveyed earlier above, have already furnished examples for the case-marking scale in complementation, as in: (82) a. b. c. d. e. e.

She let-go of him She made him go She told him to go She wanted him to go She would like for him to go She wished that he would go

(Gen) (DO) (DO) (DO) (Dat/Ben) (Subj)

A more detailed transition along the case hierarchy can be seen in languages that have no grammaticalized direct-object. Thus in Hebrew, marking the manipulee as accusative vs. dative object of the main verb is used in the differential coding of implicative vs. nonimplicative manipulations. Respectively: (83) a. Implicative (manipulee = Acc) hi hixrix-a ot-o le-exol she forced-she acc-him to-eat ‘She forced him to eat’

Verbal complements and clause union

b. Non-implicative (manipulee = Dat) hi kar’-a l-o le-exol she called-she to-him to-eat ‘She called him to eat’ Some non-implicative verbs in Hebrew require that the manipulee be coded as accusative. But even here the case hierarchy is exploited in marking stronger vs. weaker manipulation, by varying case-marking in the complement. In stronger manipulations, a non-finite complement is used, with the manipulee zero-marked. In weaker manipulations, a finite subjunctive complement is used, with the manipulee marked as subject: (84) a. Infinitive complement (manipulee = zero) hi hizmin-a ot-o le-exol she invited-she acc-him inf-eat ‘She invited him to eat’ b. Subjunctive complement (manipulee = Nom) hi hizmin-a ot-o she-y-oxal she invited-she acc-him that-he-eat/irr ‘She invited him so that he may eat’ The facts of complementation in Spanish further validate the case hierarchies in (80b). When the manipulee of the implicative ‘make’ is either non-human or an inactive human, it is marked as accusative, and the complement verb is co-lexicalized with the main verb, as in:5 (85) a. Non-human manipulee María hizo-caer el libro Mary made-fall the book ‘Mary let the book fall’ b. Inactive human manipulee María lo-hizo-comer al bebé Mary acc/him-made-eat dat/the baby ‘Mary fed the baby’ (> the baby is patient-like) The manipulee of the non-implicative ‘invite’ is marked as dative, but a finer gradation is created by the complement form — infinitive in (86a) vs. finite subjunctive (86b) vs. finite indicative (86c): (86) a. Dat + infinitive María le-invitó a Juan a-comer Mary dat-invited dat John inf-eat ‘Mary invited John to eat’ (strong invitation) b. Dat + subjunctive María le-pidió a-Juan que comiera Mary dat-asked dat-John sub eat/subjun ‘Mary asked John that he eat’ (weaker)

67

68

Syntax

c. Unraised + indicative María sabe que Juan ha comido Mary knows sub John has eaten ‘Mary knows that John has eaten’ We noted above the correlation between the degree of clause integration and the degree of control retained by the subject of the complement. That correlation may be now reformulated as the converse of (81) above: (87) Event integration and agentivity The less integrated the main and complement events are cognitively-semantically, the more is the subject of the complement likely be construed as an independent, controlling agent. 12.3.2.4
Finite verb morphology The third syntactic device used in coding the complementation scale is verb morphology, where a scale runs between the finite verbal prototype and the non-finite nominal prototype (§11.6). The non-finiteness — or nominality — of a verbal form is coded syntactically through a number of devices, three of which concern us here: (88) Devices signalling reduced finiteness of the verb
reduced tense–aspect-modality marking
reduced pronominal agreement marking
derived nominal form of the verb

• • •

In the use of these devices for coding the complementation scale, one may make the following hierarchic-implicational prediction: (89) Event integration and nominal form The higher a main verb is on the complementation scale, and the more integrated the main and complement events are cognitively-semantically, the more nominal — thus less finite — will the complement verb appear morphologically. As first illustration of prediction (89), consider again the forms of English complements, first in the case of modality verbs: (90) a. Nominal She finished her work b. Participial She started working c. Infinitive She wanted to work Although all three complement forms in (90) are non-finite, (90a) is clearly the most nominal, (90b) a bit less nominal, and (90c) a bit less. A similar but fuller gradation is seen in the transition from manipulation to PCU verbs:

Verbal complements and clause union

(91) a. Bare stem (co-lexicalized) She let-go of his hand b. Bare stem She made him leave c. Infinitive She told him to leave d. Modal-subjunctive She wished that he would leave e. Modal-subjunctive + aspect She hoped that he could have left f.

Tense with restrictions She knew that he was leaving

g. Fully finite She said: “He is leaving” While possessing a considerable array of non-finite verb forms, English displays little grammatical agreement. The exploitation of this grammatical feature in coding the complementation scale can be shown in Arabic, in the contrast between the implicative ‘finish’ with a nominalized complement and the non-implicative ‘want’ with a finite a finite complement: (92) a. Nominal, Gen pronoun: halasa » shurl-u finished-he work-his ‘He finished his work’ b. Finite, irrealis/subjunctive, Nom pronoun kaana bidd-u yi-shrul was-he want-his he-work/irr ‘He wanted to work’ The exploitation of pronominal agreement may create contrasts even at lower points on the scale. As an illustration, consider the following from Bemba (Bantu). In this language, the contrast between the infinite and subjunctive complement forms is used to distinguish between the implicative and non-implicative sense of the same lexical verb (Givón 1972a): (93) a. Infinitive n-a-mu-konkomeshya uku-boomba I-past-3sg/obj-force inf-work ‘I forced him/her to work’ b. Subjunctive n-a-konkomeshya (uku-ti) a-boomb-e I-past-order (sub) s/he-work-subjun ‘I ordered him/her to work’ ‘I ordered that s/he should work’

69

70

Syntax

The manipulative sense ‘want’ and the desiderative sense ‘wish’ of the same lexical verb both take subjunctive complements. The presence of a raised object pronoun, together with a subordinator (see below), combine to code the subtle difference: (94) a. Raised object pronoun, no subordinator n-dee-mu-fwaaya a-boomb-e 1sg-prog-3sg/obj-want 3sg-work-subjun ‘I want him/her to work’ b. Unraised, with subordinator n-dee-fwaaya uku-ti a-boomb-e 1sg-prog-want subord 3sg-work-subjun ‘I wish that s/he would work’ The exploitation of verb-form contrasts reach lower down yet along the complementation scale in Bemba. Thus the difference between direct and indirect quote is signalled by the form of the subordinator, derivative from the verb ‘say’. Indirect-quote complements, higher on the scale, take an infinitival form of the subordinator (95a,b). Direct-quote complements, lowest on the scale, take a finite form of the subordinator, with obligatory pronominal agreement controlled by the subject of the main verb (95c,d): (95) a. Indirect quote, Inf subordinator n-a-mu-ebele uku-ti n-a-boombele 1sg-past-him-tell inf-say 1sg-past-work ‘I told him that I worked’ b. Indirect quote, Inf subordinartor a-a-mu-ebele uku-ti n-a-boombele 3sg-past-him-tell inf-say 1sg-past-work ‘He told him that I worked’ c. Direct quote, finite subordinator n-a-mu-ebele n-a-ti: “n-a-boombele” 1sg-past-him-tell 1sg-past-say 1sg-past-work ‘I told him: “I worked”’ d. Direct quote, finite subordinator a-a-mu-ebele a-a-ti: “n-a-boombele” 3sg-past-him-tell 3sg-past-say 1sg-past-work ‘He told him: “I worked”’ As noted earlier (§11.7.2.1), extreme nominalizing languages tend to nominalize, at least historically, all non-main clauses, including verbal complements except for direct-quote complements. In such languages, the coding density along the complementation scale can be rather low. Sherpa (Tibeto-Burman) may serve as an illustration of this. The complements of all modality verbs in Sherpa are nominalized, though the nominal form of the complement of the implicative finish is somehow ‘more lexical’, while the complements of the non-implicative want or plan take the ‘more verbal’ infinitive form. Lower down the scale, indirect-quote complements of PCU verbs also take the infinitive form (K. Lama, i.p.c.):

Verbal complements and clause union

(96) a. Nominal-lexical ti-gi chenyi cha-ng sin-sung he-erg cup break-nom finish-perf ‘He finished breaking the cup’ b. Infinitive ti chenyi choq-up no-up kyaa-sung he/abs cup break-inf want-noM do-perf ‘He wanted to break the cup’ c. Infinitive ti chenyi choq-up naasam tang-sung he/abs cup break-inf mind put-perf ‘He planned to break the cup’ d. Infinitive ti-la ]ye wa-up-ti cha-no he-dat I/gen come-inf-def know-perf ‘He knew that I came’ (lit.: ‘he knew of my coming’) e. Finite, direct quote ti-gi “]ga lagha kyaa-yin” si-no he-erg I/abs work do-perf say-perf ‘He said: “I worked”’ 12.3.2.5
Subordinating morphemes The cross-linguistic data surveyed above also furnish ample evidence for the systematic use of subordinator morphemes in coding the event-integration scale. This use may be summed up in the following implicational-hierarchic prediction: (97) The complementation scale and subordinating morphemes a. The lower the main verb is on the complementation scale, and thus the less integrated the main and complement events are cognitively-semantically, the more likely it is that a subordinating morpheme be used to separate the two clauses. b. If a language uses a subordinating morpheme at a certain point on the scale, it will also use it at all points lower on the scale. One apparent counter-example to prediction (97) is the contrast between direct- and indirect-quote complements at the very bottom of the scale. In most languages surveyed — with Bemba being an exception here — direct-quote complementation tends to involve no subordinator morpheme, while indirect quote complementation may display it. However, there exists another, more iconic, device for creating a temporal separation between the main clause and its direct-quote complement — the use of intonation breaks or pauses. Such pauses are indeed more likely to appear before direct-quote complements than before indirect-quote complements.

71

72

Syntax

The pause separating direct-quote complements allows for cognitive reorientation (Givón 1991b), whereby the speaker/hearer ‘shifts mental gears’ in terms of temporal, spatial, referential or deictic orientation, as well as in terms of modal and evidential coherence. In most oral traditions, this re-orientation is accompanied by a shift in voice quality and mimicking of the quoted speaker. The use of subordinators and pausing reflects the very same general iconic principle (75), whereby the degree of cognitive separation between two events is isomorphically mapped onto the degree of temporal separation between the two clauses. 12.3.2.6
Enriching the scale with complementizers As noted above, the gradation along the complementation scale may be intricate and subtle. Many different cognitive-semantic sub-features may play a role in creating meaning contrasts along various segments of the scale. Each one of these features ties in with the overall dimension of the scale — cognitive-semantic event integration — albeit through different pragmatic inferences. In any particular language, the number of discrete syntactic coding points along the scale is limited. Two other means exist for enriching the number of points along the scale. use of diverse lexical verbs •
the
the • use of diverse subordinators. The first has been made sufficiently obvious throughout the preceding discussion. In this section we will briefly illustrate the second, which is historically derived from the first. We have already noted how the distinction between direct and indirect quote in Bemba is coded by different forms of the verb ‘say’, used as a subordinator. Indeed, ‘say’ is used in many languages as a subordinator at the bottom range of the scale (Saxena 1988). At the same lower range, KinyaRwanda (Bantu) codes the difference between presupposed and asserted complements, or between strong and weak evidential strength, by contrasting two complementizers (Givón and Kimenyi 1974): (98) a. ya-razi ko amazi yari mare-mare 3sg/past-sure sub water was deep-deep ‘S/he was sure that the water was deep’ (> and it may or may not have been) b. ya-razi ngo amazi yari mare-mare 3sg/past-sure sub water was deep-deep ‘S/he was sure — mistakenly — that the water was deep’ (> but in fact it wasn’t) c. ya-bgiye ko wa-kora-ga cyaane 3sg/past-say sub you/past-work-hab hard ‘S/he said that you worked hard’ (> and I have no comment)

Verbal complements and clause union

d. ya-bgiye ngo wa-kora-ga cyaane 3sg/past-say sub you/past-work-hab hard ‘S/he said that you worked hard’ (> but I doubt it) A much more elaborate use of complementizers can be seen in the recruitment of various serial verbs to code finer gradation on the scale in Krio, an English-based Creole. Four complementizers — and their various combinations — are used in Krio, three of them derived from English verbs (‘make’, ‘let’, ‘say’) and the fourth from the preposition ‘for’. Not surprising, their positions on the scale as complementizers recapitulate, to quite an extent, their positions as lexical main verbs:6 (99) ‘for’ > ‘make’ > ‘let’ > ‘say’ Thus consider (Givón 1980b): (100) a. Zero complementizer = direct causation a mek am it am I make him eat it ‘I made him eat it’ b. ‘For’ = weaker manipulation a ffs am fff it am I force him for eat it ‘I forced him to eat it’ c. ‘For’ + ‘make’ = weaker manipulation a ffs am fff m77k i it am I force him for make he eat it ‘I prevailed upon him to eat it’ d. ‘Make’ = indirect causation a mek m77k i it am I make make he eat it ‘I had him eat it’ e. ‘For’ = communicated strong wish a wan am fff kam I want him for come ‘I wanted him to come’ f.

Uncommunicated preference a wan m77k i kam I want make he come ‘I’d like him to come’

g. ‘Let’ = Weaker wish a wan l77 i kam I want let he come ‘I would like for him to come’

73

74

Syntax

h. ‘Say’ + ‘make’ = weaker wish a wan se m77k i kam I want say make he come ‘I wish that he would come’

12.4

i.

‘Say’ + subjunctive = weaker preference a op se i go-ebul kam I hope say he irr-able come ‘I hope that he would be able to come’

j.

‘Say’ = epistemic a no se i bin-sik I know say he been-sick ‘I thought that he was sick’

Causativization and syntactic clause-union

12.4.1 Co-lexicalization and the complementation scale As seen above, morphological or lexical causativization, with a co-lexicalized causative verb (or affix), occupies the very top of the complementation scale. The affixal status of the causative morpheme is but the diachronic consequence of co-lexicalization of its precursor manipulative verb. Over time, such constructions eventually become lexical-derivational, whereby the erstwhile verb — ‘make’, ‘cause’, ‘let’ — loses its independent lexical status, undergoes phonological reduction (‘bleaching’), and becomes a causative affix on the erstwhile complement verb. At an early stage of this development, one may still consider the causative operator an inflectional morpheme, marking the syntactic process of transitivization. But the potential for considering the causative affix as derivational is just as strong, since over time the process becomes less regular and more lexically-governed. As an illustration of this, consider the few surviving inchoative-causative verb-pairs in English: (101) Old morpho-lexical causatives in English Intransitive

Transitive

sit lie rise see drink clean

set lay raise show drench cleanse

Such verb pairs are the last vestige of an older Germanic morphological causative, where the transitive member of the pair was the derived form.

Verbal complements and clause union

When a language has both a periphrastic (‘syntactic’) and a morphological causative construction, the following implicational-hierarchic prediction can be made (Givón (1975a, 1976a). (102) Morpho-lexical causatives and non-agentive manipulees If a language has both a periphrastic (syntactic) and a morphological (colexicalized) causative, the former is more likely to code weaker causation, with an agentive human manipulee, while the latter is more likely to code stronger causation, with an non-agentive inanimate manipulee. Prediction (102) follows from predictions (16) and (24) earlier above, which note that complex events with agentive manipulees will be lower on the scale than those with nonagentive manipulees. As an illustration of prediction (102), consider English, where the periphrastic causative verbs ‘make’, ‘have’, ‘force’ and ‘let’ are typically used in causative constructions with human manipulees (Givón 1975a). This contrasts with lexical causatives in (101) above, or the morphological causatives in (103) below, which typically apply only to nonhuman manipulees: (103) Intransitive theory substance dark large

Transitive theor-ize substanti-ate dark-en en-large

Bantu languages also conform in the main to this contrasting pattern between syntactic and morphological causatives (Givón 1976a). And further cross-linguistic support for this prediction can be found in Shibatani (ed. Forthcoming). 12.4.2 Semantic distinction in morphological causatives As noted earlier above, in a language such as Yaqui all manipulative verbs are co-lexicalized with their complements. In other words, all causative constructions are morphological rather than syntactic. In such a language, whatever semantic distinctions that are made along the manipulative portion of the complementation scale — implicativity, volitionality, strength, directness — must be coded by morphemic or lexical means, rather than by syntactic-constructional means. Consider now Japanese, where the most productive morphological causative, the suffix -(s)ase, codes intended causation with a human-agentive manipulee, a pattern illustrated in the acceptable (104b) vs. the unacceptable (104c) (Shibatani 1973, 1976b): (104) a. Intransitive Ziro-ga tomare-ta Z.-subj stop-past ‘Jiro stopped’

75

76

Syntax

b. Agentive manipulee Taroo-ga Ziroo-o tomare-ase-ta T.-subj Z.-obj stop/int-caus-past ‘Taro made Jiro stop’ (physically, directly) c. *Non-agentive manipulee *Taroo-ga enzin-o tomare-ase-ta T.-subj engine-obj stop/int-caus-past (*‘Taro made the engine stop’) In contrast, lexical — or morphologically irregular — causative patterns may apply to both agentive and non-agentive manipulees. Thus, the intransitive ‘stop’ tomare- (104a) is related to the corresponding transitive stem tome-, which admits both agentive (105a) and non-agentive (105b) manipulees (Shibatani 1973, 1976b): (105) a. Agentive manipulee Taroo-ga Ziroo-o tome-ta T.-subj Z.-obj stop/tr-past ‘Taro stopped Jiro’ (physically, directly) b. Non-agentive manipulee Taroo-ga enzin-o tome-ta T.-subj engine-obj stop/tr-past ‘Taroo stopped the engine’ (physically, directly) But even when the manipulee of tome- is human, as in (105a), the manipulation involves brute force rather than persuasion, thus still contrasting with the productive morphological causative -sase (104b). When the morphological pattern with -(s)ase is used with an agentive manipulee, a further distinction between can be made between direct/coercive vs. indirect/persuasive manipulation. This is coded by the contrast between the accusative vs. the dative casemarking on the manipulee (Shibatani 1973): (106) a. ACC manipulee = direct/coercive Taroo-ga Ziroo-o ik-ase-ta T.-subj Z.-acc go-caus-past ‘Taro made Jiro go’ b. DAT manipulee = indirect/persuasive Taroo-ga Ziroo-ni ik-ase-ta T.-subj Z.-dat go-caus-past ‘Taro had Jiro go’ And the non-agentive manipulee of the non-productive lexical causative, as in (105b), cannot take the dative case, even when it is human (Shibatani 1973): (107) *Taroo-ga Ziroo-ni tome-ta T.-subj Z.-dat stop/tr-past

Verbal complements and clause union

In Hindi, next, two morpho-lexical causative forms are used to code intended causation, both capable of taking human manipulees. However, one of the two forms (“Caus-1”) applies only to intransitive verb stems, so that its manipulee can also be inanimate. The other (“Caus-2”) applies only to transitive verbs, so that its manipulee is most commonly an agent. The less-regular — and diachronically older — “Caus-1” codes direct causation. The more productive “Caus-2” codes indirect causation (Kachru 1976): (108) a. Intransitive shiisha t» u»t-ge-ya mirror break-go-perf ‘The mirror broke’ b. Direct (“Caus-1”): Ram-ne shiisha tor-di-ya » Ram-erg mirror break/caus1-give-perf ‘Ram broke the mirror’ c. Indirect (“Caus-2”) Ram-ne Sham-se shiisha tur-va-ya » Ram-erg Sham-by mirror break-caus2-perf Ï ¸
‘Ram had Sham break the mirror’ Ì ˝ Ó
‘Ram had the mirror broken by Sham’ ˛ The distribution of the two causatives in Hindi is predictable from general restrictions on transitivity: The subject of transitives is typically a human-agent, thus capable of volition and resistance. The indirect “Caus-2” thus fits well, in both form and meaning, at a lower point on the complementation scale. Finally, if the manipulee in the indirect “Caus-2” pattern is mentioned overtly, it must be case-marked as agent-of-passive (108c). In contrast, the non-agentive manipulee of the direct “Caus-1” must be marked as the absolutive object (108b). 12.4.3 The case-marking of the manipulee in morpho-lexical causativization As noted above, predictions (80) concerning the case-marking of the manipulee along the complementation scale have been borne out by a wealth of cross-linguistic evidence. There appears to be a strong correlation between case-marking and degree of event integration. At the upper portions of the scale — strong, direct, intended, successful causation — the manipulee is more likely to be marked as patient/DO. At lower portions — weaker, indirect, unintended, unsuccessful manipulation — it is more likely to be marked as dative or even agent/subject. In an early work on the subject, Comrie (1976) suggested a more mechanical rule governing manipulee case-marking in morphological causative constructions, citing data similar to those of Japanese and Hindi. Roughly:

77

78

Syntax

(109) Comrie’s (1976) case-bumping hierarchy If the accusative slot is already occupied, e.g. when the causative applies to a transitive complement verb with a direct object, than the manipulee of the causative construction will be assigned the next available case on the hierarchy Acc > Dat > Agt. As Cole (1977/1984) pointed out later, there was a systematic semantic explanation to those data, along the line suggested above. The manipulee is typically a human agent when causativization applies to transitive complements. And the manipulation of a human agent tends to be weaker, less direct, less successful, with the manipulee retaining a larger measure of agentive control. Part of Cole’s (1977/1984) argument hinged on the re-interpretation of French causativization data cited by Comrie. In French, if the complement verb in causativization is agentive-transitive, the manipulee is coded by the agent-of-passive preposition par (‘by’). If the complement verb is stative or takes a dative subject, the manipulee is coded by the dative à (‘to’) (Cole 1977/1984): (110) a. Il a fait-téléphoner au psychiâtre par Jean he aux made-call dat psychiatrist by John ‘He had John call the psychiatrist’ b. Marie a reussi à faire-aimer la France à Jean Marie aux succeed inf make-love def France dat John ‘Marie succeeded in making John love France’ The choice between dative vs. agent-of-passive case-marking of the manipulee in (110) cannot be predicted from Comrie’s mechanical case-hierarchy bumping rule (109). Nor can (109) predict the meaning contrast — indirect causation in (110a) vs. direct causation (110b). Both contrasts are predictable within the framework outlined above.

12.5

Two typological routes to clause-union

12.5.1 Preamble Earlier on (§11.7.2.1) we described the major scalar typological dimension of finiteness. At one end stood extreme nominalizing languages (No. Uto-Aztecan, Tibetan, Turkic), where all subordinate clauses are nominalized or non-finite. At the other end stood extreme finite languages (Athabaskan, Iroquois, So. Arawak), where all clause types are finite. It is hardly an accident that the most conspicuous data supporting our intricate complementation scale, and the systematic isomorphism between the cognitive-semantic dimension of event integration and the syntactic dimension of clause-union, turn out to come from languages in the middle of this typological continuum (English, Spanish, Hebrew, Bantu). Such languages do have subordinate clauses that exhibit reduced finiteness. But while their complement clauses may exhibit some analogy with nominal objects, they are not fully nominalized.

Verbal complements and clause union

In this section we return to this typological dimension from a somewhat broader perspective, in the context of the two major diachronic routes to clause-union. What we will show is that only in embedding languages, where clause-integration arises diachronically from embedded complement clauses of reduced finiteness, does syntactic clauseunion ever reach completion. In serial-verb languages, on the other hand, where clause integration arises diachronically from clause-chaining and no strong finiteness gradation exists between main and ‘subordinate’ clause, the very same semantic event combinations yield incomplete clause-union. 12.5.2 Grammaticalization and clause-union Clause-union has been traditionally discussed almost exclusively within the domain of morphological causativization. But in fact it is a much wider phenomenon. Semantically, a broad range of syntactic configurations can be the diachronic precursors to clause-union. The common denominator in all clause-union types is the grammaticalization of one verb in the two clauses to be merged. In embedding languages, it is most commonly the main-clause verb that grammaticalized and becomes an affix on the other verb.7 As a result, the entire complex construction undergoes syntactic re-organization, most conspicuously in terms of its grammatical relations. Prior to clause-union, the participants in each clause bear GRs independently to their respective verbs. In the merged clause, they must all bear their GRs to the single co-lexicalized verb. As an illustration of some of the more common types of precursors to clause-union in embedding languages, consider: (111) a. Causativization She let-go of his hand b. Tense–aspect-modal auxiliaries He will-eat the apple They have-eaten their supper c. Evidentials They say she’s quitting She’s quitting I hear d. Directionals (Tok Pisin, Givón 1991b) em tromwey sospan i-go she threw.away saucepan pred-go ‘She threw the saucepan away’ e. Cognate objects She made a left turn f.

Ideophone construction He went kapow!

g. Resultative verb construction She shot him dead

79

80

Syntax

h. Co-verb constructions (Wagiman; Wilson 1999) liri-ma nga-ya-naggi munybaban swim-asp I-go-past other.side ‘I swam to the other side’ In all these bi-predicate clauses, at least in some languages, one of the verbs grammaticalizes, precipitating full clause-union. The reason why clause-union has appeared so conspicuous in morphological causative constructions is because the causative verb (111a) is itself transitive and thus takes an object — the manipulee. When the complement is also transitive, competition ensues in clause-union for the object GR — between the manipulee/object of the main verb and the patient/object of the complement. This is the competition Comrie’s (1976) rule (109) attempted to deal with.8 12.5.3 Relational constraints on clause-union 12.5.3.1
Preliminaries In both embedding and serializing languages, what started historically as two verbal clauses, each with its own verb and its own set of GR-bearing arguments, can condense over time into a single event clause with a unified set of GRs. Viewed diachronically, clauseunion may be thus defined as follows: (112) Clause-union from a diachronic perspective The diachronic process by which two (or more) clauses, with two (or more) distinct predicates and two (or more) distinct sets of GR-bearing arguments, are merged to yield a single clause with a single set of GR-bearing arguments. The two major diachronic venues for obtaining this type of syntactic complexity — embedding vs. verb serialization — involve starkly different strategies for creating a complex multi-verb structures. Embedding languages arrive at clause-union through the condensation of main clauses with their verbal complements. Serializing languages arrive at clause-union, often with the very same semantic configurations, via the condensation of two or more chained clauses. In both embedding and serializing languages, two major types of relational configurations can partake in clause union — equi-subject (SS) and switch-subject (DS). The two types have somewhat different consequences in clause-union, and it is best to consider them separately. 12.5.3.2
Clause-union in equi-subject (SS) configurations a.

Embedding languages Clause-union of equi-subject (SS) configurations is the main diachronic venue of grammaticalized auxiliaries (thus T-A-M markers; see (111b) above), directionals (111e), cognate object clauses (111f), ideophone clauses (111g) and co-verb constructions (111i). In embedding languages, the initial syntactic configuration for SS clause-union is that of

Verbal complements and clause union

81

equi-subject complementation, i.e. that of modality verbs. In embedding languages, verbal complements are constructed by analogy with nominal objects of transitive clauses. The main then verb retains much of the finite inflections, such as tense–aspect-modality and pronominal affixes. The complement verb is either partially or fully nominalized, exhibiting less-finite morphology. In both VO and OV languages, SS-complementation places the complement verb directly adjacent to the main verb (Givón 1971). Thus compare the VO complementation pattern of English (113a) with the OV pattern of Ute (113b): (113) Equi-subject (SS) clause-union in embedding languages a. English (VO) S VP

Subj V

Comp [S] Subj

Mary

[Ø]

Wnished

VP V

Obj

reading

the-book

b. Ute (OV) (Givón 1980a): S VP

Subj Comp [S] Subj

V VP

Obj Mary [Ø] po’oqwatu = Mary book/obj ‘Mary Wnished reading the book’

V puni’ni - maku - kwa look.at - Wnish - perf

When the main verb (‘finish’) grammaticalizes into a perfect(ive) aspect, it becomes — at least initially — a finite auxiliary that remains, morpho-syntactically, the main verb of the complex two-verb clause, as in English (113a). When that auxiliary grammaticalizes, it becomes a prefix on the complement verb in a VO language, or a suffix in an OV language.

82

Syntax

With cliticization, the erstwhile auxiliary now brings along with it all its finite morphology to the new main verb, as in Ute (113b). b.

Serial-verb languages In serial-verb languages, two factors conspire against complete clause-union. First, the precursor chained structure most often prevents verb adjacency, scattering the verbs on opposite sides of the object NP. One of the verbs in the clause may grammaticalize semantically, but the two non-adjacent verbs cannot co-lexicalize. As an illustration of this, compare the SS-complementation of the embedding languages in (113) above with the serial-verb languages Saramaccan (VO) and Supyire (OV) in (114) below: (114) Equi-subject (SS) clause-union in serial-verb languages a. Saramaccan (VO) (Byrne 1987): S Subj

VP V

VP [S] Obj

Subj

VP V

[Ø]

a bi-feW di-wosu he tns-paint the-house ‘He Wnished painting the house’ (Hist.: ‘He painted the house and Wnished’)

kaba Wnish

b. Supyire (OV) (Carlson 1994): S Subj

VP Perf

VP V

Perf

[Ø] maa nura à perf she and return perf ‘...and she again took her monkey-skin...’ (Hist.: ‘...and she returned and took her monkey-skin...’

Obj

V

V

V

u-kuntunu-s77ge her-monkey-skin

kaba Wnish

When ‘finish’ in (114a) and ‘return’ in (114b) grammaticalize as aspect markers, they have no adjacent main verb to cliticize onto. The second factor is tangentially related to the first. As noted above, the V-complement configuration that gives rise to clause-union in embedding languages is structured by analogy with the V-OBJ configuration of the simple clause. In such constructions, the main

Verbal complements and clause union

verb retains all finite verbal features, while the complement verb is nominalized or lessfinite. When clause-union occurs in this syntactic configuration, the grammaticalized main verb — now co-lexicalized with the complement verb — contributes all its finite inflections to the combined single lexical verb. As an illustration of this, consider the Spanish auxiliaries in: (115) a. se-lo-est-amos explicando dat/3sg-acc/3sg.masc-be-1p explain/part ‘We are explaining it to him/her’ b. se-la-h-an dado dat/3sg-acc/3sg.fem-have-3p give/part ‘They have given it to her/him’ In many serial-verb languages, the verbs in the precursor chained structure are of equal finiteness. When an erstwhile chain condenses into a single serial clause, the verbs in it likewise do not diverge in finiteness. What is more, even in languages where finite verbal morphology had consolidated on a single verb in the precursor chain — and thus on a single verb in the resulting serial clause, that verb could just as easily be the semanticallybleached, grammaticalized verb. Thus, in Miskitu (OV), the grammaticalized chain-final ‘go’ in (116) below displays all finite marking, while the semantic main-verb ‘fly’ is nonfinite (Hale 1991): (116) Baha usus-ka pali-i wa-n that buzzard-cns fly-inf go-past/3 ‘That buzzard flew away’ Similarly in Saramaccan (VO), the grammaticalized chain-final ‘give’ in (104) carries the finite inflection, while the semantic main-verb ‘buy’ goes unmarked (Byrne 1992): (117) Kofi bai di buku bi-da di muyee Kofi buy the book tns-give the woman ‘Kofi bought the book for the woman’ The conflation of both factors — verb dispersal and lack of consolidated single locus for finite verbal morphology — renders clause-union in a serializing language a rather different syntactic affair than in an embedding language. Even in equi-subject (SS) clauses, serializing languages tend to preserve much of the original morpho-syntax of the precursor chained structure, retaining multi-VP structures and multi-object relations (Osam 1997). 12.5.3.3
Clause-union in switch-subject (DS) configurations a.

Embedding languages Switch-subject (DS) clause-union involves a family of, broadly, causative or resultative constructions. These structures are patterned on DS-complementation of manipulation verbs such as ‘make’, ‘cause’, ‘force’ or ‘let’. In embedding languages, this pattern concentrates all finite marking on the main verb, leaving the complement verb nominalized or lessfinite. The DS co-reference constraint in such constructions is (see (4)/(5) earlier above):

83

84

Syntax

(118) Co-reference condition in DS complementation The object/manipulee of the main verb is the subject/agent of the complement. Syntactically, the manipulee bears some object relation to the main verb, and there is no syntactic evidence to support the contention that the manipulee retains any subject properties vis-a-vis the complement verb (Givón 1995a: Ch. 6). In OV languages, the main causative verb in DS complementation always winds up adjacent to the complement verb. As in Ute (Givón 1980a): S

(119) Subj

VP Obj

Comp [S]

V

Subj

VP Obj

V

mamach ta’wachi [Ø] tu =kuavi woman/subj man/obj meat/obj ‘The woman told the man to fry the meat’

ciira-vaa-ch fry-irr-nom

may-kyay-’u tell-ant-3sg/an

The adjacency of the main and complement verbs makes co-lexicalization and full clauseunion only a matter of time — provided the main verb grammaticalizes semantically, as is the case with the causative construction in Ute: S

(120) Subj

VP Obj

Comp [S] Subj

V VP

Obj mamach ta’wachi [Ø] tu =kuavi woman/subj man/obj meat/obj ‘The woman made the man fry the meat’

V ciira-ti-kyay-’u fry-caus-ant-3sg.an

The syntactic structure in (120) is actually too abstract, since full clause-union leaves us a complex bi-transitive verb with two objects — one the causee, the other the patient of ‘fry’. A more accurate syntactic characterization of (120) is thus:

Verbal complements and clause union

85

S

(121) Subj

VP Obj

V

Obj

mamach ta’wachi woman/subj man/obj ‘The woman made the man fry the meat’

tu =kuavi meat/obj

ciira-ti-kyay-’u fry-caus-ant-3sg.an

In embedding VO languages, the situation is compounded a bit by the fact that there is no automatic verb adjacency in DS-complementation, with the main-clause object of the main verb intervening: (122)

S

Subj

VP V

Comp [S]

Obj Subj

Mary

made

John

[Ø]

VP V

Obj

cook

the-meat

Over time, VO languages can nonetheless affect predicate raising and co-lexicalization, as in Spanish: (123)

María se-la-hizo comer la manzana a Juan Mary him-it-make/pret/3sg eat/inf the apple dat John ‘Mary made John eat the apple’

The pronominal clitics agreeing with the two objects in (123) now appear at the beginning of the verbal complex, regardless of the fact that ‘apple’ is the patient of ‘eat’. And there is no morpho-syntactic evidence that the two objects bear their respective grammatical relations to two different verbs, or partake in two different VPs. b.

Serial-verb languages Here again, serial-verb languages come short of full clause-union. Of the four syntactic devices universally used to code clause-integration (65), serial-verb languages skip three: tend to keep apart the multi-verbs in the serial clause, thus show no co•
They lexicalization (65a). tend to cluster their objects with their respective verbs as distinct VPs, so that •
They several objects may bear the same grammatical relation within the clause — each to its own verb (65b) (Osam 1997).

86

Syntax

often fail to vest all finite morphology in a single verb, and thus have weak •
They finiteness gradation among the multi-verbs of the serial clause (65c). The only structural device serializing languages use consistently to indicate clause integration is the most universal and iconic one — intonation. The multi-verb — indeed multi-VP — serial clause is placed under a unified intonation contour, with neither pause nor subordinator (65d). With respect to the subject GR, serial-verb languages stand on a par with embedding languages, facing the same problem in the analysis of switch-subject (DS) merged clauses. Thus, consider the serial resultative (DS) construction: (124)

a. Akan (Osam 1997) Esi yi-i tam-no fi-i pon-no-don Esi take-past cloth-the leave-past table-the-on ‘Esi took the cloth off the table’ (lit.: ‘Esi took the clause and it left the table’) b. Miskitu (Hale 1991) Yang truk-kum atk-ri wa-n I truck-a sell-ds/1 go-past/3 ‘I sold the truck away’ (lit.: ‘I sold the truck and it went’) c. Tok Pisin (Givón 1991b) …em layt nau paya i-kamap… …she light now fire pred-come.up ‘…She lights the fire…’ (lit.: ‘She lights the fire and it comes up’) d. Tok Pisin (Givón 1991b) …em tromwey sospan i-go… …she threw.away saucepan pred-go ‘She threw the saucepan away’ (lit.: ‘She threw the saucepan and it went’) e. Kalam (Givón 1991b) …mon d-angiy-ek yin-ip… …wood take-light-past/seq/ds/3sg burn-perf/3sg ‘…She lights the wood…’ (lit.: ‘She takes and lights the wood ant it burns’)

In all these examples, the object of the first verb is semantically the subject of the second. Often the old switch-reference morphology of the precursor chain is left intact in the serial clause (124b,e). But, by all available syntactic tests for GRs, the semantic ‘subject’ of the second verb is a grammatical object in the serial clause (Givón 1995: Ch. 6). The same also applies to causative constructions in serializing languages:

Verbal complements and clause union

(125)

a. Supyire (Carlson 1994) mii à u karima à ngukuu lyi I perf him force perf chicken eat ‘I forced him to eat the chicken’ (lit.: ‘I forced him and he ate the chicken’) b. Ijo (Williamson 1965) woni u mie-ni indi die-mi we him make-asp fish share-asp ‘We made him share the fish’ (lit.: ‘We made him and he shared the fish’) c. Ijo (Williamson 1965) ari u mie mu-mi I him make go-asp ‘I chased him away’ (lit.: ‘I chased him and he went’)

And likewise with the limited serial-resultative pattern in English: (126)

a. They shot him dead (‘They shot him and he is dead’) b. They struck him dumb (‘They struck him and he became dumb’) c. She broke the box open (‘She broke it so that it opened’) d. He packed/stuffed it full of rocks (‘He packed/stuffed it and it is full of rocks’) e. She wiped/rubbed it dry/clean (‘She wiped/rubbed it and it is dry/clean’) f. They pried the door open (‘They pried the door and it is open’)

12.5.4 Degree of grammaticalization and the re-analysis of GRs in clause-union There is a certain correlation, albeit not a perfect one, between the degree of semantic grammaticalization of the main verb and the re-alignment of grammatical relations in clause union. Consider first the contrast between the non-grammaticalized verb ‘want’ and the grammaticalized modal ‘will’ in English: (127)

a. b. c. d.

I want to eat the apple *The apple wants to be eaten I will eat the apple The apple will be eaten

87

88

Syntax

Historically, ‘will’ meant ‘want’ and selected a dative subject. It also had the same syntactic properties as ‘want’, so that (115b) would have been equally implausible earlier on. Only when ‘will’ became semantically bleached and lost its earlier selectional restrictions could the patient/object of the complement verb be promoted to the subject of the passive clause (115d). But now it is not a selected subject of the modal ‘will’, but rather a selected patient-subject of the passive ‘be eaten’. In the same vein, compare the behavior of the grammaticalized modal ‘can’ with its ungrammaticalized semantic counterpart ‘be able to’: (128)

a. b. c. d.

She was able to eat the apple *The apple was able to be eaten She can eat the apple The apple can be eaten

Likewise, compare the long-grammaticalized progressive auxiliary ‘be’ with the more recently grammaticalizing ‘keep’, ‘finish’, ‘stop’ and ‘resume’: (129)

a. He was fixing the roof b. The roof was being fixed c. He kept fixing the roof d. ??The roof kept being fixed e. He finished washing the dishes f. ??The dishes finished being washed g. She stopped writing her memoirs h. ??Her memoirs stopped being written i. She resumed writing her memoirs j. ??Her memoirs resumed being written

Next, consider the slightly less clear contrast between the long-grammaticalized modal ‘should’ and its close semantic equivalent ‘need to’: (130)

a. b. c. d.

They should build the house there The house should be built there They need to build the house there ?The house needs to be built there

The fact that the grammaticalization of ‘need’ is now in progress is evident from seeming acceptability of passive expressions such as: (131)

a. It needs to be done b. This paper needs to be careful edited c. His room needs to be cleaned

What we observe here is a correlation between the degree of grammaticalization of an erstwhile main verb and the degree of completion of syntactic clause-union. When a main verb is not fully grammaticalized semantically, it continues to exert strong semantic restrictions on its subject. The complement-clause patient is semantically inadmissible as subject of the main verb. Nor is the complement-clause patient admissible as patient of

Verbal complements and clause union

the main verb, because the main verb does not take that type of a patient. Being inadmissible as a patient, the lower-clause object is also inadmissible as a main-clause object. It thus cannot be promoted to subject-of-passive in the main clause for two reasons: main verb will not tolerate it semantically, neither as its agent nor as its patient. •
The
As grammatical object of an embedded clause, it cannot be promoted to subject-of• passive in the main clause. When the erstwhile main-verb reaches full semantic grammaticalization, so that it exerts no selectional restrictions of its own, the erstwhile complement verb becomes semantically the main verb. Only now can the patient of this newly-crowned main verb bear an object relation within the unified clause — and thus become accessible to passivization.

12.6

Closure The profound semantic and syntactic scalarity of complementation illuminates the syntactic process of clause-union as an iconic reflection of the cognitive-semantic process of event integration. Through gradual diachronic evolution, erstwhile multiple simple events can merge cognitively-semantically and then be re-interpreted as unitary complex events. In parallel, erstwhile simple clauses can be merged and reanalyzed as syntactically complex single clauses. Full clause-union — with co-lexicalized verbs, a unified set of GRs, and a re-consolidated single-focused finite morphology — is but the apex of the graduated syntactic scale of clause integration. The profound scalarity of complementation merely illuminates the fact that clause-union is a gradual diachronic process.

Notes 1. The analogy is fundamentally diachronic, thus a matter of the semantic extension responsible for the systematic polysemy of particular verbs and verb-classes (see Vol. I, §3.3.8). 2. Pragmatic inferences lack the binding deductive force of logical implications, and are typically probabilistic (see Givón 1989). 3. Many languages furnish examples of cognition verbs as metaphoric extensions of speech verbs, albeit internal speech. 4. A phonologically more conservative form of ‘say’, tia, has grammaticalized as a quotative suffix in Yaqui, the footprint of an earlier cycle of co-lexicalization. Lindenfeld (1973) notes that the quotative use of ‘say’ is optional for indirect quotes but obligatory for direct quotes: aapo hunen hia ke hu hamut tutu’uli(-tia) he thus say subord this woman pretty(-say) ‘He says that this woman is pretty’ in kuna (hia) si yuk-ne-tia my husband (say) much rain-irr-say ‘My husband says: “It’s going to rain a lot”’

89



90

Syntax

5. For the Spanish examples here, I am indebted to Sylvia Romero, Karen Coral, Juana Marín and Linda Cruz-Givón (in personal communication). Example (85b) may be unacceptable in standard peninsular Spanish. 6. This obviously does not apply to ‘for’, which is already a grammaticalized preposition. 7. This affixation of one verb to another is sometimes called predicate raising in the discussion of morphological causativization. 8. The same is true in the case of the auxiliary ‘have’ (111b). In whose original construction, the object bore its GR to ‘have’, e.g.: ‘They have their supper eaten’. Only subsequent restructuring brought the two verbs together, and only later on was the construction generalized to intransitive complements (‘They have left’).



Chapter 13

De-transitive voice

13.1

Overview

13.1.1 Major themes In this chapter we survey a cluster of constructions traditionally associated, in one way or another, with de-transitive voice. The approach pursued here will on occasion diverge from the traditional,1 and will be guided by a set of partially converging assumptions. These assumptions are in the main a matter of common sense to functionalists and typologists, and are all well known in their respective domains. I will note them briefly in order.

•


The complex functional domain of voice Whatever has been meant traditionally by grammatical voice, passive voice or diathesis is part and parcel of a vast multi-dimensional functional domain, that of transitivity and detransitivization.
The multiplicity of de-transitive constructions • The functional domain of de-transitive voice is coded, in any particular language, by a family of syntactic constructions whose number and functional distribution may vary considerably from one language to the next. The most universals aspects of de-transitive voice remain its underlying functional sub-domains.

•


Semantic vs. pragmatic de-transitivity The functional domain of de-transitive voice pertains to two distinct aspects of transitivity, one primarily semantic, the other primarily pragmatic. The family of de-transitive constructions found in any particular language can be thus divided into constructions whose import is primarily semantic, and those whose import is primarily pragmatic. This does not preclude well-known interactions between the two, or diachronic change from one to the other.2 The major sub-domains of de-transitive voice, those that are most commonly coded by distinct syntactic constructions cross-linguistically, are: (1)

Sub-domains of de-transitive voice a. Primarily semantic
reflexive
reciprocal
middle-voice
adjectival-resultative

• • • •

92

Syntax

b. Primarily pragmatic
passive
antipassive
inverse

• • •

Each of these in turn contrasts with the active-transitive voice, the neutral unmarked clause type.

•


The diachronic perspective on typology De-transitive constructions, most conspicuously the passive, commonly arise via regrammaticalization of some functionally-related construction. Some of the precursors to the passive, for example, are other de-transitive voice constructions, either semantic or pragmatic. Others belong to functional domains that partially overlap with the passive. The most common of the latter are: constructions •
impersonal-subject
nominalizations •
left dislocation •
Y-movement •
adjectival resultative • The diachronic connections of the passive and other de-transitive voice constructions are important in two ways. First, they shed considerable light on the functional aspects of detransitive voice, since — much like in biological evolution — the functional extension of syntactic constructions is driven primarily by functional similarity. Second, the diachronic perspective explains much of the synchronic typological variation, both cross-linguistically and within the very same language. Typological diversity within any particular functional domain is due to the fact that a complex domain, being multi-featured, overlaps with several others and can thus be ‘colonized’ by any of them via re-grammaticalization. As elsewhere in grammar, typological diversity is but the reflection of diachronicsource diversity, thus of possible functional overlaps among related domains. Syntactic typology, in turn, is but the enumeration of the most common diachronic sources that can grammaticalize a particular functional domain (Vol. I, §1.6). 13.1.2 The functional domain of de-transitive voice 13.1.2.1
Semantics vs. pragmatics: Relevant context In distinguishing between semantic and pragmatic voice constructions, our guiding criterion is the same one observed throughout this work — the scope of the relevant context on which the functional definition of a construction depends. Primarily semantic voice constructions are those whose functional definition does not depend on entities outside the boundaries of the event-clause. Primarily pragmatic voice constructions are those whose functional definition depends on some facets of the wider, extra-clausal, discourse context.

De-transitive voice

93

13.1.2.2
The semantics of de-transitive voice Of the multiple semantic dimensions that exhibit strong statistical associations with the active–transitive clause (Hopper and Thompson 1980), three are central to the definition of the transitive prototype, each corresponding to one central cognitive-semantic aspect of the prototypical transitive event (Vol. I, §3.1.5.1): (2)

Prototype transitive event a. Agent: The prototype transitive event involves a volitional, controlling, active, initiating agent responsible for the event — the salient cause. b. Patient: The prototypical transitive event involves a non-volitional, inactive, non-controlling patient that registers the event’s changes-of-state — the salient effect. c. Verb: The verb of the prototypical transitive clause codes an event that is telic (compact), perfective (bounded), sequential (non-perfect) and realis (nonhypothetical). The prototype transitive event is thus fast-paced, completed, real, and cognitively salient.

Primarily-semantic de-transitive voice constructions are those that tamper with transitivity in terms of these three main semantic parameters: agentivity of the agent/subject •
decreased affectedness of the patient/object •
decreased
decreased telicity or perfectivity of the verb • 13.1.2.3
The pragmatics of de-transitive voice In surveying pragmatic voice constructions, one notes first that the very same semantically-transitive event, coded by the very same prototypical telic verb, active agent and affected patient — our transitive event ‘theme’ — can be rendered by several de-transitive voice constructions (‘variations’). Clearly, the semantics of transitivity is not affected in such constructions. Rather, they render the same semantically-transitive event from different pragmatic perspectives. These perspectives turn out to involve, primarily although not exclusively, the relative topicality of the agent and patient. The definition of the four main pragmatic de-transitive voices was developed first in Cooreman (1982, 1985, 1987, 1988) and Cooreman et al. (1984), and then elaborated in many subsequent cross-language studies of voice constructions (Rude 1985; Thompson 1987a, 1978b,c, 1989; Tsunoda 1985, 1987; Zavala 1994; Givón ed. 1994a; inter alia). (3)

Relative topicality of the agent and patient in the four main pragmatic voice constructions Voice

Relative topicality

active-direct inverse passive antipassive

Agt > Pat Agt < Pat Agt > Pat

94

Syntax

The neutral, unmarked transitive voice, the active-direct, is defined pragmatically as the voice construction in which both the agent and the patient are topical, but the agent is more topical than the patient. Relative to this benchmark, the three main pragmatic detransitive voices are defined as: (4)

Functional definition of main de-transitive voices a. Inverse: The patient is more topical than the agent but both agent and patient are topical. b. Passive: The agent is extremely non-topical (‘suppressed’, ‘demoted’), so that the patient is the surviving topical argument in the clause. c. Antipassive: The patient is extremely non-topical (‘suppressed’, ‘demoted’), so that the agent is the surviving topical argument in the clause.

In defining the main pragmatic voices as in (3)/(4) above, one must keep in mind that these are but the most commonly attested prototypes, the ones most likely to receive distinct syntactic coding cross-linguistically. As Thompson (1989) has noted, many more subtle voice contrasts can be grammaticalized in a particular language, so that a language may have several passives, several inverses, several antipassives — let alone several directactive — voice constructions. 13.1.2.4
Syntactic correlates of voice The syntax of voice will be discussed in considerable detail further below, in the context of the cross-language typology of various voice constructions. At this point, only a few highlights need to be mentioned. First, the active-direct construction is most commonly coded as the prototype syntactically-transitive construction. In this clause-type the agent, being the most topical argument, has the strongest claim to the GR subject, with the rest of the participants ranking lower in the familiar access-to-GRs hierarchy (Vol. I, §4.4.2.2). Agt > Dat/Ben > Pat > others In turn, the most common grammatical object in the prototype syntactically-transitive clause is the patient, in spite of the fact that in head-on competition it defers to the dativebenefactive.3 In the passive voice, some non-agent — most often the patient — is the most topical clausal argument. Unlike in the active clause, however, the grammatical subjecthood of the topical argument in the passive cannot be taken for granted. Rather, it is the subject of a major typological variation between two main types — promotional vs. non-promotional passive. Only in promotional passives, those in which a non-agent becomes the subject, is the case-hierarchy of access to GRs relevant (excluding the agent): Dat/Ben > Pat > others GRs and transitivity in the antipassive voice, like in the passive, is again subject to considerable typological variation. In some language types — or in some antipassive types

De-transitive voice

95

— the patient may lose its direct-object status. When the patient of the antipassive is thus ‘demoted’, the antipassive clause is syntactically intransitive, lacking a direct object. Finally, inverse constructions are subject to a similar typological variation as passives, so that the more topical non-agent argument may be promoted to subjecthood in some languages (or in some inverse types) but not in others.

13.2

Semantic de-transitive voice constructions

13.2.1 Reflexives and reciprocals Since there are strong functional and syntactic parallelisms between reflexive and reciprocal clauses, to the point where in many languages they share their grammatical morphology, we will treat them under the same roof. 13.2.1.1
Semantic dimensions The semantic definition of reflexive events or states is given below in a way that also includes some elements of reflexive syntactic structure. This inclusion is precipitated by the central role grammatical relations play in the control of reflexive and reciprocal constructions (see further below). (5)

Semantic definition of reflexives The subject and object of the event or state, regardless of their semantic roles, are co-referent. That is, the subject acts upon (or relates to) itself.

The neutral active–transitive in (6a), in which the subject and object are not co-referent, contrasts with the reflexive (6b), in which the subject and object are co-referent, and where the object is represented by a reflexive pronoun: (6)

a. Active–transitive She cut her (she π her) b. Reflexive She cut herself (she = herself)

The reflexive clause (6b) may be represented schematically in tree diagram (7): S

(7) Subj [NP]

She

VP V

Obj [NP]

cut

herself

Reflexive events, even those involving semantically-transitive verbs such as ‘cut’ in (6)/(7), are semantically lower in transitivity for two main reasons. First, the semantic definition

96

Syntax

of transitive event (2) requires two highly distinct participants, an agent and a patient, of radically different semantic properties. But the co-reference condition on the reflexive clause perforce requires that the very same semantic argument-type — either human/ agent in (8a) below, non-human/non-agent in (8b), or human non-agent in (8c) — occupies both the subject and object roles: (8)

a. Marvin killed himself b. The house doesn’t resemble itself (anymore) c. Mary saw herself (in the mirror)

The reflexive configuration, whether an action (8a), a state (8b) or a non-agentive event (8c), thus strongly diverges from the rigid semantic-role polarity of the transitive prototype (2). Second, reflexive clauses need not be transitive, neither semantically nor syntactically. Thus consider: (9)

a. Semantic Tr, syntactic Tr She cut herself b. Semantic Intr, syntactic Tr She loves herself c. Semantic (partial) Tr, syntactic Intr She talks to herself d. Semantic Intr, syntactic Intr She looks like herself

Indeed, because of the co-reference requirement of reflexives, reflexive events or states tend to be rather atypical transitives: only verbs that can take the same semantic participant type as both subject and object can be reflexivized. Consequently, many of the most prototypical semantically-transitive verbs can be reflexivized only metaphorically: (10)

a. b. c. d. e. f.

?She broke herself ?She made herself ?He built himself ?He folded himself ?She cooked herself ?She boiled herself

The semantic — and again partially syntactic — definition of reciprocals, given in (11) below, closely parallels that of reflexives. (11)

Semantic definition of reciprocals Two (or more) like events, coded by the very same verb, are represented jointly in a single clause, with the subject of the first being the object of the second, and vice versa. The two participants are thus reciprocally co-referent. They act upon (or relate to) each other.

De-transitive voice

97

The neutral active–transitive in (12a) below, in which the subject and object are not reciprocally co-referent, contrasts with the reciprocal (12b), in which the subject and object are, and where the object is represented by a reciprocal pronoun: (12)

a. Active–transitive Mary and John fed them

(Mary and John π them)

b. Reciprocal Mary and John fed each other

(May and John = each other)

The reciprocal clause (12b) may be represented schematically in tree-diagram (13): S

(13) Subj [NP]

VP

NP

Conj

NP

Mary

and

John

V

Obj [NP]

fed

each other

Much like reflexives, reciprocal events — even those involving semantically transitive verbs such as ‘feed’ in (12)/(13) — are semantically of lower transitivity, and for the same two main reasons. Once again, the reciprocally co-referent arguments of the reciprocal clause must be of the very same semantic-type — either human/agent (14a), non-human/ non-agent (14b), or human non-agent (14c) — in order to occupy the subject role in one event and the object role in the reciprocal converse: (14)

a. Marvin and Susan kicked each other b. The two houses resemble each other c. They saw each other

The reciprocal configuration, whether an action (14a), a state (14b) or a non-agentive event (14c), thus diverges just as strongly as the reflexive from the semantic-role polarity of the transitive prototype. Likewise, reciprocal clauses need not be transitive, neither semantically nor syntactically: (15)

a. Semantic Tr, syntactic Tr They shot each other b. Semantic Intr, syntactic Tr They knew each other c. Semantic (partial) Tr, syntactic Intr They voted for each other d. Semantic Intr, syntactic Intr They are similar to each other

98

Syntax

Much like reflexives then, reciprocal events or states tend to be non-prototypical transitives, and many of the most prototypical semantically-transitive verbs can be rendered as reciprocal only metaphorically: (16)

a. b. c. d. e. f.

?They broke each other ?They made each other ?They built each other ?They folded each other ?They cooked each other ?They drank each other

In sum, the co-reference constraints on reflexives and reciprocals make it much more natural for reflexive and reciprocal clauses — even with active verbs — to involve dative, benefactive or associative arguments. Such semantically less-transitive configurations make it possible for both constructions to abide by their co-reference constraints: (17)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m.

She sent herself a letter (Agt-Dat) They talked to each other (Agt-Dat) He did himself a favor (Agt-Ben) They made each other Christmas presents (Agt-Ben) She competed only with herself (Agt-Assoc) He knew himself (Dat-Pat) She talked regularly (Agt-Assoc) They met regularly (Agt-Assoc) They danced (together) regularly (Agt-Assoc) They saw each other regularly (Dat-Dat) She hated herself (Dat-Pat) They agreed with each other (Dat-Assoc) He doesn’t trust himself (Dat-Pat)

When the subject-object is not human, the reflexive or reciprocal verb is often stativeintransitive, with a patient-subject, as in: (18)

a. These two houses resemble each other b. This number equals itself

Indeed, it is natural to use reflexives with a patient subject as the functional equivalent of agentless passives (§13.3.2.1): (19)

a. His suggestion proved itself useful (= His suggestion was proven to be useful) b. One rock dislodged itself from the cliff-face (= One rock was dislodged off the cliff-face) c. The trees distributed themselves rather evenly around the meadow (= The trees were distributed rather evenly)

De-transitive voice

99

The seemingly innocuous co-reference constraints on reflexive and reciprocal thus turn out to conspire so that the typical reflexive or reciprocal clause is semantically lesstransitive, with either a non-agent subject or non-patient object. In the following section, we will see how syntactic factors conspire just as strongly to push reflexives and reciprocals in the same de-transitive direction. 13.2.1.2
Syntactic and typological dimensions 13.2.1.2.1
Non-distinct arguments. On the face of it, the syntactic structure of reflexives and reciprocals demands at the very least a two-argument predicate, thus potentially transitive. Indeed, one-argument intransitive predicates cannot be reflexivized: (20)

a. *The woman slept herself b. *The woman cried herself c. *The woman talked herself

In spite of this apparent pull toward syntactic transitivity, reflexive and reciprocal constructions tend to exhibit clear features of syntactic intransitivity. This has little to do with an abstract principle of iconicity that would somehow motivate an isomorphism between syntax and semantics. Rather, explicit syntactic mechanisms push reflexive and reciprocal clauses toward syntactic intransitivity. To begin with, reflexive and reciprocal clauses both abide by the same rigid relational constraint on pronominalization or zero anaphora: (21)

Relational constraints on reflexives-reciprocals a. The co-referent object is the only argument that receives pronominal, reduced or zero coding. b. The co-referent subject is the controller for such pronominalization, reduction or zeroing.

Constraints (21) is evident in: (22)

a. b. c. d.

Mary loves herself *Herself loves Mary Joe and Mary love each other *Each other love Joe and Mary

The pronominal, reduced or zero object is thus the non-distinct argument in reflexive or reciprocal clauses (Langacker 1976). In some languages, as in English, this argument may be rendered as an inflected pronoun with two distinct elements — the invariable reflexive marker (‘self ’) that must agree in number with the controller subject, and the pronominal inflection that must agree in person and gender: (23)

a. b. c. d.

Mary loves her-self John loves him-self You love your-self I love my-self

100 Syntax

e. We love our-selve-s f. You love your-selve-s g. They love them-selve-s The co-referent non-distinct argument of the reciprocal clause in English has no person or gender agreement, but is inherently plural, thus technically still agreeing with the number of the controller subject: (24)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

They saw each other We saw each other You saw each other *I/he/she saw each other Mary and Joe kissed We kissed *I/he/she kissed

In Bantu languages, the co-referent non-distinct argument in reflexive clauses is coded by an invariant marker on the verb, technically occupying the object pronoun slot but with no pronominal agreement whatever with the controller subject. In reciprocal clauses, the non-distinct argument is zeroed out. The verb, now syntactically intransitive, is marked with an invariant derivational suffix, historically the conjunction ‘with’/‘and’. Thus, from Swahili: (25)

a. Active–transitive a-li-ona Juma s/he-past-see Juma ‘S/he saw Juma’ b. Active–transitive, anaphoric a-li-mu-ona s/he-past-him-see ‘S/he saw him/her’ c. Active–transitive, anaphoric a-li-ni-ona s/he-past-me-see ‘S/he saw me’ d. Reflexive a-li-ji-ona s/he-past-refl-see ‘S/he saw herself/himself ’ e. Reflexive ni-li-ji-ona I-past-refl-see ‘I saw myself ’

De-transitive voice

f.

101

Reflexive tu-li-ji-ona we-past-refl-see ‘We saw ourselves’

g. Reflexive wa-li-ji-ona they-past-refl-see ‘They saw themselves’ h. Reciprocal wa-li-ona-na they-past-see-recip ‘They saw each other’ i.

Reciprocal tu-li-ona-na we-past-see-recip ‘We saw each other’

In Spanish, the non-distinct argument in both the reflexive and reciprocal is marked by the normal object pronouns for 1st and 2nd person subjects. Only for the third person is there a special reflexive/reciprocal pronoun. When the controller subject is plural, a potential ambiguity exists between a reflexive and reciprocal interpretation. Disambiguation is achieved by augmentation with complex markers, some of whose elements may be pronominal and require their own subject-controlled agreement. Thus, for the unambiguous singular reflexives first: (26)

a. Active–transitive María le-vió Mary 3sg/dat-saw ‘Mary saw him/her’ b. Active–transitive María lo-vió Mary 3sg/obj-saw ‘Mary saw it’ c. Active–transitive María me-vió Mary 1sg/obj-saw ‘Mary saw me’ d. Active–transitive María les-vió Mary 3pl/dat-saw ‘Mary saw them’

102

Syntax

e. Reflexive María se-vió en el espejo Mary 3/refl-saw/3sg in the mirror ‘Mary saw herself in the mirror’ f.

Reflexive (Yo) me-ví en el espejo (I) 1sg/obj-saw/1sg in the mirror ‘I saw myself in the mirror’

g. Reflexive (tu) te-viste en el espejo (you) 2sg/obj-saw/2sg in the mirror ‘You saw yourself in the mirror’ When the co-referent argument is plural, an augmenting element is used to disambiguate between reflexive and reciprocal interpretation: (27)

a. Reflexive/reciprocal nos-vimos en el espejo 1pl/obj-saw/1pl in the mirror Ï
‘We saw ourselves in the mirror’ ¸ Ì ˝
‘We saw each other in the mirror’ ˛ Ó b. Reflexive (augmented) nos-vimos a nos mismos 1pl/obj-saw/1pl obj 1pl self/masc/pl ‘We saw ourselves’ c. Reciprocal (augmented) nos-vimos el uno al otro 1pl/obj-saw/1pl the one/masc obj/the other/masc/sg ‘We saw each other’ d. Reflexive/reciprocal se-vieron en el espejo 3/refl-see/3pl in the mirror Ï
‘They saw themselves in the mirror’ ¸ Ì ˝ Ó
‘They saw each other in the mirror’ ˛ e. Reflexive (augmented) se-vieron a si mismos 3/refl-saw/3pl obj 3/refl self/masc/pl ‘They saw themselves’ f.

Reciprocal (augmented) se-vieron el uno al otro 3/refl-saw/3sg the one/masc dat/the other/masc/sg ‘They saw each other’

De-transitive voice

103

In Semitic languages, the reflexive, reciprocal and joint-action are often marked by the same invariant — non-pronominal — derivational verb prefix. In Israeli Hebrew, following much restructuring of the older system, the reflexive use of the joint marker now requires augmentation with a complex pronoun, as in Spanish. The older Biblical Hebrew system has undergone considerable reanalysis and lexicalization:4 (28)

a. Active Miryam katv-a le-Yosef Mary wrote-3sg.fem to-Joseph ‘Mary wrote to Joseph’ b. Associative Miryam hit-katv-a im-Yosef Mary refl-wrote-3fem.sg with-Joseph ‘Mary corresponded with Joseph’ c. Associative ani hit-katav-ti it-a I refl-wrote-1sg with-3fem.sg ‘I corresponded with her’ d. Reciprocal anaxnu hit-katav-nu we refl-wrote-1pl ‘We corresponded (with each other)’ e. Reciprocal hem hit-katv-u they refl-wrote-3pl ‘They corresponded (with each other)’ f.

Reflexive (augmented) hi hit-katv-a im-atsm-a she refl-wrote-3sg.fem with-self-3fem.sg ‘She corresponded with herself ’

g. Reflexive (augmented) ani hit-katav-ti im-atsm-i I refl-wrote-1sg with-self-1sg ‘I corresponded with myself ’ h. Reflexive (augmented) hem hit-katv-u im-atsm-am they refl-wrote-3sg with-self-3masc.pl ‘They corresponded with themselves’ Much of the restructuring and lexicalization in Israeli Hebrew involves the shift of the unaugmented reflexive form towards the passive or middle-voice, as in:

104

Syntax

(29)

a. Old active hu qarav eley-ha he approached/3masc.sg to-her ‘He approached her’ (obsolete) b. New middle-voice/inchoative hu hit-qarev eley-ha he refl-neared to-her ‘He got near her’ (hist.: ‘He got himself near her’) c. Old active hu zaqan he grew.old/3masc.sg ‘he became old’ (obsolete) d. New middle-voice/inchoative hu hiz-daken he refl-got.old/3masc.sg ‘He grew old’, ‘he became old’ (hist.: ‘He got himself old’) e. Active hem kilkel-u et-ze they spoiled/3pl acc-it ‘they spoiled it’ f.

Passive or middle-voice/inchoative ze hit-kalkel it refl-spoiled/3masc.sg ‘It got spoiled’ (hist.: ‘it spoiled itself ’)

g. Active hi gilgel-a et-ze she rolled-3fem.sg acc-it ‘she rolled it’ h. Middle-voice/inchoative ze hit-galgel (ba-atsm-o) it refl-rolled/3masc.sg by-self-3masc.sg ‘It rolled (all by itself)’ (hist.: ‘it rolled itself ’) In sum, it thus appears that in addition to the semantic factors that render reflexive and reciprocal constructions semantically less transitive, equally strong syntactic pressures also conspire to de-transitivize these constructions syntactically. These pressures center around what Langacker (1976) has called non-distinct arguments, i.e. the fact that the coreferent object of the two constructions is either pronominal, reduced or zeroed out.

De-transitive voice

105

Reflexive and reciprocal constructions in most languages are most typically objectless, thus syntactically intransitive. The wide-spread diachronic reanalysis of objectless reflexives as middle-voice inchoatives and/or passives (Kemmer 1988, 1989) is only natural, given that the surviving subject/agent of the reflexive clause is semantically also its patient. Thus compare: (30)

a. Reflexive The rock fell and lodged itself in a small bush b. Inchoative The rock fell and lodged in a small bush c. Passive The rock was lodged in the ground d. Reflexive John squeezed himself into the tunnel e. Inchoative John squeezed into the tunnel f.

Passive John was squeezed into the tunnel

g. Reflexive The plane crashed itself to the ground h. Inchoative The plane crashed to the ground i.

Passive The plane was crashed to the ground

The semantic overlap between reflexive and passive senses is even more striking with nonvolitional verbs or verbs of adverse effect: (31)

a. Reflexive Mary hurt herself in an accident b. Passive Mary was hurt in an accident

We will return to the syntactic-typological implications of this semantic overlap further below. 13.2.1.2.2
Possessive-reflexives. A variant reflexive structure, the possessive reflexive, is found in many languages, abiding by the following semantic definition: (32) Semantic definition of possessive reflexives The subject is the possessor of the object. Possessive reflexives exhibit the same lax constraints on transitivity, both semantic and syntactic, as reflexives and reciprocals:

106

Syntax

(33)

a. Semantic Tr, syntactic Tr (i) Non-reflexive He shot her mother (ii) Reflexive He shot his (own) mother b. Semantic Intr, syntactic Tr (i) Non-reflexive She didn’t know his address (ii) Reflexive She didn’t know her (own) address c. Semantic (partial) Tr, syntactic Intr (i) Non-reflexive They voted for our man (ii) Reflexive They voted for their (own) man d. Semantic Intr, syntactic Intr (i) Non-reflexive She forgot about his suggestion (ii) Reflexive She forgot about her (own) suggestion

A schematic tree diagram of the possessive reflexive (33a-ii) above is given in: S

(34) Subj [NP]

VP V

He

shot

Obj [NP] Poss

NP

his-own

mother

Since the subject and the object of possessive reflexive clauses are not coreferential, such constructions tend to be semantically much more transitive than ‘true’ reflexives. And since the object NP is neither pronominalized nor deleted, possessive-reflexives of semantically-transitive verbs tend to be also syntactically more transitive, as compared to ‘true’ reflexive. In English, the possessive reflexive morpheme is optional, and is restricted to emphatic or counter-normative contexts. Thus, consider: (35)

a. b. c. d.

Mary adored her mother ?Mary adored her own mother

Mary killed her mother Mary killed her own mother

De-transitive voice

107

The reason why (35b) is odd is because adoring one’s mother is normative. The reason why (35d) is not odd is because killing one’s mother is counter-normative. Likewise: (36)

a. b. c. d.

John carried his bags to the plane John carries his own bags to the plane ?President Carter used to carry his bags to the plane President Carter used to carry his own bags to the plane

The reason (36a) is not odd is because regular folks normally carry their bags to the plane, so that (36b) is felicitous only when there is something counter-normative about John doing so. In contrast, (36c) is odd because the President normally does not carry his own bags to the plane, so that the counter-normative (36d) is more felicitous. In other languages, the use of the reflexive-possessive pronoun is obligatory under coreference condition (32). As an illustration, consider Ute (Uto-Aztecan). In this language, the invariant reflexive-possessive suffix -av marks the possessed object in such constructions, as in (Givón 1980a): (37)

a. Non-reflexive mamach tuach-i-’u pu =nikya-pu =ga woman/subj child-obj-3sg see-rem ‘The woman saw his/her child’ (> not her own) b. Reflexive mamach tuach-i-av pu =nikya-pu =ga woman/subj child-obj-own see-rem ‘The woman saw her own child’ c. Non-reflexive nu =’ tuach-i-’u pu =nikya-pu =ga I/subj child-obj-3sg see-rem ‘I saw his/her child’ d. Reflexive nu =’ tuach-i-av pu =níkya-pu =ga I/subj child-obj-own see-rem ‘I saw my own child’

As in English, the possessive-reflexive construction in Ute can also involve indirect objects: (38) a. mamach tuach-i-vaa-cu =-av nu =ka’ni woman/subj child-obj-loc-dir-own listen/imm ‘The woman is listening to her own child’ b. mamach wiich-i-m-av tu =kuav-i cu =xavi’na-y woman/subj knife-obj-instr-own meat-obj cut-imm ‘The woman is cutting meat with her own knife’ c. mamach kani-vaa-tugwa-av paghay’wa-y woman/subj house/obj-loc-to-own walk-imm ‘The woman is walking toward her own house’

108

Syntax

13.2.1.2.3
Reciprocal vs. joint action. As seen earlier above, the subject or reciprocal clause may be either a conjoined NP, a dual or a plural. In many languages, the very same morpho-syntactic structure is also used to code non-reciprocal joint action. As an illustration, consider Swahili, first with a verb that is a semantically incompatible with reciprocation: (39) a. Transitive (Sg) a-li-ki-soma kitabu s/he-past-it-read book ‘S/he read the book’ b. Transitive (Pl) wa-li-ki-soma kitabu they-past-it-read book ‘They read the book’ (> not necessarily together) c. Joint action (transitive) wa-li-ki-soma-na (kitabu) they-past-it-read-recip book ‘They read (the book) together’ With a verb that allows reciprocation, the reciprocal suffix can be used to code two distinct structures: (40) a. Transitive (Sg) a-li-mu-ona mtoto s/he-past-him/her-see child ‘S/he saw the child’ b. Transitive (Pl) wa-li-mu-ona mtoto they-past-him/her-see child ‘They saw the child’ (> not necessarily together) c. Joint action wa-li-mu-ona-na mtoto they-past-him/her-see-recip child ‘They saw the child together’ d. Reciprocal wa-li-ona-na they-past-see-recip ‘They saw each other’ 13.2.1.2.4
‘Light’ vs. ‘heavy’ reciprocal marking. A distinct group of transitive verbs are inherently reciprocal. In many languages, such verbs may be expressed with conjoined or plural subjects and carry a reciprocal meaning without any explicit reciprocal marking. Typical inherently-reciprocal verbs are:

De-transitive voice

(41) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

109

Joe and May kissed They met for lunch Her parents fought over her Their hands touched They argue all the time Mary and Jane quarreled The made love

Kemmer (1988, 1989) has noted that many languages have two reciprocal morphemes, one ‘light’ or less-marked, the other ‘heavy’ or more-marked. When such a double marking pattern exists, the ‘light’ morpheme marks only inherently reciprocal verbs as in (41), while the ‘heavy’ morpheme marks non-inherent reciprocals. As illustration consider (Kemmer 1989): (42) German a. Light: Sie haben sich gesehen they have/pl lr seen ‘They met’ b. Heavy: Sie haben einander gesehen they have/pl hr seen ‘They saw each other’ (43) Turkish a. Light: Gör-üsh-tü-ler see-lr-past-3pl ‘They met’ b. Heavy: Birbiri-ni gör-dü-ler hr-acc see-past-3pl ‘They saw each other’ In Swahili, the same reciprocal suffix -na is used for both ‘heavy’ and ‘light’ reciprocals. Thus contrast (40) above with: (44) a. Transitive (Sg) a-li-mu-busu s/he-past-him/her-kiss ‘S/he kissed him/her’ b. Transitive (Pl) wa-li-mu-busu they-past-him/her-kiss ‘They kissed him/her’ (> not necessarily together) c. Joint action (transitive) wa-li-mu-busia-na they-past-him/her-kiss-recip ‘They kissed him/her together’

110

Syntax

d. Reciprocal wa-li-busia-na they-past-kiss-recip ‘They kissed (each other)’ In languages where the two patterns are distinct, as in English, it is the ‘light’ pattern — unmarked in English — that is also used to code joint action. Thus contrast: (45) a. LR, reciprocal John and Mary fought regularly b. LR, joint action John and Mary fought the IRS c. HR, reciprocal John and Mary fought each other d. *HR, joint action *John and Mary fought each other the IRS In some languages, the two reciprocal patterns, light and heavy, share a common marker which when used by itself codes ‘light’ reciprocals. The ‘heavy’ reciprocal is then obtained by augmentation with an added marker. This may be seen in Manam (Austronesian; Lichtenberk 1985): (46) a. Light: di-e-boábu-ru 3pl-recip-embrace-du ‘They embraced’ b. Heavy: di-e-boabu-í-ru 3pl-recip-embrace-hr-du ‘They embraced each other (briefly)’ The general marking pattern of reciprocals may thus be summarized in terms of both morpheme size and syntactic location: (47) Markedness and location of reciprocal morphemes

size: locus:

Light reciprocals

Heavy reciprocals

zero or small verb affixes

marked or large independent NPs

The iconicity of (47) is fairly transparent: Inherently reciprocality is a lexical-semantic feature of verbs. ‘Light’ reciprocal marking, whether zero or a small verbal affix, tags such verbs as lexically governed. ‘Heavy’ reciprocal marking is the more general syntactic pattern. Being lexically unrestricted, this pattern is less likely to be verb-coded, and the marker is more likely to be an independent morpheme, most commonly occupying the normal object slot in the clause.

De-transitive voice

Lastly, the semantic difference between the two reciprocal patterns can be further illustrated by noting that ‘light’ reciprocals must be interpreted as single events, while heavy reciprocals may also be interpreted as successive separate events. Thus contrast: (48) a. LR, inherent John and Mary kissed (i) Simultaneously (ii) *First he kissed her, then she him b. HR, inherent John and Mary kissed each other (i) Simultaneously (ii) First he kissed her, then she him c. HR, non-inherent John and Mary hit each other (i) Simultaneously (ii) First he hit her, then she him d. *LR, non-inherent *John and Mary hit In a somewhat similar vein, the verbal prefix se- in Spanish marks both ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ reciprocals, often ambiguously. The independent reciprocal pronoun can be added to disambiguate the pattern, but the sense of the disambiguation differs slightly pending on whether the verb is inherently reciprocal or not: (49) a. LR, inherent se-reunieron ayer recip-met/3pl yesterday ‘They met yesterday’ (> a single reciprocal event) b. HR, inherent se-reunieron el uno al otro recip-met/3pl the one dat/the other ‘They met each other, pair-wise’ (> multiple reciprocal events) c. LR, non-inherent se-mataron recip-killed/3pl Ï
‘they killed themselves’ (reflexive) ¸ Ì ˝
‘they killed each other’ (single event reciprocal) Ó ˛ d. HR, non-inherent se-mataron el uno al otro recip-killed/3pl the one dat/the other Ï
‘They killed each other’ (single event) ¸ Ì ˝
‘They killed each other pair-wise’ (multiple events) Ó ˛

111

112

Syntax

The ‘light’ pattern in (49a) induces the inherent-reciprocal sense of ‘meet’, and can only be interpreted as a single event. The ‘heavy’ pattern with the same verb in (49b) induces a multiple-event interpretation. With a non-inherent verb, the ‘light’ pattern is ambiguous (49c), interpreted as either a reflexive or a single-event reciprocal. And the heavy pattern (49d) is ambiguous, either the single-event reciprocal or a multiple-event reciprocal. 13.2.1.2.5
Reflexives, reciprocals and grammatical relations. As has become obvious from the preceding discussion, reflexive and reciprocal clauses are both relationally governed constructions. In both, the grammatical relations of subject vs. non-subject constrain the syntactic behavior of the clause. What makes these de-transitive patterns ‘semantic’ is that their relational constraints — (5), (11), (21) — are defined within the confines of the same clause, requiring no reference to cross-clausal contexts. These syntactic constructions are thus an important tool for probing the limits of clausehood and grammatical relations. In this section we will note some of the potentials of this tool. Consider first the use of reflexives and reciprocals in equi-subject complements of modality verbs: (50) a. Joe wanted to kill himself b. Joe and Mary wanted to kill each other Since the subject of the complement verb is also the subject of the main verb, the constraint on co-reference for both constructions remains intra-clausal. That is, it can be formulated purely in terms of GRs in the complement clause. Consider next the use of reflexives and reciprocals in the complements of manipulation verbs in English: (51) a. b. c. d.

Mary told Bill to kill himself *Mary told Bill to love herself Mary told Bill and Sue to love each other *Mary and Sue told Bill to love each other

Since the object of the main verb is also the subject of the complement clause, the constraints on co-reference here are again defined in purely intra-clausal terms. Relational constraints on reflexivization in English become more complex when one turns to the possessive-reflexive. Without the optional emphatic own, either reflexive or not-reflexive interpretations are possible, and in the latter co-reference is not relationally governed: (52) a. b. c. d.

Mary told Joe to invite his mother Mary told Joe to invite her mother Mary told Joe to invite their mother As for Bill and Suzy, Mary told Bill to invite only their mother

The fact that one of those interpretations (52b) happens to be reflexive is incidental. With the emphatic own, the interpretation becomes obligatorily reflexive, and control of co-reference in English is once again restricted to the subject of the complement clause:

De-transitive voice

(53) a. b. c. d.

113

Mary told Joe to ignore his own mother *Mary told Joe to ignore her own mother ?Mary told Joe to ignore their own mother *As for Bill and Suzy, Mary told Bill to invite only their own mother

The intra-clausal nature of constraints (5), (11), (21) in English also applies to reflexivepossessives in the complements of PCU verbs: Ï ¸ (54) a. Joe knew that Mary loved Ì *herself ˝ Ó *himself ˛ b. Joe knew that Mary loved his/her mother Ï ¸ c. Joe knew that Mary loved Ì *her own ˝ mother Ó *his own ˛ In other languages, the control of co-reference in possessive-reflexives may be different. In Ute, for example, the use of the reflexive-possessive is obligatory ((37), (38)). In complements of manipulation verbs, whether with full clause-union (55b) or incomplete clauseunion (55a), the main-clause subject controls the co-reference of reflexive-possessives in the complement clause. That is, the relational control appears to be inter-clausal, the reverse of English. Thus (Givón 1980a): (55) a. mamach ta’wach-i máy-kya tuach-i-av magha-vaa-ku woman/subj man-obj say-ant child-obj-own feed-irr-comp Ï ¸ ‘The woman told the man to feed Ì *her ˝ child’ Ó *his ˛ b. mamach ta’wach-i tuach-i-av magha-ti-kya woman/subj man-obj child-obj-own feed-caus-ant Ï ¸ ‘The woman made the man feed Ì *her ˝ child’ Ó *his ˛ When the non-reflexive possessive pronoun is used in the complement clause, control of co-reference is in principle ungoverned — with one caveat: Due to the obligatory nature of possessive-reflexive marking in Ute, the possessive pronoun cannot be governed by the normal reflexive controller, the main-clause subject. In a seeming about-face, it can now be governed either intra-clausally, by the complement-clause subject, or is relationally unconstrained: (56) a. mamach ta’wach-i máy-kya tuach-i-’u magha-vaa-ku woman/subj man-obj say-ant child-obj-3sg feed-irr-comp Ï *his ¸ Ï
‘The woman told the man to feed Ì *her ˝ child’ ¸ Ó ˛ Ì ˝ Ó
‘The woman told the man to feed someone else’s child’ ˛

114

Syntax

b. mamach ta’wach-i tuach-i-’u magha-ti-kya woman/subj man-obj child-obj-3sg feed-caus-ant Ï *his ¸
 Ï ‘The woman made the man to feed Ì *her ˝ child’ ¸ Ó ˛ Ì ˝ Ó ‘The woman made the man feed someone else’s child’ ˛
 In complements of PCU verbs, the main-clause subject in Ute again controls co-reference of the reflexive-possessive pronoun (57a), and is explicitly barred from such control of the non-reflexive possessive pronoun (57b): (57) a. mamach puchuchugwa-y woman/subj know-imm ’áapach-i sarich-i-av táa-ka-na-y boy-gen dog-obj-own kick-ant-comp-obj Ï ¸ ‘The woman knows that the boy kicked Ì *her ˝ dog’ *his Ó ˛ b. mamach puchuchugwa-y woman/subj know-imm ’áapach-i sarich-i-’u táa-ka-na-y boy-gen dog-obj-3sg kick-ant-nom-obj Ï *his ¸ Ï
‘The woman knows that the boy kicked Ì *her ˝ dog’ ¸ Ó ˛ Ì ˝ Ó ‘The woman knows that the boy kicked someone else’s dog’ ˛
 The relational control of possessive reflexivization seems even more problematic when one notes that not only the object, but also the subject of the complement clause can be targeted for reflexivization. In English, such reflexivization is relationally ungoverned: (58)

Ï ¸ a. Joe told Mary that Ì his own ˝ mother was sick Ó her own ˛ b. As for Bill, Joe told Mary that even his own mother couldn’t recognize him.

In Ute, as one would suspect, control of such reflexivization remains firmly vested in the subject of the main clause. The ungoverned pattern — again excluding the main-clause subject — is still reserved for the non-reflexive possessive pronoun: (59) a. mamach ta’wach-i máy-kya tuach-i-av pichu =-ka-na-y woman/subj man-obj say-ant child-gen-own come-ant-nom-obj Ï ¸ ‘The woman told the man that Ì *her own ˝ child had arrived’ Ó *his own ˛

De-transitive voice

b. mamach ta’wach-i máy-kya tuach-i-’u picu =-ka-na-y woman/subj man-obj say-ant child-gen-3sg come-ant-nom-obj Ï *his ¸
 Ï ‘The woman told the man that Ì *her ˝ child had arrived’ ¸ Ó ˛ Ì ˝ Ó ‘The woman told the man that someone else’s child had arrived’ ˛
 The Ute facts are indeed puzzling, at first glance suggesting a wide latitude of crosslanguage diversity in the relational control of possessive reflexivization. Note, however, that clause-union — the syntactic integration of complement into main clause — is much more extensive in Ute than in English (see Ch. 11,12). The subject in Ute complement clauses retains fewer subject properties. The complements of PCU verbs are nominalized and casemarked as object, with their subject case-marked as genitive or object.5 Superficial diversity notwithstanding, Ute and English seem to adhere to the same spirit of local — intra-clausal — control of reflexivization. Where they differ profoundly, however, is in their degree of clause-union, and thus in the exact interpretation of ‘syntactic locality’ or ‘same clause’. This is not surprising, given our earlier observations concerning the profoundly scalar nature of clause-union (Ch. 12). Since the nominalized verbal complements of Ute are much more integrated into their main clauses than the more finite complements of English, local control of reflexivization is merely extended in Ute across what in other languages may seem to be the relevant clausal boundary. As noted earlier (Vol. I, Ch. 4), grammatical subjecthood can also be, at least in principle, a matter of degree (Keenan 1975, 1976; Givón 1995a: Ch. 6). Relational control of reflexivization may be thus expressed more realistically: (60) Subject properties and control of reflexivization The closer the clausal subject is to the prototype of grammatical subject, the more likely it is to retain control of co-reference in reflexivization. The degree of clause-union may also be reflected in the locus of the reflexive morpheme, especially if it is pronominal. In Spanish, for example, when predicate-raising — full clause union — occurs in complementation, the reflexive-passive pronoun that semantically belongs to the complement-clause may be ‘raised’ to the main verb. Thus consider (from Don Quixote): (61) a. viendo-se parar de aquella manera seeing-refl stop/inf gen such manner ‘seeing himself being stopped in such a way’ (‘seeing that he (himself) was stopped in such a way’) b. el propuso de hacer-se armar caballero he proposed gen make-refl arm/inf knight ‘he proposed arming himself as a knight’ (‘he proposed that he himself be armed as a knight’)

115

116

Syntax

c. se-oyeron llamar “doncellas” refl-heard call/inf damsels ‘they heard themselves being called “damsels”’ (‘they heard that they were called “damsels”’) Such ‘raising’ of the reflexive/passive pronoun would have been inappropriate in the finitecomplement equivalents of (61), respectively: (62) a. viendo que se-paró de aquella manera seeing sub refl-stopped/3sg gen such manner ‘Seeing that he was stopped in such a way’ b. *se-viendo que (le-)paró de aquella manera refl-seeing sub him-stopped/3sg gen such manner c. oyeron que se-llamaba “doncellas” refl-heard sub refl-called/3sg damsels ‘they heard that they were called “damsels”’ d. *se-oyeron que (les-)llamaba “doncellas” refl-heard sub refl-called damsels 13.2.2 Middle-voice constructions 13.2.2.1
Semantic characterization Middle-voice constructions are a cluster of variants on semantically-transitive verbs, most commonly involving a shift of the semantic focus away from the agent. As a result, a verb that can be used to depict agent-initiated actions is now used to construe either: patient’s change during an event •
the
the potential state for such change •
the patient’s • patient’s resulting state following an event. Thus, from the active–transitive (63a) one may derive the middle-voice variants (63b–e): (63) a. Active–transitive She broke the window b. Non-agentive event The window broke c. Potential state This window breaks real easy d. Potential state The window is breakable e. Resulting state The window is broken The semantic nature of agent de-focusing in middle-voice clauses becomes clear when one contrasts them with the BE-marked passive in English, a voice construction in which the

De-transitive voice

agent is not de-focused semantically, but only pragmatically. To begin with, the agent may be overtly expressed in the passive, but not in the various middle-voice constructions: (64) a. BE-passive The window was broken by Mary b. Non-agentive MV *The window broke by Mary c. Potential-state MV *This window breaks real easy by Mary d. Potential-state MV *The window is breakable by Mary e. Resulting-state MV *The window is broken by Mary Second, agent-oriented adverbs of intent are compatible with the passive but not with the middle-voice constructions: (65) a. BE-passive The window was broken on purpose b. Non-agentive MV *The window broke on purpose c. Potential-state MV *This window breaks real easy on purpose d. Potential-state MV *The window is breakable on purpose e. Resulting-state MV *The window is broken on purpose Third, agent-oriented instrumentals are compatible with the passive but much less so with the middle-voice constructions: (66) a. Passive The window was broken with a hammer b. Non-agentive MV *The window broke with a hammer c. Potential-state MV ?This window breaks real easy with a hammer d. Potential-state MV ?The window is breakable with a hammer e. Resulting-state MV *The window is broken with a hammer Fourth, agent-oriented benefactives are compatible with the passive but not with the middle-voice constructions:

117

118

Syntax

(67) a. Passive The window was broken for Mary b. Non-agentive MV *The window broke for Mary c. Potential-state MV *This window breaks real easy for Mary d. Potential-state MV *The window is breakable for Mary e. Resulting-state MV *The window is broken for Mary Finally, agent-oriented purpose clauses are compatible with the passive but not with the middle-voice constructions: (68) a. Passive The window was broken in order to enter the house b. Non-agentive MV *The window broke in order to enter the house c. Potential-state MV *This window breaks real easy in order to enter the house d. Potential-state MV *The window is breakable in order to enter the house e. Resulting-state MV *The window is broken in order to enter the house One must note, however, that some middle-voice constructions are still agentive. This is most conspicuous in verbs that can be reflexivized, i.e. where the agent can also be the patient, as in: (69) a. Active–transitive She moved her kids to Phoenix b. Reflexive She moved herself to Phoenix c. Active-inchoative middle-voice She moved to Phoenix The agentive nature of active-inchoative middle-voice clauses such as (69c) is further underscored by their compatibility with all the agent-focusing phrases in (65), (66), (67), (68) above. Their incompatibility with the agent-phrase is due to the fact that they already have an agent as their subject: (70) a. She moved there on purpose b. She moved there with a big van c. She moved there for the sake of her kids

De-transitive voice

119

d. She moved there in order to be closer home e. *She moved there by John The similarity between active-inchoative middle-voice clauses and reflexives is neither spurious nor purely semantic. In many languages, it is also a diachronic derivational relation. Thus for example, the GET-marked passive in English and related inchoative middle-voice constructions have been all derived historically from the reflexive of the GET-marked causative construction, as in (schematically; Yang and Givón 1994): (71) a. Active causative She got him (to be) fired b. Reflexive She got herself (to be) fired c. GET-passive She got fired d. Active causative She got him into the barn e. Reflexive She got herself into the barn f.

Inchoative middle-voice She got into the barn

g. Active causative She got him (to be) angry h. Reflexive She got herself (to be) angry i.

Inchoative middle-voice She got angry

Likewise in Spanish, the se-marked reflexive has given rise historically to two passive variants and an active-inchoative middle-voice construction: (72) a. Active transitive los brujos le-curaron a María the sorcerers her-cured/3pl obj Maria ‘the sorcerer cured Mary’ b. Reflexive, active-inchoative or promotional passive los brujos se-curaron the sorcerers refl-cured/3pl
 Ï ‘the sorcerers cured themselves’ (reflexive) ¸
 Ì ‘the sorcerers got cured/got well’ (inchoative) ˝ Ó
‘the sorcerers were cured (by someone)’ (passive) ˛

120

Syntax

c. Impersonal passive se-curó a los brujos refl-cure/3sg obj the sorcerers ‘the sorcerers were cured (by someone)’ 13.2.2.2
Syntactic dimensions Parallel with the semantic de-transitivization of middle-voice constructions is their syntactic de-transitivization. They are typically intransitive, objectless clauses in which the patient occupies the subject position. Even active-inchoative clauses, in which the subject is both agent and patient, are still syntactically intransitive, with a ‘non-distinct’ object, much like that of reflexives. Thus, for (69c) above: S

(73) Subj

VP V

She

moved

Loc [PP] P

NP

to

Phoenix

The morphological marking of middle-voice constructions depends entirely on the vagaries of their diachronic derivation. Thus in Spanish, the reflexive-derived middle voice (72) retains its reflexive pronominal marking. In English active-inchoatives derived from the reflexive-causative ‘get’ (71) retain ‘get’ as their auxiliary marker, much like in the GET-passive, but don’t retain the reflexive marker. Likewise, adjectival-resultative middle voice clauses in English retain the auxiliary ‘be’ as their morphological marker. Since middle-voice derivations change active–transitive verbs into either non-agentive, stative or inchoative meanings, the lexicalization of such constructions, turning them into lexical derivations, is only a matter of time. Thus, consider the following derivatives of the active–transitive ‘break’ in Hebrew, some still somewhat syntactic, others fully lexical, others somewhere in the midst of re-analysis: (74) a. Active–transitive hi shavr-a et-ha-bakbuk she broke-3fem.sg acc-the-bottle ‘she broke the bottle’ b. Passive (obsolete) ?ha-bakbuk ni-shbar be-yadey-a the-bottle pass-broke/3masc.sg by-hands/of-her ?‘the bottle was broken by her’

De-transitive voice

121

c. Ex-passive inchoative MV ha-bakbuk ni-shbar the-bottle pass-broke/3masc.sg ‘the bottle broke’ d. Ex-passive potential-stative MV ha-bakbuk ha-ze ni-shbar be-kalut the-bottle the-this pass-break/masc with.ease ‘this bolle breaks real easy’ e. Ex-reflexive inchoative MV ha-bakbuk hi.sh.t-aber the-bottle refl-broke/3masc.sg ?‘the bottle broke itself ’ ‘the bottle broke into small pieces’ f.

Adjectival, resultative state MV ha-bakbuk ha-ze (hu) shavur the-bottle the-this is/3masc.sg broken ‘the bottle is broken’

g. Adjectival, potential state MV ha-bakbuk ha-ze (hu) shavir the-bottle the-this is/3masc.sg breakable ‘this bottle is breakable’ In most core-Bantu languages, middle-voice verbs, all syntactically intransitive, are suffixally marked, much like passives and reciprocals (Swahili): (75) a. Active–transitive a-li-ki-ona s/he-past-it-see ‘s/he saw it’ b. Reciprocal wa-li-on-ana they-past-see-recip ‘they saw each other’ c. Passive ki-li-on-ewa it-past-see-pass ‘it was seen (by someone)’ d. Middle-voice inchoative or stative ki-li-on-eka it-past-see-stat ‘it was visible’ ‘it appeared’

122

Syntax

e. Middle-voice stative y-a-on-ek-ana ya kuwa… it-hab-see-stat-recip sub sub Ï
‘it appears that…’ ¸ Ì ˝ Ó
‘it is obvious that…’ ˛

13.3

Pragmatic de-transitive voice constructions

13.3.1 Preliminaries 13.3.1.1
Functional dimensions As noted earlier (§13.1.2.3), pragmatic de-transitive voice constructions are those in which semantic transitivity is not an issue. This is so because these constructions can apply to semantically-transitive verbs that code semantically-transitive events. And the three main of semantic transitivity — active volitional agent, salient affected patient, and telic perfective verb — seem largely unaffected by the change from active–transitive to detransitive voice. The use of a pragmatic de-transitive voice construction, rather than the neutral ‘unmarked’ active–transitive, is prompted by differences in discourse-pragmatic perspective on the event, defined in terms of the relative topicality of the two main event participants. Within this framework, the pragmatic-functional definition of the four main pragmatic voices, given earlier above, is reproduced below: (3) Relative topicality of agent and patient in the four main pragmatic voice constructions Voice

Relative topicality

active-direct inverse passive antipassive

Agt > Pat Agt < Pat Agt > Pat

The neutral, unmarked transitive voice, the active-direct, is thus the functional-pragmatic benchmark vis-as-vis which the three main de-transitive voices are then defined. (4) Functional definition of main pragmatic voices Transitive a. Active-direct: The agent is more topical than the patient, but both are topical. De-transitive b. Inverse: The patient is more topical than the agent but both are topical. c. Passive: The agent is extremely non-topical (‘suppressed’, ‘demoted’), so that the patient is the only topical argument in the clause.

De-transitive voice

123

d. Antipassive: The patient is extremely non-topical (‘suppressed’, ‘demoted’), so that the agent is the only topical argument in the clause. The text-based methods used to assess the topicality of referents in discourse, cataphoric persistence (CP) and anaphoric distance (AD), were discussed in Vol. I, in the context of the grammar of cataphoric and anaphoric reference (§10.5, 10.6.4). These methods, admittedly heuristic and indirect, have been tested extensively on voice constructions in many languages (Cooreman 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988; Cooreman et al. 1984; Rude 1985, 1988, 1994; Thompson 1987a, 1978b,c, 1989; Tsunoda 1985, 1987; Zavala 1994; Givón ed. 1994a; Kawasha 2000). To recapitulate briefly, the cataphoric persistence (CP) method measures how many times a referent recurs in the next 10 clauses, following its use in a particular construction. The heuristic rational for this measure is that more topical, important referents are talked about in the subsequent discourse. As an example of the application of the CP measure to voice constructions, consider the percent distribution of high-persistence (average CP > 2) vs. low-persistence (average CP 0–2) agents and patients in the main pragmatic voice constructions in Acatec (Mayan; Zavala 1994). (76) Percent of agents and patients with CP values 0–2 (low topicality) and > 2 (high topicality) in the various Acatec voice constructions (Zavala 1994) Agent

Patient

Voice

0–2

>2

0–2

>2

Active-direct Inverses agented ‘passive’ inverse Impersonal passive Antipassives: absolutive AP VP nominalization


7.8


92.2


59.0

41.0

29.5 25.0 96.3


70.5
75.0

3.7


17.6
33.4
37.0

82.4 66.6 63.0


2.4
/


97.6 100.0

100.0
77.8


/ 22.2

The relative reversal in agent vs. patient CP values between the direct-active and the inverse, the extreme drop in the agent’s CP values in the passive, and the extreme drop in the patient’s CP values in the antipassive, are all typical of this measure (Givón ed. 1994a). The method of anaphoric distance (AD) measures the gap, in a number of clauses, between the referent’s current appearance in a particular construction and its last previous occurrence in the text. A less reliable heuristic, this method assesses when the referent has been last topical in the preceding discourse, and thus presumably how mentally active it remains in the current construction. As an illustration, consider the percent distribution of low AD (1–3; highly accessible) vs. low-AD (> 3; less accessible) agents and patients in the various pragmatic voice constructions of Acatec (Zavala 1994).

124

Syntax

(77) Percentage of agents and patients with AD values 1–2–3 (high access) vs. > 3 (low access) in the various Acatec voice constructions (Zavala 1994) Agent

Patient

Voice

1–3

>3

1–3

>3

Active-direct Inverses Agented ‘passive’ Inverse Impersonal passive Antipassive Absolutive AP VP nominalization


91.5


8.5

54.6


45.4


70.5
77.8

7.4

29.5 22.2 92.6

77.4 88.9 81.4


23.6
11.1
18.6


92.9 100.0


7.1
/


/ 33.3

100.0
66.7

Again, the relative reversal in the average agent vs. patient AD values between the direct-active and inverse, the extreme shift of agent AD values in the passive, and the extreme shift of patient AD values in the antipassive, are typical of the use of this measure (Givón ed. 1994a). 13.3.1.2
Text distribution The text distribution of pragmatic voice constructions is another diagnostic that helps in their identification. This is particularly important when a language has a number of structurally similar and/or functionally-related voice constructions (Cooreman 1982, 1985, 1987; Zavala 1994; Hidalgo 1994). It is also important in cases involving ongoing or recent diachronic change, especially functional re-analysis of voice constructions (Cooreman 1988; Cooreman et al. 1984; Mithun 1994; Brainard 1994; Gildea 1994; T. Payne 1994; Rude 1988b, 1991, 1994; Tsunoda 1985, 1987). A typical frequency distribution of the main pragmatic voice constructions in actionoriented oral narrative in Chamorro was given in Cooreman (1987): (78) Frequency distribution of various voices in Chamorro narrative text (Cooreman 1987) Voice construction active-ergative passive inverse antipassive

N

%

601
35 134
64

72.0
4.2 16.1
7.7

This distribution underscores the status of the active–transitive clause as the neutral unmarked voice type, conforming to our general observation (Vol. I, §1.8.2) about the strong correlation between syntactic and functional markedness and use-frequency (Greenberg 1976; Givón 1991c).

De-transitive voice

125

One must note that different text types may have different frequency distributions of pragmatic voices. As an illustration, consider the frequency distribution of the BE-passive vs. active–transitive voice in four English text-types (Givón 1979a: Ch. 2). (79) Relative frequency of actives and passives in main-declarative-affirmative clauses in written English text (Givón 1979a) Active Text type non-fiction fiction news sports

Passive

N

%

N

%


49 177
45
64

82 91 92 96

11 18
4
3

18
9
8
4

13.3.2 Passive voice 13.3.2.1
Pragmatic function: Agent suppression As suggested above (§13.3.1.1) and following Shibatani (1985), the prototypical passive voice is used primarily for agent suppression or de-topicalization. The fact that a non-agent argument — most commonly the patient — is then topicalized is but the default consequence of agent suppression. The fact that some passives are also semantically de-transitivized, either in terms of lower perfectivity or lower agentivity, is predictable from the diachronic antecedence of some passive types (see further below), and is not a general functional feature of all passives.6 A wide range of pragmatic contexts may motivate agent suppression. The agent may be unknown or unrecoverable, as in (Jespersen 1924: 167): (80) “…He was killed in the Boer war…” It may be anaphorically given, and thus requiring no further mention, as in: (81) The soldiers invaded the village. Soon the place was burned down. It may be cataphorically given in the subsequent discourse and thus again superfluous, as in (Trout 1974: 39–40): (82) “…There was no telling what might have happened if he had not been interrupted. The dog had been whimpering and whining…” The agent may be generically-predictable and stereotypical, as in (ibid.): (83) “…The plane was brought down safely…” Planes are habitually flown and landed by their pilots. The agent may be predictable on universal grounds and thus again superfluous, as in (ibid.):

126

Syntax

(84) “…as everybody knew, dogs were psychic… Now, it was known that these were actually fifth-dimensional objects…” Or the agent may also be predictable as the author of the text, as in (Jespersen 1924: 167): (85) “…Enough has been said here of a subject which will be treated more fully in a subsequent chapter…” Even when the agent is overtly mentioned in the passive clause, it may be of low thematic import, as in (ibid.): (86) “…the house was struck by lightning… …his son was run over by a motorcar…” Examples such as (86), with overtly-expressed agents, are rather atypical as passive clauses. In most languages, the agent is excluded from the passive clause by a rule of grammar. In relatively few languages such as English, agented passive clauses may be grammatical, but their text frequency is still low, and often they may be better analyzed functionally as inverse clauses (see further below). As an illustration of the high text frequency of agentless passives, consider the figures from four languages below. (87) Percent of non-anaphoric zero agents in active and passive clauses in narrative text Voice construction Language Chamorro (Cooreman 1987) Modern Greek (Roland 1994) Karao (Brainard 1994) English (Givón 1979a)

Active

Passive

0% 0% 0% /

93.5% 93.0% 90.5% 80.0%

One may indeed suggest that the paucity of overtly-expressed agents in passive clauses is a vivid iconic manifestation of the most salient functional-pragmatic feature of the passive voice — agent suppression (Givón 1991a). 13.3.2.2
The syntax and typology of passive clauses 13.3.2.2.1
Functional domains and typological diversity. In this section we deal with the typological diversity of passive voice constructions. As elsewhere in typology, we will take it for granted that what unites these constructions — what makes them sub-types of the same super-type — is the fact that they all code roughly the same functional domain (see Ch.1 §1.6.1). Their structural diversity is then due primarily to the fact that they arise from different diachronic source constructions that were used earlier to coded different functional domains. While this is true in the main, one must bear in mind that the notion of ‘same functional domain’ is relative rather than absolute, and that a larger domain often divides into

De-transitive voice

several sub-domains. The best argument for this derives from the fact that a language may have both a promotional and a non-promotional passive, and indeed more than one of each, as is the case in English: (88) a. Direct-active His boss fired him b. Promotional BE-passive He was fired (by his boss) c. Promotional GET-passive He got fired (?by his boss) d. Non-promotional ‘impersonal’ passives They fired him yesterday One fires people occasionally You fire them if you have to It is highly unlikely that all these passive constructions code exactly the same semanticpragmatic function, even when their common denominator remains agent suppression. Still, many languages have only one passive-voice construction, either promotional or nonpromotional. Much like functional extension in biological evolution, the re-grammaticalization of various source constructions into passive voice clauses is driven by the partial functional similarity between their erstwhile domains and the passive. Their structural diversity, on the other hand, is due to the syntactic diversity of their diachronic sources. This is so because in grammaticalization as in biological evolution, functional re-analysis leads the way as the adaptive motivating force, while structural re-adjustment lags — often far — behind. We will begin by outlining the main dichotomy in the typology of passive constructions, between the promotional and non-promotional passive. As elsewhere in taxonomy and categorization, the more major a type is, the more predictive it is in terms of a largerer number of associated features. 13.3.2.2.2
Main typological split: Promotional vs. non-promotional passives. The main typological features that distinguish promotional from non-promotional passive clauses is the presence vs. absence, respectively, of profound re-adjustment in grammatical relations — thus in overall syntactic structure — in the passive clause, relative to the direct-active clause. In this connection, it is useful to note that earlier treatments of the passive by both Generative (Chomsky 1965; Marantz 1983) and Relational grammarians (Perlmutter and Postal 1977) have tended to assume that only promotional passives, such as the BE-passive of English, are ‘true’ passives. This assumption is an unfortunate by-product of nonfunctional, non-typological approaches to syntax. From the perspective pursued here, the two major types of passive-voice constructions may be defined as follows:

127

128

Syntax

(89) Prototype promotional passive Main feature a. The non-agent topic-of-passive undergoes full promotion to subjecthood. Associated features b. The subject/agent of the active can appears in the passive clause, in which case it bears an oblique case-marking. c. Consequently, the syntax of the passive clause tends to diverge rather markedly from that of the direct-active. d. The range of non-agent case-roles that can become the subject/topic of the passive is highly restricted, most commonly either to the semantic patient or the grammatical direct object. e. Consequently, passivization tends to be restricted to transitive verbs. (90) Prototypical non-promotional passive Main feature a. The non-agent topic-of-passive does not undergo full promotion to subjecthood, but rather retains its characteristic active-clause grammatical role. Associated features b. The agent/subject of the active is typically missing. c. Consequently, the syntax of the passive clause tends to resemble that of the direct-active. d. There is no restriction on the non-agent case-roles that can become the topic of the passive. e. Consequently, passivization can also apply to intransitive verbs. We will exemplify these two prototypes with, respectively, English and Ute. a.

Promotional: The English BE-passive The first three structural features of the English promotional BE-passive, (89a–c), may be seen in the contrast between the direct-active (88a) and the BE-passive (88b) above, reproduced below together with their syntactic phrase-structure representation: (91) Direct-active S Subj [NP]

VP V

His-boss

Wred

Obj [NP] him

De-transitive voice

129

(92) Promotional BE-passive S Subj [NP]

VP VP

He

IO [PP]

Aux

V

was

Wred

P

NP

by

his-boss

Features (89d,e) of the promotional passive may be illustrated by observing the restrictions on the promotion of various non-agent arguments to subjecthood of the BE-passive in English: (93) a. Active He saw her on the beach b. Pat-DO subject of passive She was seen on the beach c. *Loc-IO Subj of passive *The beach was seen him on d. Active She gave him a book e. Dat/Ben-DO Subj of passive He was given a book f.

Active She wrote a letter with the pen

g. *Instr-IO Subj of passive *The pen was written a letter with h. Active He went there with the kids i. *Assoc-IO Subj of passive *The kids were gone there with j.

Active She walked fast

k. *Mann-IO Subj of passive *Fast was walked b.

Non-promotional: The Ute impersonal passive Ute (Uto-Aztecan) has no promotional passive, but only one non-promotional ‘impersonal’ passive. The non-agent topic of the passive retains its active-clause casemarking (90a). The subject/agent of the active cannot appear in the passive clause (90b).

130

Syntax

The passive verb is marked with the suffix -ta. Thus consider (Givón 1980a, 1981a): (94) a. Active ta’wach sivaatuch-i pakha-pu =ga man/subj goat-obj kill-rem ‘The man killed the goat’ b. Passive sivaatuch-i pakha-ta-pu =ga goat-obj kill-pass-rem Ï
‘Someone killed the goat’ ¸ Ì ˝ Ó
‘The goat was killed’ (by someone) ˛ The passive clause in Ute retains another feature characteristic of the active — plural subject agreement. That is, the demoted, obligatorily-deleted subject-of-active continues to control number agreement on the verb. Thus: (95) a. Active táata’wachi-u sivaatuch-i pakha-qa-pu =ga men/subj-pl goat-obj kill-pl-rem ‘The men killed the goat’ b. Passive sivaatuch-i pakha-qa-ta-pu =ga goat-obj kill-pl-pass-rem Ï
‘Some persons killed the goat’ ¸ Ì ˝ Ó
‘The goat was killed’ (by some persons) ˛ Unlike number agreement, pronominal agreement is optional in Ute, and is governed by discourse-pragmatic considerations. The more topical participant controls pronominal agreement, and is often also fronted. In the active clause, either the subject or the object can control pronominal agreement, depending on which is more topical: (96) a. Subject/agent more topical táata’wachi-u sivaatuchch-i pakha-qa-pu =ga-am men/subj-pl goat-obj kill-pl-rem-they ‘The men killed the goat’ b. Object/patient more topical sivaatuch-i táata’wachi-u pakha-qa-pu =gay-’u goat-obj men-subj-pl kill-pl-rem-him ‘The goat, the men killed it’ In the passive only the topic-of-passive can be co-referent with the clitic pronoun, never the underlying subject/agent. Thus compare: (97) a. Topic-of-passive pronominal agreement sivaatuch-i pakha-qa-ta-pu =gay-’u goat-obj kill-pl-pass-rem-him ‘The goat was killed’ (by some persons)

De-transitive voice

131

b. *Subject/agent of active pronominal agreement *sivaatuch-i pakha-qa-ta-pu =ga-am goat-obj kill-pl-pass-rem-they Finally, any verb type regardless of transitivity can be passivized in Ute (90d,e), and thus any case-role can become the topic of the passive, often by default. Thus consider: (98) a. Active ta’wach wiich-i-m tu =ka-qa-’u man/subj knife-obj-instr eat-ant-he ‘The man ate with a knife’ b. Instr topic-of-assive wiich-i-m tu =ka-ta-qa-ax knife-obj-instr eat-pass-ant-it ‘Someone ate with a knife’ c. Active mamach tu =vupu =-vwan ’avi-kya-’u woman/subj ground-obj-on lie-ant-she ‘The woman lay on the ground’ d. Loc topic of passive tu =vu-pu =-vwan ’avi-ta-qa-ax ground-obj-on lie-pass-ant-it ‘Someone lay on the ground’ e. Active máamchi-u ’áapach-i-wa wú == u ka-qa-qa-am women/subj-pl boy-obj-with work-pl-ant-they ‘The women worked with the boy’ f.

Assoc topic of passive ’áapach-i-wa wú == u ka-qa-ta-qa-’u boy-obj-with work-pl-pass-ant-he ‘Some persons worked with the boy’

g. Active mamach pú =ka wú == u ka-qa-’u woman/subj hard work-ant-she ‘The woman worked hard’ h. Mann topic of passive pú =ka wú == u ka-ta-qa hard work-pass-ant ‘Someone worked hard’ i.

Active mamach tu =ka-vaa-ch yu =ga-qa-’u woman/subj eat-irr-nom arrive-ant-she ‘The woman came in order to eat’

132

Syntax

j.

Purp topic of passive tu =ka-vaa-ch yu =ga-ta-qa eat-irr-nom arrive-pass-ant ‘Someone came in order to eat’

13.3.2.2.3
Most common sub-types: The diachronic connection. Both promotional and nonpromotional passives may arise from diverse diachronic sources. As a result, the syntactic properties of the various passive types often harkens back to their source constructions. a. Promotional passive sub-types 13.3.2.2.3.1
The predicate-adjective source: The English BE-passive. The English BE-passive arose from an adjectival-resultative clause with the main verb ‘be’, with the adjective being a perfective derivative of the complement verb (Estival 1986). The older usage survives to this day in the English so-called ‘lexical’ passives, a middle voice construction (99a). A ‘perfect passive’ construction (99b) was probably involved as intermediate in the rise of the ‘syntactic’ BE-passive (99c). Thus, schematically: (99) a. Adjectival-resultative (‘lexical passive’) (The came in and looked, and) the window was broken They came in and saw a broken window b. ‘Perfect passive’ (They came in and saw that) the window had been broken c. ‘Syntactic passive’ The window was broken (by John) The most salient syntactic features of the English BE-passive — promotion of the nonagent to subjecthood and the restriction to patient/object and thus to transitive verbs — are derived directly from the source adjectival middle-voice construction (99a). Only toward the tail end of the diachronic extension was the optional agent by-phrase added, no-doubt by analogy with non-passive instrumental constructions with agentive senses (‘by the grace of God’, ‘by hand’, ‘by sheer effort’, ‘by two witnesses’). 13.3.2.2.3.2
The reflexive source (i): The English GET-passive. The English promotional GET-passive is the tail end of a protracted 700-year diachronic evolution, whose final stages can be given schematically as (Yang and Givón 1994): (100) a. Causative with active complement She got them to fire him b. Causative with passive complement She got him (to be) fired c. Reflexive-causative He got himself fired d. GET-passive He got fired

De-transitive voice

133

The fact that the object of the active is promoted to subject of the passive (89a) is a direct consequence of the fact that in reflexive clauses it is the subject, rather than the object, that survives as a distinct argument. Among conservative users of this still-evolving construction, the agent by-phrase (89b) is still atypical, although it is moving in among younger speakers, probably by analogy with the BE-passive, which it seems to be replacing. Many semantic properties of the GET-passive are also predictable from the agentive nature of its reflexive subject. Thus, for example, it can be embedded in complements of command verbs, unlike the BE-passive (Bolinger 1966; Lakoff 1971): (101) a. *They told him to be treated by a doctor b. They told him to get treated by a doctor Likewise, with the interpretation of adverbs of intent: (102) a. John was deliberately shot by Mary (… Mary acted deliberately) (… / John acted deliberately) b. John got treated by the wrong doctor deliberately (> John acted deliberately) (… / The doctor acted deliberately) The more agentive nature of the subject of the GET-passive is also evident from the fact that only human-agentive patients of the active can be the subjects of this passive: (103) a. b. c. d.

Mary was promoted fast The house was razed to the ground Mary got promoted fast *The house got razed to the ground

13.3.2.2.3.3
The Philippine verb-coding passive: Bikol. If Philippine languages are interpreted as nominative, which probably was an earlier stage preceding the well-documented current drift to ergativity (T. Payne 1982; Verhaar 1983a,b; Cooreman et al. 1984; Brainard 1994; Mithun 1994), then the passive clause in Philippine languages, with its distinctive verb morphology coding the semantic role of the nominative NP, must be described as a promotional passive. As such, it violates associated properties (89d,e), in that passivization is not restricted to the patient/object and transitive verbs. In the Philippine passive, the subject grammatical role is coded on the NP, while the semantic role of the subject is coded on the verb. Thus, from Bikol (M. Factora, i.p.c.): (104) a. Active nag-ta’o ’ang-lalake ning-libro sa-babaye agt-give nom-man pat-book dat-woman ‘The man gave a book to the woman’ b. PAT subject (passive-i) t-in-a’o kang-lalake ’ang-libro sa-babaye pat-give agt-man nom-book dat-woman ‘The book was given to the woman by the man’

134

Syntax

c. DAT subject (passive-ii) na-ta’o-an kang-lalake ning-libro ’ang-babaye dat-give-dat agt-man pat-book nom-woman ‘The woman was given a book by the man’ d. Active nag-putul ’ang-lalake ning-tubu gamit(-’ang)-lanseta agt-cut nom-man pat-cane instr-knife ‘The man cut sugar-cane with a knife’ e. INSTR subject (passive-iii) pinag-putul kang-lalake ning-tubu ’ang-lanseta instr-cut agt-man pat-cane top-knife ‘The knife was used by the man to cut sugarcane’ f.

Active nag-bakal ’ang-lalake ning-kanding para-sa-babaye agt-buy nom-man pat-goat ben-dat-woman ‘The man bought a goat for the woman’

g. BEN subject (passive-iv) pinag-bakal-an kang-lalake ning-kanding ’ang-babaye ben-buy-dat agt-man pat-goat nom-woman ‘The woman was bought a goat by the man’ Further below (§13.3.2.2.4.1) we will see why the seeming violation of the promotional passive prototype in Philippine languages is both possible and natural. The Philippine verb-coding strategy may have arisen diachronically via the re-analysis of erstwhile nominalizations, whereby nominalized complement clauses ‘surfaced’ as main clauses due to the grammaticalization of erstwhile main verbs into tense–aspect markers (see Egerod 1975, Mead 1998 for Austronesian; Gildea 1998 for Cariban; Girardello 1999 for Trumai). In the case of Philippine languages, clefting and/or relativization may have been part of the mechanism that led to the reanalysis. b. Non-promotional passive sub-types 13.3.2.2.3.4
The zero subject passive: Sherpa. The simplest, most iconic and least grammaticalized type of passive clause is formed on the principle that zero-marking of arguments can be prompted by two distinct motivations: anaphoric accessibility •
high
low cataphoric importance • In Sherpa (Tibeto-Burman), zero-subject constructions can be interpreted — given the appropriate discourse context — as either active–transitive anaphoric subject clauses or as impersonal passive clauses, with no additional grammatical marking to differentiate the two uses. Thus (K. Lama, i.p.c.):

De-transitive voice

(105) a. Active–transitive ti mi-ti-gi chenyi chax-sung def man-def-erg cup/abs break-perfv ‘The man broke the cup’ b. Zero subject chenyi chax-sung cup/abs break-perfv (i) Anaphoric pronoun ‘s/he broke the cup’ (ii) Impersonal passive ‘Someone broke the cup’ ‘The cup was broken’ (iii) Middle-voice ‘The cup broke’ Not surprising, the zero-subject passive can apply to all verb-types regardless of transitivity, as in: (106) a. Active intransitive ti mi-ti yambur-la lep-sung def man-def/abs Katmandu-loc come-perfv ‘The man came to Katmandu’ b. Zero subject yambur-la lep-sung Katmandu-loc come-perfv (i) Anaphoric pronoun ‘s/he came to Katmandu’ (ii) Impersonal passive ‘Someone came to Kathmandu’ c. Active intransitive ti mi-ti cham-sung def man-def/abs dance-perfv ‘The man danced’ d. Zero subject cham-sung dance-perfv (i) Anaphoric pronoun ‘s/he danced’ (ii) Impersonal passive ‘someone danced’ 13.3.2.2.3.5
Impersonal subject pronoun: English, French, Athabaskan. The impersonalpronoun passive is fundamentally the same as the zero-subject strategy, with the exception that a real pronominal morpheme rather than a zero marks the suppressed subject/agent.

135

136

Syntax

We have already noted this passive type in English with examples such as: (107) a. They fired him yesterday b. One fires people occasionally c. You fire them if you have to This non-promotional impersonal passive is unconstrained by verb-type and transitivity: (108) a. They dance in the street there b. One goes to the market every Friday In French, the impersonal pronoun is derived historically from the generic noun homme ‘man’ (vis. the German man), and the construction is just as permissive in terms of verbtype and transitivity: (109) a. on l-a vu dans la rue impers him-have seen in the street
 Ï ‘one saw him in the street’ ¸
 Ì ‘he was seen in the street’ ˝ Ó
‘we saw him in the street’ ˛ b. on y dance impers there dance ‘one dances there’ Finally, in Tolowa-Athabaskan the impersonal subject pronoun, like other de-transitive operators (reflexive, reciprocal, antipassive) occupies the erstwhile object pronoun slot, in a construction that is otherwise a typical non-promotional passive. With the exception of the impersonal subject pronoun itself, the passive clause maintains all the syntactic features of the active. Thus (Givón and Bommelyn 2000): (110) a. Active transitive (3 > 1) shu =-R-tu =R 1sg/obj-l-kick ‘s/he is kicking me’ b. Active transitive (3 > 3) yu =-R-tu =R 3sg/obv/obj-l-kick ‘s/he is kicking him/her’ c. Impersonal passive shu =-tr’u =-R-tu =R 1sg/obj-pass-l-kick Ï
‘someone is kicking me’ ¸ Ì ˝ Ó
‘I am being kicked’ ˛

De-transitive voice

d. Active intransitive dee-yu =n th-sing/impf ‘s/he is singing’ e. Impersonal passive sr-dee-yu =n pass-thm-sing/impf Ï
‘someone is singing’ ¸ Ì ˝
 Ó ‘singing is being done’ ˛ 13.3.2.2.3.6
Agent-excluding VP nominalization: Ute. We have already noted the syntactic characteristics of Ute non-promotional passive (§13.3.2.2.2). The passive suffix -ta is the same one marking subject-excluding VP nominalizations, as in (Givón 1980a, 1988d): (111) a. Impersonal passive múusach-i pakha-ta-pu =ga cat-obj kill-pass-rem Ï ‘someone killed the cat’ ¸
 Ì ˝ Ó
‘the cat was killed’ ˛ b. VP nominalization múusa-pakha-ta ka-’ay-wa-t ’ura-’ay cat-kill-nom neg-good-neg-nom be-imm ‘Cat-killing is bad’ 13.3.2.2.3.7
The reflexive source (ii): Spanish. As noted in the earlier discussion of the English GET-passive, one would predict from general considerations that a reflexivederived passive clause would be promotional, given the universal trend to preserve the subject and delete the object in reflexive clauses. This is indeed true in the reflexive-derived passive in many languages, including Semitic languages and Modern Greek (Manney 1998, 2000). The Spanish se-marked impersonal passive is thus somewhat of an anomaly, but one that is also attested in Russian, Polish and Finnish. The marker se- was originally the reflexive — and then also reciprocal — pronoun, going back to the Latin sui (Monje 1955): (112) a. Reflexive se armó de todas sus armas ref arm/3sg with all his weapons ‘he armed himself with all his weapons’ b. Reciprocal donde se combatían where recip fight/impf/3pl ‘where they fought each other’

137

138

Syntax

Four important features of Spanish syntax conspired in the reanalysis of the se-marked reflexive into a non-promotional impersonal passive. First, the existence of an impersonalsubject construction, with neutral 3rd person plural agreement, roughly like the still extant: (113) le-vieron en la calle 3sg/obj-saw/3pl in the street Ï ‘They saw him in the street’ ¸
 Ì ˝ Ó
‘He was seen in the street’ ˛ Second, the se-marked reflexive also evolved into a middle-voice construction, as in: (114) a. Active quebraron las ventanas broke/3pl the windows ‘they broke the windows’ b. Middle-voice or impersonal passive se-quebraron las ventanas refl-broke/3pl the windows Ï
‘the windows were broken’ ¸ Ì ˝ Ó
‘the windows broke’ ˛ Third, word-order flexibility in Spanish allows placing the subject post-verbally. In a VO language, the word-order difference between subject and object is thus effectively neutralized: (115) a. VO order, active curaron los caballos cure/past/3pl the horses ‘They cured the horses’ b. VS order, middle se-curaron los caballos ref-cure/past/3pl the horses ‘The horses got well’ Fourth, in earlier times human objects in Spanish did not require the dative preposition a, nowadays an obligatory human direct-object marker (Marín 1989a,b; from El Poema de Mio Cid): (116) a. veremos vuestra mugier see/fut/1pl your woman ‘We will see your wife’ b. veré a la mugier see/fut/1sg dat the woman ‘I will see (my) wife’ The difference between subject and object was thus neutralized not only in terms of wordorder but also of case-marking.

De-transitive voice

These four factors conspired to neutralize the reflexive, middle-voice and impersonalpassive interpretations of the se-marked clause in a period prior to the obligatory a-marking of human objects: (117) se-cur-aron los brujos ref-cure/past-3pl the sorcerers a. Reflexive: ‘The sorcerers cured themselves’ b. Middle: ‘The sorcerers got well’ c. Passive: ‘The sorcerer were cured’ Eventually, a non-promotional impersonal-passive construction evolved, with the topic-ofpassive marked as object, and a neutral 3rd-person singular verb agreement, as in (118a) below. But a promotional passive survives to this day with plural subjects, as in (118b): (118) a. Impersonal passive se-curó a los brujos ref-cure/3sg dat the sorcerer ‘Someone cured the sorcerers’ b. Promotional passive or middle se-venden bien los apartamentos ref-sell/3pl well the apartments Ï
‘Apartments sell well’ ¸ Ì ˝ Ó
‘Apartments are sold well’ ˛ The use of an oblique agent in the se-marked passive in Spanish is odd to this day, although the beginning of such a pattern can be seen in both the promotional and the impersonal passive, respectively (De Mello 1978): (119) a. Promotional se-passive las pirámides se-construyeron por esclavos the pyramids ref-constructed/3pl by/with slaves ‘The pyramids were constructed by/with slaves’ b. Non-promotional (‘impersonal’) se-passive se-destruyó a la nación por los malos gobernantes ref-destroyed/3sg dat the nation by the bad rulers ‘The nation was destroyed by the bad rulers’ The ambiguity of por as either ‘because’ or ‘by’ no doubt facilitated this development. 13.3.2.2.3.8
The L-dislocation cum impersonal pronoun blend: Lunda. In a number of Bantu languages on the common border of Zambia, Angola and the Congo (Kimbundu, Lovale, Chokwe, Lunda), the traditional core-Bantu promotional passive with the suffix -wa has been replaced by a seemingly non-promotional passive that bears all the marks of its recent origin as a blend between two non-promotional de-transitive constructions — the object topicalizing L-dislocation and the subject-suppressing impersonal pronoun ‘they’. This construction will be illustrated with data from Lunda (Kawasha and Givón 2000):

139

140

Syntax

(120) a. Active–transitive Joni w-a-mona Mari J. s/he-past-see M. ‘John saw Mary’ b. Anaphoric object Joni w-a-mu-mona John s/he-past-him/her-see ‘John saw him/her’ c. Anaphoric object (Pl subject) anyaana a-a-mu-mona children they-past-him/her-see ‘the children saw him/her’ d. Anaphoric subject & object a-a-mu-mona they-past-him/her-see ‘they saw him/her’ e. Object L-dislocation Mari, Joni w-a-mu-mona Mary John s/he-past-him/her-see ‘Mary, John saw her’ f.

Ambiguous passive/L-dislocation Mari, a-a-mu-mona Mary they-past-him/her-see Ï
‘Mary, they saw her’ ¸
 Ì ‘Mary, she was seen’ ˝ Ó
‘Mary was seen’ ˛

g. Unambiguous passive (VO) a-a-mu-mona Mari kudi-Joni they-past-him/her-see Mary dat-John ‘Mary was seen by John’ h. Unambiguous passive (OV) Mari a-a-mu-mona kudi-Joni Mary they-past-him/her-see dat-John ‘Mary was seen by John’ In spite of its impersonal subject pronoun ‘they’ and object pronominal agreement on the verb controlled by the topic-of-passive, the Lunda passive is a rather odd non-promotional construction. To begin with, the strongly preferred pre-verbal position of the topic-ofpassive (120h) is a subject-like order in this rigid SVO language. Further, unlike the prototype non-promotional passive, the Lunda passive admits an optional oblique-marked agent (120g,h). What is more, it also exhibits the restrictions on object type and transitivity characteristic of promotional passives:

De-transitive voice

(121) a. Active Joni w-a-ya kudi-Mari John 3sg-past-go dat-Mary ‘John went to Mary’ b. *Passive *Mari a-a-mu-ya kudi-Joni Mary they-past-him/her-go dat-John (*‘Mary was gone to by John’) c. Active Joni w-a-ya ku-Lusaka John 3sg-past-go loc-Lusaka ‘John went to Lusaka’ d. *Passive *Lusaka a-a-ku-ya kudi-Joni Lusaka they-past-loc/obj-go dat-John (*‘Lusaka was gone to by John’) e. Active Mari w-a-zuña na-Joni Mary 3sg-past-fight with-John ‘Mary fought with John’ f. *Passive *Joni a-a-mu-zuña kudi-Mary John they-past-him/her-fight dat-Mary (*‘John was fought with by Mary’) g. Active Joni w-e-enda na-mbwechi John 3sg-past-walk with-cane ‘John walked with a cane’ h. *Passive *mbwechi a-a-y-eenda kudi-Joni stick they-past-it-walk dat-John (*‘the stick was walked with by John’) However uncharacteristic, these restrictions are nonetheless predictable from one of the diachronic sources of this schizophrenic construction — object L-dislocation, which applies only to direct objects, thus only to transitive verbs. As we shall see below, the Lunda topicof-passive also displays some subject-like behavior-and-controls properties. 13.3.2.2.4
Passives and grammatical relations. 13.3.2.2.4.1
The functional dilemma of passivization: Semantic vs. pragmatic case-marking. The typology of passive constructions outlined above is better understood, indeed illuminated, in the context of an old functional dilemma, one noted earlier (Vol. I, Ch. 4)

141

142

Syntax

during our discussion of case-marking typology: the conflict between semantic and pragmatic case-marking. This dilemma — the fact that nominal morphology accommodates either semantic or pragmatic case morphemes but seldom both — is resolved, as we noted earlier, in three major ways: two extreme typological solutions and one middleground compromise. Respectively: nominative typological solution •
The pragmatically-oriented case-marking active-stative solution •
The semantically-oriented case-marking
The ergative solution • transitivity-oriented case-making The functional dilemma of case-marking the topic-of-passive is similar, and likewise receives two extreme typological solutions: (122) a. Non-promotional solution: Semantics over pragmatics The non-agent topic-of-passive retains its active-clause case-marking, be it that of secondary topic (DO) or semantic role (patient, dative, instrumental, associative etc.). In foregoing promotion to subject, it also forgoes pragmatic marking as primary topic. b. Promotional solution: Pragmatics over semantics The non-agent topic-of-passive is promoted to subject of the passive clause, receiving the pragmatic marking of primary topic. As a result it must — like nominative subjects elsewhere — forego the marking of its semantic role. The relational restrictions on promotional passives in terms of verb-type, transitivity and access to subjecthood (90), as well as the various violations of those restrictions, may be now viewed as various adaptive strategies of having one’s cake and eating it too. That is, these restrictions and their selective ‘violations’ make it possible for a language to have a pragmatically-oriented case-marking in the passive clause, while still deciphering the semantic role of the topic-of-passive. We will survey three such variants. a.

The Philippine solution In the Philippine-type passive (§13.3.2.2.3.3 above), the dilemma is resolved by splitting case-marking morphology between NPs and verbs. By marking the verb for the semantic role of the nominative subject, the language by-passes the original dilemma altogether, allowing the subject NP to retain its pragmatically-oriented nominative marking. The fact that no relational restrictions are imposed on the Philippine-type passive underscores our suggestion that those restrictions are motivated by the need for semantic-role resolution. b.

The English solution As noted earlier (§13.3.2.2.2), the English promotional BE-passives are highly restricted by verb-type and transitivity (93). Essentially, only direct objects can be made topic-of-passive. In addition, promotion of oblique objects to DO is highly constrained in English, essentially to only the dative-benefactive, whose promotion is near obligatory (Givón 1984a):

De-transitive voice

(123) Selective access to DO a. Dat IO: He gave the book to Mary b. Dat DO: He gave Mary a book c. Ben IO: She built the house for John d. Ben DO: She built John a house e. Loc IO: He put the book on the table f. *Loc DO: *He put the table a book g. Instr IO: She cut the meat with a knife h. *Instr DO: *She cut the knife (the) meat i. Assoc IO: He built the house with Mary j. *Assoc DO: *He built Mary a house7 k. Mann IO: She built the house fast l. *Mann DO: *She built fast a house The direct-object-only restriction on BE-passivization is even stricter, eliminating the benefactive. Thus compare access to subject-of-passive (124) to access to object-of-active (123), respectively: (124) Selective access to subject-of-passive a. Pat subject: The book was given to mary b. Dat subject: Mary was given a book c. Pat subject: The house was built for John d. *Ben subject: *John was built a house (for) e. Pat subject: The book was put on the table f. *Loc subject: *The table was put a book (on) g. Pat subject: The meat was cut with a knife h. *Instr subject: The knife was cut the meat (with) i. Pat subject: The house was built for mary j. *Ben subject: *Mary was built a house (for) k. Pat subject: The house was built fast l. *Mann subject: *Fast was built the house The direct-object-only restriction in English BE-passives, and the puzzling exception in the case of the benefactive, is easily seen as a cogent strategy for computing the semantic role of the subject-of-passive: (125) a. If the verb takes a dative semantic argument, the semantic role of the subject-of-passive must be that of dative. b. Otherwise, the semantic role of the subject-of-passive must be that of patient. But why the exception on the benefactive, which is promoted to DO just as easily as the dative? The answer is disarmingly simple: The dative is an obligatory semantic argument of the verb; the benefactive is an optional argument, whose semantic role cannot be predicted from the verb’s semantic frame.

143

144

Syntax

c.

The KinyaRwanda solution The hallmark of the KinyaRwanda solution, also found in Nez Perce (Rude 1985) and partially in many other languages (Givón 1984a), is a stringent direct-object-only restriction very much like that of English. However, unlike English, most oblique objects can be promoted to DO in KinyaRwanda. What is more, this promotion involves case-marking the verb with the semantic role of the promoted DO. The promotion of the dativebenefactive is obligatory, of the other obliques optional (Kimenyi 1976): (127) a. *Dative-benefactive IO *Yohani y-ooher-eje ibaruwa ku-Maria John/subj he-send-asp letter/obj dat-Mary b. Dative-benefactive DO Yohani y-ooher-er-eje Maria ibaruwa John/subj he-send-ben-asp Mary/obj letter/obj ‘John sent Mary a letter’ c. Locative IO umugore y-ooher-eje umubooyi ku-isoko woman/subj she-send-asp cook/obj loc-market ‘The woman sent the cook to the market’ d. Locative DO umugore y-ooher-eke-ho isoko umubooyi woman/subj she-send-asp-loc market/obj cook/obj ‘The woman sent to the market the cook’ e. Instrument IO umugabo ya-tem-eje igiti n-umupaanga man/subj he-cut-asp tree/obj instr-saw ‘The man cut the tree with a saw’ f. Instrument DO umugabo ya-tem-ej-eesha umupaanga igiti man/subj he-cut-asp-instr saw/obj tree/obj ‘The man used the saw to cut the tree’ g. Manner IO Maria ya-tets-e inkoko n-agahiinda Mary/subj she-cook-asp chicken/obj mann-sorrow ‘Mary cooked the chicken regretfully’ h. Manner DO Maria ya-tek-an-ye agahiinda inkoko Mary/subj she-cook-mann-asp sorrow/obj chicken/obj ‘Mary regretfully cooked the chicken’ i. Associative IO umuhuungu ya-riimb-jye ururiimbi na-umugore boy/subj he-sing-asp song/obj assoc-woman ‘The boy sang the song with the woman’

De-transitive voice

j.

145

Associative DO umuhuungu ya-riimb-an-ye umugore ururiimba boy/subj he-sing-assoc-asp woman/obj song/obj ‘The boy sang with the woman a song’

The verb-coding feature of promotion to DO bypasses the functional dilemma of the promotional passive. Promotion to direct object is a prerequisite to passivization in KinyaRwanda. Any oblique role can be now promoted to subject-of-passive, provided it is first promoted to direct object. Thus compare with (126) above, respectively: (127) a. Dative-benefactive (cf. (126b)) Maria y-ooher-er-ej-we ibaruwa Mary/subj she-send-ben-asp-pass letter/obj ‘Mary was sent a letter’ b. Patient (cf. (126c)) umubooyi y-ooher-ej-we ku-isoko cook/subj he-send-asp-pass loc-market ‘The cook was sent to the market’ c. Locative (cf. (126d)) isoko ry-ooher-ej-we-ho umubooyi market/subj it-send-asp-pass-loc cook *‘The market was sent the cook to’ ‘Someone sent the cook to the market’ d. Instrument subject-of-passive (cf. (126f)) umupaanga wa-tem-eesh-ej-we igiti saw/subj it-cut-instr-asp-pass tree/obj ‘The saw was used to cut the tree’ e. Manner subject-of-passive (cf. (126h)) agahiinda ga-tek-an-w-e inkoko sorrow/subj it-cook-mann-pass-asp chicken *‘Regret was cooked the chicken with’ ‘Someone cooked the chicken regretfully’ f.

Associative subject-of-passive (cf. (126j)) umugore ya-riimb-an-w-e ururiimbi woman/subj she-sing-assoc-pass-asp song/obj *‘The woman was sung a song with’ ‘Someone sang a song with the woman’

The stringent DO-only restriction on the KinyaRwanda promotional passive turns out, on closer inspection, to yield the very same have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too solution as the Philippine promotional passive, splitting the case-marking load between the verb (semantic role) and the nominative subject NP (pragmatic role).

146

Syntax

13.3.2.2.4.2
Partial promotion. So far, we have dealt mostly with reasonably unambiguous types of either promotional (English BE, English GET, Philippine, KinyaRwanda) or nonpromotional (Sherpa, English/French/Tolowa, Ute, Spanish) passives, whereby the topicof-passive is either the subject or non-subject. In this section one must face up to the considerable residue of relational mess. The mess is of course a matter of factual record, a record which motivated the prototype approach to GRs, and thus their potential nondiscreteness. Our Pandora Box was first left ajar by Keenan’s pioneering observations on partially-promotional passives (Keenan 1975), and his subsequent basket-of-properties definition of the GR subject (Keenan 1976a). Keenan (1975) ranked the three overt coding properties of ‘subject’ according to the likelihood of their being acquired by the topic-of-passive. His ranking, modified to include behavior-and-control properties, may be expressed in the implicational hierarchy: (128) Implication hierarchy of overt ding properties of the subject-of-passive (Keenan 1975; Givón 1995a) Behavior and control properties > Nominative word-order > Nominative pronominal agreement > Nominative case-marking > In the following section we will discuss two languages which exhibit a partially-promotional passive. In the first, Nepali, the passive resembles, on balance, the non-promotional prototype. In the second, Lunda, the passive has many more features of the promotional prototype. a.

Nepali passive/inverse Nepali (Indic), in an Ergative SOV language from Nepal. The verb in the Nepali detransitive clause is marked by the suffix -i, and the construction probably functions as both passive and inverse (see below). The topic-of-passive retains its original case-marking (non-promotional). But the agent can be overtly mentioned in an oblique case (promotional). The active-clause word-order is retained (non-promotional). But under some conditions the topic-of-passive can control verb agreement (promotional). A wide range of objects can become topic-of-passive in Nepali, few restrictions on verbtype or transitivity (non-promotional). Thus (R. Shresta, i.p.c.): (129) Patient topic-of-passive a. Active-ergative Raj-le Ram-lay mar-yo Raj-erg Ram-do/dat kill-past/3sg.masc ‘Raj killed Ram’ b. PAT topic-of-passive (Agt-Pat) Raj-dwara Ram-lay mar-i-yo Raj-obl Ram-do/dat kill-pass-past/3sg.masc ‘Ram was killed by Raj’

De-transitive voice

147

c. Active Ram tyo bichfuna-ma sut-yo Ram(abs) that bed-loc sleep-past/3sg.masc ‘Ram slept in that bed’ d. Loc topic-of-passive Ram-dwara tyo bichfuna-ma sut-i-yo Ram-obl that bed-loc sleep-pass-past/3sg.masc ‘That bed was slept in by Ram’ e. Active Raj-le Ava-ko-lagi nac-yo Raj-erg Ava-gen-ben dance-past/3sg.masc ‘Raj danced for Ava’ f.

Ben topic-of-passive Raj-dwara Ava-ko-lagi nac-i-yo Raj-obl Ava-gen-ben dance-pass-past/3sg.masc ‘Ava was danced-for by Raj’

g. Active Ram-le Ava-lay kita:b di-yo Ram-erg Ava-dat book(abs) give-past/3sg.masc ‘Ram gave Ava a book’ h. Dat topic-of-passive Ram-dwara Ava-lay kita:b di-i-yo Ram-obl Ava-dat book(abs) give-pass-past/3sg.masc ‘Ava was given a book by Ram’ i.

Active Ram(-le) Raj-sffngff khel-yo Ram(-erg) Raj-assoc play-past/3sg.masc ‘Ram played with Raj’

j.

Assoc topic-of-passive Ram-dwara Raj-sffngff khel-i-yo Ram-obl Raj-assoc play-pass-past/3sg.masc ‘Raj was played-with by Ram’

k. Active Raj chito dogu-yo raj/abs fast run-past/3sg.masc ‘Raj ran fast’ l.

Mann topic-of-passive Raj-dwara chito dogu-i-yo Raj-obl fast run-pass-past/3sg.masc ‘There was fast running by Ray’

148

Syntax

Instrumentals can also be made topic-of-passive, but only if the agent is deleted. This is due to the case-marking identity of the instrumental and ergative: (130) a. Active Raj-le d» oid» -le uphr-yo Raj-erg rope-instr jump-past/3sg.masc ‘Raj jumped with a rope’ b. Instr topic-of-passive (*Raj-dwara) d» od» i-le uphr-i-yo (*Ray-obl) rope-instr jump-pass-past/3sg.masc ‘The rope was used to jump with (*by Raj)’ There is a strong tendency to neutralize verb agreement in the Nepali passive into the 3rdsg-masculine form. The -yo past-tense ending used in all the examples above is indeed that form. However, such neutralization does not occur when the topic-of-passive is a human DO or dative, thus marked by the dative post-position -lay. Such NPs assume the control of verb agreement: (131)

a. Active (ERG control) Raj-le Ava-lay hirka-y-o Raj-erg Ava-do/dat hit-past-3sg.masc ‘Raj hit Ava’ b. Passive (human DO control) Raj-dwara Ava-lay hirka-i-y-in Raj-obl Ava-do/dat hit-pass-past-3sg.fem ‘Ava was hit by Raj’ c. Active (ERG control) Ava-le Raj-lay hirka-y-in Ava-erg Raj-do/dat hit-past-3sg.fem ‘Ava hit Raj’ d. Passive (human DO control) Ava-dwara Raj-lay hirka-i-y-o Ava-obj Raj-do/dat hit-pass-past-3sg.masc ‘Raj was hit by Ava’

b.

The Lunda passive In our earlier discussion of the Lunda passive, we noted that its overt coding properties split between those that conform to the promotional and those that conform to the nonpromotional prototype. To summarize:

De-transitive voice

149

(132) Overt coding properties of the Lunda passive Property Nom word-order Obj verb agr. impersonal Subj pronoun oblique Agt present verb-type restrictions

Promotional

Non-promotional

× × × × ×

In this section we note how the behavior-and-control — relationally governed — properties of the Lunda passive reflect a similar non-discreteness. The three properties we will survey are:

•
equi •
reflexive •
relativization.

The most readily available context for equi-subject zero is that of purpose clauses, where the topic-of-passive behaves like a grammatical subject, i.e. as if the passive were promotional (Kawasha 1999; Kawasha and Givón 2000): (133) a. Active main clause Mari w-e-enka mwaana mukaanda Mary 3sg-past-give child book ‘Mary gave the child a book’ b. Active Purp-clause Mari w-a-lond-eli kw-iinka mwaana mukaanda Mary 3sg-past-come.for-asp inf-give child book ‘Mary came to give the child a book’ c. Active Purp-clause, Obj pronoun Mari w-a-lond-eli kw-mw-iinka mukaanda Mary 3sg-past-come.for-asp inf-3sg/obj-give book ‘Mary came to give him/her a book’ d. Passive main clause mwaana a-a-mw-eenka mukaanda kudi-Mari child 3sg-pass-give book dat-Mary ‘the child was given a book by Mary’ e. Passive Purp-clause w-a-lond-eli ku-mw-iinka mukaanda kudi-Mari 3sg-past-come.for-asp inf-3sg/obj-give book dat-Mary ‘s/he came in order to be given a book by Mary’ What is, of course, puzzling about the embedded passive in (133e) is that if one removes the optional agent phrase (‘by Mary’), the clause becomes indistinguishable from the active (133c). In other words, the only surviving clue for passive structure in the non-finite complement clause is the oblique-marked agent.

150

Syntax

The Lunda reflexive applies only to direct objects, due to the fact that the reflexive pronoun occupies the DO pronominal slot. Indirect objects thus do not reflexivize: (134) a. Direct object NP w-a-mona mwaana 1sg-past-see child ‘s/he saw the child’ b. Anaphoric DO w-a-mu-mona 3sg-past-3sg/obj-see ‘s/he saw him/her’ c. DO reflexive w-a-di-mona 3sg-past-refl-see ‘s/he saw himself/herself ’ d. Dat object NP w-a-hosha kudi-Mari 3sg-past-talk dat-Mary ‘s/he talked to Mary’ e. *Dat reflexive *w-a-di-hosha (kudi-yeena) 3sg-past-refl-talk dat-3sg (*‘s/he talks to himself/herself ’) f.

Assoc object NP w-a-zuña na-Joni 3sg-past-fight with-John ‘s/he fought with John’

g. *Assoc reflexive *w-a-di-zuña (n-iindi) 3sg-past-3sg/obj-fight with-3sg (*‘s/he fought with himself/herself ’) Reflexive-passives are unacceptable in Lunda: (135) a. Active mwaana w-a-di-mona child 3sg-past-refl-see ‘the child saw himself/herself ’ b. Passive mwaana a-a-mu-mona kudi-Mari child 3pl-past-3sg/obj-see dat-Mary ‘the child was seen by Mary’

De-transitive voice

151

c. *Reflexive-passive *mwaana a-a-di-mona (kudi-yeena) child 3pl-past-refl-see dat-3sg (*‘the child was seen by himself/herself ’) The Lunda passive thus behaves like the English promotional passive, where reflexivization is just as odd: (136) a. b. c. d. e. f.

She saw herself She was seen by someone *She was seen by herself She gave herself a present She was given a present by someone *She was given a present by herself

In contrast, non-promotional ‘impersonal’ passives readily admit reflexivization: (137) English a. I find myself often in such a bind b. One finds oneself often in such a bind (138) French a. Reflexive il se-voit dans le miroir he refl-sees in the mirror ‘he sees himself in the mirror’ b. Impersoinal anaphoric on le-voit dans la rue impers him-sees in the street ‘one sees him in the street’ c. Impersonal reflexive on se-voit dans le miroir impers refl-find in the mirror ‘one sees oneself in the mirror’ (139) Spanish a. Reflexive María se-vio en el espejo Maria refl-see/past/3sg in the mirror ‘Maria saw herself in the mirror’ b. Impersonal anaphoric se-le-vio (a-María) en la calle impers-3sg/dat-see/past/3sg (obj-Maria) in the street ‘Mary was see in the street’

152

Syntax

c. Impersonal-reflexive uno se-ve (a si mismo) en el espejo one refl-see/3sg (obj refl self) in the mirror ‘one sees oneself in the mirror’ (140) Ute (Givón 1980a) a. Active mamach tuaci punikyay-kya woman/subj child/obj see-perf ‘the woman saw the child’ b. Reflexive mamach nanöös punikyay-kya woman/subj refl see-perf ‘the woman saw herself ’ c. Passive mamach(i) punikya-ta-kha woman/obj see-pass-perf ‘someone saw the woman’ d. Reflexive-passive nanöös punikya-ta-kha refl see-pass-perf ‘someone saw himself/herself ’ (141) Tolowa-Athabaskan (Givón & Bommelyn 2000) a. Active (3 > 1) shu =-R-tu =R ‘s/he is kicking me’ 1sg/obj-l-kick b. Active (3 > 3) yu =-R-tu =R 3sg/obv-l-kick

‘s/he is kicking him/her’

c. Reflexive (3) du =-R-tu =R refl-l-kick

‘s/he is kicking her/himself ’

d. Reflexive (1) du =-sh-tR-tu =R ‘I am kicking myself ’ refl-1sg/subj-l-kick e. Impersonal shu =-tr’u =-R-tu =R 1sg/obj-pass-l-kick f.

Impersonal-reflexive du =-tr’u =-R-tu =R refl-pass-l-kick

‘someone is kicking me’

‘someone is kicking themselves’

De-transitive voice

Let us now turn to relativization, where Lunda has three distinct pronominal patterns — for subject, direct object, and indirect object(s). Subject-REL morphology is nearly indistinct from that of the simple clause (Kawasha and Givón 2000): (142) a. Simple mwaana w-a-mona chisalu child 3sg-past-see mat ‘the child saw the mat’ b. Subject Rel mwaana ona w-a-mona chisalu child that 3sg-past-see mat ‘the child who saw the mat’ Direct-object relativization exhibits two main patterns, one for 3rd-person subjects, the other for 1st/2nd person subjects: (143) a. Direct-object Rel (3rd person Subj) chisalu ch-a-mona-yi (mwaana) mat it/obj-past-see-3sg/subj child ‘the mat that s/he (the child) saw’ b. Direct-object Rel (1st/2nd person Subj) chisalu chi-n-a-mona mat it/obj-I-past-see ‘the mat that I saw’ The 3rd-person pattern (143a) thus has two striking features: subject clitic pronoun shifts to a V-suffix position •
the
the • subject NP is placed post-verbally (VS) In relativizing passive clauses, the impersonal pronoun ‘they’ assumes the V-suffix pronominal slot of the subject/agent of the active in object Rel-clauses. The topic-ofpassive — object of the active — cannot take the old DO pre-verbal pronoun slot of the active, which it the main-clause pattern. Nor can it take the already-occupied V-suffix subject/agent pronominal slot. Rather, it can only take the external prefix position characteristic of the active object-Rel-clause: (144) a. Main-clause passive chisalu a-a-chi-mona kudi-Mari mat 3pl-past-it/obj-see dat-Mary ‘the mat was seen by Mary’ b. Rel-clause passive chisalu ch-aa-mona-wu kudi-Mari mat 3sg/obj-past-see-3pl/subj dat-Mary ‘the mat that was seen by Mary’

153

154

Syntax

The behavior-and-control properties of the Lunda topic-of-passive are again mixed — one conforming to the promotional, two to the non-promotional prototype. Table (132) above may thus be augmented as: (145) Relational properties of the Lunda passive (Kawasha and Givón 2000) Property Overt coding properties Nom word-order Obj verb agr. Impersonal Subj pronoun oblique Agt present verb-type restrictions B&C properties equi zero contro (Subj) reflexivization (Subj) relativization (Obj)

Promotional

Non-promotional

× × × × × × × ×

Does the apparent non-discreteness of GRs in the Lunda passive destroy the validity of a universalist approach to the GRs subject and object? Before jumping to this easy conclusion, a few reflections are perhaps in order. First, only a few clause types — most conspicuously the passive, inverse and existential-presentative — exhibit serious ambiguities and non-discrete GRs. Second, clauses with ambiguous, non-discrete GRs are highly marked clause-types that also deviate from the unmarked active–transitive prototype in two other respects: agent is not the main topic (passive/inverse) •
the
the • subject is not anaphoric (existential-presentative) Third, all three clause types are rather infrequent in discourse. The GRs subject and object thus seem to be viable as high-frequency prototypes. The fact that at the low-frequency margins of the system these categories may be less stable and less discrete is just another reflection of their being natural categories. 13.3.3 The inverse voice 13.3.3.1
Preamble Unlike the passive, the inverse voice was for many years considered a typological oddity found only in some exotic language families, to the point where a functionally-based universal typological approach to inversion is to this day rejected by many. This recalcitrance is due, in part, to the considerable functional overlap between the inverse and the passive, i.e. the fact that both topicalize a non-agent. As a result, inverse clauses in many languages are often considered ‘just another passive’ (cf. Cooreman 1982, 1985, 1987). Further, some inverse clauses resemble the traditional Eurocentric idea of the ‘canonical’ passive: The non-agent is promoted to subject, the agent is demoted and marked by

De-transitive voice

155

an oblique case. Indeed, in many languages the very same clause-type may perform both passive and inverse functions (English, Spanish, Acatec, Salish). The reluctance to recognize the universal functional category ‘inverse’ is due in part to the abiding recalcitrance of good old structuralism: Inverse constructions were first christened as such in Algonquian languages (Bloomfield 1962; Wolfart 1973; Rhodes 1976; Goddard 1979; Dahlstrom 1986). So unless a construction resembles structurally the Algonquian inverse, it is not considered an inverse. In this vein, even the rather classical Athabaskan pronominal inverse, with its telltale semantic hierarchies of generic topicality, was considered by many a passive (Hale 1972; Frishberg 1972). What will be attempted here is a certain measure of restoring the balance, following the same procedures applied to other domains of syntactic typology:
Define the domain functionally, independently of language-specific structures.
Describe the diversity of structural types that code the domain cross-language as well as within the same language.
Let the typological chips, in terms of form-function pairings, fall as they may.
Strive to understand and explain why some forms pair more consistently with some functions.

• • • •

13.3.3.2
Functional dimensions 13.3.3.2.1
Pragmatic inversion: Relative topicality. As noted earlier above (§13.1.2.3), inverse voice constructions are used in discourse contexts when the patient outranks the agent in topicality, thus contrasting with the agent-topicalizing active-direct; but the agent-ofinverse remains topical, thus contrasting with the radically suppressed agent-of-passive. Thus recall (Cooreman 1987): (3) Relative topicality of the agent and patient in the four main pragmatic voice constructions Voice active-direct inverse passive antipassive

Relative topicality Agt > Pat Agt < Pat Agt > Pat

The high frequency of overtly-coded agents in the inverse, as against the categorial or nearcategorial agent-deletion in the passive, is a direct reflection of the higher topicality of the agent-of-inverse, as compared with the agent-of-passive. Thus, compare the percent of non-anaphoric zero agents in passive and inverse clauses in Chamorro (Austronesian; Cooreman 1987) and Sahaptin (Penutian; Rude 1994):

156

Syntax

(146) % of non-anaphoric agent deletion in passive vs. inverse clauses in Chamorro and Sahaptin Language

Passive

Inverse

Chamorro Sahaptin


90.5% 100.0%

3.6% 0.0%

While inverse clauses are often more frequent in discourse than passive clauses, the text frequency of both is typically low relative to the direct-active, underscoring the fact that both are marked, de-transitive constructions. Thus recall: (78) Frequency distribution of Various Voices in Chamorro Narrative Text (Cooreman 1987) Voice construction active-ergative passive inverse antipassive

N

%

601
35 134
64

72.0
4.2 16.1
7.7

13.3.3.2.2
Semantic inversion: Generic topic hierarchies. In many languages, inversion is triggered obligatorily by the reversal of generic semantic ‘norms’ for agents vs. patients. These ‘norms’ involve the inherent topicability of several semantic or grammatical categories. In most languages, this inherent tendency is reflected only at the text-frequency level, where particular semantic or grammatical categories are more likely to occupy the more-topical subject/agent slot. But in languages with obligatory semantic inversion, this tendency has grammaticalized. So that when the ‘norm’ is followed and the agent outranks the patient along a relevant hierarchy, the direct-active is used. When the norm is reversed and the patient outranks the agent, the inverse is used. This may be expressed in terms of the semantic conditions for obligatory inversion: (147) Reversal of the generic topicality hierarchies leading to obligatory semantic inversion Category

AGT

PAT

person definiteness anaphoricity animacy humanity age gender

3 indefinite full NP inanimate non-human child female

1, 2 definite8 anaphoric PRO8 animate human adult male

In different languages, obligatory semantic inversion is triggered by different topicality hierarchies (147), with the probability of a hierarchy triggering inversion descending in the order:

De-transitive voice

157

Ï ¸ Ï animacy ¸ person > Ì
definiteness ˝ >
 Ì ˝ > gender > age Ó
anaphoricity ˛ Ó
humanity ˛

13.3.3.2.3
Switch reference. Since both clausal arguments are topical in the inverse clause but one — the non-agent — is more topical than the other, inversion is often used as a switchreference device. In a two-participant narrative, one of the participants is typically more topical than the other. The direct-active form is used as long as the more topical — proximate — argument continues as the subject. When for a short stretch the less-topical — obviate — participant becomes subject, the inverse form is used, thus signalling that the non-agent is more topical than the agent. As an illustration of this, consider the following examples from Sahaptin narrative (Rude 1994): (148) Use of direct vs. inverse verb-form in Sahaptin narrative a. Continuity with ‘proximate’ subject kúuu-xi vwána-pa shushansh i-q’ínunu =-xan-a thus-same river-loc stealhead 3/nom/dir-see-hab-past ‘…the same way he [prox] would see a stealhead [obv] in the river ku i-pú =tya-xan-a kwn-kínk and 3/nom/dir-spear-hab-past that-instr and [prox] would spear it [obv] with it (the spear)…’ b. Switch from ‘proximate’ to ‘obviate’ subject kuuk á-q’inun-a xwú =saat inch’u-sha, then 3/abs/dir-see-past old.man sleep-impfv ‘…then he [prox] saw an old man [obv] sleeping, kuuk xwú =saat pá-q’inuun-a then old.man inv-see-past the the old man [obv] saw him [prox] ku pá-’n-a:… and inv-say-past and [obv] said to him [prox]:…’ c. Switch back from ‘obviate’ to ‘proximate’ subject íkush pá-’u =n-a xwú =saat-in thus inv-say-past old.man-obv ‘…thusly the old man [obv] said to him (Wild Cat) [prox]. ku áw-n-a:… and 3/abs/dir-say-past And he (Wild Cat) [prox] said to him (old man) [obv]:…’ A similar account of the use of the inverse for switch-reference in Kutenai narratives is given by Dryer (1994). The use of the inverse for switch reference is so widespread that linguists occasionally assume — erroneously, I think — full equivalency between the two constructions (cf. Hale 1991).

158

Syntax

13.3.3.3
Syntactic typology of inverse constructions In this section we will outline and illustrate some of the core syntactic dimensions that underlie the typological diversity of inverse constructions. 13.3.3.3.1
Verbal, pronominal and nominal morphology: Plains Cree. Inverse clauses may be morphologically coded by either one of three means or their various combinations: morphemes on the verb •
voice-marking affixes on the verb •
pronominal
case-makers on NPs. • As an example of a system in which all three elements are combined, consider the classical Algonquian inverse system of Plains Cree. The general mapping of semantic, pragmatic and grammatical roles given by Dahlstrom (1986) suggests a non-promotional inverse construction, where the topical (proximate) patient remains the grammatical object. This contrasts with the promotional passive of Plains Cree, where the topical patient becomes the grammatical subject. (149) Semantic role, grammatical case and pragmatic role in the direct-active, inverse and passive voice in Plains Cree (Dahlstrom 1986) Clause type

Semantic role

Grammatical case

Pragmatic role

direct

agent patient

subject object

prox (Top) obv (Non-top)

inverse

agent patient

subject object

obv (Non-top) prox (Top)

passive

agent patient

(deleted) subject

obv (Non-top) prox (Top)

The difference between the direct and inverse clause is coded in three morphological loci in Plains Cree: verb is marked as either direct or inverse •
the obviate argument controls pronominal agreement on the verb •
the
the argument, when present as full NP, is marked by an oblique suffix in both • directobviate and inverse. (The proximate NP is morphologically unmarked). In the passive, a one-argument intransitive clause, verb pronominal agreement is controlled by the single (proximate) argument. The three-way contrast between direct-active, inverse and passive in Plains Cree is illustrated in (Dahlstrom 1986):

De-transitive voice

159

(150) a. Direct-active aya.hciyiniw-ah nisto e.h-nipaha.t awa na.pe.sis Blackfoot-obv three kill/dir-3/obv this boy ‘This boy [prox] killed three Blackfoot [obv]’ b. Inverse osa.m e.-sa.khikot ohta.wiy-ah aw o.skini.kiw much love/inv-3/obv his-father-obv this young.man ‘(for) his father [obv] loved this young man [prox] too much’ c. Passive awa na.pe.sis e.kwa aw o.skini.kiw mawi.hka.ta.wak this boy and this young-man mourn/pass/3pl/prox ‘This boy and this young man are being mourned’ When both arguments are 3rd persons, as in (150) above, the Plains Cree inverse is a pragmatic inverse, triggered by considerations of relative topicality: (151) a. Subject inherently more topical (1 > 3) = direct ni-wa.pam-im-a.-w-a o-kosis-a 1-see-obv-dir-3-inv 3-son-obv ‘I [prox] see his son [obv]’ b. Object inherently more topical = inverse ni-wa.pam-iko-yi-w-a o-kosis-a 1-see-inv-obv-3-obv 3-son-obv ‘His son [obv] sees me [prox]’ But the very same inverse clause is also used in obligatory semantic inversion (Dahlstrom 1986). 13.3.3.3.2
Strictly pronominal inverse: Athabaskan. In Athabaskan languages, illustrated by Koyukon (Thompson 1987a, 1989, 1994), the contrast between the direct-active and inverse voice is coded only by anaphoric pronouns on the verb, with no case-marking differentiation between proximate and obviative full NP. The verb itself in the inverse clause retains the same voice marker (‘classifier’) as in the direct-active. The proximate 3rd person pronoun is zero in the direct-active and passive, and be- in the inverse. The 3rd person obviate pronoun is ye- in both direct-active and inverse. This distribution of pronominal affixes in Koyukon is summarized in (Thompson 1987a): (152) Anaphoric 3rd-person pronouns in Koyukon Voice clause Semantic role

Direct

Inverse

Passive

agent patient

zero- (Prox) ye- (Obv)

ye- (Obv) be- (Prox)

(absent) zero (Prox)

160

Syntax

The Koyukon (and in general, Athabaskan) pronominal inverse is non-promotional, with the agent remaining the grammatical subject. Further, it is only used when both agent and patient are 3rd persons. As illustration, consider (Thompson 1987a): (153) a. Direct-active (NP agent) John ye-ni-R-’an John 3obj/obv-thm-l-see ‘John [prox] is watching her [obv]’ b. Direct-active (PRO agent) ye-ni-R-’an 3obj/obv-thm-l-see ‘He [prox] is watching at her [obv]’ c. Inverse (NP agent) John be-ni-R-’an John 3obj/plrox-thm-l-see ‘John [obv] is watching her [prox]’ d. Inverse (PRO agent) be-ye-ni-R-’an 3obj/plrox-3subj/obv-thm-l-see ‘He [obv] is watching her [prox]’ In the promotional, agentless passive, where the verb is further marked by the de-transitive D-prefix (‘classifier’), the proximate patient is the grammatical subject (Thompson 1987a): (154) a. Active-direct ye-ni-RR-’an 3obj/obv-thm-l-see ‘He [prox] is watching her [obv]’ b. Passive ni-l-’an thm-d/l-see ‘She [prox] is being watched’ As suggested by both Frishberg (1972) and Hale (1972), the use of the Athabaskan inverse can be triggered, at least in Navajo, by norm-reversals along the generic topicality hierarchies (147). Whether such semantic inversion is obligatory remains to be seen. But it clearly skips over the most common hierarchy that can trigger semantic inversions — that of persons (1/2 > 3). This is so because the Athabaskan ye-/be- pronominal alternation applies only to third persons. One could perhaps argue that the fact that inversion is impossible with 1st or 2nd or person agents/subjects in Athabaskan reflects the negative half of the condition for obligatory semantic inversion. It is the other, positive, half of the condition for semantic inversion that is missing.

De-transitive voice

13.3.3.3.3
Promotional vs. non-promotional inverse. As noted above, the Koyukon inverse is non-promotional, in this respect resembling the Plains Cree inverse. Rhodes (1976 and i.p.c) has suggested that in Ojibwe, another Algonquian language, the inverse is promotional. That is, the proximate patient is the grammatical subject of the inverse clause. Whether the difference between Plains Cree and Ojibwe goes beyond an argument over criteria for subjecthood remains to be seen. Given what was said above about the potentially murky relational status of both passive and inverse clauses, the disagreement between Dahlstrom and Rhodes is not all that surprising. In languages with a promotional passive that also performs the pragmatic inverse function, the relational status of the inverse clause may be a bit clearer. Such a situation has been described in Spanish (Hidalgo 1994) and Acatec (Zavala 1994). A diachronic reflection of the same situation may be seen in Salish, where the very same de-transitive construction can function as a passive in one language (Squamish, Jacobs 1994) but an inverse in another (Bella Coola, Forrest 1994). Indeed, there is a plausible conjecture that the English agented BE-passive clause also functions as an inverse. That is: (155) a. Direct-active The Viet Cong [prox] killed him [obv] b. Inverse He [prox] was killed by the Viet Cong [obv] c. Passive He [prox] was killed (in Vietnam) Semi-promotional inverses are just as likely as semi-promotional passives. Thus for example, the Nepali de-transitive clause, described earlier as a semi-promotional passive, probably performs the pragmatic function of both passive (when agentless) and inverse (when agented). The obviate agent in Nepali is marked by an oblique post-position, and verb pronominal agreement is neutralized in the passive/inverse (into 3sg.masc). Thus recall (R. Shresta, i.p.c.): (156) a. Active-ergative (‘direct’) Omi-le Ram-lay mar-yin Omi-erg Ram-do/dat kill-past/3sg.fem ‘Omi [prox] killed Ram [obv]’ b. Inverse (agented passive) Omi-dwara Ram-lay mar-i-yo Omi-obl Ram-do/dat kill-detr-past/3sg.masc Ï
‘Omi [obv] killed Ram [prox]’ ¸ Ì ˝ Ó
‘Ram [prox] was killed by Omi [obv]’ ˛ c. Agentless passive Ram-lay mar-i-yo Ram-do/dat kill-detr-past/3sg.masc ‘Ram [prox] was killed’

161

162

Syntax

13.3.3.3.4
Word-order inverse. In many languages, the pragmatic function of inverse is carried out by word-order alternation between the agent and patient, with the most topical argument invariably preceding. Most commonly, this alternation does not change grammatical relations, thus yielding various types of non-promotional inverse. Thus for example, two well-known object topicalizing constructions, Y-movement and L-dislocation, can and should be considered pragmatic inverses (see Ch. 15,16): (157) a. Direct-active (SVO) Mary saw John b. Y-movement (OSV) (She was looking for both John and Bill). John she saw in the street,9 Bill she never found. c. L-dislocation (OSV) Now as for John, Mary saw him in the street a few days later and… The detailed morpho-syntactic structure of word-order inverses depend on the word-order typology of the language and other typological variants. The most common trends, couched in terms of the neutral word-order in active-direct clauses, are listed below. (158) Most common word-order inverse patterns Word order Direct-active

Inverse

Language

SOV SVO SVO VO

OSV OSV OVS OVS

VSO VSO VAP

OVS VOS VPA

(Korean; Lee-Kwok 1994) (English) (Dzamba; Bokamba 1971, 1976) (Spanish; Bolinger 1954) (Modern Greek; Roland 1994) (Biblical Hebrew; Givón 1977) (Maasai; D. Payne et. al 1994) (Cebuano; T. Payne 1994)

As an example, consider word-order inversion in Spanish: (159) a. Direct (SVO) María cur-ó a los brujos M. cured/3sg obj the sorceres ‘Mary [prox] cured the sorcerers [obv]’ b. Inverse (OVS) Pero a los brujos no cur-ó nadie but obj the sorceres neg cured/3sg nobody ‘But the sorcerers [prox] nobody [obv] cured’ One might as well note that the agented BE-passive in English, if indeed it does function as a pragmatic inverse, is also a word-order inverse, albeit a more grammaticalized, promo-

De-transitive voice

tional one with changes in both nominal case-marking and pronominal verb agreement. Still, it displays the alternation of AGT-V-PAT (direct) vs. PAT-V-AGT (inverse): (160) a. Active-direct (AGT-V-PAT) Mary [prox] is watering her flowers [obv] b. Inverse (PAT-V-AGT) The flowers [prox] are being watered by Mary [obv] In §13.3.3.3.6 below we will see how word-order inversion can trigger changes in the pronominal affixes on the verb, thus lead to pronominally-marked inversion. 13.3.3.3.5
Morphological vs. word-order inverse: Maasai. We noted above that the same detransitive construction in Plains Cree and Athabaskan can be used as both a pragmatic and a semantic inverse. In some languages, the two types of inversion are split between two distinct constructions. We will illustrate this pattern with Maasai (Nilotic), in which this functional dichotomy is associated with a common typological distinction, that of morphologically-coded vs. word-order-coded inversion. The obligatory semantic inverse in Maasai is strictly morphological, coded by a distinct set of pronominal affixes on the verb. The pragmatic inverse is accomplished by word-order change with no further morphological ramifications, as in Spanish (159). Obligatory semantic inversion in Maasai is triggered by the person hierarch (1/2 > 3) in a complex way involving various morphemic neutralization and portmanteau pronominal prefixes. As a somewhat simplified example, consider (D. Payne at al. 1994): (161) a. Direct (3 > 3) e-nyal-a dir/3 > 3 ‘s/he [prox] insulted him/her [obv]’ b. Inverse I (2 > 1; 3 > 2) kí-nyal-a inv/2>1/3>2-spoil Ï
‘You [obv] insulted me [prox]’ ¸ Ì ˝ Ó
‘s/he [obv] insulted you [prox]’ ˛ c. Inverse II (3 > 1) áá-y-nyal-a dir/3>1-ii-spoil-pfv ‘She [obv] insulted me [prox]’ In the pragmatic inverse in Maasai, the grammatical case-roles subject and object are tonally marked (D. Payne et al. 1994): (162) a. Direct (VSO; LOC object) n-é-pik ol-kítok en-kúmóto seq-3-put.in m-big.one/nom f-hole/acc ‘The big one (elephant) [prox] put (it) in the hole [obv]’

163

164

Syntax

b. Inverse (VOS; LOC object) n-é-pik en-kúmotó ol-kítok seq-3-put.in f-hole/acc m-big.one/nom ‘The hole [prox], the big one [obv] put it in there’ c. Direct (VO; PAT object) n-é-pik ol-któk en-kúmóto seq-3-put.in m-big.one/acc f-hole/acc ‘S/he [prox] put the big one [obv] in the hole’ 13.3.3.3.6
Y-movement inverses: Dzamba. In Dzamba (Bantu), the Y-movement construction can be considered a pragmatic word-order inverse. The pre-verbal subject/agent of the active-direct (SVO) must be post-posed in this inverse construction (OVS). In addition, it also relinquishes control of pronominal agreement on the verb. The L-dislocation inverse construction, on the other hand, displays neither syntactic adjustment, but only object fronting (OSV). Thus (Bokamba 1971, 1976): (163) a. Active (SVO) o-Poso a-tom-aki mukanda def-Poso he-send-past letter ‘Poso sent a letter’ b. Active-direct (anaphoric Obj PRO) o-Poso a-mu-tom-aki def-Poso he-it-send-past ‘Poso sent it (the letter)’ c. Inverse (OVS) i-mukanda mu-tom-aki o-Poso def-letter it-send-past def-Poso ‘The letter Poso sent (away)’ d. *Inverse without pronominal adjustment *i-mukanda a-mu-tom-aki o-Poso def-letter he-it-send-past def-Poso e. *Inverse without subject post-posing *i-mukanda o-Poso mu-tom-aki def-letter def-Poso it-send-past f.

L-dislocated (OSV) i-mukanda o-Poso a-mu-tom-aki def-letter def-Poso he-it-send-past ‘The letter, Poso sent it’

What is intriguing here is that the Dzamba inverse, much like the Lunda passive, shows rather vividly how word-order inversion of a rather common sort, in a language with a rich verbal pronominal conjugation, can easily give rise to a pronominal inverse. In Dzamba (and Lunda, see earlier above), the topical (proximate) non-agent argument in the de-

De-transitive voice

transitive clause takes control of verb pronominal agreement from the subject/agent. The pronominal markers on the de-transitive verb are the object pronominal markers of the direct-active. 13.3.3.3.7
The deictic connection. A semantic inverse can also arise from a rather widespread deictic construction used to mark the contrast between action directed toward vs. away from the speaker. The serial verbs ‘come’ (toward the speaker) and ‘go’ (away from the speaker) are the most common source of such constructions, as in Tok Pisin (Givón 1991b): (164) a. Trans-locative (away) em i-wakabaut i-go s/he pred-walk pred-go ‘She is walking that-a-way’ b. Cis-locative (toward) em i-wakabaut i-kam s/he pred-walk pred-come ‘She is walking this way’ In many Tibeto-Burman languages, this serial-verb deixis is found without further regrammaticalization, as in Newari (Delancey 1985): (165) a. Away from here = ‘go’ jhãgo bwa-ya wffn-f bird/abs fly-part go-perf ‘The bird is flying away’ b. Towards here = ‘come’ jhãgo bwa-ya wal-f bird/abs fly-part come-perf ‘The bird is flying this way’ In other languages, the directional contrast is re-grammaticalized into semantic inversion: ‘go’ = 1 > 2/3; ‘come’ = 2/3 > 1. In Lahu, the same distinction is coded by the contrast between ‘come’ (2/3 > 1)) and ‘give’ (1 > 2/3) (Matisoff 1972): (166) a. Direct = ‘give’ (1/2 > 3) yamie’ chi ta kf’ pi-’ girl this neg scare give-imper ‘Don’t you [prox] scare this little girl [obv]!’ b. Inverse = ‘come’ (2/3 > 1) ]a a’ ta kf’ la-’ I obj neg scare come-imper ‘Don’t you [obv] scare me [prox]!’ In Nocte, finally, the contrast is grammaticalized to the point where only one affix (inverse), survives, contrasting with the zero-marked direct-active (Delancey 1981):

165

166

Syntax

(167) a. Direct (1 > 2) ]a-ma na] hetho-e I-erg you/abs teach-1/pl ‘I [prox] will teach y’all [obv]’ b. Inverse (2 > 1) na]-ma ]a hetho-h-a] you-erg I/abs teach-inv-1sg ‘Y’all [obv] will teach me [prox]’ c. Direct (3 > 1) ]a-ma ate hetho-a] I-erg he/abs teach-1sg ‘I [prox] will teach him [obv]’ d. Inverse (3 > 1) ate-ma ]a-na] hetho-h-a] he-erg I-acc teach-inv-1sg ‘He [obv] will teach me [prox]’ The diachronic drift in Tibeto-Burman suggests a natural diachronic pathway for the grammaticalization of semantic inverse systems from erstwhile deictic-directional markers. But in at least one language, such a system may have evolved further into a pragmatic inverse. This has been described by Rude (1988b, 1994) for Sahaptin (Penutian), where the verbal prefix pa- marks both the semantic and pragmatic inverse. Rude (1988b) suggests that pa- was diachronically derived from a cis-locative — ‘hither’ — marker. If so, the Sahaptin pragmatic inverse, as seen earlier above, must have evolved first as an obligatory semantic inverse, as in (Rude 1994): (168) a. Direct (1 > 2) áw-mash twána-ta now-1>2 follow-fut ‘Now I (prox] will follow you [obv]’ b. Inverse (2 > 1) ku-nam áw pá-yk-sha and-2>1 now inv-hear-impf ‘and now you [obv] hear me [prox]’ c. Direct (1 > 3) cháw-nash mish á-mi-ta = u wínsh-nan neg-1sg how 3/abs-do-fut man-obj ‘maybe I [prox] will not do anything to the man [obv]’ d. Inverse (3 > 1) i-q’íntu-sha-ash = u winsh-nu =m inv/3/nom-see-impf-1sg man-obv ‘the man [obv] sees me [prox]’

De-transitive voice

13.3.3.3.8
Passive-to-inverse and inverse-to-passive. We noted that in a number of languages — English, Spanish, Acatec — the agented passive clause may also serve the inverse pragmatic function. This suggests a passive-to-inverse diachronic pathway of re-grammaticalization. The fact that in Salish one finds the same de-transitive clause used as an inverse in one language (Bella Coola) and passive in another (Squamish) reinforces the possibility without necessarily resolving the issue of directionality. The Lunda de-transitive clause may have also begun as an inverse, reminiscent of the Dzamba inverse, and later became strictly a passive (Kawasha 2000). This suggests that the opposite diachronic pathway — inverse-to-passive — is also possible. Either development is presumably driven by the partial overlap between the inverse and passive pragmatic functions. 13.3.3.3.9
From inverse to Ergative. A passive-to-ergative diachronic pathway has in the past been taken for granted, with proponents pointing out to the origin of many ergative-NP markers as erstwhile oblique markers of the passive agent-NP (Anderson 1977). This observation is in urgent need of rethinking, since as noted above the prototypical passive clause is agentless or with an extremely non-topical agent, while the agent of the activeergative clause is highly topical (Cooreman et al. 1984; Cooreman 1988; Tsunoda 1985, 1987). In light of what we know now about the inverse pragmatic function, I suggest that it is really the inverse clause that must have been the source of all those putatively expassive ergatives. The inverse precursor of these ergatives must have had an obliquelymarked obviate agent NP. And perhaps the passive clause in the languages in question may have also carried the inverse function — when agented. The inverse-to-ergative shift has been documented extensively in Philippine, Indonesian and other Austronesian languages (Egerod 1975; T. Payne 1982; Verhaar 1983a,b; Cooreman et al. 1984; Mead 1998; inter alia). Similar developments have been documented in Cariban (Gildea 1998) and Sahaptian (Rude 1988, 1991). Finally, the inverse-to-ergative drift is further supported by the otherwise-puzzling fact that some recently-reanalyzed ergative languages exhibit the very same semantic-hierarchic constraints on the ergative clause that are found in semantic inversion (Silverstein 1976; Dixon 1977): the agent is higher on the relevant topicality hierarchy, the transitive •
When clause is coded as nominative. When it is lower, it is coded as ergative. This restriction makes no sense whatever in an ergative language, where it is but a fossilized relic. But it makes perfect sense in an inverse clause, the diachronic precursor of the ergative. 13.3.3.3.10
From pragmatic to semantic inversion?. We have noted above at least one clear case, that of Sahaptin (Rude 1988, 1991, 1994), where semantic inversion appears to have given rise to pragmatic inversion. A less clear case is that of Dzamba and Lunda, where word-order pragmatic inversion seems to have produced pronominally-marked inversion. One restriction on the Lunda passive — a constraint against 1st and 2nd person agents —

167

168

Syntax

evokes the familiar hierarchic constraints on semantic inversion (147). So while the Lunda detransitive clause is functionally a passive (Kawasha 2000), it may have originated as an inverse. In the past (Givón 1994b), I have argued for the pragmatic-to-semantic diachronic pathway largely on theoretical grounds, namely that more conventionalized semantics tend to be the grammaticalized product of high-usage-frequency pragmatics (Givón 1979a; Traugott 1982; DuBois 1987; Langacker 1987). But absent clear evidence of an actual developmental mechanism, this suggestion, however theoretically attractive, cannot be pushed much further. 13.3.4 The antipassive voice 13.3.4.1
Functional dimensions 13.3.4.1.1
Pragmatics: Patient suppression. We have already noted that the pragmatic function of the antipassive is the converse of the passive — radical de-topicalization, suppression or demotion of the patient. Expressing a semantically-transitive event in an antipassive construction is done in discourse contexts when the patient in unimportant, non-topical, non-persistent, non-anaphoric, stereotypical or generically predictable. The following are typical antipassive usages in English, all compared with the active–transitive (169a): (169) a. Active–transitive She read Burton’s Book of the Sword b. Stereotypical object She read [Ø] voraciously (Obj = books, magazines, newspapers) c. Unindividuated object She read books by the dozen d. Habitual, non-referring object She used to read a book before retiring e. Habitual, non-referring object She did a lot of book-reading f.

Irrealis, non-referring object Has she ever read a book?

The more semantic correlates of antipassivization — plurality, indefiniteness and nonreference of the object — are predictable consequences of non-topicality. On occasion, the object in an antipassive clause may be semantically referring or even definite and thus anaphoric, but still non-topical and unlikely to persist in the subsequent (cataphoric) discourse. 13.3.4.1.2
Semantic correlates. As is fairly obvious from examples (169), a number of semantic or grammatical features are strongly correlated with the pragmatics of non-

De-transitive voice

169

topical patient, features that some people have proposed as criterial for antipassives (Hopper and Thompson 1980): (non-individuation) •
plurality affectedness •
low
non-referentiality •
indefiniteness •
habitual aspect •
irrealis modality. • Without exception, these features are also predictable correlates of non-topical (pragmatically non-referring) arguments (Vol. I, Ch. 10). In a particular language, any of these features can be the grammaticalized trigger for antipassivization. Thus for example, in Philippine languages interpreted as ergative, indefiniteness of the object is an automatic trigger for antipassivization. Ultimately, these semantic correlates of the antipassive are not criterial features of the antipassive. Rather, their connection to it is mediated — by the pragmatics of topicality or referentiality. 13.3.4.2
Syntactic and typological dimensions 13.3.4.2.1
Non-anaphoric object deletion. Non-anaphoric object deletion is one of the most common antipassive syntactic devices, rendering the clause objectless and thus syntactically intransitive, as in (169b) above as well as: (170) a. b. c. d.

He drank [Ø] like a fish (alcohol) They hunt [Ø] every winter (game animals) They trapped [Ø] up the McKenzie (fur animals) She paints (pictures)

One may as well note that object-deleting antipassives are just as natural and iconic as agent-deleting passives. 13.3.4.2.2
Object incorporation. An equally common and again rather iconic antipassive device is object incorporation, whereby the object lexical stem — usually shorn of its inflections (articles, classifiers, number markers) becomes part of the verbal word, again making the clause objectless and syntactically intransitive. This is a common antipassive device in Ute (Givón 1980a): (171) a. Active–transitive ta’wach ’u kwanach-i ’uway pakhá-pu =ga man/subj def/subj eagle-obj/an def/obj kill-rem ‘The man killed the eagle’

170

Syntax

b. Antipassive ta’wach ’u kwana-pakhá-pu =ga man/subj def/subj eagle-kill-hab Ï
‘The man killed eagles’ ¸ Ì ˝ Ó
‘The man did some eagle-killing’ ˛ Object incorporation is also used in Ute nominalizations, which have the same objectsuppressing antipassive flavor as their English counterparts: (172) a. Agent nominalization ta’wach kwana-pakha-mi-t ’ura-’ay man/subj eagle-kill-hab-nom be-imm ‘The man is an eagle-killer’ (> He kills eagles in general) b. Action nominalization kwana-pakha-ta ka-’ay-wa-t ’ura-’ay eagle-kill-nom neg-good-neg-nom be-imm ‘Eagle-killing is bad’ (> The killing of eagles in general) These clauses do not refer to a token object or a specific event, but rather to the type of event and object. 13.3.4.2.3
Plural, indefinite or non-referring objects. Given the discussion above concerning the semantic correlates of the antipassive voice, one must consider the marking of objects as plural, non-referring or indefinite as antipassive devices, at least in nominative languages such as English (e.g. examples (169c,d,f ) above). 13.3.4.2.4
Object demotion into an oblique case. The object in an antipassive clause may be also ‘demoted’ from the characteristic direct-object case into an oblique case, a device seen most conspicuously in ergative languages. As an example, consider Inuit Eskimo (Kalmár 1979, 1980): (173) a. Ergative-transitive inu-up qimmiq taku-v-a-a man-erg dog/abs see-indic-trans-3sg/3obj ‘The man saw the dog’ b. Antipassive-intransitive inu qimmir-mik taku-v-uk man/abs dog-obl see-indic-intrans/3sg ‘The man saw a dog/some dogs/dogs’ c. Active-intransitive inu tikip-p-up man/abs arrive-mn-intrans/3sg ‘The man arrived’

De-transitive voice

171

But a nominative language can also display this device, at least under certain conditions. Thus in English, an object may be demoted into an oblique case to render a sense of low affectedness: (174) a. Transitive He shot the deer b. Antipassive intransitive He shot at the deer c. Transitive She kicked the mule d. Antipassive intransitive She kicked at the mule e. Transitive They shouted him down f.

Antipassive intransitive They shouted at him

And many dative-shifting alternations have the same effect, marking a less-affected dative/ benefactive or even patient as an oblique (indirect) object: (175) a. More affected dative (DO) They robbed him of his money b. Less affected dative (Obl) They stole the money from him c. More affected dative (DO) They threw him some food d. Less affected dative (Obl) They threw some food at him e. More affected patient (DO) He sprayed the wall with paint f.

Less affected patient (Obl) He sprayed the paint on the wall

g. More affected patient (DO) They shot him with three bullets h. Less affected patient (Obl) They shot three bullets at him The morphological demotion of the non-topical patient — from the direct object to an oblique case — is of course reminiscent of the morphological demotion of the agent-ofpassive. One must note, however, that the direct-object (‘absolutive’) case may be morphologically marked in an ergative language, as is the case in Nez Perce. In this language, objects are morphologically demoted in the antipassive by losing their DO casemarker (Rude 1985):

172

Syntax

(176) a. Ergative-transitive yu’s-ne pú-ut’eye piyée-pim poor-do 3/erg-whip/perf brother-erg ‘The older brother whipped the poor one’ b. Antipassive-intransitive kíi wít’e ha-aniya tílaaki this/abs canoe/abs 3/nom-make/perf woman/abs ‘The woman made a canoe’ c. Active-intransitive h-ipáayna háama 3nom-arrive/asp man/abs ‘The man arrived’ d. Passive-intransitive koná h-iwc’éeye han-yíin tumáalwit there 3nom-become make-pass law/abs ‘There the law was made’ 13.3.4.2.5
The antipassive, GRs and transitivity. Since Eskimo and Nez Perce are both ergative languages, examples (173), (176) also serve to illustrate the fact that the morphosyntactic consequences of antipassivization are much more profound in ergative than in nominative languages. In a nominative language, losing an object in the antipassive clause — via either deletion, incorporation or demotion to oblique — affects the morpho-syntax of neither the verb nor the subject-agent. The clause may be objectless and thus syntactically intransitive, but the morpho-syntactic ramifications of intransitivity are confined to the object alone: A syntactically intransitive clause is a clause without a direct object. Nominative morphosyntax is highly sensitive to the pragmatics of topicality, much less so to transitivity (see Vol. I, Ch. 4). The morphosyntax of ergative languages, on the other hand, is hyper-sensitive to transitivity, registering its minute fluctuations in all three major foci of the clause — subject/agent, object/patient, and verb.

Notes 1. By ‘traditional’ I mean primarily the various structuralist schools, self-declared or otherwise, in their treatment of passive voice. So-called Traditional Grammar is closer in spirit to the approach pursued here (Jespersen 1924). Among contemporary functionalists, Langacker and Munro (1975) list three major syntactic properties of ‘prototypical passives’ — verb stativization, unspecified agent/ subject and object topicalization — that closely recapitulate the three main functional domains of transitivity and thus de-transitivization (Givón 1981a). Shibatani (1985) recognizes the same three domains, but ranks agent suppression highest in the passive prototype, I think correctly. Keenan (1975), while conceding the functional relatedness of all passive voice constructions, restricts his discussion to ‘basic’ — promotional — passive. Comrie (1977) argues for including impersonal constructions within the passive domain. Hopper and Thompson’s (1980) work on the multidimensionality of transitivity is presupposed here. Lastly and regrettably, both the Generative and the



De-transitive voice

Relational Grammar literature (cf. Chomsky 1965; Perlmutter and Postal 1977) remain the most narrow, structure-bound and Euro-centric in their treatment of passive voice. 2. In one aspect of grammaticalization, the rise of grammatical morphology from lexicon, the extension from semantic to pragmatic is much more widely attested than its reverse (Hopper and Traugott 1993). On the other hand, in the development of constructions, the rise of semantics out of pragmatics is better attested (Givón 1979a; Traugott 1982; DuBois 1975; Langacker 1987). 3. The majority of semantically-transitive verbs in all languages have an obligatory patient. While verbs with an obligatory dative are extremely important cognitively and culturally, their number is relatively small. And the benefactive is an optional clausal argument that is not involved in the semantic sub-categorization of verbs. The overall effect of this is that in terms of text frequency, the vast majority of direct objects in transitive clauses are semantic patients. 4. In Israeli Hebrew, the reflexive-reciprocal pattern has become irregular and lexicalized, with the old prefix often coding various other de-transitive derivatives of the verb. In this way, the move from reflexive to intransitive resembles, at least in part, the diachronic drift in Spanish (García 1975; Marín 1989a,b). The new reflexive pattern is rather similar to that of English, with possessive pronouns joined with the noun ‘self ’ (lit. *‘bone’). Thus: (i) Yosef raa et-Miryam Joseph saw/3sg.masc acc-Mary ‘Joseph saw Mary’ (ii) Yosef raa et-atsm-o (ba-rei) Joseph saw/3sg.masc acc-self-his (in/the-mirror) ‘Joseph saw himself (in the mirror)’ (iii) ani raiti et-atsm-i (ba-rei) I saw/1sg acc-self-my (in/the-mirror) ‘I saw myself in the mirror’ 5. The Ute genitive and accusative suffixes have neutralized, most likely with the genitive displacing an older accusative (Givón 1990a). 6. In Givón (1981a) I erroneously suggested that patient topicalization and semantic stativization were equal partners in the universal functional characteristics of passives. That conclusion was certainly premature, or at the very least confined to only some passive types. 7. This example is of course perfectly acceptable if the direct object is interpreted as a benefactive. 8. In the case of these two grammatical features, the status of the agent is largely irrelevant. Obligatory inversion is triggered by the status of the patient alone. 9. The OSV order in Y-movement clauses is rather odd with full subject NPs in English. Other VO languages opt for the OVS order in such inverse constructions, as in Spanish, Greek, Dzamba, Biblical Hebrew or Classical Arabic.

173



Chapter 14

Relative clauses

14.1

Orientation Relative clauses (henceforth REL-clauses) are clause-size modifiers embedded in the noun phrase. To some extent their syntax parallels that of the other major type of subordinate clauses — verbal complements embedded in the verb phrase (Ch. 12). Functionally, REL-clauses, together with other noun modifiers, partake in the grammar of referential coherence, furnishing either anaphoric or cataphoric clues for referent identification (see Vol. I, Ch. 9,10). Their linear position vis-a-vis the head noun has already been discussed in the context of word-order typology (Vol. I, Ch. 5) and the grammar of noun phrases (Ch. 11).

14.2

Functional dimensions The discussion below will be initially confined to restrictive REL-clauses, and will be further divided according to the definiteness and reference status of the modified head noun.

14.2.1 Definite head nouns: Referential accessibility, presupposition,

and anaphoric grounding In the grammar of referential coherence, a referent is coded as definite when the speaker assumes that it is accessible to the hearer but is not currently activated (in working memory/ attention). The hearer’s task is then to ground (connect) the referent, either to its previous anaphoric trace in episodic memory or to some other accessible trace, and then to reactivate it in working memory. Definite full-NPs contrast with anaphoric pronouns and zeros, which code referents that are currently activated, and thus require neither anaphoric grounding nor reactivation but only continuation of the current activation state. The communicative context for using a restrictive REL-clause to modify a definite noun is a bit more complex. As in the use of simple definite nouns, the speaker still assumes that the referent is accessible and not currently activated. But the referent’s accessibility is more problematic here, for reasons of either referential competition or thematic complexity. To compensate for the added complexity, the hearer is furnished with an explicit clue — a proposition, packaged as a REL-clause, that depicts a state or event in

176

Syntax

which the referent participated as subject, direct object, indirect object, etc. The REL-clause acts as the anaphoric grounding clue, guiding the hearer to the exact text-location in episodic memory where the referent is to be grounded. In employing such a device, the speaker must assume that the state or event coded in the REL-clause is familiar to the hearer (accessible in his/her episodic memory), a familiarity that is sometimes referred to as pragmatic presupposition. The functional definition of restrictive REL-clauses thus has two distinct conditions. The first is narrow-scoped or semantic, having to do with the co-reference relation between the head noun and its co-referent in the REL-clause: (1) Semantic condition on REL-clauses A relative clause codes a state or event one of whose participants is co-referent with the head noun modified by the clause. The scope of condition (1) does not exceed the bounds of the clause within which the REL-clause is embedded. What is more, the condition applies to both restrictive and nonrestrictive REL-clauses, and to all types of head nouns, regardless of definiteness or reference. The second condition applies narrowly, only to restrictive REL-clauses modifying definite nouns. This condition is pragmatic in two distinct senses. First, it grounds the referent to a much wider discourse context. And second, it pertains to the propositional modality — thus the communicative intent — of the REL-clause. (2) Pragmatic condition on restrictive REL-clauses modifying definite head nouns The speaker does not assert the proposition in the REL-clause, but rather presupposes it to be known or familiar to the hearer, thus accessible in the hearer’s episodic memory of the current text.1 As an illustration, consider: (3) The man who married my sister is a crook a. Main clause (asserted) The man is a crook b. Subordinate clause (presupposed) The man married my sister In (3), the subject of the main clause (‘man’) is the head noun modified by the REL-clause whose full propositional value is given in (3b), in which the co-referent noun is the subject. But the head noun may also be co-referent with the direct or indirect object of the REL-clause, as in (4) and (5) below, respectively: (4) The man my sister married is a crook a. Main clause (asserted) The man is a crook b. Subordinate clause (presupposed) My sister married the man

Relative clauses

177

(5) The man my sister lives with is a crook a. Main clause (asserted) The man is a crook b. Subordinate clause (presupposed) My sister lives with the man 14.2.2 REF-indefinite head nouns: Cataphoric grounding As noted earlier (Vol. I, Ch. 10), REF-indefinite NPs code topical new referents upon their first introduction into the discourse. Being topical, such new referents are likely to recur in the subsequent discourse. Restrictive REL-clauses are a common device for grounding such referents upon their first introduction, supplying a salient initial description that facilitates subsequent reference. The semantic co-reference condition (1) still applies to REL-clauses modifying REF-indefinite head nouns. It is the pragmatic condition (2) that cannot strictly apply here, because the referent is being introduced into the discourse for the first time, and thus has no anaphoric trace in the hearer’s episodic memory. The communicative task facing both speaker and hearer here is that of establishing the referent’s initial — cataphoric — grounding into the yet-unfolding text — in anticipation of subsequent reference. Further, the event/state coded in the restrictive REL-clause that modifies REF-indefinite head nouns cannot be presupposed as known or familiar to the hearer. Like the REF-indefinite head noun, this event/state is new information to the hearer. Still, its pragmatic status shares an important feature with presupposition — it is not being asserted, and thus is not intended to be challengeable. Rather, it serves as grounding information. The pragmatic condition for such REL-clauses is thus: (6) Pragmatic condition on restrictive REL-clauses modifying REF-indefinite head nouns The speaker assumes that the proposition in the REL-clause is new information to the hearer. However, the proposition is not asserted, but is intended as unchallengeable grounding information. As an illustration, consider: (7) A man who said he loved my sister came by yesterday and… a. Main clause (asserted) A man came by yesterday and… b. Subordinate clauses (unchallengeable) The man said he loved my sister The role of the REL-clause in supplying salient cataphoric grounding information may be illustrated by the following contrasts: (8) a. A woman with two heads came into my office… b. ?A woman with one head came into me office…

178

Syntax

c. d. e. f.

A man wearing one shoe came into my office… ?A man wearing two shoes came into my office…

A woman speaking no English came into my office… ?A woman speaking fluent English came into my office…

In (8a,c,e), the information supplied by the REL-clause is unpredictable, counternormative and highly salient, creating an efficient initial mental representation of the referent in episodic memory (Gernsbacher 1990). In (8b,d,f ), on the other hand, the information is predictable, highly normative, redundant and non-salient. It is thus unlikely to serve as an efficient initial mental representation for subsequent reference. To further clarify the distinction between definite and REF-indefinite head nouns, consider the contrast: (9) a. A woman you met last year just called b. The woman you met yesterday just called In both (9a,b), the speaker is obviously talking about an event that should be familiar to the hearer. In (9a), that event is sufficiently remote, so that the speaker does not expect the hearer to identify the referent with ease. Given such negative expectations, coding the referent as definite (as in (9b)) would be communicatively counter-productive. And so ‘woman’ in (9a) is introduced as REF-indefinite, as if it were totally new information. Still, a restrictive relative clause relating the hearer’s past experience is used — for initial referent identification. That relative clause presumably establishes in the hearer’s mind a salient mental representation for the new referent. But the grounding of that coherence relation is cataphoric rather than anaphoric. That is, the combination of indefinite referent plus restrictive REL-clause does not instruct the hearer to search in episodic memory of past experience. Rather, it alerts the hearer as to what the new referent is like — as a type. 14.2.3 Non-referring head nouns: Irrealis and the problem of strict co-reference Restrictive REL-clauses can also modify non-referring head nouns, a situation that requires some reconsideration of our semantic co-reference condition (1). This is so because the two ‘co-referents’ are both non-referring, and thus can only ‘co-refer’ in a hypothetical universe. Further, the REL-clause depicting the hypothetical state/event is under irrealis modal scope, and thus cannot be, strictly speaking, presupposed to be known or familiar to the hearer. The pragmatic condition (2) must be once again be modified, this time to: (10) Pragmatic condition on restrictive REL-clauses modifying non-referring heads nouns The speaker assumes that the proposition in the REL-clause is new information to the hearer. The proposition now falls under the modal scope of irrealis, and is not asserted. Rather, it is intended as unchallengeable grounding information. As an illustration, consider:

Relative clauses

179

(11) Any man who marries my sister would be asking for trouble a. Main clause (asserted) ?Any man would be asking for trouble b. Subordinate clauses (unchallengeable) ?The man marries my sister Both the main clause (11a) and the REL-clause (11b) are under the modal scope of irrealis. Neither makes much sense in isolation. Indeed, it is only with the REL-clause that the overall expression can be made coherent. And likewise in: (12) a. I know no man who would do this b. Women who love too much and the men they marry 14.2.4 Non-restrictive relative clauses Not all languages code non-restrictive REL-clauses — or their functional equivalents — as REL-clauses. Functionally, they abide by the semantic co-reference condition (1), but not by the pragmatic condition (2). That is, the head noun is indeed co-referential with some participant in the state/event coded in the REL-clause. But that state/event is typically not presupposed, but is rather asserted as new information. Most typically, non-restrictive REL-clauses have the communicative intent of parenthetical assertions, conveying information that the speaker may deem less central for the main thematic thrust of the discourse. Being less-central or ‘backgrounded’, the information may again serve to ground the referent either anaphorically, with definite head nouns, or cataphorically, with REF-indefinite head nouns. Both uses are illustrated in (13) below. (13) a. Anaphoric grounding (definite head) The woman, who was standing next to the door, pulled a gun and… b. Cataphoric grounding (REF-indefinite head) A good friend of mine, whom I hope you’ll meet some day, just called and said… However, non-restrictive REL-clauses cannot modify non-referring head nouns. Thus compare (11), (12) above with: (14) a. b. c.

*Any man, who marries my sister, would be asking for trouble *I know no man, who would do this ?Women, who love too much, and the men, they marry

The status of (14c) is somewhat murky. Generic arguments, in either the subject or object role, can indeed be modified by non-restrictive REL-clauses, and thus seem to behave as referring head nouns: (15) a. Generic subject Women, who love too much, are often disappointed

180

Syntax

b. Generic object We study elephants, which are large mammals We have noted earlier (Vol. I, Ch. 10) that the grammar of reference in language is not sensitive to the semantics of denotation, but rather to the pragmatics of topicality. Generic NPs may be topical even though, strictly speaking, they refer not to individual tokens but rather to types. The functional difference between restrictive and non-restrictive REL-clauses may be further illustrated with referentially unique heads, such as proper names, pronouns or unique definite nouns. Such heads cannot be modified by restrictive REL-clauses, but only by non-restrictive ones: (16) a. b. c. d. e. f.

John, who is my friend, is a poet *John who is my friend is a poet I, whom you all know, wish to speak now *I whom you all know wish to speak now The President, who will retire soon, is taking it easy ?The president who will retire soon is taking it easy

Restrictive modifiers are indeed superfluous with uniquely-referring NPs, since most typically such modifiers are used to ground non-unique nouns by converting them into uniquely-referring expressions.

14.3

Syntactic dimensions

14.3.1 Deletion under co-reference and the case recoverability problem As noted earlier above, a restrictive REL-clause is, syntactically, a subordinate clause embedded as noun modifier in the NP. A common indication of such dependency is that the REL-clause is said to be ‘missing one argument’, the one that is co-referential with the head noun. Traditionally, this has been often described as another case of deletion under coreference, analogous to the zero-coded subjects of verb complements. As illustrations, consider (17) and (18) below, one where the missing argument is the subject of the REL-clause, the other in which it is the object. Respectively:

Relative clauses

181

(17) Subject REL-clause S Subj [NP] Det

VP

N

Cop

Rel [S] Subj [NP]

VP V

man

[who

Det

N

a

crook

Obj [NP] Det

the

Pred [NP]

N

[Ø] married my

sister]

is

(18) Object REL-clause S Subj [NP] Det

VP

N

Cop

Rel [S] Subj [NP]

VP

Det

the

man

[my

N

V

sister married

Pred [NP] DET

N

a

crook

Obj [NP]

[Ø]]

is

Because of the strict co-reference condition on REL-clauses, the referential identity of the missing argument inside the REL-clause is fully recoverable from the head noun itself. But the case-role of the missing argument cannot be likewise recovered, because the head noun bears its case-role, be it semantic or grammatical, in the main clause. And the missing coreferent noun may have occupied any case-roles within the REL-clause:2 (19) a. Subject The man who died…

182

Syntax

b. Direct object The man John saw… c. Indirect object The man to whom Suzy gave the flower… d. Nominal predicate The woman who was my first-grade teacher… e. Possessor The man whose car I borrowed… This potential diversity of roles, coupled with the deletion under co-reference characteristic of REL-clauses, gives rise, at least in principle, to the case recoverability problem. The syntactic typology of REL-clauses may be viewed as the typology of the various strategies employed by languages to solve this problem.3 14.3.2 The typology of REL-clauses: Case-recoverability strategies 14.3.2.1
The non-embedding strategy One may view the creation of a grammaticalized, tightly-bound construction, packed under a single intonation contour with the main clause, as a strategy for automated, speeded-up discourse processing. It is under such a syntactic coding strategy that coreferent arguments tend to go missing (‘deleted’), most likely as a time-saving measure. The down-side of such time saving is the case-recoverability problem. One may as well remember, however, that the coherence function of REL-clauses can also be performed by a paratactic strategy, one which displays the following characteristics: modifying subordinate proposition retains its own main-clause structure; •
The
it is unembedded in an NP of the main clause; •
it comes under a separate contour; •
the coreferent noun is notintonation deleted; and •
the coreferent noun retainsnecessarily its characteristic case-marking as in the typical main • clause. The coreferent noun in such paratactic ‘REL-clauses’ may be coded as an anaphoric pronoun, provided the REL-clause follows the main clause. If the REL-clause precedes the main clause, the coreferent argument is often expressed as a full NP in the REL-clause, and as an anaphoric pronoun in the main clause. In many languages, the non-embedding strategy is optional, used most often in informal, colloquial speech. To illustrate this briefly, consider the following from English: (20) a. Embedded (‘syntactic’) The man you met yesterday is a crook b. Unembedded (‘paratactic’), post-posed That man is a crook, y’know, see, you met him yesterday, right? …

Relative clauses

183

c. Unembedded (‘paratactic’), pre-posed That, uh… you met that guy yesterday, right? Well, he is a crook… The non-embedding strategy solves the case recoverability problem by side-stepping it altogether. The co-referent argument — in either the main clause or the REL-clause — retains its characteristic main-clause position and case-marking. At most, it is expressed as an anaphoric pronoun, subject to whatever case-marking strategy that applies to such pronouns in main clauses (object in the ‘REL-clause’ in (20b), subject in main clause in (20c)). In some languages, non-embedding is the main — or even the only — relativization strategy available. As an illustration of a language with a preferred non-embedding strategy, consider Bambara (Mande; Niger-Congo). REL-clauses in Bambara look exactly like main clauses, with the exception that a special morpheme — the noun-suffix min (historically the demonstrative ‘that’) — follows the co-referent noun in the REL-clause. Anaphoric pronominalization most commonly applies to the coreferent noun in the main clause, as in (I. Coulibaly, i.p.c.):4 (21) a. Unembedded, pre-posed (Subj-rel, Obj-main) c7 min ye muru san, n ye o ye man rel past knife buy I past him see ‘The man who bought the knife, I saw him’ b. Unembedded, post-posed (Subj-rel, Obj-main) n ye o ye, c7 min ye muru san I past him see man rel past knife buy ‘I saw him, the man who bought the knife’ c. Unembedded, pre-posed (Obj-rel, Obj-main) n ye so min ye, c7 be o dyf I past house rel see man prog it build ‘The house that I saw, the man is building it’ d. Unembedded, post-posed (Obj-rel, Obj-main) c7 be o dyf, n ye so min ye man prog it build I past house rel see ‘The man is building it, the house that I saw’ Anaphora may also occur in Bambara in the REL-clause itself, in this case as zero pronominalization, as in (Bird 1968): (22) c7 ye muru san, n ye min [Ø] ye man past knife buy I past rel see ‘The man bought the knife, the one I saw’ Bambara also allows what looks like embedding, a less common strategy. This strategy is somewhat peculiar: At the very location where the head noun should be in the main clause, the entire REL-clause — which includes the ‘head’ noun — is placed. Thus compare (Bird 1968):

184

Syntax

(23) a. Simple clause n ye c7 ye I past man see ‘I saw the man’ b. With REL-clause I ye c7 min ye muru san ye I past man rel past knife buy see ‘I saw the man who bought the knife’ (lit.: ‘I that man bought the knife saw’) On the surface, (23b) may be analyzed as containing the object head noun c7 ‘man’ modified by the post-nominal REL-clause min ye muru san ‘who bought the knife’. However, other configurations of the same type cannot be likewise analyzed. Thus compare (Bird 1968): (24) a. Simple clause c7 ye muru san man past knife buy ‘The man bought the knife’ b. With REL-clause n ye c7 min ye ye muru san I past man rel see past knife buy ‘The man that I saw bought the knife’ (lit.: ‘I saw that man bought the knife’) In (24b), n ye ‘I past’ — which is technically part of the REL-clause — precedes the ‘head’ noun. The entire relative clause is thus scattered on both sides of the ‘head’. Bambara thus has no real embedded REL-clauses, either before or after a head noun. Rather, what appears as ‘embedding’ is a replacement of the head noun by an unreduced clause. Within this clause, the ‘head’ noun is one of the NPs, with no special grammatical status — except for being marked by the demonstrative min. 14.3.2.2
The gap (‘zero’) strategy The case-role of the missing co-referent argument in an embedded REL-clause can also be recovered without any morphological provisions. That is, the coreferential argument may go missing (‘deleted’) without a trace. In recovering the case-role of the missing argument under such conditions, the following information is presumably available to the hearer: lexical-semantic case-frame of the subordinate verb; •
the
the identity of the missing argument — read off the head noun; and •
the lexical case-roles other arguments in the REL-clause, which are still present and • case-marked inofthethenormal way. Given such information, the hearer presumably infers by subtraction the case-role of the missing argument. We will illustrate this strategy with Japanese, a rigid SOV language with pre-nominal REL-clauses (K. Akiba, i.p.c.):5

Relative clauses

185

(25) a. Main clause otoka-ga onna-ni tegami-o kaita man-subj woman-dat letter-acc sent ‘The man sent a letter to the woman’ b. Subject REL-clause onna-ni tegami-o kaita otoka-wa… woman-dat letter-acc sent man-top ‘the man who sent a letter to the woman…’ c. Accusative/object REL-clause otoka-ga onna-ni kaita tegami-wa… man-subj woman-dat sent letter-top ‘the letter that the man sent to the woman…’ d. Dative REL-clause otoka-ga tegami-o kaita onna-wa… man-subj letter-acc sent woman-top ‘the woman to whom the man sent a letter…’ The gap strategy is most commonly found in languages with rigid word-order, where inferring the missing argument’s case-role is probably easier. What the existence of such a strategy suggests, I believe, is that given enough processing time, access to context, redundant information and compensatory strategies, a highly grammaticalized morphosyntactic strategy is not an absolute must. A language can always resort to a more pidginlike strategy. Put another way, not all functional domains need ever be fully grammaticalized. It may well be that the gap/zero relativization strategy is more likely to be used in languages that use zero anaphoric pronouns, such as Japanese and Chinese. Such languages may simply extend their discourse anaphora strategy to the more syntactic environment of REL-clauses. As we shall see directly below, the same extension may be found in languages with unstressed anaphoric pronouns. 14.3.2.3
The anaphoric pronoun strategy The anaphoric pronoun strategy is used most commonly in post-nominal REL-clauses. The beginning of the REL-clause in such constructions is often signalled by an invariant subordinator. The missing co-referent noun within the REL-clause is then replaced by the very same case-marked anaphoric pronoun used in cross-clausal (‘discourse’) anaphora. Co-reference in the REL-clause is thus treated the way it is in chained main clauses. This may explain the common association of an invariant subordinator with this relativization strategy: The subordinator helps distinguish the REL-clause from a mere main clause with an anaphoric pronoun — which REL-clauses of this type would otherwise resemble. The anaphoric pronoun relativization strategy may be illustrated with Israeli Hebrew, where it is the main pattern:

186

Syntax

(26) Subject REL-clause a. Main-clause anaphora hi ba-a hena etmol she came-she here yesterday ‘She came here yesterday’ b. REL-clause ha-isha she-ba-a hena etmol… the-woman rel-came-she here yesterday ‘the woman who came here yesterday…’ (27) Direct object a. Main-clause anaphora Yoav ohev ot-a Yoav loves acc-her ‘Yoav loves her’ b. REL-clause ha-isha she-Yoav ohev (ot-a)… the-woman rel-Yoav loves acc-her ‘the woman that Yoav loves…’ (28) Indirect object a. Main-clause anaphora (dative) Yoav natan l-a et-ha-sefer Yoav gave-he to-her acc-the-book ‘Yoav gave her the book’ b. REL-clause (dative) ha-isha she-Yoav natan l-a et-ha-sefer… the-woman rel-Yoav gave-he to-her acc-the-book ‘The woman to whom Yoav gave the book…’ c. Main-clause anaphora (locative) Yoav yashav al-av Yoav sat-he on-it ‘Yoav sat on it’ d. REL-clause (locative) ha-shulxan she-Yoav yashav al-av… the-table rel-Yoav sat-he on-it ‘the table on which Yoav sat…’ e. Main-clause anaphora (instrumnental) Mira shavra it-o et-ha-xalon Mira broke with-it acc-the-window ‘Mira broke the window with it’ f. REL-clause (insrtrumental) ha-patish she-Mira shavra it-o et-ha-xalon… the-hammer rel-Mira broke with-it acc-the-window ‘The hammer Mira with which broke the window…’

Relative clauses

187

(29) Genitive a. Main-clause anaphora Yoav saxar et-ha-bayit shel-a Yoav rented-he acc-the-house of-her ‘Yoav rented her house’ b. REL-clause ha-isha she-Yoav saxar et-ha-bayit shel-a… the-woman rel-Yoav rented-he acc-the-house of-her ‘The woman whose house Yoav rented…’ From an information processing perspective, the anaphoric pronoun strategy is only minimally disruptive. No new processing provisions are made beyond those already existing for anaphoric pronouns in chained main clauses, and the preferred serial order — antecedent before pronoun — is maintained. 14.3.2.4
The relative pronoun strategy The REL-pronoun strategy involves the use of case-marked pronouns peculiar only to REL-clauses — relative pronouns. Such pronouns are distinct from normal anaphoric pronouns, even if they may have developed historically from them, or from stressed demonstrative pronouns. Unlike anaphoric pronouns, relative pronouns tend to appear not in the normal position of the argument in the main clause, but rather at the clause boundary. Indeed, they are most commonly fronted, i.e. appear at the beginning of the clause. In languages with post-nominal REL-clauses, relative pronouns thus perform, in combination, two distinct coding functions in relativization: act as the relative subordinator morphemes, marking the •
They boundary of the REL-clause. •
They also mark the case-role of the missing coreferent noun. We will illustrate this strategy with the post-nominal REL-clauses of German (Borgert and Nyhan 1976): (30) Nominative a. Main clause Der Mann kam the/nom man came ‘The man came’ b. REL-clause der Mann der kam… the/nom man that/nom came… ‘the man who came…’

188

Syntax

(31) Accusative a. Main clause Ich kenne den Mann schon lange I know the/acc man already long ‘I’ve known the man for a long time’ b. REL-clause der Mann den ich schon lange kenne… the/nom man that/acc I already long know ‘the man that I’ve long known…’ (32) Dative a. Main clause ich habe dem Mann das Buch gegeben I have the/dat man the/acc book given ‘I gave the book to the man’ b. REL-clause der Mann dem ich das Buch gegeben habe… the/nom man that/dat I the/acc book given have ‘the man to whom I gave the book…’ When an indirect object requires a preposition, it is combined in relativization with the case-marked REL-pronoun. Thus consider (Borgert and Nyhan 1976): (33) a. Main clause Ich sprach mit dem Herrn I spoke with the/dat gentleman ‘I spoke with the man’ b. REL-clause Der Herr mit dem ich sprach… the/nom gentleman with that/dat I spoke ‘the gentleman with whom I spoke…’ One may consider the preposition plus REL-pronoun in (33) as a single complex marker that performs the two coding functions in relativization, subordinator and case-marked pronoun. Case-marked relative pronouns may also arise historically from case-marked interrogative pronouns, as in English: (34) a. b. c. d. e. f.

Subject: The man who stopped by Object: The man whom she married Place: The village where she lived Time: When he arrived Manner: How she did it Reason: The reason why he left

Relative clauses

189

14.3.2.5
Verb agreement and the gap strategies An interesting twist on the gap/zero strategy, above, is found in Asheninka (So. Arawak). In this language, all arguments in the main clause require obligatory pronominal agreement on the verb. While these pronouns are not morphologically case-marked, the subject pronoun is a prefix and all object pronouns are suffixes, with the direct-object pronoun preceding the indirect. In REL-clauses, no morphological provision is made for recovering the case-role of the missing co-referent noun. However, the bound pronoun corresponding to the missing co-referent noun inside the REL-clause is also missing. And the verb in the REL-clause is marked by a suffixal subordinator (David Payne, i.p.c.): (35) a. Main clause i-p-ak-e-na-ro kaniri syira]pari 3masc-give-perf-real-1-3fem manioc man ‘The man gave me the manioc’ b. Subject REL-clause syira]pari p-ak-e-na-ro-ri kaniri… man give-perf-rel-1-3fem-sub manioc ‘The man who gave me the manioc…’ c. Object REL-clause kaniri i-p-ak-e-na-ri syira]pari… manioc 3masc-give-perf-real-1-sub man ‘The manioc that the man gave me…’ d. Dative REL-clause syira]pari no-p-ak-e-ro-ri kaniri… man 1-give-perf-real-3fem-sub manioc ‘The man to whom I gave the manioc…’ One may say that in Asheninka the gap strategy for full nouns is supplemented by a parallel gap strategy for bound-pronouns. If the verb is marked by the subordinator suffix, then if the subject pronoun is missing, the missing co-referent noun in the REL-clause must have referred to the subject. For simple transitive verbs, if the object pronoun is missing, the missing co-referent noun must have referred to the object. For bi-transitive verbs, when one object is missing, its case-role must be recovered via semantic inferences. 14.3.2.6
The word-order strategy As noted above, the gap/zero strategy depends, at least to some extent, on rigid word-order. This is so presumably because in order to compute which argument is missing from the REL-clause, the presence of the other arguments in predictable positions is a useful piece of ‘redundant’ information. Japanese is indeed a rigid verb-final language, where all clausal arguments tend to precede the verb. However, subject and object arguments in Japanese have considerable ordering flexibility among themselves. Word-order alone is thus, in all likelihood, not the determinative factor in computing the case-role of the missing argument. Rather, the fairly

190

Syntax

dependable nominal case-marking may play a more dominant role in the presumed computation. In languages with morphologically unmarked subject and object, word-order may be more important for case-recoverability in relativization. Thus in English, the use of object REL-pronouns is optional, and in non-standard dialects the use of REL-pronouns is also optional in subject REL-clauses: (36) a. Subject REL-clause The guy (who) married my sister is a crook b. Object REL-clause The book John read is terrific Presumably, intonation plays a major role in tagging the NP-V-NP sequence in (36a) as a head-noun-plus-subject-REL-clause, rather than a main clause. But further, the object REL-clause in (36b) is now distinguished from (32a) by word-order: The sequence NP-NP-V, aberrant for English main clauses, may serve as perceptual clue for identifying an object REL-clause (Fodor and Garrett 1967), again in combination with intonation. The efficacy of such a strategy depends crucially on the rigid SVO word-order of English main clauses. 14.3.2.7
The nominalization strategy In many languages, REL-clauses (as well as other dependent clauses such as verb complements and adverbial clauses) are all nominalized, so that only main clauses have fully finite syntax. Such languages often make a morphological distinction between subject and object nominalizations, a distinction that may then serve as a case-recoverability strategy in relativization. Let us consider first Turkish, a V-final language with pre-nominal REL-clauses. Two alternative nominalizing suffixes, for subject and object, can mark the REL-clause verb. In object relativization, further, the subject is marked as genitive, as is the case in nominalized clauses. Further, the verb in object REL-clauses must carry — in addition to the nominal suffix — also a possessive-pronoun agreeing with the genitive subject. In other words, the verb is treated as a head noun possessed by the subject (see §11.7). Thus consider (Slobin 1986): (37) a. Main clause adam ev-i gör-dü man house-acc see-past ‘The man saw the house’ b. Subject REL-clause ev-i gör-en adam house-acc see-s/nom man ‘the man who saw the house…’ (lit.: ‘the house-seeing man’

Relative clauses

191

c. Object REL-clause Adam-nin gör-düg-u ev man-gen see-O/nom-3sg.poss house ‘the house that the man saw…’ (lit.: ‘the house of the man’s his seeing’) In Turkish and other languages with nominalizer REL-clauses, this strategy can only differentiate between subject and object REL-clauses. To further differentiation between direct and indirect object REL-clauses requires the use of case-marking morphology, an extension of the strategy that will be illustrated with Ute data. The verb in subject REL-clauses in Ute is marked with the subject nominalizing suffix -t(u =). The verb in object REL-clauses is marked with the non-subject nominalizing suffix -n(a), and the subject then appears in the genitive case. In indirect-object relativization, the subordinator pu =- carries the relevant post-position. Thus (Givón 1980a): (38) a. Main clause mamach tu =pu =ych-i tu =ka’na-pu =-vwan wacu =-ka woman/subj rock-obj table-obj-on put-perf ‘The woman put the rock on the table’ b. Subject REL-clause mamach ’u tu =pu =ych-i tu =ka’na-pu =-vwan wacu =-ka-t… woman/subj det rock-obj table-obj-on put-perf-nom/subj ‘the woman who put the rock on the table…’ c. Direct object REL-clause tu =pu =y-ch ’ur mamach-i tu =ka’na-pu =-vwan wacu =-ka-n… rock/subj det woman-gen table-obj-on put-perf-nom/obj ‘the rock that the woman put on the table…’ (lit.: ‘the rock of the woman’s putting on the table’) d. Indirect object REL-clause tu =ka’na-p ’ur pu =-vwan mamach-i tu =pu =y-ci wacu =-ka-n… table-subj det rel-on woman-gen rock-obj put-ant-nom/obj ‘the table on which the woman put a rock…’ (lit.: ‘the table of the woman putting the rock on’) A language using the nominalization strategy may also have a more expanded inventory of nominalizers, so that a wider range of case-roles may be distinguished via the nominalizing morpheme alone. We will illustrate this with data from Lhasa Tibetan. In this language, in relativization, the suffix -mkhan is used for the actor; the suffix -sa for the locative (and by extension also the dative-benefactive); the ‘default’ suffix -yag is used for the patient and instrumental (in the non-perfective); and the suffix -pa is used for non-actors (in the perfective). As nominalizers, -mkhan (historically ‘teacher’ or ‘expert’) is found in many actor derivations and -sa (historically ‘earth’, ‘ground’ and thus by extension ‘place’) in place derivations. Thus (Delancey 1988):

192

Syntax

(39) a. Actor/subject derivation s’i’n-mkhan ‘carpenter’ wood-expert b. Place derivation yod-sa ‘place of residence’ live-place The derivations in (39) have been originally been lexical compounds. To illustrate the use of these suffixes in relativization, consider (Delancey 1988; Mazaudon 1978): (40) a. Actor REL-clause stag gsod-mkhan mi… tiger kill-a/nom man ‘the man who killed the tiger…’ (hist.: ‘tiger-killer man’) b. Locative REL-clause kho sdod-sa-’i khan’=pa… he/abs live-loc/nom-gen house ‘the house where he lives…’ (hist.: ‘his living-place house’) c. Instrument REL-clause kho-s stag gsdod-yag-gi me=mda… he-erg tiger kill-instr/nom-gen gun ‘the gun with which he killed the tiger…’ (hist.: ‘his tiger-killing-tool gun’) d. Patient REL-clause kho-s bsad-pa-’i stag he-erg kill-obj/nom-gen tiger ‘the tiger that he killed…’ (hist.: ‘his killing tiger’) Since the case-role marker — the nominalizing suffix — actually appears on the verb, one may consider the Tibetan relativization strategy a weaker version of the verb-coding strategy (see below). The same may be said, though to a lesser degree, for the Turkish and Ute nominalizing strategies. 14.3.2.8
The equi-case strategy The use of an equi-case constraint as an exclusive case-recoverability strategy would result in drastic reduction of expressive power in relativization. However, this strategy can still be put to partial use. As an illustration, consider the following examples from Israeli Hebrew. In forming indirect-object REL-clauses in Hebrew, the anaphoric pronoun is casemarked with the appropriate preposition. However, the preposition and the anaphoric pronoun may be dispensed with altogether if the case-role of the co-referent argument in the REL-clause is the same as in the main clause. Thus consider (Givón 1975b):

Relative clauses

193

(41) a. No equi-case (main = Subj, Rel = Dat) ha-ish she-Yoav natan l-o et-ha-sefer neelam the-man rel-Yoav gave/he to-him acc-the-book disappeared ‘The man that Yoav gave the book to disappeared’ b. *ha-ish she-Yoav natan et-ha-sefer neelam the-man rel-Yoav gave/he acc-the-book disappeared (*‘The man that Yoav gave the book disappeared’) c. Equi-case (main & Rel = Dat) l-a-ish she-Yoav natan (l-o) et-ha-sefer to-the-man rel-Yoav gave/he (to-him) acc-the-book eyn kesef neg/be money ‘The man that Yoav gave the book to has no money’ 14.3.2.9
Verb-coding strategies: The interaction between relativization

and promotion rules 14.3.2.9.1
Preamble. There exist several variants of the verb-coding strategy of relativization, all displaying one central feature: The case-role of the missing co-referent argument in the REL-clause is marked on the verb in the REL-clause. How a language may develop and implement such a strategy may vary. We have already seen a weak variant of this in languages that use the nominalization strategy (Turkish, Ute, Lhasa Tibetan). Most commonly, the verb-coding relativization strategy is coupled to some syntactic process that ‘promotes’ arguments to a higher slot on the well known case-hierarchy SUBJ > DO > IO. The two main types of such ‘promotion rules’ — dative-shifting and passivization (see Ch. 13) — affect in some languages the verb-coding of the semantic case-role of the promoted argument. By coupling such a promotion rule to relativization, verbcoding of the case-role of the missing argument can be achieved. 14.3.2.9.2
Relativization and passivization: The “subject-only”constraint (Philippine). As noted earlier (Ch. 13), the semantic role of the subject noun in a Philippine language (when interpreted as a nominative pattern) is morphologically coded on the verb. This is true for the agent subject of the active clause as well as for the non-agent subjects of various passives. The Bikol passivization data cited in Ch. 13 are reproduced below (M. Factora, i.p.c.): (42) a. Agent-topic (‘active voice’) nag-ta’o ’ang-lalake ning-libro sa-babaye agt-give top-man pat-book dat-woman ‘The man gave a book to the woman’

194

Syntax

b. Patient-topic (‘passive-1’) na-ta’o kang-lalake ’ang-libro sa-babaye pat-give agt-man top-book dat-woman ‘The book was given to the woman by the man’ c. Dative-topic (‘passive-2’) na-ta’o-an kang-lalake ning-libro ’ang-babaye dat-give-dat agt-man pat-book top-woman ‘The woman was given a book by the man’ (43) a. Agent-topic (‘active voice’) nag-putul ’ang-lalake ning-tubu gamit(-’ang)-lanseta agt-cut top-man pat-cane instr-knife ‘The man cut sugar-cane with a knife’ b. Instrument-topic (‘passive-3’) pinag-putul kang-lalake ning-tubu ’ang-lanseta instr-cut agt-man pat-cane top-knife ‘The knife was used by the man to cut sugarcane’ (44) a. Agent-topic (‘active voice’) nag-bakal ’ang-lalake ning-kanding para-sa-babaye agt-buy top-man pat-goat ben-dat-woman ‘The man bought a goat for the woman’ b. Benefactive-topic (‘passive-4’) pinag-bakal-an kang-lalake ning-kanding ’ang-babaye ben-buy-dat agt-man pat-goat top-woman ‘The woman was bought a goat by the man’ To gain verb-coding of the semantic role of the missing co-referent argument in relativization, two restrictions are imposed in Bikol: subject REL-clauses can be formed •
Only
Passivization (promotion to subject/topic) is an obligatory feeder to relativization. • These restrictions, coupled with the verb-coding of the subject’s semantic role in main clauses, effectively transfer the verb-coding strategy of Bikol from main clauses to REL-clauses (M. Factora, i.p.c.): (45) a. Agent REL-clause marai ’ang-lalake na nag-ta’o ning-libro sa-babaye good top-man rel agt-give pat-book dat-woman ‘The man who gave a book to the woman is good’ b. Patient REL-clause marai ’ang-libro na na-ta’o kang-lalake sa-babaye good top-book rel pat-give agt-man dat-woman ‘The book that was given to the woman by the man is good’

Relative clauses

195

c. Dative REL-clause marai ’ang-babaye na na-ta’o-an kang-lalake ning-libro good top-woman rel dat-give-dat agt-man pat-book ‘The woman that was given a book by the man is good’ d. Instrument REL-clause marai ’ang-lanseta na pinag-putul kang-lalake ning-tubu good top-knife rel instr-cut agt-man pat-cane ‘The knife that the man to cut sugarcane with is good’ e. Benefactive REL-clause marai ’ang-babaye good top-woman na pinag-bakal-an kang-lalake ning-kanding rel ben-buy-dat agt-man pat-goat ‘The woman for whom the man bought a goat is good’ The subject-only restriction on relativization is found only in languages that gain verbcoding in passivization, such as Philippine languages or their close relatives (Toba-Batak, Malagasy). This restricted distribution reinforces the interpretation that the restriction is motivated primarily by case-recoverability considerations.6 14.3.2.9.3
Relativization and promotion to direct object: the “direct-object-only constraint” (KinyaRwanda). As noted earlier (Ch. 13), coding the semantic role of arguments on the verb may also be done in some languages through promotion to direct object (‘dative shifting’). Much like passivization, this grammatical process can be capitalized on for relativization, to yield a coherent case-recoverability strategy. In this case, the strategy involves only object REL-clauses, since only object arguments can gain verb-coding of their semantic role via promotion to DO. In a language that utilizes the promotion-to-DO system in relativization, the situation is analogous to the Philippine case, above: direct objects can be relativized. •
Only order for an indirect object to become the coreferent argument in •
Ina REL-clause, it must be first promoted to DO. We will illustrate this strategy with KinyaRwanda, first reproducing the data showing the extensive system of promotion to DO in this language (Kimenyi 1976): (46) Locative a. DO = patient umugore y-ooher-eje umubooyi ku-isoko woman she-send-asp cook loc-market ‘The woman sent the cook to the market’

196

Syntax

b. DO = locative umugore y-ooher-eke-ho isoko umubooyi woman she-send-asp-loc market cook ‘The woman sent to the market the cook’ (47) Instrument a. DO = patient umugabo ya-tem-eje igiti n-umupaanga man he-cut-asp tree instr-saw ‘The man cut the tree with a saw’ b. DO = instrument umugabo ya-tem-ej-eesha umupaanga igiti man he-cut-asp-instr saw tree ‘The man used the saw to cut the tree’ (48) Manner a. DO = patient Maria ya-tets-e inkoko n-agahiinda Mary she-cook-asp chicken mann-sorrow ‘Mary cooked the chicken regretfully’ b. DO = manner Maria ya-tek-an-ye agahiinda inkoko Mary she-cook-mann-asp sorrow chicken ‘Mary regretfully cooked the chicken’ (49) Associative a. DO = patient umuhuungu ya-riimb-jye ururiimbi na-umugore boy he-sing-asp song assoc-woman ‘The boy sang the song with the woman’ b. DO = associative umuhuungu ya-riimb-an-ye umugore ururiimbi boy he-sing-assoc-asp woman song ‘The boy sang with the woman a song’ In the case of one semantic role, the dative/benefactive, promotion to DO is obligatory: (50) Dative-benefactive (obligatory promotion) a. *DO = patient *Yohani y-ooher-eje ibaruwa ku-Maria John he-send-asp letter dat-Mary b. DO = dative-benefactive Yohani y-ooher-er-eje Maria ibaruwa John he-send-ben-asp Mary letter ‘John sent Mary a letter’

Relative clauses

197

In subject and patient-DO REL-clauses, no verb-coding occurs. One may argue that a word-order strategy similar to that of English is used here: = subject REL-clause •
NP-V •
NP-NP-V = object REL-clause Thus: (51) a. Subject REL-clause umugabo u-a-kubis-e abagore… man he/rel-past-hit-asp women ‘the man who hit the women…’ b. Patient-DO REL-clause abagore umugabo y-a-kubis-e… women man he-past-hit-asp ‘the women that the man hit…’ In indirect object relativization, the non-patient object is first promoted to DO, and thus gains verb-coding of its semantic role: (52) a. Locative REL-clause isoko umugore y-ooher-eke-ho umubooyi… market woman she-send-asp-loc cook ‘The market the woman sent the cook to…’ b. Instrument REL-clause umupaanga umugabo ya-tem-ej-eesha igiti… saw man he-cut-asp-instr tree ‘The saw the man cut the tree with…’ c. Manner REL-clause agahiinda Maria ya-tek-an-ye inkoko sorrow Mary she-cook-mann-asp chicken ‘the regret with which Mary cooked the chicken…’ d. Associative REL-clause umugore umuhuungu ya-riimb-an-ye ururiimbi… woman boy he-sing-assoc-asp song ‘The woman with whom the boy sang the song…’ e. Dative-benefactive REL-clause umugore Yohani y-ooher-er-eje ibaruwa… woman John he-send-ben-asp letter ‘the woman that John sent the letter to…’ Wherever one finds the direct-object-only restriction on object relativization, it always involve a language where promotion to DO yields verb-coding of the semantic role of the promoted object — thus also, because of the obligatory coupling of the two processes, of the semantic role of the missing co-referent argument in the REL-clause.7

198

Syntax

The typological prediction about use of the verb-coding case-recoverability strategy in relativization may be summarized as follows (Givón 1979: Ch. 4): (53) Prediction concerning the “subject-only” and “DO-only” restrictions in relativization A language will impose the Subj-only or DO-only restriction in relativization only when it gains verb-coding of case-role of the promoted argument in passivization or promotion to DO, respectively. 14.3.2.10
The stranded case-marking strategy In English, a variant relativization strategy can be used for all indirect-objects, whereby the case-marking preposition remains stranded in the very same location where the missing indirect object would have been: (54) a. Locative She put the book on the table b. Locative REL-clause the table she put the book on… c. Instrumental She cut the meat with a knife d. Instrumental REL-clause the knife she cut the meat with… e. Benefactive She bought the house for her mother f.

Benefactive REL-clause the person she bought the house for…

g. Dative She gave the book to Joe h. Dative REL-clause the man she gave the book to… i.

Associative She bought the house with Joe

j.

Associative REL-clause the man she bought the house with…

14.3.3 Mixed relativization strategies As noted earlier, a language may use a mix of relativization strategies, each specific to one or more case-roles. English serves as a good example of this, with a mix of word-order, gap, REL-pronoun and stranded case-marker. Bambara, as noted earlier, also has a mix of relativization strategies.

Relative clauses

199

Mixed strategies can also be found in the use of verb-coding. As an illustration, consider the case of Ponapean (Micronesian), a strict SVO language with unmarked subject and direct object. REL-clauses follow the head noun in Ponapean and are morphologically double-bracketed — beginning with the subordinator me and ending with a demonstrative which must agree in number with the head noun. Subject and direct-object relativization is unproblematic, presumably relying on the same word-order clues as in English (Carlson 1985): (55) a. Main clause lii kilang ool woman see man ‘The woman saw the man’ b. Subject REL-clause lii me kilang ool-o, woman rel see man-dem ‘The woman who saw the man…’ c. Direct object REL-clause ool me lii kilang-o, man rel woman see-dem ‘the man that the woman saw…’ Indirect-object relativization follows two strategies. For indirect objects that can be promoted to DO and in the process gain of verb-coding of their semantic role, the verbcoding strategy is used, much as in KinyaRwanda: (56) Dative-benefactive a. Main clause (obligatory promotion) lii ki-ffng serapein-o puung woman give-dat girl-def book ‘The woman gave the girl a book’ b. REL-clause (obligatory promotion) serapein-o me lii-o ki-ffng puuk-o… girl-def rel woman-def give-dat book-dem ‘the girl that the woman gave a book to…’ c. *serapein-o me lii-o ki puuk-o… girl-def rel woman-def give book-dem (57) Directional-locative a. Main clause, patient DO ool-f pwilikiti puuk-f nan iim-o man-def put book-def loc house-def ‘The man put the book in the house’

200 Syntax

b. Main clause, locative DO ool-f pwilikiti-ffng iim-o puuk man-def put-loc house-def book ‘The man put in the house a book’ c. REL-clause, obligatory promotion iim-o me ool-f pwiikiti-ffng puuk-ff… house-def rel man-def put-loc book-dem ‘the house where the man put the book…’ d. *iimo me ool-f pwiikiti puuk-ff… house rel man-def put book-dem (58) Instrumental a. Main clause, patient DO ool-f sfrff utuk-f ki-naip man-def cut meat-def with-knife ‘The man cut the meat with a knife’ b. Main clause, instrument DO ool-f sfrff-ki naip utuk man-def cut-instr knife meat ‘The man used the knife to cut meat’ c. REL-clause, obligatory promotion naip-f me ool-f sfrff-ki utuk-ff… knife-def rel man-def cut-instr meat-dem ‘the knife with which the man cut the meat…’ d. *naip-f me ool-f sfrff utuk-ff… knife-def rel man-def cut meat-dem No other oblique case can be promoted to DO in Ponapean. In the relativization of such case-roles, the anaphoric pronoun strategy is used (as in Hebrew): (59) Associative a. Main clause ool-f yang-lii-f tftffk man-def with-woman-def work ‘The man worked with the woman’ ‘The man and the woman worked’ b. REL-clause lii-f me ool-f yaang-i tftffk-ff… woman-def rel man-def with-her work-def ‘the woman that the man worked with…’ (lit.: ‘the woman that the man worked with her…’)

Relative clauses

201

(60) Complex locative a. Main clause ool-f mwoot pee-f-n seer-f man-def sit top-its-lig chair-def ‘The man sat on the chair’ (lit.: ‘The man sat on top of it, the chair’) b. REL-clause seer-f me ool-f mwoot pee-wee-u… chair-def rel man-def sit top-its-dem ‘the chair on top of which the man sat…’ (lit.: ‘the chair that the man sat on top of it…’) (61) Genitive a. Main clause ih kelang iim-a-n ool-f I see house-his-lig man-def ‘I see the man’s house’ (lit.: ‘I see his house, the man’s) b. REL-clause ool-f me ih kelang iim-a-u… man-def rel I see house-his-dem ‘the man whose house I saw…’ (lit.: ‘the man that I saw his house…’) 14.3.4 Oblique role relativization and head-noun specificity In the relativization of oblique ‘adverbial’ cases, such as time, manner, reason, purpose and occasionally even place, languages with explicit recoverability strategies for other arguments often revert to a gap/zero strategy. As a concomitant, the head noun (or relative pronoun) specifies — through its lexical meaning — its own semantic role. As an illustration, consider English: (62) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

The time he was supposed to meet me… When she finally showed up… Where he went next… The place he sat… The reason I did this was… Why I did this was… The way he did it was… How we’re planning to do this is…

One may wish to call this the ‘lexical head strategy’, acknowledging all along that it is rather limited in scope, most naturally to non-topical, non-referring case-roles.

202 Syntax

14.3.5 Relativization and grammatical relations: Summary With the conspicuous exception of the two least grammaticalized relativization strategies — non-embedding (Bambara) and gap/zero (Japanese) — REL-clauses appear to be strongly governed by the GRs subject, direct-object and occasionally indirect-object. Most relativization strategies noted above are conspicuously dependent in their definition on GRs. Indeed the main theme in the typology of REL-clauses — case recoverability — is itself a profoundly relational theme. While in general the government of relativization by GRs is coherent, on occasion it is not. As an illustration, compare the treatment of English bi-transitive verbs in passivization and relativization. Criteria of word-order and other considerations (see Vol. I, Ch. 3) make it fairly clear that dative-shifting in English indeed promotes the dative argument to DO, as in: (63) a. Patient DO She gave the book to Joe b. Dative DO She gave Joe a book From each variant in (63), only the DO is accessible to becoming the subject of the promotional passive, the patient from (63a), the dative from (63b): (64) a. b. c. d.

The book was given to Joe *Joe was given a book to Joe was given a book *The book was given Joe

In relativization, however, both direct and indirect object are accessible from variant (63a), but only the patient — presumably not the DO — is accessible from variant (63b): (65) a. b. c. d.

the book she gave to Joe… the man she gave the book to… the book she gave Joe… *the man she gave the book…

What is involved here, I suspect, is the interaction between GRs and case-recoverability. Option (65b) preserves the clue for recovering the case-role of the missing dative — the stranded preposition. Option (65d) does not. 14.3.6 The syntax of non-restrictive REL-clauses The typological discussion so far dealt almost exclusively with restrictive REL-clauses. This was so because the bulk of structurally well-defined, embedded clausal modifiers tend to be restrictive. Non-restrictive ‘parenthetical’ clauses are not only placed under a separate intonation contour but often are not even formally REL-clauses. Thus consider:

Relative clauses

(66) a. b. c. d. e. f.

203

The woman, who was sitting quietly, … The woman, whom I’ve never seen before, … The man, with whom I had a conversation earlier, … The woman — she was sitting and waiting quietly — … The woman — nobody knew her there — … The woman — I have no idea where she came from — …

Only three of these non-restrictive clauses above (66a–c) formally resemble a REL-clause. And there seem to be no principled syntactic constraints on the structure of such parenthetic expressions, but only pragmatic constraints on their coherence. To illustrate the role of coherence here, compare: (67) a. The woman — and she was sitting and waiting there all that time — pulled out a gun and… b. The woman — and I don’t care if you believe this or not — pulled out a gun and… c. ?The woman — and the price of lettuce was really going up fast then — pulled out a gun and… The parenthetical clause in (67a) still involves strict co-reference — thus referential coherence — and could have easily been expressed as a REL-clause. But the coherence of (67b) and incoherence of (67c) have little to do with reference. The use of REL-clause structure in parenthetical non-restrictive slots is rigidly constrained even in a language where it is found. Some restrictions seem purely structural and diachronically motivated. For example, non-restrictive REL-clauses in English tolerate ‘true’ REL-pronouns, but not the subordinator ‘that’: (68) a. b. c. d.

The woman who arrived early… The woman, who arrive early, … The woman that arrived early… *The woman, that arrived early, …

Other restrictions may be meaning-based, as for example those that involve the referentiality of the head noun. We noted earlier above that non-restrictive REL-clauses cannot modify non-referring heads. Notice now that prototypically referring arguments such as subject, direct object and dative-benefactive are readily admissible as the missing argument in non-restrictive REL-clauses, as in e.g. (66a–c). It is the oblique roles, those that are prototypically non-referring, that seem much less natural in this slot: (69) a. b. c. d. e. f.

The way he said it was real nasty. *The way, he did it, was real nasty. The reason why he left was because… *The reason, why he left, was because… The time he came was awkward. *The time, he came, was awkward.

204 Syntax

In some languages, the contrast between restrictive and non-restrictive modifiers is morphologically well marked, thus better grammaticalized. We will illustrate this with Bemba (Bantu), where the same morphological contrast applies to adjectives, possessive modifiers, ordinals, modifying locative phrases and subject REL-clauses. Restrictive modifiers in Bemba use the cv- variant of the pronominal subject prefix. Non-restrictive modifiers use the vcv- version of the prefix (Givón 1972a): (70) Possessives modifiers a. Restrictive abaana ba-andi… children cv-my b. Non-restrictive abaana, aba-andi, … children vcv-my (71) Modifying adjectives a. Restrictive umuana mu-suma… child cv-good b. Non-restrictive umuana, umu-suma, … child vcv-good (72) Subject REL-clauses a. Restrictive abaana ba-a-ishile… children cv-past-come b. Non-restrictive abaana, aba-a-ishile, … children vcv-past-come

‘my children…’

‘the children, mine, …’

‘the good child…’

‘the child, the good one, …’

‘the children who came…’

‘the children, who came, …’

The vcv- pronominal prefix in Bemba codes referring nominals (Vol. I, Ch. 10). Headless subject REL-clauses, which are always referring, for example, can only take vcv- prefix, never cv-: (73) a. aba-a-ishile baa-suma pro-past-come pro-good ‘The ones who came are good’ b. *ba-a-ishile baa-suma c. aba-suma ba-a-ishile pro-good pro-past-come ‘The good ones came’ d. *ba-suma ba-a-ishile e. umu-andi muu-suma pro-my pro-good ‘mine is good’

Relative clauses

205

f. *mu-andi muu-suma pro-my pro-good The pronominal equivalents of the vcv- prefixes of Bemba are seen in English in the use of ‘the one’ in non-restrictive REL-clauses in English: (74) a. b. c. d. e. f.

The man, the one who came yesterday, then left. The knife, the one I you gave me, was dull. The table, the one I bought last year, was broken. *I didn’t see any man, the one who came yesterday. *I didn’t use a knife, the one you gave me. *I saw no table there, the one I bought last year.

As noted earlier (Vol. I, Ch. 10), the contrast of vcv- vs. cv- prefixal contrast in Bemba serves to mark the contrast between referring vs. non-referring NPs, respectively. The fact that non-restrictive REL-clauses cannot modify non-referring head nouns is consonant with the unacceptability of ‘the one’ in (74d–f) above. 14.3.7 Headless relative clauses We have thus far dealt primarily with relative clauses modifying lexical head nouns. But a relative clause can also modify pronouns or function themselves as pronouns. In some languages this yields the surface appearance of a headless REL-clause. This phenomenon can be shown in English, where it is partially constrained by case-role, in a way that is initially somewhat baffling. Thus compare the ‘headed’ restrictive REL-clauses in (75) with their headless versions in (76): (75) Headed restrictive REL-clauses a. The man who came to dinner left. b. The man (whom) I saw is a crook. c. The woman with whom I had lunch is an old friend. d. The child to whom John gave the book is an orphan. e. The thing (that) I saw was ugly. f. The place (where) he stood was near the curb. g. The time (when) I saw her last she was sick. h. The reason (why) she told me is not clear. i. The way (*how) she did it was by working hard. (76) Headless (restrictive) REL-clauses a. *Who came to dinner left. b. *Whom I saw is a crook. c. *With whom I had lunch is an old friend. d. *To whom John gave the book is an orphan. e. What I saw was ugly. f. Where he stood was near the curb. g. When I saw her last she was sick.

206 Syntax

h. Why she told me is not clear. i. How she did it is by working hard. The pattern of restrictions may be tentatively summarized as follows: The case-roles that consistently reject the headless REL-clause pattern are typically the most topical referring ones. And under conditions that induce a non-referential interpretation of such case-roles, the proscribed headless forms in (76) seem to be acceptable — provided the pronoun is a stressed interrogative pronoun: (77) a. b. c. d.

WHO comes to dinner is none of your business! WHO I see is my own affair. With WHO we meet depends on who’s available. To WHO he leaves his fortune is still wide open.

What we see here may be once again the footprints of diachronic change. The REL-pronouns used optionally in English restrictive REL-clauses are historically derived from interrogative pronouns, which are by definition highly non-referring (see Ch. 17) and indefinite. Their exclusion from the more topical case-roles in (76a–d) may be a lingering reflection of their diachronic origin. That the restriction on highly referring case-roles has little to do with headless REL-clauses per se is further supported by the existence of alternative, highly referring, pronouns that are fully acceptable in headless REL-clauses, ‘the one’ and ‘those’, as in: (78) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

The one who came to dinner left. The one I saw is a crook. The one I had lunch with is an old friend. The one John gave the book to is an orphan. Those who came to dinner… Those I saw… Those I had lunch with… Those John gave books to…

In languages with a more explicit REL-pronoun morphology that is not derived from wh-pronouns, forming headless REL-clauses is less problematic. Thus for example in Bemba, the vcv- pronominal prefix marking non-restrictive subject REL-clauses (72) is also used to mark headless subject REL-clauses (73). And a regular set of demonstrative pronouns are used obligatorily in headless object REL-clauses. Thus compare (Givón 1972a): (79) a. uu-a-ishile… 3sg/1/2-past-come/asp b. aba-a-ishile… 3pl/1/2-past-come/asp c. úo n-a-mweene… dem/3sg/1/2 I-past-see/asp

‘The one who came…’ ‘The ones who came…’ ‘The one I saw…’

Relative clauses

207

d. ábo n-a-mweene… dem/3pl/1/2 I-past-see/asp e. ícyo n-a-mweene… dem/3sg/7/8 I-past-see/asp f. ífyo n-a-mweene… dem/3pl/7/8 I-past-see/asp g. úko a-a-ile… dem/loc/17 he-past-go/asp

‘The ones I saw…’ ‘The one I saw…’ (cl. 7) ‘The ones I saw…’ (cl. 8) ‘Where he went…’ (cl. 17)

14.3.8 Extraposed relative clauses The REL-clauses discussed thus far, particularly the restrictive ones, are adjacent to their head noun and fall under the same intonation contour. Such adjacency is one of the most transparently iconic devices in directing the hearer’s attention to the head noun that is coreferent with the missing argument inside the REL-clause. But there is a variant, extraposed REL-clause, that is not adjacent to the head noun, but rather is ‘ejected’ to the end of the main clause. In this section we will outline some of the salient features of this construction, using English data. 14.3.8.1
Restrictiveness Only restrictive REL-clauses can be extraposed: (80) a. Adjacent A man who lost his wallet came in yesterday. b. Extraposed A man came in yesterday who lost his wallet. c. Adjacent The woman I told you about came in yesterday. d. Extraposed The woman came in yesterday that I told you about. In contrast, non-restrictive REL-clauses cannot be extraposed, and the best way to demonstrate this is with pronouns or names, which as we noted earlier cannot take restrictive REL-clauses: (81) a. Adjacent, non-restrictive John, who lost his wallet, came yesterday. b. *Extraposed *John came yesterday(,) who lost his wallet. c. Adjacent, non-restrictive You, who have been here a while, know the answer. d. *Extraposed *You know the answer(,) who have been here a while.

208 Syntax

Another indication that extraposed REL-clauses are restrictive is the permissibility of the subordinator ‘that’. As noted earlier, this neutral subordinator cannot be used in nonrestrictive REL-clauses. Thus compare: (82) a. Restrictive, adjacent A man that I met last year came in yesterday and… b. Restrictive, extraposed A man came in yesterday that I met last year and… c. *Non-restrictive, adjacent *Mary, that I told you about, came in yesterday and… d. *Non-restrictive, extraposed *Mary came in yesterday, that I told you about, and… 14.3.8.2
Definiteness and reference Bolinger (1991) notes that extraposed REL-clauses can have either referring or nonreferring head nouns: (83) a. REF-indefinite A guy came in who offered to do it for less, so we hired him b. Non-ref If someone comes in who offers to do it for less, hire them. c. Non-ref Nobody came in who would do it for less, so we hired the same guy as last year. The fact that non-referring heads can take extraposed REL-clauses is another indication that such REL-clauses are restrictive, since non-restrictive REL-clauses can only modify referring head nouns. Bolinger (1991) also suggests that the heads of extraposed REL-clauses tend to be indefinite. This is suggested by examples such as: (84) a. Non-ref Nobody ever came over that John couldn’t fool. b. REF-indefinite A man came over once that even John couldn’t fool. c. Definite ?The man came over once that even John couldn’t fool. (85) a. Non-ref I’ve found no book by a new author that I think would please my sister. b. REF-indefinite I’ve found a book by a new author that I think would please my sister.

Relative clauses

209

c. Definite ?I’ve found the book by a new author that I think would please my sister. Bolinger (1991) also notes two exceptions to the seeming restriction on definite heads. First, a definite-marked head may still be non-referring, as in: (86) a. The man is yet to be born that John could not fool. b. The problem is yet to be found that Mary could not solve. Second, if a definite head is introduced with the appropriate presentative verb, it can be modified by an extraposed REL-clause. Thus, with the presentative verb ‘come in’: (87) a. Adjacent The woman I told you about finally came in and… b. Extraposed, presentative The woman finally came in that I told you about. Now compare (87) with the non-presentative verb ‘got more and more upset’: (88) a. Adjacent The woman they were talking about got more and more upset. b. Extraposed *The woman got more and more upset that they were talking about. Examples such as (87) and (88) suggest that the preference for indefinite heads when the REL-clause is extraposed has nothing to do with definiteness per se. Rather, it has to do with the following two related factors: REL-clauses have a presentative function in discourse. •
Extraposed
Presentative clauses tend to involve, most typically referring-indefinite NPs. • 14.3.8.3
Extraposition and presentative function Presentative clauses will be discussed in some detail in Chapter 16, below. Briefly, they are constructions used to introduce a new topical participant into the discourse for the first time. As such, they tend to be paragraph-initial (or episode-initial) rather than paragraph medial. And the introduced participant, being brand new, tends to be referring-indefinite. Presentative clauses typically display a strong bias toward verbs of entry into the scene. The new participant is introduced most commonly as the subject of ‘live’, ‘be’, ‘exist’, ‘appear’, ‘come in’, ‘enter’. But it may also be introduced as the object of ‘(I) have’, ‘(we) met’, ‘(we) got’, or ‘(I) know’. As can be seen from examples (80) through (88) above, extraposed REL-clauses typically make sense as presentative clauses. So that one could easily construct examples with infelicitous extraposed clauses modifying REF-indefinite head nouns — by making the verb unlikely as a presentative verb. Thus consider (Bolinger 1991):

210

Syntax

(89) a. Typical presentative A guy came on stage that I used to know back in Milwaukee and… b. Atypical presentative *A guy gave a long speech that I used to know back in Milwaukee and… As Bolinger (1991) notes, presentative predicates are finely adapted to specific nouns. Thus compare: (90) a. Typical presentative A spot was materializing that had a pretty ominous look. b. Atypical presentative ?A spot was getting bigger that had a pretty ominous look. c. Typical presentative A pain was setting in that I could hardly stand. d. Atypical presentative ?A pain was getting worse that I could hardly stand. The distribution of extraposed REL-clauses may be now summarized as follows: REL-clauses can be used as a presentative device, especially when modify•
Restrictive ing REF-indefinite nouns. REL-clauses are often used as a presentative device. •
Extraposed
When used as a presentative device, extraposed REL-clauses typically introduce a • new participant into the discourse. That is why their head nouns are typically

•

REF-indefinite.
But extraposed REL-clauses, unlike other presentative devices, may also be used to modify a known — definite — participant back into the scene.

14.3.8.4
Extraposition and syntactic complexity The extraposition of REL-clauses is often sensitive to considerations of syntactic complexity. In particular, longer REL-clauses are more likely to be extraposed, otherwise they tend to split the main clause down the middle and defer its complete processing. As illustration of this, compare: (91) a. Long, extraposed He bought a rug from his uncle’s estate that cost him a small fortune that he couldn’t really afford but went ahead and spent anyway. b. Long, adjacent ?He bought a rug that cost him a small fortune that he couldn’t really afford but went ahead and spent anyway away from his uncle’s estate. c. Short, adjacent He bought a rug he liked from his uncle’s estate. The avoidance of referential ambiguity may also constrain extraposition, in conjunction with semantic considerations that often help in resolving potential ambiguities. Thus:

Relative clauses

(92) a. He gave a diamond ring to some woman that he found at the party. b. He gave a diamond ring that he found at the party to some woman. c. He gave a diamond ring to some woman that was made for his wife years ago. In (92a), the REL-clause is at least in principle ambiguous, being semantically compatible with either ‘diamond ring’ or ‘woman’. Given this potential ambiguity, the interpretation is most likely dictated by adjacency. That is, the REL-clause is more likely to modify ‘woman’. An extraposed interpretation, with the REL-clause modifying ‘diamond ring’, is less likely. For the REL-clause were to modify ‘diamond ring’ unambiguously, it must be placed adjacent to it, as in (92b). The REL-clause in (92c), on the other hand, is semantically compatible only with ‘diamond ring’ but not with ‘woman’. An extraposed interpretation is thus acceptable. Consider finally: (93) a. He gave the ring to Mary that he found at the party b. He gave a ring to her that he found at the party c. He gave a ring to Mary, whom he met at the party Unlike in (92a), the REL-clause in (93a,b) could only be interpreted as extraposed, i.e. as modifying ‘ring’. This is so because restrictive REL-clauses cannot be used with referentially unique heads. The REL-clause in (93c), being semantically incompatible with ‘ring’, is easy to interpret as modifying the adjacent ‘Mary’ — but only as a non-restrictive modifier.

14.4

Relative clauses and syntactic complexity

14.4.1 Preamble Restrictive REL-clauses are embedded within noun phrases that, in turn, belong to some other clause. Embedding one clause within another is by definition an increase in the syntactic complexity of the ‘host’ clause. And while a language may possess the formal grammatical apparatus for creating such complex structures, and for recursively creating more complex yet multiple embeddings, the occurrence of such complexity in actual, especially oral, communication is highly constrained. Constraints on multiple-embedding are most likely motivated by some in-built limits on cognitive complexity. While such limits are more apparent in speech perception, there is no reason to assume that they do not also apply in speech production. In this section we will discuss two types of multiply-embedded structure, both associated with relativization. Both seem to point out, in one way or another, to the cognitive correlates of syntactic complexity. 14.4.2 Ross’s complex-NP constraint There is a class of syntactic structures, including relativization itself, that can apply to an NP inside a main clause, but are rather problematic when applied to an NP inside a clause that is itself embedded. Ross (1967) labeled the proscription on such operations the Complex-

211

212

Syntax

NP Constraint, and it applies to REL-clause as well as to several other complex modifiers in the noun phrase (see e.g. cleft-focus clauses, Ch. 15 and wh-questions, Ch. 17). As an illustration of Ross’s constraint, consider the embedding of proposition (94b) below as a REL-clause modifier of the object NP in proposition (94a), to yield the complex structure (94c): (94) a. Main proposition The woman saw a dog b. Subordinate proposition The dog bit a man c. Embedding configuration The woman saw the dog [that [Ø] bit the man] Both NPs in the main clause in (94a) can be made the ‘missing’ co-referent argument in a REL-clause, as in: (95) a. The dog [(that) the woman saw [Ø]]… b. The woman [who [Ø] saw the dog]… The syntactic structure of (95a) may be given as: NP

(96) Det

N

Rel [S] Subj [NP]

the

dog [(that)

VP

Det

N

the

woman

The syntactic structure of (95b) may be given as:

V

Obj [NP]

saw

[Ø]

Relative clauses

213

NP

(97) Det

N

Rel [S] Subj [NP]

VP V

[who

the woman

Obj [NP]

saw

[Ø]

Det

N

the

dog]

In the examples above, the zero symbol [Ø] inside the REL-clause occupies the position of the missing co-referent NP. Relativization may also proceed when one of the NPs in the main-clause is already modified by a REL-clause. We will consider two examples of this pattern. The first involves two REL-clauses modifying the same head NP:8 (98) The dog [[that [Ø] the woman saw] [that [Ø] bit the man]]… The syntactic structure of (98) may be given in tree-diagram in (99): NP

(99) Det

N

Rel [S]

Rel [S]

Subj [NP] Det the

dog [(that) the

VP N

woman

Subj [NP]

V

Obj [NP]

saw

[Ø]]

VP V

[that

[Ø]

bit

Obj [NP] Det

N

the

man]

Equally acceptable is a configuration where the second REL-clause may modify an NP inside the first one, as in: (100) The woman [who [Ø] saw the dog [that [Ø] bit the man]]… The syntactic structures of (100) may be represented in tree diagram (101):

214

Syntax

NP

(101) Det

N

Rel [S] Subj [NP]

VP V

the woman [who

[Ø]

saw

Obj [NP] Det

N

the

dog

Rel [S] Subj [NP]

VP V

[that

[Ø]

bit

Obj [NP] Det

N

the

man]

Multiple embeddings of REL-clauses as in (100)/(101) can proceed further, seemingly without any problems of processability. That is: (102) This is the cat [that [Ø] chased the rat [that [Ø] ate the cheese [that…]]] The common denominator of permissible complex structures of this type is that the head noun is adjacent to the REL-clause where its co-referent zero (‘missing argument’) is found. Seemingly much harder to process are multiple embeddings where the distance between the head noun and its co-referent zero extends further and crosses more that one clausal boundary. That is, when the REL-clause containing the co-referent zero is not adjacent to its head noun. As an illustration of this, consider: (103) *The man [that the woman saw the dog [that [Ø] bit [Ø]]]… The complex embedded structure in (103) may be represented by the tree diagram:

Relative clauses

215

NP

(104) Det

N

Rel [S] Subj [NP] Det

the

man

[that

the

VP N

V

woman saw

Obj [NP] Det

N

the

dog

Rel [S] Subj [NP]

[that [Ø]

Similarly hard to process is the complex embedded structure in: (105) *The dog [that the woman saw the man [that [Ø] bit [Ø]]]… The tree diagram representing (105) is given in (106) below:

VP V

Obj [NP]

bit

[Ø]]]

216

Syntax

NP

(106) Det

N

Rel [S] Subj [NP] Det

the

dog

[that

the

VP N

V

woman saw

Obj [NP] Det

N

the

man

Rel [S] Subj [NP]

[that [Ø]

VP V

Obj [NP]

bit

[Ø]]]

In both (103)/(104) and (105)/(106), the gap between the head noun and its co-referent zero ranges over an intervening clause to reach into a non-adjacent REL-clause. In nonstandard dialects of English, such structures are in fact attested — provided an anaphoric pronoun (rather than a zero) codes the co-referent argument inside the REL-clause. Thus consider (Elgin 1972): (107) a. The man [that the woman saw the dog [that [Ø] bit him]]… b. The dog [that the woman saw the man [that it bit [Ø]]]… The missing co-referent that is adjacent to its head noun — ‘dog’ in (107a) and ‘man’ in (107b) — is still represented by zero inside the REL-clause, as in simple relativization. But the non-adjacent co-referent must be represented by an anaphoric pronoun. There is indeed a whole class of languages that can systematically break Ross’s constraint, and they all use the anaphoric pronoun strategy in relativization (see §14.3.2.3 above). As an illustration, consider again Israeli Hebrew (Givón 1973b, 1975b): (108) a. ha-ish [she-Miryam raa-ta et-ha-kelev [she-nashax oto]] the-man [rel-Mary saw-she acc-the-dog [rel-bit/he him]] lit.: ‘The man that Mary saw the dog that bit him’ b. ha-kelev [she-Miryam raa-ta et-ha-ish [she-hu nashax]] the-dog [rel-Mary saw-she acc-the-man [that-he bit/he]] lit.: ‘The dog that Mary saw the man that it bit’

Relative clauses

217

That the use of anaphoric pronouns in Hebrew indeed functions to overcome the syntactic complexity of multiple embedding is obvious from the following fact: Such pronouns are optional in single-embedding object REL-clauses, as in (109) below. But they become obligatory in double-embedding REL-clauses such as (108) above (Givón 1975b): (109) a. ha-ish [she-ha-kelev nashax (oto)]… the-man [that-the-dog bit/he (him)] ‘The man that the dog bit…’ b. ha-kelev [she-nashax et-ha-ish]… the-dog [rel-bit/he acc-the-man] ‘The dog that bit the man…’ If one were to eliminate the anaphoric pronoun from either (108a) or (108b), they would become unacceptable. Similar observations about non-standard English were made by Elgin (1972). One may wish to argue that the constraints on co-reference relations in relativization involve physical distance between the head noun and its co-referent zero inside the REL-clause, rather than the more syntactic constraint on crossing more than two clausal boundaries. But at least some facts seem to suggest that an intervening clause — rather than an intervening string of words — is at issue. Thus compare: (110) a. A foreign official came into a congressional committee hearing yesterday who didn’t speak any English. b. *A foreign official told us yesterday that the situation was desperate who didn’t speak any English. The phonological distance between the head noun ‘foreign official’ and the REL-pronoun ‘who’ in the extraposed REL-clause is roughly equal in (110a) and (110b). But the intervening material is a whole clause in the unacceptable (110b), and not a clause in the acceptable (110a). 14.4.3 Recursive center embedding The increased processing difficulty that accompanies multiple embedding can also be illustrated with the pattern known as center embedding (‘self embedding’, ‘nested embedding’), as in: (111) a. b. c. d. e.

The rat died. The rat [that the cat chased [Ø]] died. The rat [that [Ø] was chased by the cat] died. *The rat [that the cat [that the dog hated [Ø]] chased [Ø]] died. The rat [that [Ø] was chased by the cat [that [Ø] was hated by the dog]] died.

The simple clause (111a) is unproblematic. With one cycle of center embedding, as in the active (111b) and the passive (111c), the missing co-referent noun is still inside an adjacent clause. Both (111b) and (111c) are acceptable, although the passive (111c) — with the co-

218

Syntax

referent noun closer to its antecedent — is clearly easier to process. With one more embedding cycle, example (111d) — with the co-referent zero now inside a non-adjacent clause — is unacceptable. But its passive version (111e), where the co-referent zero is still inside an adjacent clause, is acceptable There are two alternative explanations why center embedded constructions such as (111d) are hard to process. First, a surface pattern appears there that may be schematically given as: (112) NP [NP [NP VP] VP] VP Within this pattern, except for the innermost clause, the subject of the clause is separated from its predicate (VP) by a whole clause. Note, however, that in (111b) a similar — if smaller — gap exists between the first subject and its predicate, seemingly without creating any processing difficulty. An alternative explanation notes, as we have done above, that co-reference relations in relativization, between a head noun and its co-referent zero, hold only across adjacent clauses. In the center-embedded construction (111d), the head noun ‘cat’ is separated from the location of its co-referent zero inside the REL-clause by an intervening clause. One may as well note that Chomsky (1965) interpreted the unacceptability of recurrent center-embedding structures such as (111d) as an example of a constraint on performance but not on competence, suggesting that (111b) and (111d) were formally identical, but differed only in degree of complexity. What comes out of our discussion above, however, is that (111b) and (111d) are not formally identical at all. Rather, a clearly grammatical constraint is involved in making (111d) unacceptable, one that governs the use of zero-coded co-reference in relativization in other multiple-embedding types as well. It would of course be less than surprising if this grammatical constraint (‘competence’) turned out to be motivated by processing complexity factors (‘performance’). 14.4.4 Parataxis as a mechanism for decreased complexity To some extent, the problem of multiple embedding is more apparent than real. This is so because in actual communication, particularly in face-to-face oral discourse, provisions are made for simplifying potential complexity that would otherwise yield multiple embedding. Such provisions involve the use of alternative non-embedded — paratactic — strategies of clause juxtaposition. When such strategies are employed, ‘missing’ co-referent arguments are not missing at all, but rather are marked by anaphoric pronouns. In such constructions, subjects are kept contiguous to their predicate, and anaphoric pronouns in clauses adjacent to their antecedent nouns. For example, the conceptual structure of the mind-boggling (111d) above may be rendered more clemently as: (113) The rat, well, y’know, the cat chaced it, see? Well the cat, y’know, the dog hated her, remember? Well that rat, it just died.

Relative clauses

But even in written language, many options are available for expressing complex ideas by using syntax that is rich in both REL-clauses and verb complements, but without necessarily employing cumbersome multiple embeddings.

Notes 1. As noted in our earlier discussion of definiteness (Vol. I, Ch. 10), the grounding of definite referents to their anaphoric trace in the episodic memory of the current text is but the most common type of definite reference. The two other grounds are deictic grounding to the current speech situation, and frame-based grounding to generic-lexical knowledge. Thus for example, in a situation where several men are present on the scene and one of them is standing next to a tree, the speaker may felicitously utter: The man standing next to the tree is my brother without any prior reference in the discourse to either ‘man’ or ‘tree’. Likewise, the speaker may felicitously utter either (3), (4), (5) as frame-based definite descriptions, given the normative invited inferences (Lewis 1979): often have female siblings •
men
women get married •
women often most commonly marry men • 2. In order for the case-role of the missing co-referent argument to be recovered from that of the head noun, one would have to impose an equi-case constraint on relativization, by which main-clause subjects may be modified by only subject REL-clauses, main-clause objects by only object REL-clauses, etc. This would entail a great reduction in expressive power, one that apparently no language has attempted to impose. The equi-case strategy is still used as a partial strategy (see further below). 3. As noted in Ch. 13, promotional passives present a somewhat similar conundrum, in that the topical non-agent is promoted to the subject role, and thus loses its semantic-role marking. Not surprisingly, some of the typological solutions found in relativization echo those found in passivization. 4. See also Bird (1968). Other languages that employ the non-embedding strategy either exclusively or partially are Hindi (Keenan and Comrie 1977), Diegeño and Navajo (Gorbet, 1974), Hittite (Justus 1976) and Mojave (Munro 1974). 5. See also Kuno (1973). A similar strategy, again with pre-nominal REL-clauses, is used in Mandarin Chinese, with the nominal subordinator de used to separate the REL-clause from the head noun (Li and Thompson 1981). 6. Keenan and Comrie (1977) have suggested that the restriction is motivated by a universal caseaccessibility hierarchy — Subj > DO > IO — by which subjects are more ‘accessible’ to syntactic processes than non-subjects. If their interpretation were correct, languages other than Philippinetype or their immediate genetic/typological relatives ought to show the restriction, which is not the case. Fox (1987) attempted to resurrect the Keenan-Comrie approach on more substantive grounds, suggesting that the restriction reflects some universal properties of discourse-functional organization. Fox neglects to explain, however, in what way the small group of languages that abide by the “subject only constraint” differ from the vast majority of languages that don’t. Citing a universal constraint that is then instantiated mysteriously in only a few languages is somewhat vacuous. 7. Keenan and Comrie (1977) use the existence of languages such as KinyaRwanda and Indonesian to support the second segment of their accessibility hierarchy (DO > IO). The limitation of the “DO

219



220 Syntax

only constraint” to languages that gain verb-coding in promotion to DO again supports a substantive interpretation of the restriction, rather than a formal abstract constraint. 8. Here we will deliberately gloss over the possibility that the two restrictive REL-clauses may come in either of two configurations. The first configuration is ‘stacked’, with the first REL-clause restricting the head noun and the second further-restricting the previously-modified NP. The second configuration is conjoined, with both REL-clauses restricting the head noun on a par. That is: Stacked:

Conjoined:

The woman who promised to come who didn’t (> there were two women involved; both promised to come; one did, the other didn’t). The woman who promised to come but didn’t (there was only one woman involved; she promised to come but didn’t)

In some languages this difference is coded grammatically (Walusimbi and Givón 1970).



Chapter 15

Contrastive focus constructions

15.1

Orientation The term focus has been subjected to multiple uses in linguistics, out of which this chapter deals primarily with one — contrastive focus. A second, that of focus of assertion (see Vol. I, §7.5; §8.4) indeed bears an interesting relation to contrastive focus, one that was interpreted by Dwight Bolinger as: “…every semantic peak is contrastive…” (Bolinger 1961: 87)

A more careful survey of the facts, suggests that a bi-conditional conflation of the two senses of ‘focus’ would be misleading (Chafe 1976: 34), and that the conditional association between the two is just the opposite of the one suggested by Bolinger. That is:

•
Every contrastive focus is also the focus of assertion, but not vice versa. The term ‘focus’ has also been used in the discussion of the Philippine voice system (Longacre 1968), a usage that will not be considered here. In the discussion of contrastive focus, a certain overlap with other domains of grammar is unavoidable. This is so partly because complex functional domains are bound to intersect. Thus for example, many contrastive devices overlap with the domain of ‘topic’ (Ch. 16). In spite of the substantial discreteness of grammatical organization, the notion contrast is neither a grammatically nor cognitively discrete. Rather, it rests upon the more fundamental cognitive dimensions of informational predictability and its converse, counterexpectancy, both of which are at least in principle scalar. While grammatical constructions do not code promiscuously-many points along a functional-cognitive scalar domain, they often code more than a single binary split.

15.2

The functional domain of contrastive focus

15.2.1 Predictability, expectation and contrast As noted earlier (Vol. I, Ch. 8, Ch. 10), verbal clauses may carry several chunks of information, each of varying level of predictability. Some are assumed to be identifiable to the hearer, as definite referents or as presupposed information, either way more predictable.

222

Syntax

Others are non-identifiable, as indefinite referents or as asserted information, either way less predictable. But informational predictability is not interchangeable with either definiteness or presupposition. Rather, it depends on the communicative context — perspective — within which the information is transacted. In the appropriate context, a chunk of identifiable information can be unpredictable and contrastive, and a chunk of new information can be predictable and non-contrastive. As a simple illustration, consider: (1) a. Joe lent me a bike b. It was Joe who lent me a bike (rather than Mary) c. It was a bike that Joe lent me (rather than a car) Either the definite subject of or indefinite object of (1a) may be placed in contrastive focus, as in (1b), (1c), respectively. Their unpredictability arises from expectations established in the local discourse context, given in parentheses in (1b) and (1c). That is, the unpredictability arises from the speaker’s assessment of what the hearer’s expectations are in the particular context. Definiteness and identifiability per se are not the decisive factors in placing chunks of information under contrastive focus (Chafe 1976). Conversely, in (1b) the indefinite ‘a bike’ falls under the scope of presupposition, much like the definite ‘Joe’ in (1c). Clearly, both identifiability and presupposition are independent of the contrastive focus (as well as of each other; see directly below). 15.2.2 Identifiability vs. presupposition The distinction between ‘definite’ and ‘indefinite’ is not interchangeable with the distinction between ‘presupposed’ and ‘asserted’. To begin with, their domains of applicability are rather different. Definiteness pertains primarily to referents; presupposition pertains most commonly to propositions. Thus, just as either definite or indefinite referents may fall under the scope of presupposition, as in (1b,c) above, either may also fall under the scope of assertion: (2) a. b. c. d.

Context: Response: Context: Response:

Who did you give the book to? I gave it to Mary What did you give Mary? I gave her a book

The specific contexts set up by the interrogatives in (2a) and (2c) establish the propriety of either the definite proper name in (2b) or the indefinite noun in (2d), respectively, falling under the — this time non-contrastive — scope of assertion. 15.2.3 Assertion scope vs. contrastive focus Even apart from narrowed contrastive focus, only a portion of most propositions (‘clauses’) tends to fall under the scope of assertion. Further, clauses in natural discourse tend to have, on the average, only one chunk of asserted information per clause (Givón 1975c; DuBois 1987; Chafe 1994). The rest of the information in the clause is not asserted.

Contrastive focus constructions

223

As noted earlier, asserted information is not necessarily contrastive. However, information under contrastive focus, is always also under the scope of assertion. Thus, a one-way conditional association holds between ‘contrastive focus’ and ‘assertion focus’: (3) Conditional association between contrastive focus and focus of assertion contrastive focus … assertion focus One may thus say that contrastive focus ‘attracts’ the focus of assertion (see further below). 15.2.4 Normative expectations vs. contrast When the asserted information is not under contrastive focus, we tend to consider the clause pattern ‘neutral’, an intuitive notion that bears some scrutiny. Broadly speaking, any asserted information is transacted by the speaker in the context of some expectations about the hearer’s knowledge. These expectations may range anywhere between two extreme points: (4)

Extreme points of speaker’s expectations about hearer’s knowledge a. Ignorance: The hearer does not know the information b. Contrary belief: The hearer holds strong contrary beliefs

Between these two extreme points there exists, at least in principle, a vast number of intermediates, all having to do either with the speaker’s assessment of the hearer’s degree of ignorance, or with the speaker’s assessment of the hearer’s strength of contrary belief. The two extreme points may be illustrated by two conventional contexts: An information question (for ignorance) and a mistaken assertion (for contrary belief): (5) a. Ignorance Context: Response:

When did she leave? She left at eight. (non-contrastive)

b. Contrary belief Context: She left at seven. Response: No, she left AT EIGHT. (contrastive) It is fairly clear that the extreme context (5b) — expressed contrary belief — precipitates the placing of the relevant chunk of information in contrastive-focus, coded here by contrastive stress. It is much less clear that the extreme context (5a) — total ignorance — should be designated ‘neutral’ or ‘normative’. To begin with, it must be demonstrated empirically that there is a statistical correlation between this ‘normative’ context and text frequency. Otherwise, the notion of ‘norm’ is vacuous (Greenberg 1974; Givón 1991c). Further, it is doubtful that asserted clauses in connected discourse are ever transacted on the background of an idealized total ignorance. The accretion of new information in discourse is a gradual process, characterized by two salient features (Givón 1995b): amount of new information added per clause is relatively small (‘one chunk per •
The clause’); and
The amount of relevant background knowledge vis-a-vis which the new chunk of • information must cohere is relatively large.

224 Syntax

To the extent that the notion ‘neutral context’ is to be made both meaningful and useful, it must await more precise empirical definition. In the same vein, the existence of a variety of contrastive devices in grammars, and their yet-to-be-determined discourse distribution, functional nuances and text frequency, need to be taken into account before the issue of neutral (‘unmarked’) assertion focus can be resolved. 15.2.5 Contrastive strength 15.2.5.1
Preamble In this section we will briefly illustrate with English data the fact that a language may have a variety of contrastive grammatical devices. These constructions may be functionally related, but they are by no means interchangeable. Still, in spite of the variety, some unifying functional dimensions, or even general principles, may be discerned. One may rank-order all contrastive devices in a language by their contrastive strength. In this section, three levels of contrastiveness will be considered, coded by three distinct grammatical devices, all apparently ranking above ‘neutral’. 15.2.5.2
Contrastive stress devices At the very top of scale in English we find three devices, all characterized by strong contrastive stress on the focused constituent — stress-focus, cleft, and pseudo-cleft. Thus compare: (6) a. Neutral Joe will milk the goat b. Stress-focus JOE will milk the goat Joe WILL milk the goat Joe will MILK the goat Joe will milk the GOAT

(subject) (auxiliary)) (verb) (object)

c. Cleft It’s JOE who will milk the goat It’s the GOAT that Joe will milk

(subject) (object)

d. Pseudo-cleft The one who will milk the goat is JOE What Joe will do to the goat is MILK it What Joe will do is MILK THE GOAT What Joe will milk is the GOAT

(subject) (verb) (VP) (object)

Stress-focus in English (6b) is least constrained, applying not only to nouns but also to verbs, not only to lexical but also to grammatical morphemes, not only to free morphemes but also to bound ones. In contrast, cleft constructions in English (and, as we shall see, also elsewhere) are the most constrained, applying primarily to nominal arguments (subjects, objects, predicates).

Contrastive focus constructions

225

Pseudo-cleft seems to apply more permissively than cleft. However, there are grounds for suspecting that it is not per se a contrastive focus device, since it is contrastive only when the nominal predicate is stressed, an optional feature of this construction. Pseudoclefts can thus be considered a sentence with REL-clause functioning as subject; and •
a
a headless nominal predicate. • The predicate noun of this construction may be given contrastive stress, but there is no reason to treat this option differently than contrastive stress in general. By comparison, the fronted predicate noun of cleft-focus constructions is always stressed. Contrastive stress devices always involve a strong assumption of hearer’s contrary belief. The grounds for the speaker making such an assumption may vary. It may be due to the hearer’s overt assertions (as in (5b)). It may also be due to the speaker deliberately leading the hearer to such contrary expectations, as in: (7) Contrastive focus due to speaker-generated expectations Context: I went through the whole family — mom, dad, my three brothers, two sisters, the lot — you’d have thought someone would offer to help, but heck, they all refused…. Continuation: …It was MY GREAT AUNT who finally stepped in and… In first ticking off in (7) the list of family members that declined to help, the speaker sets up strong negative expectations concerning the probability of any family member pitching in. On that normative background, the rescue by a peripheral family member is contrasted as counter-norm. 15.2.5.3
Y-movement Consider next the device variously referred to as Y-movement or contrastive topicalization. Much like cleft clauses, it is restricted to primarily nominal arguments of the clause. It often involves fronting of the contrasted topic — if it is normally in a non-initial position in the clause. When the contrasted topic is normally at the clause-initial position, it is merely stressed. The stress level accorded to the focused constituent in Y-movement is considerably lower, as compared to the three stress-focus devices, above. Further, the context that motivates contrary expectations in Y-movement clauses is typically set up by the speaker. To illustrate the contextual difference between Y-movement and cleft-focus, consider: (8) a. Context: b. Continuation:

She has two brothers, Tom and Jerry. She likes Tom a lot… (i) …Jerry she can’t stand. (ii) …?It’s JERRY that she can’t stand.

In the case of Y-movement, normative expectations are most typically created by listing various members of a group (type, genus) whose members are expected to display similar behavior, or receive similar treatment. The contrast then arises from breaking their implicit expectations.

226 Syntax

The contextual incompatibility of the clefted version (8bii) suggests that in Y-movement the contrast does not involve the stronger condition of erroneous belief. When that context is set up, the reverse acceptability is seen: (9) a. Context: b. Response:

She can’t stand Tom. (i) …No, it’s JERRY that she can’t stand. (ii) …*Jerry she can’t stand.

15.2.5.4
Restrictive modifiers So far we have seen three levels of contrastive strength — neutral, Y-movement, and stressfocus. One could demonstrate the existence of at least one more above-neutral level by citing the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive noun modifiers. As noted earlier (Ch.11, Ch.14), restrictive modifiers narrow the domain of the referent noun, while non-restrictive ones do not. Restrictive modifiers may be either stressed or unstressed. Non-restrictive modifiers tend to be unstressed. To illustrate this, consider: (10) a. Unstressed The tall man left (i) NR-interpretation There was only one man there, a tall one, who left (ii) R-interpretation Of the men there, only one was tall, and only he left b. Stressed The TALL man left (i) R-interpretation Of the several men there, only one was tall, and only he left (Context: The speaker assumes that the hearer believed that one of the short men left) (ii) *NR-interpretation *There was only one man there, a tall one, who left In the use of (10b), the feature ‘restrictive’ is obligatorily added to the feature ‘contrast’, suggesting the following one-way conditional association between the two: (11) Conditional association between restriction and contrast Contrastive … Restrictive This association is hardly spurious. Rather, it arises from the fact that restrictive modifiers are used in contexts of a certain, if low, level of counter-expectancy, probably lower than that associated with Y-movement. That restrictive modifiers carry higher-than-neutral stress, even when not under stressfocus, is also clear from cross-language data. Thus in Ute, restrictive demonstratives precede the noun, are stressed, and display the full three-way deictic range. Non-restrictive demonstratives follow the noun, are unstressed, and display a reduced deictic range — from three to one. And the surviving one is a semantically bleached definite article. Thus compare (Givón 1980a):

Contrastive focus constructions

(12) a. Restrictive (demonstratives) ’ín mamach ‘this woman’ má mamach ‘that woman’ (vis.) ’ú mamach ‘that woman’ (invis.) b. Non-restrictive (article) *mamach ’in *mamach ma mamach ’u ‘the woman’ Non-restrictive modifiers often incorporate into the head noun (Ch. 11), a sign of loss of independent lexical stress. Thus, again from Ute: (13) a. Non-restrictive sá-gava white-horse ‘a white horse’ b. Restrictive kava sá-gharu =-m horse white-adj/sg-an ‘a white horse’ 15.2.6 Contrastive focus, reference and topicality 15.2.6.1
Reference and topicality So far we have considered primarily the functional dimension of contrast. But most contrastive devices also involve the dimension of topicality, being part and parcel of the grammar of referential coherence. In this section we will briefly survey the topicality and reference properties of two contrastive devices — cleft or stress-focus, and Y-movement. By reference we mean here semantic reference, i.e. whether a referent does or does not refer to some entity established verbally in the universe of discourse (Vol. I, Ch. 10). As noted earlier, the semantics of reference is a narrower sub-case of the pragmatics of topicality. By topicality we mean primarily two pragmatic aspects of reference: accessibility (anaphoric) •
referential
thematic importance (cataphoric). • To recapitulate briefly, referential accessibility pertains to the speaker’s judgement about how accessible a referent is to the hearer, given the preceding (‘anaphoric’) discourse context. In choosing appropriate grammatical devices to code the referent, the speaker cues the hearer about the search for and retrieval of a presumably accessible referent in one of three relevant mental models: world-view (semantic memory) •
shared
shared situation (working memory) •
shared speech current text (episodic memory). •

227

228

Syntax

Thematic importance pertains to the cues the speaker gives the hearer about the attentional activation of the referent in the subsequent (‘cataphoric’) discourse context. In choosing appropriate referent-coding devices, the speaker signals to the hearer how important the referent is going to be in the subsequent discourse, so that the thematic structure of yetunfolding discourse may be organized around the important referent. 15.2.6.2
Referentiality and contrast Both cleft-focus and Y-movement tend to apply primarily to highly topical, anaphorically accessible arguments. Semantically, the NP under contrastive focus may be either definitereferential or generic, but not referential-indefinite (Sun and Givón 1985). Pragmatically, therefore, these constructions are not used to introduce new participants into the discourse. As illustration of this restriction, consider first cleft-focus in Hebrew, a language that marks REF-indefinite NPs with the numeral ‘one’ (Vol. I, Ch. 10): (14) a. Non-referring (generic) ze ish she-raiti (lo isha)! it man rel-saw/I (neg woman) ‘It’s a man that I saw (not a woman)! b. REF-definite ze ha-ish she-raiti (lo ha-isha)! it the-man rel-saw/I (neg the-woman) ‘It’s the man that I saw (not the woman)! c. *REF-indefinite *ze ish-xad she-raiti (lo isha-xat)! it man-one rel-came (neg woman-one) (*‘It’s a man that I saw, not a woman’) The English equivalent of the starred (14c) is of course perfectly acceptable, but only in the non-referring sense of (14a). That is, only in an attributive sense (Donellan 1966). Standard English marks both referring and non-referring indefinites with the indefinite article (Vol. I, Ch. 10). But if one uses the colloquial unstressed ‘this’ as a REF-indefinite marker (Wright and Givón 1987), the restriction becomes clearer in English: (15) a. Non-referring It’s a man I saw, not a woman! b. Definite It’s the man I saw, not the woman! c. *REF-indefinite *It’s this man I saw, not this woman! The very same restriction bars REF-indefinite nouns in Y-movement contrasts: (16) a. Non-referring (generic) (I don’t like tomatoes), potatoes I like

Contrastive focus constructions

b. Definite (I don’t like him), her I adore c. REF-indefinite *(I saw a man sitting there,) a woman I didn’t see Notice, now, that the very same contrast also applies to the most common topicalization rule, L-dislocation: (17) a. Non-referring (generic) As for men, she didn’t like them/any b. Definite As for John, she didn’t like him c. *REF-indefinite *As for a man, she didn’t like one/him The shared restriction suggests that it is cataphoric topicality rather than contrast that is at the bottom of the restriction on REF-indefinite NPs in all these constructions. 15.2.6.3
Topicality and contrast The restrictions on REF-indefinite nouns in cleft, Y-movement and L-dislocation suggest that the referent coded by these constructions must be anaphorically accessible, i.e. established in the preceding discourse. This is borne out by distributional discourse studies. Thus Fox (1983; Biblical Hebrew) and Sun and Givón (1985; Mandarin) have noted that the anaphoric distance for the contrasted/topicalized NP in Y-moved clauses is typically 2–3 clauses back. That is, Y-moved topics tend to be established in the 2–3 clauses preceding the Y-moved clause. Clefted referents seem to be also anaphorically accessible. This is borne out by the fact that they are rather odd in discourse-initial or paragraph-initial contexts. Thus, it is perfectly acceptable to introduce a topic for the first time with a pseudo-cleft construction in a discourse-initial context (18a), but rather odd with a cleft (18b) — unless the contrasted NP has been already topicalized in the preceding discourse (18c): (18) a. Pseudo-cleft (initial) What we’re going to talk about today is love. b. Cleft (initial) ?It’s LOVE that we’re going to talk about today. c. Cleft (medial) You thought we were going to speak of charity, but it’s LOVE that we’re going to talk about today. Before a referent is coded by a cleft-focus, a certain buildup of contrary expectations must take place in the preceding portion of the current thematic unit, most likely in the same paragraph/chain. This is so because contrary expectations must either be overtly expressed by the hearer in his/her directly-preceding contribution to the discourse, or else be set up by the speaker in his/her directly-preceding discourse.

229

230 Syntax

A paragraph boundary tends to obliterate the efficacy of the buildup of contrary expectations. Thus compare (Givón 1995b): (19) a. Expectations set up within the current paragraph …you think that the maid was killed by the butler, and it sure makes sense, I admit. Still, you’re dead wrong. It was the gardener who killed her… b. Expectations set up across paragraph boundary …you think that the maid was killed by the butler, and it sure makes sense, I admit. Still, you’re dead wrong. ?It was the gardener who killed her… The upshot of this discussion is to support our earlier suggestion (§15.1) that there appears to be a one-way conditional association between contrastive focus and topicality: (20) Conditional association between ‘contrastive focus’ and ‘topic’ Contrastive focus … Topic In other words, a constituent under contrastive focus is also an anaphorically accessible topic. 15.2.7 Assertion scope and contrastive focus: Negation and yes/no-questions 15.2.7.1
Optional constituents and focus attraction In this section we consider the interaction of two speech-acts — negation and yes/noquestion — with both contrastive focus and assertion focus. One by-product of the discussion would be to re-confirm our earlier suggestion concerning the one-way conditional association between these two types of ‘focus’. The discussion depends crucially on the behavior of optional constituents. Optional constituents of the clause, in particular optional case-roles and various adverbials, tend to attract the focus of assertion (Vol. I, Ch. 7,8). That is, when they are present in the clause, the scope of assertion tends to narrow down to the optional element alone, excluding — in particular — the verb. Typically, in a clause that does not have such optional elements, the verb — or verb phrase — tends to fall under the scope of the assertion. In contrast, when an optional element is present, the verb tends to be excluded from the scope of assertion. The attraction of assertion-focus to an optional constituent is, in all likelihood, another reflection of the processing principle of “one chunk of new information per clause” (Givón 1975c; DuBois 1987; Chafe 1994), in this case coupled with the normative-pragmatic inference: (21) Pragmatic inference concerning informational status of optional clausal constituents If an optional element is mentioned in a clause, it must be itself the focus of the asserted information.

Contrastive focus constructions

15.2.7.2
Negation and focus attraction Inference (21), in the case of affirmative declarative clauses, is normative and probabilistic. It becomes to all intent and purpose obligatory (‘grammaticalized’) in the case of negative clauses. To illustrate this, consider the negative clause in (22) below, which has no optional constituent: (22) Joe didn’t kill the goat (> the goat was not killed) When uttered without contrastive stress, the most likely inference to be drawn from (22) is that the event ‘killing the goat’ did not take place. In other words, the entire verb phrase is under the scope of negation. In the presence of an optional constituent, on the other hand, the normative inference changes radically. The scope of the negated assertion narrows down, to exclude everything except the optional constituent: (23) a. b. c. d. e.

Joe didn’t kill the goat deliberately (> it was an accident) Joe didn’t kill the goat on Sunday (> but at some other time) Joe didn’t kill the goat in anger (> but in cold blood) Joe didn’t kill the goat in the barn (> but elsewhere) Joe didn’t kill the goat for Mary (> but for someone else)

As noted earlier (Vol. I, Ch. 8), negation is itself a contrary speech-act. In the case of clauses with no optional constituents, the negative contrast has the widest scope. In the presence of optional constituents, a contrastive interpretation of any other element in the clause is odd. Thus, consider: (24) a. b. c. d.

Joe didn’t kill the goat deliberately (> but rather accidentally) ?JOE didn’t kill the goat deliberately (> someone else did it deliberately) ?Joe didn’t KILL the goat deliberately (> he kicked it deliberately) ?Joe didn’t kill the GOAT deliberately (> he killed the cow deliberately)

When negation applies to a clause without an optional constituent, on the other hand, any clausal constituents may be in negative-contrastive focus. Thus compare: (25) a. JOE didn’t kill the goat (someone else did) b. Joe didn’t KILL the goat (he only kicked it) c. Joe didn’t kill the GOAT (he killed the cow) 15.2.7.3
Yes/no-question and focus attraction A similar narrowing of scope and attraction of contrastive focus — thus the focus of question — occurs in yes/no-questions. When the clause has only obligatory arguments, the scope of a yes/no-question is wide open, and certainly can take the entire VP, including even the subject. Thus: (26) Did Joe kill the goat? (> Was the goat killed?) Once an optional constituent is present, it attracts the focus of the yes/no-question, even without contrast. Thus compare:

231

232

Syntax

(27) a. b. c. d. e.

Did Joe kill the goat deliberately? (or accidentally?) Did Joe kill the goat on Sunday? (or on Monday?) Did Joe kill the goat in anger? (or in cold blood?) Did Joe kill the goat in the barn? (or on the lawn?) Did Joe kill the goat for Mary? (or for Sue?)

As in the case of negation, when an optional constituent is present, contrastive stress-focus is more naturally placed on it, rather than on an obligatory constituent. Thus compare: (28) a. b. c. d.

Did Joe kill the goat ON PURPOSE? (or accidentally)? ?Did JOE kill the goat on purpose? (or did someone else do it on purpose?) ?Did Joe KILL the goat on purpose? (or did he kick it on purpose?) ?Did Joe kill the GOAT on purpose? (or did he kill the cow on purpose?)

And as in negation, when a clause with no optional constituents is questioned, contrastive focus may apply to any constituent. Thus: (29) a. Did JOE kill the goat (or did someone else)? b. Did Joe KILL the goat (or did he only kick it)? c. Did Joe kill the GOAT (or did he kill the cow)? In sum, when either negation or yes/no-question is applied to a clause with an optional constituent, focus attraction is revealed in two ways. First, in the narrowing of the focus of assertion or question to the optional constituent. And second, in the confinement of contrastive focus to the focus of assertion. The systematic behavior of both negation and yes/no-questions thus further corroborate our suggestion (3) concerning the one-way conditional association between contrastive focus and the focus of assertion. 15.2.8 Other focus-attracting devices In the preceding section we saw how optional constituents attract both the focus of assertion and contrastive focus. Other grammatical elements display similar behavior, which will be considered briefly in this section. 15.2.8.1
Wh-questions As we will note below, there are strong syntactic connections between contrastive focus and wh-questions. Not surprisingly, the connections are also functional. Much like contrastive focus, wh-questions involve a proposition or clause that is almost entirely presupposed — except for one focal constituent. In declarative contrastive-focus clauses, that element is asserted contrastively. In wh-questions, the identity of that element is queried. As in cleft clauses, the contrastive focus in wh-questions tends to be attracted to the wh-word itself, rather than to other constituents. Thus consider: (30) a. b. c.

WHO killed the goat? ?Who killed the GOAT? ?Who KILLED the goat?

Contrastive focus constructions

d. e. f.

233

What did Joe kill? ?What did JOE kill? ?What did Joe KILL?

It has been noted, however (Dwight Bolinger, in personal communication) that in some elaborate contexts, the contrastive focus in wh-questions may go on a constituent other than the wh-word, as in: (31) A: Jerry threw mud at his sister and broke a window and left the kitchen sink all icky. B: Oh yeah? And what did YOU do? While such examples are indeed possible, they do not represent the most normative contexts for wh-questions (see Ch. 17). 15.2.8.2
Contrastive quantifiers Some noun modifiers seem to attract contrastive focus almost obligatorily. We have noted those earlier (Ch. 11), such as ‘even’, ‘all’, ‘every’, ‘other’, ‘first’, ‘only’, ‘self ’, ‘really’ or ‘just’. There are grounds for believing, however, that these quantifiers do not attract the stronger contrastive focus, as in cleft, but rather the weaker one, as in Y-movement. This suggestion comes from a text-distribution study of spoken Mandarin Chinese (Sun and Givón 1985), where almost the entire sample of Y-moved object NPs was shown to contain either these contrastive modifiers or negation. As noted earlier, Y-movement usually involves the building up of contrastive expectations within the last 2–3 clauses in the preceding discourse. The strong association between negation, contrastive quantifiers and Y-movement suggests that these quantifiers indeed involve contrastive expectations within a similarly short anaphoric range. As typical examples consider:1 (32) a. Context: Contrast: b. Context: Contrast: c. Context: Contrast: d. Context: Contrast: e. Context: Contrast: f. Context: Contrast: g. Context: Contrast:

It was going to be hard to kill the cat. …we hit and killed it with only one strike… We didn’t want to kill Mom’s cat. …so we killed another one… It was a complex, multi-factored subject. …if you understood it only with logic it wouldn’t have been any good… One respects one’s mate’s privacy in a crowded apartment. …he suddenly barged into the room without even a knock… It was a tough subject to master. …you had to really learn the stuff… The ticket was for someone else. …we paid the money ourselves first, then gave the tickets to him… They came home after work expecting to find some food. …and there were no dates left…

234

Syntax

15.3

Syntactic and typological dimensions

15.3.1 Preamble In this section we deal with the syntactic coding of contrastive focus. As elsewhere in syntax, three concrete coding elements are available, in various combinations, to create contrastive structures: Word order, morphology and intonation. In the course of our crosslinguistic survey, a number of recurrent generalizations emerge, concerning the use of these three coding means. Two of these devices are of particular interest, since they reflect some of the most persistent iconicity principles of the grammatical code: (33) Iconic devices used in contrastive focus constructions a. Word-order: Focused elements tend to be fronted b. Intonation: Focused elements tend to be stressed Tendency (33a) is manifest in the universality of cleft and Y-movement constructions. Tendency (33b) is manifest in the universal association between contrastive focus and stress (Bolinger 1978a, 1985). The use of morphology in contrastive focus constructions is less obviously iconic, dependent as it is on the available diachronic pathways via which the focus constructions may grammaticalize. Cleft-marking morphemes most commonly arise from erstwhile copular verbs (Givón 1974a). Y-movement only rarely involves morphology, and the diachronic source of such morphology, when it does appear, is much less predictable. 15.3.2 Contrastive focus and relativization The syntactic connection between focus constructions — particularly cleft and pseudocleft — and relativization has been documented extensively (Schachter 1971). As noted earlier, cleft constructions combine a fronted focused element with a presupposed clause, a clause that shares the pragmatic property of presuppositionality or backgroundedness of restrictive REL-clauses. Not surprisingly, the presupposed clause in cleft constructions also shares many of the syntactic properties of REL-clauses. Thus compare:2 (34) a. Subject REL-clause The man who killed the goat… b. Subject cleft It’s JOE who killed the goat c. Object REL-clause The goat that Joe killed… d. Object cleft It’s the GOAT that Joe killed The syntactic parallelism between focus constructions and REL-clauses may go even further. For example, Takizala (1972) has observed that in Kihungan (Bantu), REL-clauses contrast with main clauses in three major syntactic properties:

Contrastive focus constructions

agreement prefix: •
The subject ka- in main clauses vs. a- in REL-clauses
The negative • lo in mainmorpheme: clauses vs. -khoon ‘fail’ in REL clauses
The position of subject NP: • SV in mainthe clauses vs. VS in Obj-REL-clauses That is: (35) a. Main clause, affirmative Kipes ka-swiim-in kit K. he-buy-past chair ‘Kipes bought a chair’ b. Main clause, negative Kipes lo ka-swiim-in kit Kipes neg he-buy-past chair ‘Kipes didn’t buy a chair’ c. Obj-REL-clause, affirmative kit ki a-swiim-in Kipes… chair dem he-buy-past K. ‘The chair that Kipes bought…’ d. Obj-REL-clause, negative kit ki a-khoon-in ku-suum Kipes… chair dem he-fail-past to-buy K. ‘The chair that Kipes didn’t buy…’ (lit.: ‘The chair that Kipes failed to buy…’) The very same three syntactic peculiarities also mark clefts, pseudo-clefts and stress-focus constructions in Kihungan (Takizala 1972): (36) a. Object stress-focus, affirmative Kipes a-swiim-in kít K. he-buy-past chair ‘Kipes bought a CHAIR’ b. Object stress-focus, negative Kipes a-khoon-in ku-suum kít K. he-fail-past to-buy chair ‘Kipes didn’t buy a CHAIR’ c. Object cleft, affirmative (kwe) kít ki a-swiim-in Kipes (be) chair dem he-buy-past K. ‘It’s a CHAIR that Kipes bought’

235

236

Syntax

d. Object cleft, negative (kwe) kít ki a-khoon-in ku-suum Kipes (be) chair dem he-fail-past to-buy K. ‘It’s a CHAIR that Kipes didn’t buy’ (lit.: ‘It’s a CHAIR that Kipes failed to buy’) e. Object pseudo-cleft, affirmative (kiim) ki a-swiim-in Kipes kwe kít (thing) dem he-buy-past K. be chair ‘What Kipes bought yesterday is a chair’ f.

Object pseudo-cleft, negative (kiim) ki a-khoon-in ku-suum Kipes (kwe) kít (thing) dem he-fail-past to-buy K. (be) chair ‘What Kipes didn’t buy is a CHAIR’ (lit.: ‘What Kipes failed to buy is a CHAIR’)

The appearance of REL-clause structural features in cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions is hardly surprising, given that an overt REL-clause is present in such constructions. The Kihungan data also demonstrate, that the stress-focus construction must have been derived historically from a REL-clause-containing construction such as cleft or pseudo-cleft, through later simplification. As Takizala (1972) notes, this simplification is gradual and may involve a number of structural intermediates, all still synchronically attested in Kihungan: (37) a. Subject cleft Kwe Kípes wu a-swiim-in kit be K. dem he-buy-past chair ‘It’s KIPES who bought the chair’ b. Intermediate Kwe Kípes a-swiim-in kit be K. he-buy-past chair ‘It’s KIPES (who) bought the chair’ c. Stress-focus Kípes a-swiim-in kit K. he-buy-past chair ‘KIPES bought the chair’ Similarly: (38) a. Object cleft Kwe kít ki a-swiim-in Kipes be chair dem he-buy-past K. ‘It’s a CHAIR that Kipes bought’

Contrastive focus constructions

b. Intermediate Kwe kít Kipes a-swiim-in be chair K. he-buy-past ‘It’s a CHAIR (that) Kipes bought’ c. Intermediate Kít Kipes a-swiim-in chair K. he-buy-past ‘(It’s) a CHAIR Kipes bought’ d. Stress-focus Kipes a-swiim-in kít K. he-buy-past chair ‘Kipes bought a CHAIR’ 15.3.3 Focus and wh-questions It has been widely observed (Heny 1971; Myers 1971; Takizala 1972; Givón 1979a: Ch. 6, inter alia) that wh-questions often share many of the syntactic characteristics of cleft or stress-focus constructions, including the attendant REL-clause structure. In this section we will briefly survey some of the factual basis of this phenomenon, as well as some of its theoretical implications. After noting the close syntactic parallelism between contrastive focus and relativization, Takizala (1972) went on to observe that wh-questions in Kihungan also display many syntactic properties of REL-clauses. The sharing of those properties depended on the degree of syntactic simplification: The more cleft-like the wh-question is, the more it displays REL-clause properties. Thus: (39) a. Cleft form object-wh question kwe khi ki ka-swiim-in Kipes? be wh dem he-buy-past K. ‘It’s WHAT that Kipes bought?’ b. Intermediate khi ki ka-swiim-in Kipes? wh dem he-buy-past K. ‘WHAT (is it) that Kipes bought?’ c. Simplified wh-question khi Kipes ka-swiim-in? wh K. he-buy-past ‘What did Kipes buy?’ (40) a. Cleft form subject-wh question: kwe na wu ka-mweene Kipes? be wh dem he-see/past K. ‘It’s WHO that saw Kipes?’

237

238

Syntax

b. Intermediate na wu ka-mweene Kipes? wh dem he-see/past K. ‘WHO (is it) who saw Kipes?’ c. Simplified wh-question na ka-mweene Kipes? wh he-see/past K. ‘Who saw Kipes?’ Wh-questions in Kihungan, even the most simplified ones as in (39c) or (40c), take REL-clause-type negation. Thus: (41) a. khi Kipes ka-khoon-in ku-suum? wh K. he-fail-past to-buy ‘What didn’t Kipes buy?’ (lit.: ‘What did Kipes fail to buy?’) b. na ka-khoon-in ku-mon Kipes? wh he-fail-past to-see K. ‘Who didn’t see Kipes?’ (lit.: ‘Who failed to see Kipes?’) Some structural features associated with REL-clauses, and thus with cleft and pseudo-cleft, linger in these wh-questions long after considerable syntactic simplifications had occurred. But languages — and constructions within one language — may differ widely in the degree of their syntactic conservatism. Morphological traits of focus constructions (and wh-questions) that harken back to REL-clause structure may either be transparently present, as in Kihungan, or less conspicuous, as in English, where they are still conspicuous in cleft and pseudo-cleft clauses but not in stress-focus or wh-questions. 15.3.4 Diachronic simplification and the vestigial copula We noted earlier above that the morpheme that marks both contrastive focus and wh-questions is often traced back to a copula, sometime an older copula (Givón 1974a). Given what was noted above, such association is only to be expected. If both focus constructions and wh-questions are derived historically from the simplification of cleft or pseudo-cleft, then one common surviving relic of such simplification, after stripping away the REL-clause structure, is the cleft-marking copular verb itself. As an illustration, consider first copular constructions in Bemba (Bantu). The old Bantu copula ni has disappeared almost entirely in Bemba, except in a small set of grammatical environments. In nominal predicates, ni survives only before defective (prefix-less) nouns, pronouns and names. In such environments, the vestigial ni occurs regardless of whether the current copula -li is or is not present (Givón 1972a, 1974a):

Contrastive focus constructions

(42) a. Regular locative predicate umuana a-li kuno child he-be here ‘The child is here’ b. Regular nominal predicate (Ref) umuana a-li umu-puupu child he-be ref-thief ‘The child is the thief ’ c. Regular nominal predicate (Non-ref) umuana múu-puupu child nref-thief ‘The child is a thief ’ d. Defective nominal predicate (Non-ref) umuana ni-kaleemba child be-writer ‘The child is a writer’ e. Demonstrative predicate (Ref) umupuupu a-li ni-uyu thief he-be be-this ‘The thief is this one’ f. Personal pronoun predicate umupuupu a-li ni-iwe thief he-be be-you ‘The thief is you’ The same vestigial ni also appears in cleft constructions in Bemba, again limited to the same exceptional environments: (43) a. Regular noun (Non-ref) muu-puupu n-aa-mweene nref-thief I-past-see/asp ‘It’s a THIEF that I saw’ b. Defective noun (Non-ref) ni-kalulu n-aa-mweene be-hare I-past-see/asp ‘It’s a HARE that I saw’ c. Demonstrative (Ref) ni-uyu n-aa-mweene be-this I-past-see/asp ‘It’s THIS (one) that I saw’ d. Personal pronoun (Ref) ni-iwe n-aa-mweene be-you I-past-see/asp ‘It’s YOU that I saw’

239

240 Syntax

Wh-question words in many Bantu languages begin with n — a vestigial reflex of ni, as in Lomongo (Hulstaert 1966): (44) n-a n-ko ele-n-ko ba-n-ga

‘who?’ ‘what?’ ‘which one?’ ‘how many?’

More recently Bergvall (1988) has suggested that these diachronic observations also have synchronic import. That is, that both cleft and wh-questions should be considered synchronically embedded, double-clause constructions. This interpretation ignores the considerable structural simplification that occurs over time. Through such simplification, what often starts as a parataxis of two clauses becomes condensed into a single clause, to varying degrees still complex, but falling under a single intonation contour. Most embedded syntactic constructions, including REL-clauses and verb complements, arise historically from looser, unembedded parataxis. Kihungan itself provides examples of such looser paratactic counterparts of both the current cleft and current wh-question constructions. Thus consider (Takizala 1972): (45) a. Paratactic cleft-focus kwe kít, kiim ki a-swiim-in Kipes be chair thing dem he-buy-past K. ‘It’s a CHAIR, the thing that Kipes bought’ b. Paratactic wh-question kwe khi, kiim ki a-swiim-in Kipes? be wh thing dem he-buy-past K. ‘It’s WHAT, the thing that Kipes bought?’ The same option can be found in Spanish (Dwight Bolinger, in personal communication): (46) a. Paratactic cleft-focus es esto, lo que quiero be this that sub want/I ‘It’s this, that which I want’ b. Paratactic wh-question es qué, lo que quieres? be what that sub want/you ‘It’s WHAT, that which you want?’ 15.3.5 Other typological features of contrastive focus 15.3.5.1
Overlapping functions of the focus morpheme To some extent, the diachronic rise of focus-marking morphemes from the copula guarantees at least some overlap of focus-marking with other functions. Of more interest, however, are less predictable overlaps. One such sharing of morphology can be seen in

Contrastive focus constructions

Krio,3 where the same particle — na — has four distinct uses, three of which are fairly predictable from the discussion above: (47) a. Locative preposition di ticha fes di buk na di skul the teacher took the book loc the school ‘The teacher brought the book to school’ b. Copula (rare):4 …bot bifo denh kil-am, denh-sef foh si sey …but before they kill-him they-self for see say ‘…but before they killed him, they themselves wanted to make sure that denh tri minin-ya-so na tru… those three meaning-here-so be true those three meanings were indeed the right ones…’ c. Cleft na di ticha we fes di buk na di skul be the teacher rel take the book loc the school ‘It’s THE TEACHER who brought the book to school’ d. Topic marker in L-dislocation na-in di ticha, i fes di book na di school top-him the teacher he take the book loc the school ‘So the teacher, he brought the book to school’ (lit.: ‘So then he the teacher, he brought the book to school’) Of particular interest is the extension of na to mark L-dislocated topics (47d). There are two likely diachronic pathways for this extension: use of na as a conjunction •
FromandtheJohn left fi Top-John, he left the use of na as cleft-marker •
Fromit’s-John who left fi Top-John, he left The use of na as a conjunction in Krio is not currently well attested, although it cannot be discounted as an older stage. In many Niger-Congo languages, the locative preposition na — or its precursor locative serial verb ‘be’ — eventually developed an associative sense ‘with’, which then also becomes an NP conjunction, and eventually a clausal conjunction (Lord 1973; Givón 1975d). The putative pathway from cleft to L-dislocation would presumably rely on the common denominator between the two topicalizing and contrastive-focus constructions — topicalization. Through such a process, the construction would de-marked, with ‘contrast’ bleached out the and ‘topic’ retained. A similar instance of the sharing of contrastive morphology with an overlapping functional domain, again due to gradual diachronic extension, may be seen in Yagua (Amazonian Peru). In this language, the morpheme jíí(ta) is used to mark contrastive topicalization (Y-movement), as in (Doris Payne 1989):

241

242 Syntax

(48) Contrastive topic shifting A: …ra-a jaachi-dii-tyéé-níí kíí?… 1sg-irr spear-antic-ints-3sg q ‘…Shall I [Mocayu] spear him, huh? B: néé. naay-jíí-ra jaachi-ñíí… neg 1pl.exc-cont-irr spear-3sg No, we [the Wasp Twins] will spear him…’ Payne (1989) notes that the very same morpheme also marks the onset of new paragraphs. Both contexts indeed involve discontinuity or unpredictability, but at different levels — the first referential, the second thematic. A similar overlap — an extension from the thematic to the referential level — will be noted in Ch. 18, below. 15.3.5.2
Word-order and contrastive focus There are grounds for believing that the fronting of topical constituents is a pragmatic universal (Givón 1988). The widespread occurrence of cleft-focus, Y-movement, L-dislocation and fronted-wh constructions supports this idea. In some languages it is said that contrastive stress — the most universal feature of contrastive focus — coincides with the constituent post-posing rather than fronting. Thus Dreizin (1980) suggests that in Russian the unmarked position for focused negation is clause-final: (49) a. Affirmative Ivan jego ubil Ivan him killed ‘Ivan killed him’ b. Neutral (or verb-focus) negation Ivan jego ne ubil Ivan him neg killed ‘Ivan didn’t kill him’ (or ‘Ivan didn’t KILL him’) c. Subject-focus negation jego ubil ne Ivan him killed neg Ivan ‘IVAN didn’t kill him’ d. Object-focus negation Ivan ubil ne jego I. killed neg him ‘Ivan didn’t kill HIM’ Bernard Comrie (“General discussion”, in Chisholm ed. 1984) has further suggested that the post-posing of focused elements in Russian applies not only to focused negation, but to contrastive focus in general.5

Contrastive focus constructions

In many languages, on the other hand, focused negation requires fronting of the focused constituent, thus conforming to the more common word-order pattern of contrastive focus and topicalization. As an illustration, consider the following from Bikol (Philippine; M. Factora, i.p.c.): (50) a. Affirmative nag-gadán ’ang-laláke ning-kandíng agt-kill top-man acc-goat ‘The man killed a goat’ b. Neutral (or verb-focus) negation da’í nag-gadaán ’ang-laláke ning-kandíng neg agt-kill top-man acc-goat ‘The man didn’t kill a goat’ (or: ‘The man didn’t KILL the goat’) c. Subject-focus negation da’í ’ang-laláke nag-gadán ning-kandíng neg top-man agt-kill acc-goat ‘The MAN didn’t kill a goat’ d. Object-focus negation da’í ’ang-kandíng g-in-adán kang-laláke neg top-goat acc-kill agt-man ‘The man didn’t kill the GOAT’ Some languages, so far only languages with rigid SOV word-order, avoid cleft constructions altogether, marking contrasted constituents either by stress alone or by stress cum pseudo-cleft. Taken at face value, such languages seem to prefer placing contrast-focused elements toward the end of the clause, i.e. post-pose them. As an example, consider the following from Nepali (Indic; R. Shresta, i.p.c.): (51) a. Neutral Raj-le kukur-lai hirka-yf Raj-erg dog-do hit-past/3sg.masc ‘Raj hit the dog’ b. Subject stress focus Raj-le kukur-lai hirka-yf Raj-erg dog-do hit-past/3sg.masc ‘RAJ hit the dog’ c. Object stress focus Raj-le kukur-lai hirka-yf Raj-erg dog-do hit-past/3sg.masc ‘Raj hit the DOG’ d. Subject pseudo-cleft kukur-lai hirka-eko, Raj-le thi-yf dog-do hit-perf/rel Raj-erg be-past/3sg.masc ‘The one who hit the dog was RAJ’

243

244 Syntax

e. Object pseudo-cleft Raj-le hirka-eko, kukur-lai thi-yf Raj-erg hit-perf/rel dog-do be-past/3sg.masc ‘What Raj hit was the DOG’ f. *Subject cleft *Raj-le thi-yf kukur-lai hirka-eko, Raj-erg be-past/3sg.masc dog-do hit-perf/rel (‘It’s RAJ who hit the dog’) g. *Object cleft *kukur-lai thi-yf Raj-le hirka-eko, dog-do be-past/3sg.masc Raj-erg hit-perf/rel (‘It’s the DOG that Raj hit’) On the face of it, Nepali and other SOV languages go against widespread iconic tendency of fronting contrastive-focused and topicalized constituents. This violation may be more apparent than real. To begin with, the presupposed portion of the pseudo-cleft is frequently dispensed with in connected discourse, given its high predictability in context. When that occurs, only the copular predicate phrase is overtly expressed — with the focused noun thus being at the front of the clause in an SOV language: (52) a. Raj-le thi-yf Raj-erg be-past/3sg.masc ‘It was RAJ’ b. kukur-lai thi-yf dog-dat de-past/3sg.masc ‘It was the DOG’ Further, Nepali, like most languages, may resort to either one of two paratactic alternatives in coding the presupposed clause of the contrastive-focus construction: L-dislocation or R-dislocation. Either way, within its own clause, the focused element appears first:6 (53) a. L-dislocated presupposed clause kukur-lai hirka-ekf, Raj-le thi-yf dog-do hit-perf/rel Raj-erg be-past/3sg.masc ‘The one who hit the dog, it was RAJ’ b. R-dislocated presupposed clause Raj-le thi-yf, kukur-lai hirka-ekf ‘It was RAJ, the one who hit the dog’ The focus construction (53a) is a paratactic equivalent of the syntactic pseudo-cleft, while (53b) is the paratactic equivalent of the syntactic cleft. It has also been suggested that in many rigid SOV languages, the preferred position for focused constituents is directly before the verb.7 This, like the Russian preference for clause-final focus, seems to again violate our focus/topic fronting principle. Once again, however, the violation is perhaps more apparent than real. In connected discourse, most clausal arguments tend to be expressed anaphorically, i.e. as zeros or unstressed/clitic

Contrastive focus constructions

pronouns. This should particularly hold true for the highly topical (‘presupposed’) portions of focus constructions, which are highly predictable from the anaphoric context. Under such conditions in connected discourse, a pre-verbal position of the focus element in an SOV language is indistinguishable from a clause-initial position. 15.3.5.3
Verb clefting As noted earlier, stress-focus in English can apply to any constituents of the clause, including grammatical bound morphemes. In contrast, the application of clefting is severely limited. To some extent the limitation is predictable on morpho-syntactic grounds: Clefting (or pseudo-clefting) can only apply to free lexical constituents; and further, to ones that fit into a copular predicate slot — either nouns, adjectives or locative phrases. Clefting thus tends to be restricted to nominal arguments — noun phrases or prepositional phrases. Thus: (54) a. b. c. d. f. g. h. i. j.

It’s JOE who killed the goat It’s the GOAT that Joe killed It’s at HOME that she works It’s YESTERDAY that she did it It’s on PURPOSE that she dropped the glass ?It’s ACCIDENTALLY that he died *It’s TALL that Joe is *It’s KILLING that Joe did to the goat ?It’s KILLING THE GOAT that she did

The clefting of verbs seems to be a bit more acceptable when they are the sole constituents of the verb phrase. Clefting the entire VP also seems to be easier than clefting the verb alone. Thus: (55) a. b. c.

*It’s GOING that he then did to the market ?It’s GOING TO THE MARKET that he then did ?It’s WORKING that he did yesterday

There are three explanations that one may advance in trying to account for the restrictions on verb-clefting:

•
Functional: •
Structural: •
Diachronic:

Clefting involves topicalization, a function that is typically applicable to nominal arguments rather than to non-referring predicates. Clefting would extract the core of the clause, the verb, leaving the rest of the clause hard to process. Further, the concomitant REL-clause structure cannot be obtained without a verb. Clefting, as noted above, arises from a copular predicate structure, one into which a verb does not fit naturally.

The restriction on verb-clefting is perhaps easier to interpret when one considers the few languages — or contexts — where verb-clefting is allowed. The salient structural features of verb-clefting, when it does occur, are:

245

246 Syntax

cleft-focused verb takes a non-finite, nominalized form. •
The the presupposed portion of the construction, the verb is then repeated in its finite •
Inform, and in its neutral position. The Kwa languages of the Niger-Congo family all demonstrate these two features in verbclefting, as does the Kwa-substratum Creole language Krio. The following examples are from Yoruba (Stahlke 1974): (56) a. Neutral ajá kpa aìd7, dog kill chicken ‘The dog killed the chicken’ b. Subject cleft ajá ni kpa aìd7, dog be kill chicken ‘It’s the DOG that killed the chicken’ c. Object cleft aìd77, ni ajá kpa chicken be dog kill ‘It’s the CHICKEN that the dog killed’ d. Verb cleft kpe-kpe ni ajá kpa aìd7, kill-kill be dog kill chicken ‘It’s KILLING that the dog did to the chicken’ (lit.: ‘It’s KILLING that the dog killed the chicken’) The Kwa verb-cleft pattern is compatible with all three explanations of the rarity of verbclefting: the verb makes it a noun, thus syntactically compatible with a nomi•
Nominalizing nal predicate slot. recapitulating the verb in a finite form further down in the clause, the neutral •
By processing strategy is preserved. Our explanation of the rarity of verb-clefting is further supported by the cross-linguistic distribution of focused negation (Vol. I, Ch. 8) and focused yes/no-questions (Ch. 17). Such focus constructions typically involve less syntactic tampering with the neutral clause structure, and in particular no REL-clause syntax. Focused yes/no-questions may involve morphology cum word-order variation, as in Russian (49), Bikol (50) or Ute (Givón 1980a). They may also involve morphology alone, as in Turkish focused yes/no-questions (Erguvanli 1976). But they are otherwise less tampered with that cleft clauses — verbfocusing in such constructions is much less problematic. As an illustration of the relative distributional freedom of focused yes/no-questions, consider the following from Navajo (Schauber 1978):

Contrastive focus constructions

(57) a. Neutral Jáan chidí yiyííhlchf John car 3/3/dir/wreck ‘John wrecked the car’ b. Subject yes/no-q Jáan-ísh chidí yiyííhlchf John-q car 3/3/dir/wreck ‘Did JOHN wreck the car?’ (or did someone else wreck it?) c. Object yes/no-q Jáan chidí-ísh yiyííhlchf? John car-q 3/3/dir/wreck ‘Did John wreck the CAR?’ (or did he wreck the boat?) d. Verb yes/no-q Jáan chidí yiyííhlchf-’ish John car 3/3/dir/wreck-q ‘Did John WRECK the car?’ (or did he do something else to it?) Finally, the much wider distributional freedom in English and elsewhere of stress-focus, where the neutral clause structure is left largely intact, also supports our interpretation of the more stringent restrictions on clefting.

15.4

The use of intonation, word-order and morphology in contrastive-focus constructions: Some typological predictions As noted earlier, contrastive focus is coded by three coding devices: (stress or tone) •
intonation
word-order •
morphology • The three may appear in various combinations, but such combinations are highly constrained. Intonation is by far the most universal of the three, and is always present regardless of the simultaneous use of word-order or morphology. In this section we will consider all possible combinations of the three coding elements.

15.4.1 Three-way coding In both cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions one finds the maximal combination of all three coding elements: The focused noun is either fronted or post-posed; the copula or its grammaticalized vestige serves as grammatical morphology; and the ubiquitous contrastive stress is always there.

247

248 Syntax

15.4.2 Two-way coding Of the three mathematically-possible two-way combinations, only two are attested: a.

Intonation and word-order The combination of stress and word-order without morphology may be seen in Russian and Kihungan. In Russian, stress is combined with a clause-final position, as in (Dreizin 1980): (58) a. Verb focus Ivan jego ubil Ivan him killed ‘Ivan KILLED him’ b. Subject focus jego ubil Ivan him killed Ivan ‘IVAN killed him’ c. Object focus Ivan ubil jego I. killed him ‘Ivan killed HIM’ In Kihungan, high tone is combined with the clause-initial position in the ‘simplified-cleft’ intermediate construction, as in (Takizala 1972): (59) a. Neutral Kipes ka-swiim-in kit K. he-buy/past chair ‘Kipes bought a chair’ b. Subject focus Kípes a-swiim-in kit Kipes he-buy/past chair ‘KIPES bought the chair’ c. Object focus Kít Kipes a-swiim-in chair K. he-buy-past ‘Kipes bought a CHAIR’ The clause-initial focus position in Kihungan is a relatively recent diachronic development from the full-fledged cleft construction. It may well be that, likewise, the Russian clausefinal focus position is an older diachronic development from pseudo-cleft. Russian’s preference for a clause-final focus position may thus turn out to be merely the last stage of diachronic simplification of the more elaborate pseudo-cleft focus.

Contrastive focus constructions

b.

Intonation and morphology The two-way combination of intonation and morphology may be illustrated by the focused yes/no-question pattern in Turkish (Erguvanli 1976): (60) a. Neutral or verb-focus Ali arslan-i gör-dü-mü? Ali lion-acc see-past-q ‘Did Ali see a lion?’ (without verb stress) ‘Did Ali SEE a lion?’ (with verb stress) b. Subject-focus Ali-mi arslan-i gör-dü? Ali-q lion-acc see-past ‘Did ALI see a lion?’ c. Object focus Ali arslan-mi gör-dü? Ali lion-q see-part ‘Did Ali see a LION?’ The two-way combination of word-order and morphology will probably remain unattested, given the ubiquitous use of contrastive intonation. 15.4.3 One-way coding As far as can be determined, only intonation is ever used by itself to code contrastive focus. The one-way use of either word-order or morphology is unattested and unlikely, given again the ubiquitous nature of contrastive intonation.

15.5

Cognitive-iconic considerations

15.5.1 Attention and contrastive stress As noted above, the most common device in coding contrastive focus is the assignment of perceptually prominent intonation to the focused constituent. Whether other coding elements are present, this most iconic coding device is always there. Its iconicity may be given as an instance of the code quantity principle (Givón 1985a): (61) The code quantity principle The less predictable the information is, or the more important, the more prominent, distinct or large will be the code element(s) that convey it. As Bolinger (1985) notes, intonation is probably the most consistently and transparently iconic coding device in language, a device whose roots reach back to the gestural system. Its iconic power resides in the cognitive dimension of attention and memory:

249

250 Syntax

(62) Code-quantity, attention and memory
More prominent and more distinct coding attracts more attention.
Information that attracts more attention is memorized, stored and retrieved more efficiently.

• •

15.5.2 Attention and word-order The use of word-order in the coding of contrastive focus is almost — though not quite — as wide-spread as the use of intonation. Relatively few partial exceptions to the general tendency of focus fronting (Russian, Nepali) can be found, but the cross-linguistic trend points to a strong association between contrastive focus and a fronted position. This association may be given as an instance of the principle that governs the pragmatics of word-order (Givón 1988a): (63) The pre-posed order principle The less predictable the information is or the more important, the more likely it is to be placed earlier in the clause (or in whatever relevant unit of structured information). The cognitive basis of the focus-fronting principle (63) is well grounded in the psychology of attention and memory. In may be summed up as (Gernsbacher and Hargreaves 1988; Gernsbacher 1990): (64) Word-order, attention and memory
The earlier a chunk of information is placed within its relevant unit, the more attention it attracts.
Information that attracts more attention is memorized, stored and retrieved more efficiently.

• •

The great universality of the pragmatic use of word-order attests to its solid cognitive underpinning.

Notes 1. All translated from the spoken Mandarin text studied in Sun and Givón (1985). 2. An even more obvious parallelism holds between pseudo-clefts and REL-clauses. 3. Krio is an English-based Creole in a largely Niger-Congo substratum. The Copula na was most likely borrowed from some Niger-Congo source, where its distribution as either locative serial verb, copula, locative preposition or conjunction is almost universally attested (Lord 1973). Krio has almost entirely lost the copular use of na, which survives in the cleft-marker use. Unless otherwise indicated, the data here are taken either from Williams (1971) or come from Sori Yilla (in personal communication). 4. This passage is taken from a story by Quintin Golley titled (in English) “Why you should never trust a woman” and published in Hancock (ed. 1972).



Contrastive focus constructions

5. “…You can translate literally ‘The one who came was John’. But no Russian would ever say it that way. In Russian what you would get would simply be ‘Came John’. ‘John’ in final position has focus, so functionally you have got across the idea — ‘The one who came was John’…” (Chisholm, ed. 1984: 287). 6. Gernsbacher and Hargreaves (1988) have demonstrated experimentally that the primacy effect of a fronted nominal applies only within the clause. When the fronted noun was inside another clause, such as a pre-posed adverbial clause, the effect disappeared. As Chafe (1987) and others have noted, the relevant unit in information processing is the clause that falls under a single intonation contour. 7. The explicit claim was made for wh-question words in Kartvalian (Georgian) by Alice Harris (“General Discussion”, in Chisholm, ed., 1984: 272); see also Harris (1981).

251



Chapter 16

Marked topic constructions

16.1

Orientation The notion of topicality has been dealt with repeatedly in a number of previous chapters, in the context of the grammar of referential coherence first outlined in Vol. I, Ch. 10. The grammatical devices dealt with in Ch. 10 involved, primarily, morphology: contrasts between zeros, pronouns and full NPs; •
the
the of case-markers, articles, numerals and classifiers that mark full NPs to • signalusereferentiality, topicality and definiteness. Several subsequent chapters then dealt with various syntactic constructions that code more subtle aspects of referential coherence: voice (Ch. 13) •
pragmatic clauses (Ch. 14) •
relative
contrastive focus (Ch. 15) • This chapter deals with another group of constructions that partake in the grammar of referential coherence. If the topic-coding constructions covered here share a common theme, it is the pragmatic use of word-order. Why this is not always apparent, is because other coding devices (morphology, intonation) are often also involved. The constructions to be discussed here are: clauses •
Existential-presentative •
Y-movement •
L-dislocation •
R-dislocation •
Dative-shifting •
Raising

16.2

Topicality: A brief recapitulation Topicality pertains to nominal participants (‘referents’; most commonly subjects or objects) of clauses. The propositional information coded in state/event clauses is typically

254

Syntax

about some topical participant(s) in the state/event. Such topical participants are most commonly the subject, direct-object or indirect-object of the clause, and thus most commonly noun phrases (‘entities’) rather than verbs (‘events’) or adjectives (‘states’). When whole events or states are made topical, they are almost always nominalized (Ch. 11). That is, they are made to look morpho-syntactically like nominals. In spite of being grammatically manifest at the clause level, topicality is not a clauselevel property of referents, but rather a discourse-dependent one. This is often masked by the fact that one can examine a well-coded clause out of context, and observe all the grammatical devices that mark participants as referring, topical, definite etc. But such isolated clauses are only artifacts. What makes their participants topical is not the fact that they are grammatically coded as topical (subject, object) in the self-contained clause. Rather, they are so coded grammatically because they are topical across a certain span of multi-propositional discourse. Their topicality is thus due to their being recurrent referents in some larger discourse. 16.2.1 Referent accessibility and thematic importance Earlier above (Vol. I, Ch. 10; Ch. 15), we noted that the topicality of clausal arguments in connected discourse involves two aspects of referential coherence, one anaphoric, the other cataphoric: Referential accessibility •
Anaphoric:
Cataphoric: Thematic importance • By ‘anaphoric’ one means the accessibility of the referent in mental representation (‘map’, ‘model’) of the preceding discourse. Grammatical devices that are anaphorically oriented instruct the hearer how to locate the referent within his/her mental representation. By ‘cataphoric’ one means the referent’s importance in the subsequent discourse. Grammatical devices that are cataphorically oriented instruct the hearer about how important the referent is likely to be in the yet-unfolding discourse, and how to create an efficient mental representation of the referent in that in-coming discourse. The grammar of referential processing is sensitive to both aspects of topicality, with different grammatical devices skewed more toward one or the other.

16.3

Marked topic constructions

16.3.1 Preamble By ‘marked’ topic-coding constructions one means constructions that code referents of relatively low accessibility. Their low accessibility may be due to being new in the discourse, i.e. being introduced for the first time. It may be due to their being re-introduced into the discourse after a considerable gap of absence. Or it may be due to referential competition or contrast, along the lines discussed in Ch. 15. Typically, then, marked topic constructions further elaborate the grammar of discontinuous topics, and thus apply primarily to full NPs. In this they contrast with unstressed pronouns and zeros, which code continuous referents.

Marked topic constructions

255

16.3.2 Existential-presentative constructions 16.3.2.1
Functional dimensions Existential-presentatives (henceforth EPCs), also known as indefinite subject constructions, are typically used to introduce important new referents into the discourse. We will illustrate this by citing the cataphoric persistence figures of indefinite referents introduced by various devices in colloquial English, assuming that more persistent referents are likely to be thematically more important (Zubin 1979; Givón ed. 1983a; Wright and Givón 1987). Morphologically, indefinite referents in colloquial American English are coded by either the indefinite article ‘this’ or ‘a’, and either as subjects or as objects. The four relevant combinations of these two contrasts are as follows (Wright and Givón 1987): (1) a. Subject with ‘this’ (EPC) ‘…there’s this guy…’ b. Subject with ‘a’ (EPC) ‘…and there was a fly to first base…’ c. Object with ‘this’ ‘…he saw this great bear…’ d. Object with ‘a’ ‘…he saw this monkey holding a candy bar…’ The average cataphoric persistence (CP) figures for the four coding combinations are given in (2) below: (2) Average cataphoric persistence (CP) of indefinite referents in spoken English, introduced as subject or object, with the article ‘this’ or ‘a’ (Wright and Givón 1987) Topic-coding device

Mean CP in # of clauses out of the next 10 clauses

subject + ‘this’ object + ‘this’ subject + ‘a’ object + ‘a’

6.95 2.40 1.54 0.56

The cataphoric persistence of referents introduced in indefinite subject clauses — EPCs — is much greater than for indefinite objects. The same study also noted that of the indefinite referents introduced as subjects, 67% were important (CP 2 or above), and 33% unimportant (CP below 2). In contrast, of the indefinites introduced as objects, 94% were unimportant and only 6% important. 16.3.2.2
Syntactic dimensions 16.3.2.2.1
Verb type. Most commonly, the verb in EPCs is either the existential ‘be’ or ‘have’. But other verbs of being on or emergence onto the scene are also used on occasion,

256

Syntax

most typically locational verbs such as ‘sit’, ‘stand’, ‘lie’, ‘live’, ‘stay’ or ‘remain’, or entrance verbs such as ‘come’, ‘arrive’, ‘appear’ or ‘approach’. Thus consider: (3) a. Existential ‘be’ (English) There is a man who wants to see you b. Existential ‘have’ (Spanish) hay mucha gente allá que no conozco have/3sg many people there rel neg know/I ‘There are many people there that I don’t know’ In standard German one finds the use of ‘give’ as the existential verb, but in the southern dialects the more predictable ‘have’ is used. Thus compare (H. Burmeister, i.p.c.): (4) a. Existential ‘give’ (standard German) es gibt ein Buch das Sie lesen müssen it give/3sg one book rel you read must ‘There’s a book that you must read’ b. Existential ‘have’ (southern German) da hat(e)s viele Baüme there has/3sg many trees ‘There are many trees’ 16.3.2.2.2
Pronominal agreement. A number of structural peculiarities are associated with EPCs. Often, a locative element — such as ‘there’ in (3a) or (4b) — introduces the construction. Further the existential verb ‘be’/‘have’ most commonly does not agree with its indefinite subject, but rather assumes neutral agreement, as in Hebrew: (5) Neutral agreement of ‘be’ (Hebrew) a. yesh sham ish-exad she rots-e… be there man-one that want-3sg.masc ‘There’s a man there who wants…’ b. yesh sham kama nashim she-rots-ot… be there some women that-want-3fem.pl ‘There’re some women there who want…’ Or in Spanish: (6) Neutralized agreement of ‘have’ (Spanish) a. hay una mujer allá que no quiere hablar have(3sg) one woman there that neg want/3sg speak ‘There’s a woman there who doesn’t want to speak’ b. hay muchos amigos allá que no saben… have(3sg) many friends there that neg know/3pl ‘There’re many friends there who don’t know…’ In some languages, the existential verb ‘be’/‘have’ controls locative pronominal agreement. This may be illustrated by contrasting the normal DEF-subject pronominal agreement of Swahili (Bantu) with the locative agreement found with indefinite subjects of EPCs:

Marked topic constructions

(7) Definite subject a. mtoto a-li-kuwa nyumba-ni child s/he-past-be house-loc ‘The child was in the house’ b. watoto wa-li-kuwa nyumba-ni children they-past-be house-loc ‘The children were in the house’ c. kikapu ki-li-kuwa mesa-ni basket it-past-be table-loc ‘The basket was on the table’ d. vikapu vi-li-kuwa mesa-ni basket they-past-be table-loc ‘The baskets were on the table’ (8) Locative agreement with indefinite subject a. nyumba-ni ku-li-kuwa na mtoto mmoja house-loc loc-past-be with child one ‘In the house there was a child’ b. nyumba-ni ku-li-kuwa na watoto wengi house-loc loc-past-be with children many ‘In the house there were many children’ c. mesa-ni ku-li-kuwa na kikapu kimoja table-loc loc-past-be with basket one ‘On the table there was a basket’ d. mesa-ni ku-li-kuwa na vikapu vingi table-loc loc-past-be with baskets many ‘On the table there were many baskets’ 16.3.2.2.3
Word-order. A more controversial issue involves word-order in existentialpresentative clauses. It has been taken for granted for a long time that rigid SV languages (SVO, SOV) exhibit the inverse order VS in EPCs (Hetzron 1971, 1975; Givón 1976b,c, inter alia). This interpretation was reinforced by another assumption — the Prague School idea that the natural pragmatic word-order is topic-comment, i.e. old information before new information, and that in EPCs the indefinite subject is non-topical and thus postposed. As noted repeatedly above (e.g. Vol. I, Ch. 5, Ch. 10; Ch. 15), the pragmatic principle that controls word-order has relatively little to do with fronting old information, but rather with fronting important information. The claim that VS is the characteristic word-order in EPCs has rested upon one implicit assumption — that the presentative verb ‘be’ or ‘have’ is indeed the informationbearing predicate in the indefinite-subject clause. In the following space we will recapitulate the reasons why this assumption needs to be questioned, following the argument in Givón (1988a).

257

258

Syntax

16.3.2.2.4
Grammaticalization of the existential verb. As noted above for Hebrew and Spanish, the existential verb often tends to lose verbal inflections and becomes a grammaticalized neutral particle, with neutralized pronominal agreement and reduced tense–aspectmodal morphology. In colloquial English too, the unstressed monosyllabic there’s is used with both singular or plural indefinite subjects: (9) a. There’s a guy there who’s waiting… b. There’s lots of people there who’re waiting… Similarly in French, the existential ‘have’ construction il-y-a (lit. ‘it-there-has’) contracts in the colloquial into the invariant particle ya (Lambrecht 1987): (10) a. …ya un camarade d’usine qui m’ramène… …have a friend from-factory that me-bring-back ‘…there’s a friend from the factory who drives me back…’ b. …ya des camarades qui… …have some friends that ‘…there’s some friends who…’ 16.3.2.2.5
The semantic predicate of the EPC. The existential verb ‘be’ or ‘have’ in the EPC has no lexical-semantic contents, it is semantically bleached. If this is indeed the case, what functions as a lexical verb in EPCs? R. Fox (1985) has found that consistently, at the level of 99% in written English, some other predicate is always present with the indefinitesubject clauses. That predicate comes under the same intonation contour of the EPC, as indicated by the fact that no comma separates it from the rest of the clause in written English. It is most commonly either a REL-clause, an adjective, a LOC-phrase, a noun complement, a genitive or an associative phrase. And it most commonly follows the indefinite subject. Typical examples are (R. Fox 1985): (11) a. REL-clause …there were big wrought-iron planters placed along the sea-wall… b. Adjective …There was a sudden explosion… c. LOC-phrase …there were about thirty in the two countries… d. N-complement …there was still doubt about the nature of… e. Possessive phrase …there was the sound of rushing water… f. Associative phrase …there was a large park with gardens and shade trees… The extra predications that tend to appear with EPCs are used to establish the relevance or cataphoric coherence of the newly introduced referent to the particular junction of the discourse where it is introduced (Fox and Thompson 1990). This is consonant with the use of restrictive REL-clauses as cataphoric presentative devices (Ch. 14).

Marked topic constructions

16.3.2.2.6
EPCs in V-first languages. Rigid V-first languages resist placing nominal constituents in front of the verb. But even the most rigid ones, such as Jacaltec, Malagasy or Bikol, break this rigidity in three conspicuous cases (Givón 1988a): NPs; •
Clefted
Wh-question particles; •
Indefinite subjects (EPCs). • In the latter, an invariant existential ‘particle’ — historically a grammaticalized existential verb — precedes the indefinite subject NP. But the real information-bearing verb in the clause follows the indefinite subject. This may be illustrated from Bikol (Philippine; M. Factora, i.p.c.): (12) a. Definite subject (V-first) nag-gadan ’ang-lalake ning-kanding agt-kill top-man acc-goat ‘The man killed a goat’ b. Indefinite subject (BE-S-V) marai lalake na nag-gadan ning-kanding exist man sub agt-kill acc-goat ‘A man killed a goat’ (lit.: ‘There’s a man who killed a goat’) 16.3.2.2.7
Indefinite subject in flexible-order languages. EPCs as grammaticalized constructions are typically found in rigid-order languages. In contrast, flexible-order languages tend to not have them. Rather, they tend to front the indefinite subject. To illustrate this contrast, consider the following from Papago (Doris Payne 1987), where the verb ‘sit’ functions as the existential verb marking the indefinite subject:1 (13) a. DEF-subject k-maak g-ceoj g-gogs g-cuukhung conj-give def-man def-dog def-meat ‘The man is giving meat to the dog’ b. INDEF-subject ’imhab si’al-taagio dahy ’o’odham c-g ’uwi s-behidag here east-toward sit man ss-rel woman af-get ‘There was a man in the east who was good at getting women’ As Doris Payne (1987) notes, 89% of indefinite subjects in Papago are pre-verbal, while that 95% of definite subjects are post-verbal. In sum, the seeming VS order in EPC’s with indefinite subjects does not reflect a synchronic order, but rather is the consequence of the diachronic pathway of grammaticalization. Like cleft constructions, EPCs arise through the condensation of two erstwhile verbal clauses into a single one, in which the erstwhile verb of being in location has lost both its semantic and grammatical verbal properties, and is now a grammaticalized morpheme that serves to mark the construction.

259

260 Syntax

16.3.2.2.8
Grammatical relations in EPCs. An indefinite subject is clearly non-prototypical, given that subjects are overwhelmingly definite and anaphoric (Keenan 1976a; Givón 1976b). The existential verb’s de-verbal status and its irregular pronominal agreement already suggest that the historical subject of this verb — the indefinite subject of the EPC — is not a prototypical subject. Noting the aberrant overt coding properties of the indefinite subject of EPCs, Bresnan and Kanerva (1988) proposed that the subject of such construction, at least in some Bantu languages, is the locative that controls grammatical agreement. Thus recall the Swahili EPCs: (14) a. DEF subject (Sg) mtoto a-li-kuwa nyumba-ni child s/he-past-be house-loc ‘The child was in the house’ b. DEF subjec (Pl) watoto wa-li-kuwa nyumba-ni children they-past-be house-loc ‘The children were in the house’ c. INDEF subject (Sg) nyumba-ni ku-li-kuwa na mtoto mmoja house-loc loc-past-be with child one ‘In the house there was a child’ d. INDEF subject (Pl) nyumba-ni ku-li-kuwa na mtoto mmoja house-loc loc-past-be with child one ‘In the house there was a child’ There are several reasons why the assignment of subjecthood to the locative constituent of EPCs is untenable. First, the locative constituent of EPCs has no functional (reference, topicality) subject properties (Keenan 1976a). Rather, it is the indefinite subject of EPCs that is highly topical (Wright and Givón 1987). Second, the locative is indeed fronted in many EPCs, but locative and other adverbs can be fronted in other chain-initial discourse contexts that have nothing to do with EPCs or indefinite subjects (see Ch. 18). Third, while EPCs exhibit locative pronominal agreement in Bantu, in most languages they exhibit neutralized agreement. Fourth, locative agreement in EPCs in Bantu is possible even if the locative is not fronted, as in (Swahili): (15) ku-li-kuwa na mtoto mmoja nyumba-ni loc-past-be with child one house-loc ‘There was a child in the house’ Fifth, many EPCs have no locative constituent whatever, but in a Bantu language they still command locative subject agreement, as in (Swahili):

Marked topic constructions

(16) ku-li-kuwa na mtoto mmoja a-li-ye-kaa na… loc-past-be with child one 3sg-past-rel-live with ‘there was (once) a child who lived with…’ Finally, neither the locative nor the indefinite subject of EPCs exhibit typical subject behavior-and-control properties. (17) Main clause a. DEF subject: The house was near the barn b. INDEF EPC subject: There was a house near the barn Raising c. DEF subject He expected the house to be near the barn d. INDEF EPC subject: ?He expected a house to there be near the barn e. LOC EPC subject: *He expected (near) the barn to there be a house (near) f.

Equi in complementation DEF subject She wanted the house to be near the barn

g. INDEF EPC subject *She wanted a house to there be near the barn h. LOC EPC subject *She wanted (near) the barn to there be a house(near) i. j.

Relativization DEF subject the house that was near the barn… INDEF EPC subject *the/a house that there was near the barn…

k. LOC EPC subject ?the barn that there was a house near (it)… We have noted throughout (Vol. I, Ch. 4; Ch. 13) that grammatical relations involve a cluster of properties (Keenan 1976a) and may thus, at least in principle, involve gradation. We also noted (Ch. 13) that the subject of some highly-marked constructions (passive) may be less prototypical and thus exhibit fewer subject properties; just as the object of the antipassive may exhibit fewer object properties. In the case of the passive, we dealt with subjects that violate the norm of agent = subject. In the case of the antipassive, we dealt with objects that violate the unmarked norm of object = referring, topical. In the case of EPCs, we deal with subjects that violate the

261

262 Syntax

unmarked norm of subject = definite, anaphoric. The fact that such indefinite subjects of EPCs reveal fewer subject properties is only to be expected. 16.3.3 Y-movement (‘contrastive topicalization’) Y-movement (‘contrastive topicalization’) was discussed in considerable detail in Chapter 15, in the context of contrastive focus. It was also discussed in some detail in Ch. 13, in the context of inverse constructions. We will re-evaluate this construction now in the context of the grammar of topicality and referential coherence. 16.3.3.1
Functional dimensions We have already noted that Y-movement is used typically when a referent is contrasted with another referent of roughly the same semantic class. The first referent creates certain expectations, which the Y-moved referent then counters. We have also noted that, in addition to being contrastive, Y-moved referents also tend to be typically topical and anaphorical. Like other anaphoric topicalizing constructions, they tend to be overwhelmingly definite or generic, but not REF-indefinite. Their anaphoric predictability is also underscored by their characteristic low anaphoric distance. Typically, their discourse antecedent is found within the preceding 2–3 clauses. Further, the referential interference measure of Y-moved referents is usually high, a fact that is predictable from the presence of a contrasting topic in their immediately-preceding discourse environment. To underscore these discourse properties, consider the following tabulation of two text-based measures of the anaphoric topicality of Y-moved objects in two rigid VO languages — Biblical Hebrew (Fox 1983) and Mandarin Chinese (Sun and Givón 1985). (18) Anaphoric topicality of Y-moved (OV) and neutral (VO) NPs in Biblical Hebrew and Mandarin Chinese (following Sun and Givón 1985) Written Mandarin

Biblical Hebrew

Measure

OV

VO

OV

VO

anaph. distance (scale 1–20) referential interference (scale 1.0–2.0)

3.0

10.0

2.5

12.1

1.47


1.09

2.00


1.69

It was further noted that Y-moved objects in Mandarin Chinese were about 90% definite (and the rest non-referring). 16.3.3.2
Syntactic and typological dimensions The name Y-movement is somewhat of a misnomer, since word-order variation is involved here only when the constituent is non-initial.2 In an SVO language, contrastive topicalization of an object is a ‘movement’, but that of subjects is marked only with stress, since the subject is already clause-initial. Thus compare:

Marked topic constructions

(19) a. Direct object contrast (‘movement’ plus stress) I saw John there. MARY I never saw. b. Indirect object contrast (‘movement’ plus stress) I gave it all to Mary. To JOAN I gave nothing. c. Subject contrast (stress alone) John saw me there. MARY never did. Likewise in an SOV language, such as Korean, where a ‘topic’ suffix may also partake in marking the contrasted NP (Lee-Kwok 1994): (20) a. Object contrast (‘movement’ plus stress) k¸i so-l¸il n¸ei halp¸eci-ka chac-ass the cow-obj your grandfather-subj search-past ‘the COW your grand father looked for’ b. Subject contrast (stress plus topic marker) n¸ei halp¸eci-n¸in k¸i so-l¸il chac-ass your grandfather-top the cow-obj search-past ‘your GRANDFATHER looked for the cow’ In V-first language, on the other hand, both subject and non-subjects are ‘moved’ to a preverbal position, as in Biblical Hebrew: (21) a. Pre-verbal object (OVS) …ve-’et-ha-kvasim hifrid Ya’aqov… and-acc-the-sheep divide/perf Jacob ‘…and the SHEEP Jacob divided up…’ (Genesis 30:40) b. Pre-verbal subject (SVO) ve-ha-’arets hayta tohu va-vohu and-the-earth was chaos and-confusion ‘and the EARTH was chaos and confusion’ (Genesis 1:2) An important property of Y-movement clauses is that they fall under a single intonation contour. In this way, they contrast with L-dislocation (see below), where the fronted constituent is separated from the rest of the clause by a pause. The contrasted constituent in Y-movement most commonly retains its neutral-clause case-marking, rather than revert to some neutral (or nominative) case, as can be seen in (19) above. An exception to this is found in languages with a special topic-marking morpheme, where the topic-marker may replace the neutral-clause case marker of contrasted NPs. Thus in Japanese, the case-marking suffix -wa is used in a variety of topicalizing contexts, including Y-movement (Kuno 1972):

263

264 Syntax

(22) a. Subject contrast John-wa sono hon-o yonda-ga, Mary-wa yomanakatta John-top that book-obj read-prt Mary-top read/neg ‘John read the book, but MARY didn’t’ b. Object contrast …hon-wa Mary-ga yomanakatta book-top Mary-subj read/neg ‘…but the BOOK Mary didn’t read’ In some languages with strict SVO neutral word-order, object Y-movement requires subject post-posing, as well as a switch from subject to object pronominal agreement. We have already seen this construction in Dzamba (Bantu; Ch. 13,15), where it functions as an inverse clause, as in (Bokamba 1971, 1976): (23) a. Neutral or subject contrast (SVO) o-Poso a-tom-aki mukanda def-Poso he-send-past letter Ï
‘Poso sent a letter’ ¸ Ì ˝ Ó
‘POSO sent a letter’ ˛ b. Object contrast (OVS) i-mukanda mu-tom-aki o-Poso def-letter it-send-past def-Poso ‘The LETTER Poso sent’ What subject post-posing suggests is that a principle of limited capacity may be involved in topicalization, with only one main-topic slot per clause, in this case the pre-verbal position (see also Vennemann 1973). The same limit is also apparent in the most prevalent restriction of only one nominative/subject per clause (Vol. I, Ch. 4). This principle is of course consonant with what is known about the limited capacity of attention (Posner and Snyder 1974; Schneider and Shiffrin 1977; inter alia). A piece of indirect evidence supports the notion of competition for topicality or attention. In Dzamba, subject post-posing and the loss of subject agreement apply to Y-movement and other object-topicalizing constructions, but not to L-dislocation. Thus compare (23b) above with (Bokamba 1971, 1976): (24) Object L-dislocation (O, SV) imukanda, o-Poso a-mu-tom-aki imukanda, def-Poso he-it-send-past ‘The LETTER, Poso sent it’ The lack of competition in L-dislocation, one suspects, is due to the fact that the relevant structural unit for competition for attention-focus is the clause under the same intonation contour. The clause intonation unit includes the subject in (23b), but excludes it in (24). This conclusion is supported by the experimental work of Gernsbacher (1990) and Gernsbacher and Hargreaves (1988).

Marked topic constructions

265

16.3.4 Left dislocation 16.3.4.1
Functional dimensions L-dislocation is typically a device to mark topical referents, most commonly definite and anaphoric ones, that have been out of the focus of attention for a while and are being brought back into the discourse. That the L-dislocated referent must be anaphorically topical is attested by the fact that it may be either definite or generic but never REF-indefinite (see Ch. 15). As an example of the use of L-dislocation in English conversation, consider (Givón 1983b): (25) H: …Well my dad was born in Sherman, that’s close to where […] is. He was born in Sherman in 1881, and he died in ‘75. Yeah. And ah, so, ah of course, my great grandfather, they came in there, I think, y’know, part of them from Tennessee and part of them from Illinois. And I don’t really know much about that far back, Tom. But my grand-dad, he was a hard-shelled Baptist preacher, and he just, y’know, farmed and ranched. T: In Texas? H: Yeah, yeah. T: So he was already in Texas? H: They must’ve come there when he was small, y’know, ’cause he spent… T: Your great grandfather moved and your grandfather was really raised in Texas. H: Yeah, yeah. In other words, about three generations of us… were in Texas… T: In Texas… H: And of course we eh, my dad, all he ever did was farm and ranch… The anaphoric distance (AD) of L-dislocated referents is one of the highest of all referentcoding devices. Thus, compare the mean AD values of the subjects in five such devices in spoken English — Zero anaphora, anaphoric pronouns, neutral DEF-nouns, L-dislocated DEF-nouns and R-dislocated DEF-nouns (Givón 1983b): (26) Average AD values for definite referents in spoken English (Givón 1983b) Topic-coding device

Mean RD

Median RD

zero anaphora anaphoric pronoun R-dislocation neutral DEF-noun L-dislocation


1.0
1.6
1.0 10.0 15.3


1.0
1.0
1.0
8.5 19.5

L-dislocation has a distinct use in the turn-taking management in conversation. Thus Duranti and Ochs (1979) note that L-dislocation in Italian conversation is often used as a

266 Syntax

turn-initial device, allowing a new speaker to wrest the floor away from the previous speaker. This use in turn-taking is predictable from the use of L-dislocation in referent tracking: When a speaker takes over the floor and re-introduces a topical referent, such reintroduction must necessarily follow a gap of absence of at least one turn, a context typical for using L-dislocation in referent tracking. In narrative, L-dislocation is typically a chaininitial device (cf. (25) above). 16.3.4.2
Syntactic and typological dimensions L-dislocation typically involves the following three syntactic characteristics: separate intonation contour for the dislocated NP •
A
Neutralization of the case-marking of the topic NP •
An anaphoric pronoun resumption of the topic NP within the clause • English, where this device is restricted almost entirely to the informal spoken register, exhibits all three features. In other languages, the structural distinction between L-dislocation and Y-movement may be partially neutralized. Consider first Japanese, where anaphoric pronouns are typically zero-coded, and the topic suffix -wa is used in both Y-movement and L-dislocation, so that consequently case-marking neutralization and lack of marked pronoun characterize both constructions. Thus, compare the L-dislocation examples in (27) below to the Y-movement examples in (22) (Kuno 1972): (27) a. Subject L-dislocation (generic) kuzira-wa, honyuu-doobutu desu whale-top mammal be ‘Whales, they are mammals’ b. Subject L-dislocation (definite) John-wa, sono hon-o yonda John-top def book-acc read ‘John, he read the book’ c. Object L-dislocation (generic) okane-wa, John-ga hosii money-top John-subj want ‘Money, John wants some’ d. Object L-dislocation (definite) hon-wa, John-ga yonda book-top John-subj read ‘The book, John read it’ Y-movement and L-dislocation in Japanese are distinguished only by intonation. A similar partial neutralization of the two constructions can be seen in languages with obligatory subject or object pronominal agreement. Thus in Spanish, the anaphoric pronoun automatically occurs in both L-dislocation and Y-movement, so that they are again distinguished only by intonation:

Marked topic constructions

(28) a. Subject L-dislocation Juan, no ha visto el libro John neg have/3sg seen the book ‘John, he hasn’t seen the book’ b. Subject Y-movement JUAN no ha visto el libro John neg have/3sg seen the book ‘JOHN hasn’t seen the book’ c. Object L-dislocation el libro, Juan no lo ha visto the book John neg it has seen ‘The book, John hasn’t seen it’ d. Object Y-movement pero el LIBRO no lo ha visto nadie but the book neg it has seen nobody ‘But the BOOK nobody has seen’ Finally, in some languages the L-dislocated NP — at least when an independent pronoun — is case-marked as object rather than as subject. This seems to be the case in both colloquial English and French: (29) a. moi, je ne fais pas ça me, I neg do neg this ‘Me, I don’t do this’ b. lui, il est malad him he is sick ‘Him, he’s sick’ It may well be that the object case assignment here is predictable from an earlier diachronic source of the dislocated NP as a prepositional phrase, as in comme à moi, ‘speaking of him’, ‘as for her’, or even a direct object, as in ‘now take her’. 16.3.5 Right dislocation 16.3.5.1
Functional considerations Early studies, such as Hyman (1975), Byarushengo et al. (1976) or Tenenbaum (1977) took R-dislocation to be an afterthought or repair device. Roughly, it was suggested that speakers used R-dislocation when they: that the referent is highly accessible, thus to be coded as an anaphoric •
assumed pronoun; then, after brief reflection (represented by a pause), decided that maybe the •
but referent was not quite as accessible, and so was better re-coded as full NP.

267

268 Syntax

It is indeed clear that the discourse contexts for anaphoric pronouns and R-dislocation are somewhat similar, as can be seen from their identical mean anaphoric distance values (26) — 1.0 clause back. The text frequency of R-dislocation in spoken English was found to be roughly a 1/10th of that of L-dislocation (Givón 1983b). Whether this has any bearing on the function of these constructions remains to be seen. There are some indications that the communicative difference between R-dislocation and simple anaphoric pronouns involves their cataphoric context. Thus for example, in Ute, R-dislocation is used to indicate the end of a thematic chain/paragraph, signalling to the hearer the cataphoric discontinuity of both the referent and the theme (Givón 1983c). A similar suggestion has also been made for Japanese (Fujii 1989). 16.3.5.2
Syntactic and typological dimensions The same three syntactic features that characterize L-dislocation — anaphoric pronoun, intonation break and neutralized case-marking — also tend to apply to R-dislocation. Thus, as a typical example from English: (30) a. R-dislocation, subject …so he comes over, John does, and… b. R-dislocation, object …so we saw him come over, John, and… It has been noted (Byarushengo et al. 1976; Tenenbaum 1977) that the characteristic pause associated with R-dislocation may be in fact only an intonation dip. In a language like Spanish, with obligatory pronominal agreement and flexible VS/SV order, the difference between subject R-dislocation and post-verbal subject may thus be neutralized: (31) a. R-dislocation …luego se murió, Juan, y… then ref died/3sg John and ‘…then he died, John, and…’ b. VS word-order …luego se murió Juan y… then ref died/3sg John and ‘…then John died and…’ Likewise, in languages with zero anaphora such as Japanese, R-dislocation involves no pronouns, much like L-dislocation. Given the typological characteristics of languages with zero anaphora or with obligatory pronominal agreement, and given that a perceived ‘pause’ may in fact be only a tonal or intonational clue, there may be little difference between R-dislocation and simply placing an NP post-verbally, especially in flexible-order languages.

Marked topic constructions

269

16.3.6 Dative-shifting Dative shifting, or promotion to DO, has been discussed extensively earlier (Vol. I, Ch. 3,4). It was noted there that direct objects are consistently more topical than indirect objects. A fairly extensive syntactic typology of this device was also given there. The interaction of dative-shifting with passivization (Chapter 13) and relativization (Chapter 14) has also been noted, in both cases supporting the idea that the direct object is more topical. 16.3.6.1
Functional characterization The higher topicality of the DO vis-a-vis the IO is underscored by the functional distribution of topic-coding devices across the direct and indirect-object populations in a text. For example, in a study of written English text (Givón 1984a) it was found that the typically human dative-benefactive object, the most topical object type, appears 84% of the time as direct object and only 16% as indirect object. In contrast, the non-human locative object appears 100% as IO. Of dative-benefactives coded as DO, 89% were anaphoric pronouns, the remaining 11% names — both high-topicality categories. In contrast, 100% of the dative-benefactive coded as IO were full NPs. In another text-based study, the two heuristic topicality measures, anaphoric distance (AD) and cataphoric persistence (CP) were applied to direct and indirect objects in Nez Perce (Sahaptian; Rude 1985, 1987). The results, summarized in (32) below, again reveal the higher topicality of the DO over IO. (32) Topicality of direct and indirect objects in Nez Perce (from Rude 1985, 1987) Average AD (scale 1–20)

Average CP (scale 0–3)

Object semantic role Object type direct object indirect object

Patient

Other

Patient

Other

1.7 8.3


2.2 10.1

2.3 0.6

1.5 0.4

16.3.6.2
Syntactic and typological dimensions 16.3.6.2.1
Word-order. As noted earlier (Vol. I, Ch. 4), the cross-linguistic common denominator of promotion to DO is word-order, whereby the more topical DO most commonly precedes the less topical IO. To illustrate this, compare Hebrew, where promotion to DO as no morphological consequences, with KinyaRwanda, where the promotion to DO has strong morphological consequences (Ch. 13,14):

270 Syntax

(33) Hebrew a. Patient DO Yoav natan et-ha-sefer le-Dvora Yoav gave acc-the-book to-Deborah ‘Yoav gave the book to Deborah’ b. Dative DO Yoav natan le-dvora et-ha-sefer Yoav gave to-Deborah acc-the-book ‘Yoav gave Deborah the book’ (34) KinyaRwanda a. Patient DO ya-tem-eje igiti n-umupanga he/past-cut-asp tree with-saw ‘He cut the tree with a/the saw’ b. KinyaRwanda, instrument DO ya-tem-ej-esha umupanga igiti he/past-cut-asp-instr saw tree ‘He used the saw to cut a/the tree’ The rather uniform placement of more topical objects (DO) before the less topical one (IO) once again supports the validity of the cognitively-based principle of word-order (Givón 1988a; Gernsbacher 1990; Gernsbacher and Hargreaves 1988): (35) Topicality and word-order The more important referent is placed first. 16.3.6.2.2
Verb agreement. In languages with a rich system of pronominal agreement on the verb, it is possible to code the relative topicality of the direct and indirect objects by the presence vs. absence of verb-bound pronouns. We will illustrate this with data from Asheninka (So. Arawak; Peru). This VSO language displays prefixal subject pronouns and suffixal object pronouns. Subject pronouns are obligatory, while the presence of object pronouns depend on topicality. Thus, definite or more topical direct objects require pronominal agreement, while indefinite ones do not (David Payne, i.p.c.): (36) a. All participants anaphoric i-p-ak-e-na-ro 3masc-give-perf-real-1-3fem ‘He gave it (fem) to me’ b. Definite patient n-am-ak-e-mi-ro kaniri 1-bring-perf-real-2-3fem manioc ‘I brought you the manioc (fem)’

Marked topic constructions

c. Indefinite or non-topical patient n-am-ak-e-mi kaniri 1-bring-perf-real-2 manioc ‘I brought you some manioc’ The human dative-benefactive object seems to be topicalized by default in Asheninca as elsewhere, and requires pronominal agreement. When a non-human patient is topical, it also displays such agreement. When it is non-topical, it does not. Thus (David Payne, i.p.c.): (37) a. Topical patient h-a-ak-e-ri syi]ki, 3masc-grab-perf-real-3masc corn ‘He got the corn (masc) h-omisyitow-ak-e-ne-ri ir-iniro 3masc-take.out-perf-real-3-3masc 3masc-mother and took it out to his mother’ [the following clauses continue about the corn] b. Non-topical patient h-a-ak-e syi]ki, 3masc-grab-perf-real corn ‘He got some corn (masc) h-omisyitow-ak-e-ro ir-iniro 3masc-take.out-perf-real-3fem 3masc-mother and took some out to his mother’ [the following clauses continue about the mother] It is almost impossible to find two full NP (non-pronominal) objects on the same verb in Asheninka text. The use of word-order in dative-shifting, i.e. to indicate the relative topicality of the two objects, is thus not much of an option in this language. In the rare cases where two overt NPs must be mentioned, Asheninka speakers resort to repeating the verbal clause — first with one NP, then with the other. Thus consider (David Payne, i.p.c.): (38) h-ooso-i-t-ak-e-ri kasyekari 3masc-tie-pass-&-perf-real-3masc jaguar ‘The jaguar (masc) was tied’ h-ooso-t-ako-i-t-ak-e-ne-ri anta-ro mapi 3masc-tie-&-to-pass-&-perf-irr-3-3masc big-fem rock ‘it was tied to the big rock (fem)’ Finally, the gender-neutral 3rd person pronoun -ne functions as the topical indirect object pronoun, as in (38). When a 3rd person indirect object is not a human dative-benefactive, it may also be non-topical, in which case -ne is not used. Thus (David Payne, i.p.c.):

271

272

Syntax

(39) h-ooso-i-t-ak-e-ri kasyekari 3masc-tie-pass-&-perf-real-3masc jaguar ‘The jaguar (masc) was tied h-ooso-t-ako-i-t-ak-e-ri anta-ro mapi 3masc-tie-&-to-pass-&-perf-irr-3masc big-fem rock it was tied to a big rock (fem)’ 16.3.7 Raising 16.3.7.1
Preliminaries Raising is one of the most curious phenomena in syntax. It may be first described as a synchronic grammatical process in the following terms: of mental activity — knowledge, perception, intention and the like — has •
Atwoverbsenses, one involving a nominal argument, the other a proposition argument.
Within the propositional • the clausal subject. argument, one NP is the important topic, most commonly important topic is foregrounded through raising, and is converted from an •
That argument of the subordinate clause to a grammatical argument — either subject or object — of the main clause. One may also describe raising, alternatively, as a process of diachronic analogical extension, by which the syntactic form of the verb-sense that takes a nominal object is extended to the verb-sense that takes a propositional object. Many verbs in the various sub-groups that allow raising have precisely such dual sense distribution, as in: (40) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

John wanted an apple John wanted to eat an apple John knew Mary John knew that Mary had left Mary saw John Mary saw that John left That John did it is wrong John is wrong

As a synchronic grammatical process, raising is a heterogenous mix of related phenomena, found in some languages but not in others, and in some complement-taking verbs but not in others. Wherever it is found, raising falls into two related sub-divisions: to object •
Raising •
Raising to subject We will describe some of the more common patterns first.

Marked topic constructions

16.3.7.2
Raising to object It has been traditionally assumed that the ‘raised’ version is semantically just a trivial ‘stylistic variant’ of the propositional complement sense (Postal 1974). Indeed, the Generative discussion of raising considered this an ‘optional transformation’. Raising to object most commonly involves verbs of intention, perception or cognition whose subject is typically a dative-experiencer. Typical verbs in this group are ‘see’, ‘know’, ‘believe’, ‘say’, ‘want’ or ‘consider’. The raised version is a syntactic blend of the structure of the verb’s two main senses — the one involving a nominal object, and the one involving a clausal complement: (41) a. Nominal Obj She saw Joe b. Clausal Comp She saw that Joe left c. Raised (‘blend’) She saw Joe leave d. Nominal Obj I believed her e. Clausal Comp I believed that she was a crook f.

Raised (‘blend’) I believed her to be a crook

g. Nominal Obj She wanted him h. Clausal Comp She wished that he would leave i.

Raised (‘blend’) She wanted him to leave

j.

Nominal Obj We considered him (as candidate)

k. Clausal Comp We considered that he was honest l.

Raised (‘blend’) We considered him honest

m. Nominal Obj She expected a miracle n. Clausal Comp She expected that he would leave o. Raised (‘blend’) She expected him to leave

273

274 Syntax

16.3.7.3
Raising to subject Raising to subject sometimes involves the passive variant of raising to objects, as in: (42) a. Semantic leitmotif He is honest b. Unraised verbal Comp We consider that he is honest c. Raised to object We consider him honest d. Raised to subject He is considered honest The Generative approach, which considered raising to object as a transformational prerequisite to raising to subject, collapses in the case of verbs that allow raising to subject but not raising to object: (43) a. Semantic leitmotif She left b. Unraised verbal Comp He said that she left c. *Raised object *He said her to have left d. Raised subject She is said to have left The passive-marked raised-to-subject variant may on occasion involve a different, though semantically or diachronically related, lexical verb, as in the pairing of ‘see’ and ‘seem’: (44) a. Semantic leitmotif John was leaving b. Unraised verbal Comp We saw that John was leaving c. Raised object We saw John leaving d. Raised subject John seemed (to us) to be leaving John was seen leaving Raising to subject may also occur with some evaluative adjectives, whose intransitivity precludes raising to object. Here one can divide the adjectives involved into two major subgroups. In the first group, with adjectives such as ‘easy’ and ‘hard’, the adjective focuses semantically on someone other than the raised NP. That other person is the subject of the semantic leitmotif proposition, whose object is the raised NP:

Marked topic constructions

(45) a. Semantic leitmotif X pleases John b. Unraised verbal subject To please John is difficult (for X) c. Post-posed verbal Subject/Comp It is difficult (for X) to please John d. Raised subject of Comp John is difficult (for X) to please The most common use of the raised pattern in (45d) involves an impersonal subject in the leitmotif proposition. That is, the subject of the leitmotif proposition is suppressed. This fact is important in understanding the peculiar syntactic behavior of this raising pattern. The other sub-group includes evaluative adjectives such as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. The semantic focus here is on the subject of the leitmotif proposition, and it is that subject that is topical and raised: (46) a. Semantic leitmotif John left Mary b. Unraised verbal subject For John to leave Mary was wrong c. Post-posed verbal Subject/Comp It was wrong for John to leave Mary d. Raised subject of Comp John was wrong to leave Mary 16.3.7.4
Functional considerations 16.3.7.4.1
Semantic correlates: Raising and affectedness. In his monumental volume, Postal (1974) allots 13 pages (out of 447) to possible meaning correlates of raising. The only correlates he notes there have to do, if one may rephrase them a bit, with consequences of having vs. not having a direct object that is directly encountered or experienced by the main-clause subject; that is, with the patient-role property of affectedness. Thus, consider Postal’s example (1974: 357), reproduced as (47) below, where the raised variant (47b) could have been uttered only by someone who had encountered the object in person: (47) a. Un-raised It struck me that Julius Caesar was honest b. Raised Julius Caesar struck me as honest Semantic effects not altogether dissimilar have been noted in our discussion of complementation (Chapter 12), in contrasting the syntax of ‘wish’/‘want’ and ‘see’, as in:

275

276 Syntax

(48) a. Unraised (‘wish’) She wished that he had left b. Raised (‘want’) She wanted him to leave c. Unraised ‘see’ She saw that he left d. Raised ‘see’ She saw him leave It was noted earlier that (48b), with ‘want’ and a ‘raised’ object, is more likely to be used when the subject has direct manipulative contact with the object. In contrast, (48a), with ‘wish’ and an ‘unraised’ subject is more likely to be used when no such direct contact has taken place. Likewise, in (48d) with the raised object ‘see’ it is a verb of perception, while in (48c) with the unraised subject it is a verb of inference. 16.3.7.4.2
Pragmatic correlates: Raising and topicality. There are strong reasons for suspecting that raising a referent from a dependent clause to a grammatical argument role in the main clause has the topicalizing pragmatic effect noted for other promotion rules — dative shifting and passivization. The general principles that seem to govern all three constructions seem to be: referents are more topical than their unpromoted counterparts. •
Promoted
Referents promoted to subject are more topical than those promoted to object. • We will survey the argument in order. a. Definiteness and referentiality Much like Y-movement, L-dislocation and clefting, raising (at least with most verbs) seems to select definite or generic referents but reject REF-indefinites. Thus consider:3 (49) Raising to object a. Generic We consider visitors family b. Definite We consider this woman family c. REF-indefinite *We consider a woman family (50) Raising to subject a. Generic People are hard to please b. Definite This woman is hard to please c. REF-indefinite *A woman is hard to please

Marked topic constructions

(51) Raising to subject from ‘it’-complements a. Generic Romans strike me as honest b. Definite Julius Caesar struck me as honest c. REF-indefinite *A woman strikes me as honest b. Subjecthood, GRs and accessibility Under most circumstances, it is impossible to raise an NP to object unless it is the subject of the leitmotif (‘underlying’) clause: (52) Raising to object a. Unraised version I believe that John liked Mary b. Raised subject of active I believed John to have liked Mary c. *Raised object of active *I believed Mary to John have liked (her) d. Raised subject of passive I believed Mary to have been well liked (by John) Similarly, most verbs or adjectives that allow raising to subject require the raised NP to be the subject of the leitmotif (‘underlying’) clause: (53) Raising to subject (verb) a. Unraised version It seems that Mary dislikes John b. Raised subject of active Mary seems to dislike John c. *Raised object of active *John seems to Mary dislike (him) d. Raised subject of passive John seems to be disliked (by Mary) (54) Raising to subject (adjective) a. Unraised version It was wrong for John to leave Mary b. Raised subject of the active John was wrong to leave Mary c. *Raised object of active *Mary was wrong for John to leave (her)

277

278

Syntax

The subject-only restriction on raising has been taken to be part of its structural definition. This is not much of an explanation, only a statement of the facts. A more likely explanation is this: If raising is indeed a pragmatic operation of increasing topicality, then the more topical case-role in the clause — the subject — should have preferred access to it. We have, in fact, noted a similar case with passivization (Ch. 13), where less-topical indirect objects require promotion to DO before they it could become the subject-of-passive. An intriguing further support for the topicality argument comes from the two conspicuous instances where the subject-only constraint is violated. Consider first the raising of leitmotif objects with ‘hard’ and ‘easy’. The normal interpretation of the raised expressions is that of an impersonal subject of the leitmotif clause — i.e. a subject whose topicality is downgraded. But even when the leitmotif subject is overtly mentioned, there are reasons to believe that its topicality is low: The semantic focus of the adjectives ‘hard’ and ‘easy’ is on the inherent properties of the object, not on the performer-subject. Thus consider: (55) a. Unraised It’s easy (for John) to please Mary b. Raised Mary is easy (for John) to please A well-known exception to the subject-only restriction on raising was reported in ChiChewa (Bantu). Apparently, an object can be raised from the complement clause to become a main-clause object in ChiChewa — without first becoming the subject-ofpassive. The raised object can only be the direct object of the complement clause. And it must be first topicalized, in a way that may be interpreted as either L-dislocation or object pronominal agreement. Object agreement by itself is optional in ChiChewa, serving to mark the object as more topical or definite, and only direct objects can command pronominal agreement (Trithart 1976): (56) Simple clause a. Oblique object John a-na-lemba ndi peni John he-past-write with pen ‘John wrote with a pen’ b. Object promoted to DO John a-na-lemb-era peni John he-past-write-app pen ‘John used a pen to write’ c. Object pronominal agreement John a-na-yi-lemb-era peni John he-past-it-write-app pen ‘John used the pen to write’

Marked topic constructions

d. Object L-dislocation peni, John a-na-yi lemb-era pen John he-past it-write-app ‘The pen, John used it to write’ With the leitmotif clause as complement: (57) Unraised a. Oblique object ndi-ganiza kuti John a-na-lemba ndi peni I-think sub John he-past-write with pen ‘I think that John wrote with a pen’ b. Object promoted to DO ndi-ganiza kuti John a-na-lemb-era peni I-think sub John he-past-write-app pen ‘I think John used a pen to write’ c. Object pronominal agreement ndi-ganiza kuti John a-na-yi-lemb-era peni I-think sub John he-past-it-write-app pen ‘I think John used the pen to write’ d. Object L-dislocation (external) peni, ndi-ganiza kuti John a-na-yi-lemb-era pen I-think sub John he-past-it-write-app ‘The pen, I think John used it to write’ e. Object L-dislocation (internal) ndi-ganiza kuti peni, John a-na-yi-lemb-era I-think sub pen John he-past-it-write-app ‘I think that the pen, John used it to write’ And with raising to object: (58) Raised a. With pronominal agreement ndi-ganiza peni kuti John a-na-yi-lemb-era I-think pen sub John he-past-it-write-app ‘I believe about the pen that John wrote with it’ b. *Raised without pronominal agreement *ndi-ganiza peni kuti John a-na-lemb-era I-think pen sub John he-past-write-app c. *Raised without promotion to DO *ndi-ganiza peni kuti John a-na-lemba I-think pen sub John he-past-write

279

280 Syntax

One may wish to argue that (58a) is better interpreted as a L-dislocation variant, i.e. a variant of (57e). However, such an interpretation is precluded in at least one pattern, where the direct object pronoun also marks the main verb: (59) ndi-yi-ganiza peni kuti John a-na-yi-lemb-era I-it-think pen sub John he-past-it-write-app ‘I believe it about the pen that John used it to write’ c. The use of raising in text The best argument that raising is a topicalizing device comes from observing the distribution of raising constructions in text. Raising constructions are not common in spoken English, nor are they that frequent in fiction. Where one finds them in relative abundance is in the news sections of newspapers. Raising to subject appears to be the predominant type there. Typically, a raised NP is either: topical: It is mentioned in the headline as the main topic of the report; or •
Globally It is mentioned as an important topic in the clauses preceding the •
Locally topical: raised construction; or both. Consider for example:4 (60) MAN’S BEARD GETS HIM MISTAKEN FOR BEAR AND SHOT IN LEGS, CHEST “…Nixon said he didn’t know what the man was doing in the Libby area but that he may have been picking huckleberries. He is thought to be from Moyie Springs, Idaho, the Sheriff said…” Similarly:5 (61) ISRAEL PLANS BIG DEFICIT “…In addition, the Government suddenly reduced, from 250,000 to 200,000, the figure it is using for the number of soviet Jews that is expected to arrive here next year. The shift appears to be largely a budgetary maneuver…” Similarly:6 (62) CONOCO JET CARRYING 12 AMERICANS REPORTED MISSING OVER MALAYSIA “…Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Sept. 4 (AP) A Du Pont Company jet carrying 12 Americans was reported missing over Malaysia today, officials said…” Similarly:7 (63) WIDOW OF COUP CONSPIRATOR ALSO TAKES LIFE, SOVIETS SAY “…According to this account, Mrs. Pugo picked up her husband’s pistol but botched her suicide attempt. She was found alive, covered with blood and slumped near his body, the paper said…” Similarly:8

Marked topic constructions

(64) HARDLINERS’ LAST CHANCE MAY BE SOVIET CONGRESS “…They are keeping quiet now, but are very likely to get together against Gorbachov and against Democracy…” Similarly:9 (65) SOVIET LEADER SAYS HIS WIFE IS RECOVERING “…During the live CNN interview, the Russia word for “bout” was translated as “heart attack”. But Raisa Gorbachov does not appear to have suffered a heart attack…” Similarly:10 (66) A FLYING TIGER FLIES HIGH “…The post-war US military never officially recognized them as part of the war effort. Historians say that’s because the brass never stopped resenting Gen. Claire Chenault, the outspoken army renegade who led the Tigers in China…Meanwhile, controversial Chenault, a career Army officer and pilot, had resigned his Army Air Corps commission in 1937… Chenault, who would be proven correct in World War II, had his own ideas about fighting tactics…” Finally, in some cases the raising appears in the headline itself, as in:11 (67) EX SALOMON TRADER SAID TO SEEK LEGAL AID “The trader at the center of the Salomon Brothers scandal has approached the government about the possibility of negotiating a deal, Wall Street lawyers said yesterday…” Of the 28 instances found in 2 issues of the local paper and one issue of a national newspaper, only two involved rasing to object, both within 5 lines of each other in the same article:12 (68) BUSH STEPS UP CAMPAIGN AS BUCHANAN LAYS OUT AN AGENDA “…Public opinion surveys taken over the last few days show the president with a commanding lead over Mr. Buchanan… similar polls conducted by The Globe last month found Mr. Bush leading his rival by 58 percent to 28 percent…” Somewhat predictably, raising to subject involved, in all 26 instances studied, a suppressed unspecified agent. This is consistent with the overwhelming passive or stative nature of ‘raising’ predicates, as well as with the nature of the passive as an agent-suppressing device (Ch.13). In contrast, neither of the raising-to-object instances in (68) involved agentsuppression. The distribution of the various ‘raising’ predicates in the three newspapers studies is given in (80) below:13

281

282

Syntax

(69) ‘Raising’ predicates in newspaper English Raising predicate raising to subject stative predicates ‘seem’ ‘appear’ ‘be likely’ passive verbs: ‘be expected’ ‘be believed’ ‘be supposed’ ‘be proven’ ‘be enabled’ ‘be reported’ ‘be found’ ‘be thought’ ‘be known’ ‘be said’ sub-total: raising to object ‘show’ ‘find’

N

%


6
4
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 26


92.5


1
1

sub-total:


2



7.5

TOTAL:

28

100.0

The conclusions that one may draw from this discussion harken back to the major theme of our communicative approach to grammar: One syntactic structure is unlikely to be a ‘mere’ stylistic variant of another. However subtle, variant grammar entails a variant communicative effect, and thus presumably also a variant communicative goal. Subtle options of style are nothing but subtle options in the communicative use of grammar. 16.3.7.5
Typological dimensions of raising English may be the most promiscuous language when it comes to raising.14 Other languages, even when typologically rather close to English, allow little or no raising. Thus, for example, Modern Hebrew allows no raising to object: (70) a. Unraised ani rotse she-hi te-lex I want sub-she 3sg.fem/irr-go ‘I wish that she would go’

Marked topic constructions

b. *Raised *ani rotse ota la-lexet I want her to-go *‘I want her to leave’ c. Unraised anaxnu yodim she-hi harga oto we know/3masc.pl sub-she killed/3fem.sg him ‘We know that she killed him’ d. *Raised *anaxnu yodim ota she-harga oto we know/3masc.pl her sub-killed/3fem.sg him (*‘We know her to have killed him’) e. Unraised (passive Comp) anaxnu yodim she-hu neherag bi-ydey-hem we know sub-he killed/3masc.sg by-hands/of-their ‘We know that he was killed by them’ f. *Raised *anaxnu yodim oto she-neherag bi-ydey-hem we know him sub-killed/3masc.sg by-hands/of-their (*‘We know him to have been killed by her’) Nor does Hebrew allow raising from subject to subject: (71) a. Unraised ze yadua she-hi harga oto it known/3masc.sg sub-she killed/3fem.sg him ‘It is known that she killed him’ b. *Raised *hi yedua she-harga oto she known/3fem.sg sub-killed/3fem.sg him (*‘She is known to have killed him’) c. Unraised ze nexmad she-hu asa et-ze it sweet sub-he did/3masc.sg acc-this ‘It’s nice that he’s done this’ d. *Raised *hu nexmad la-asot et-ze he sweet inf-do acc-this (*‘He’s sweet to have done it’) Raising from object to subject with ‘hard’/‘easy’ is equally problematic in Hebrew:

283

284 Syntax

(72) a. Unraised nominal Obj kashe li-kro et-ha-sefer ha-ze: hard inf-read acc-def-book def-this ‘It’s quite hard to read this book’ b. *Raised to subject *ha-sefer ha-ze hu kashe li-kro def-book def-this it hard inf-read (*‘This book is hard to read’) There is, of course, a clean way of rendering the intended (‘raised’) meaning of (72b). The topical object of the leitmotif clause may be Y-moved, as in: (73) et-ha-sefer ha-ze kashe li-kro acc-the-book the-this hard/3masc.sg inf-read ‘This book is hard to read’ The adjective ‘hard’ in (73) does not agree with the topical object, but rather takes the neutral, invariant 3sg masculine gender. This may be seen a bit more clearly in (74) below, where the topical Y-moved object is feminine: (74) et-ha-maxberet ha-zot kashe li-kro acc-the-notebook/f the-this/f hard/3masc.sg inf-read ‘This notebook is hard to read’ The typological variables that control a language’s propensity for raising or not raising remain unclear. One possible factor may involve the availability of the appropriate nonfinite structures to code the clause out of which an argument has been raised (or ‘extracted’). In Hebrew, for example, structures such as in (75) below are simply nonexistent: (75) a. to have known Mary b. to have been eaten by Seymour Although simple infinitival structures do exist, as in (73), (74). At the root of this type of explanation lies the idea that analogy needs an established pattern to extend from, one that is sufficiently similar — both syntactically and semantically — to the pattern it would preempt. As noted above, raising cannot be considered a synchronic ‘transformation’, but rather a diachronic analogical extension. Another typological variable that may control a language’s propensity for raising is lexical structure. As one may recall, we defined raising broadly as a process of analogical extension, where the verb-sense that takes a propositional object adjusts its structure to resemble the structure of the verb-sense that takes a nominal object. Any process of analogical extension requires an analogical pathway. In this instance, this pathway involves the availability of a lexical verb that has both requisite senses. But in many languages those two senses are coded by two separate lexical verbs. The Hebrew example (71) above is a case in point: Where English has a single verb ‘know’ taking either nominal or clausal objects, Hebrew (as Spanish or French) has two:

Marked topic constructions

(76) a. Propositional knowledge hu yada she-hi halxa he knew/3masc.sg dub-she went/3fem.sg ‘He knew that she had gone’ b. Object acquaintance hu hikir ot-a he knew/3masc.sg acc-her ‘He knew her’ Hebrew, Spanish and French thus lack the analogical pathway for raising with ‘know’. Another explanation is also partly lexical. The verb ‘believe’ in Hebrew can take a nominal object — but not in the direct object case. Thus consider: (77) a. Indirect (Loc) hi maamina b-o she believes in-him ‘She believes in him’ b. Indirect (Dat) hi maamina l-o she believes to-him ‘She believes him’ c. Clausal Comp hi maamina she-hu yavo she believes that-he come/fut/3masc.sg ‘She believes that he’ll come’ d. *Direct/accusative *hi maamina ot-o she believes acc-him An analogical pathway for syntactically blending the two patterns (77b,c), as in English, does not exist in Hebrew. The extent to which these explanations can be generalized remains to be seen.

Notes 1. Other languages with a similar use of word-order flexibility are Iroquois (Mithun 1987), Nez Perce (Rude 1985), Klamath (Sundberg 1985), Ojibwa (Tomlin and Rhodes 1979), Hungarian (McWhinney, Pléh and Bates 1985) or Biblical Hebrew (Fox 1983), inter alia. 2. Tradition attributes the name ‘Y-movement’ to Paul Postal, who interpreted this device as characteristic of Yiddish speakers (hence Yiddish-movement), apparently not being aware of its wide currency elsewhere. 3. If a non-referring generic sense can be contemplated, the indefinites in (49c), (50c), (51c) are of course acceptable.

285



286 Syntax

4. The Register Guard, Eugene (OR), 9–10–91, Section A (news). 5. The New York Times, 9–5–91, Section A (news). 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 8. The Register Guard, Eugene (OR), 9–2–91, Section A (news). 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. The New York Times, 9–17–91, Section A (news). 12. Ibid. 13. Part of the promiscuity may be ascribed, I suspect, to English-speaking linguists. Thus, among the multitude of unstarred sentences that, I suspect, most non-initiates would shudder at, one finds the following cyclic progression in Postal (1974: 198; quoting from Lakoff 1967): b. Max expected Irving to believe the bagel to have been eaten by Seymour. c. Max expected the bagel to be believed by Irving to have been eaten by Seymour. d. The bagel was expected by Max to be believed by Irving to have been eaten by Seymour.



Chapter 17

Non-declarative speech-acts

17.1

Introduction Up to this point, we have dealt almost exclusively with declarative speech-acts. That is, with clauses where the speaker’s main communicative goal was informative. This extended focus on the declarative, reflecting a long tradition in linguistics and philosophy, is somewhat paradoxical, being both necessary and misleading. The necessity arises from two distributional facts: diversity: The widest variety of grammatical devices that code semantic and •
Type pragmatic function are found in declarative clauses. Non-declaratives, by comparison tend to display a smaller sub-set of morpho-syntax.
Text frequency: At least in some types of discourse, such as everyday informal conversation and narrative, declarative clauses predominate in terms of text frequency.

•

These distributional facts may or may not be causally linked.1 But taken together, they to some extent explain, though do not necessarily vindicate, the traditional preoccupation with declaratives. The near-exclusive preoccupation with declarative speech-acts has also been the Achilles heel of epistemology and philosophy of language, a tradition that dates back to the dawn of post-Socratic philosophy. Pre-Socratics, such as the Sophists, were both familiar with and interested in non-declarative speech-acts. In this connection, Haberland (1985) observes: “…Protagoras distinguishes four parts of discourse…, namely “wish, question, answer and command”…Protagoras seems to have been interested in speech acts, not sentences in modern parlance. But… it is statements Plato is interested in…” (1985: 381; italics added)

Plato’s role in narrowing the focus of philosophical interest to the exclusive study of declarative propositions is well documented. Haberland (1985) identifies Plato’s motivation as follows: “…For Plato…true knowledge — which, as he argues in this connection, does not coincide with perception — cannot aim at context-dependent truths; the truth of a sentence should not depend on who says it, in which situation, and to whom, and it should not, more specifically, depend on what the sentence is an answer to… But

288 Syntax

this interest of Plato’s in statements…is again only understandable from a series of premises that are no longer self-evident. The first of these is that truth is the main concern of the philosopher. The second is that analysis of language is ancillary to philosophical pursuits. As a corollary from these two premises, we get that linguistic analysis is mainly concerned with truth as well. The third premise is that truth is timeless and independent of context…” (1985: 381–382; italics added).

The structure of this chapter will diverge to some extent from our usual format. Rather than discuss the entire functional domain of speech-acts at the very start, we will divide the domain into smaller chunks and then proceed to outline, for each of those, first its functional and then its syntactic-typological dimensions. As the discussion progresses, however, it will become clear that the traditional dichotomy between declarative and nondeclarative speech-acts, or between various non-declarative speech acts, is far from absolute. Rather, one deals here once again with prototypes around which variants cluster. The traditionally recognized speech-acts are but the categorial peaks along the underlying multi-dimensional continuum. The interaction between the continuum space of speech-acts and its categorial peaks is far from haphazard. Three or four major prototypes turn out to be most distinctly and most consistently grammaticalized in most human languages. These persistent prototypes are:

•
declarative •
interrogative •
yes/no-question
wh-question • •
imperative The remarkable cross-language persistence of these major speech-act prototypes may some day receive systematic explanation. At relevant points throughout, we will note the more subtle speech-act variants (minor types) that are either sub-types of the major prototypes, or straddle the continuum space between them.2 Toward the end of the chapter, we will return to a number of themes that seem to tie together the entire speech-act domain. One theme that runs through the theory of speech-acts is their strong interaction with propositional modalities. As noted earlier (Vol. I, Ch. 6), the various modalities are best understood in terms of the communicative contract that defines the mutual expectations that bind the speaker and hearer engaging in meaningful communication. These normative expectations may be couched in terms of the speaker’s perspective regarding:3 speaker’s own current belief and intention states; •
the
the • speaker’s mental representation of the hearer’s current belief and intention states. Different clusters of such beliefs — or mental models — characterize different speech-act prototypes or sub-types. Since both belief and intentionality are involved in all speech-acts, both the epistemic and deontic aspects of modality underlie all speech-acts.

Non-declarative speech-acts

17.2

Communicative focus, presupposition and speech-act prototypes: The truth-value test The logician’s distinction between declarative and non-declarative speech-acts revolves around the notion of truth: Declarative speech-acts can have a truth value; questions and commands cannot. In this section we will briefly cover some traditional grounds that were re-introduced into the linguistic discussion by the Ordinary Language Philosophers beginning with Austin (1962). We will consider first the balance between the focal and presupposed portions of the utterance associated with the major speech-act prototypes. In the case of the declarative, the focal portion is, of course, being asserted. In comparing the most common speech-act prototypes in (1) below, one first observes that only the declarative (1a) can be meaningfully challenged by the negative (1e), thus attacking the truth value of the asserted portion of the corresponding affirmative. In contrast, neither the interrogatives (1b,c) nor the imperative (1d) can be challenged this way, presumably because they have no truth value. (1) a. Declarative Joe ate the salami. b. Yes/no-question Did Joe eat the salami? c. Wh-question Who ate the salami? d. Imperative Eat the salami! e. Negative No, you’re wrong. It is more meaningful — felicitous, appropriate — to challenge a non-declarative speechact in terms of its implicit presuppositions. Thus, in (2) below, various presuppositions associated with the yes/no-question (2a) are challenged: (2) a. b. c. d. e.

Did John eat the salami? Who says anybody did? How should I know? You were watching him yourself, so why ask? Why should I tell you? What’s in it for me?

In (2b), the tacit presupposition ‘Someone may have eaten the salami’ is challenged. In (2c), the tacit presupposition that the hearer knows the answer. In (2d), the tacit presupposition of the speaker’s ignorance. In (2e), the tacit presupposition of the hearer’s obligation to respond. In the same vein, the various presuppositions associated with the imperative speechacts (3a) can be challenged:

289

290 Syntax

(3) a. b. c. d. e.

Eat the salami! I see no salami here. I’ve already eaten it. Who are you to tell me? But I am bound and gagged!

In (3b), the tacit presupposition ‘there is some salami there’ is being challenged, thus by inference also the presuppositions that the hearer is free to act. In (3c), the presupposition that the act has not yet been performed is challenged, again with the inference that the hearer is free to act. In (3d), the speaker’s status and authority to command the hearer is being challenged, and in (3e) the speaker’s power to act. Indeed, the presuppositions associated with the declarative speech act can be challenged in the very same vein. Thus: (4) a. b. c. d. e.

Joe ate the salami. Who the hell is Joe? What salami? How would you know when you weren’t there? Why should I care?

In (4b,c) the presupposition that the subject and object of (4a) are accessible to the hearer is challenged. In (4d), the tacit presupposition that the speaker had access to the information. In (4e), the tacit presupposition that the hearer wants to know. The presuppositions associated with all speech-acts underscore the fact that the epistemics of truth, belief or doubt in asserted or presupposed information is but a small portion of the functional domain underlying speech-acts. The social-interactional deontics of status and intent, ability, power, need or obligation are also involved. Nonetheless, since the truth of the focal information is a moot issue in non-declarative speech-acts, the deontic aspects of the communicative contract have tended to stand out here a bit more conspicuously.

17.3

Epistemics and deontic features of declarative speech-acts In our earlier discussion of propositional modalities and the communicative contract (Vol. I, Ch. 6), we emphasized the epistemic aspects of the modalities that underlie the declarative speech-acts. We characterized there three main epistemic modes of presupposition, realis-assertion and irrealis-assertion in terms of two binary distinctions: information is either taken for granted (presupposed) or is not (asserted). •
The
If the latter, then the information is either asserted strongly (realis) or weakly • (irrealis). But even in the most prototypical declarative speech-act, some deontic features remain part of the communicative contract. Of the many clauses in the contract (Grice 1968/1975), at the very least the following general conventions are involved:

Non-declarative speech-acts

(5) Conventions governing declarative speech-acts Epistemic a. The speaker assumes that the various presuppositions associated with the utterance are sufficiently acceptable to the hearer and will prompt no challenge. b. The speaker has relatively high certainty in the asserted portion of the information.4 c. The speaker assumes the hearer’s ignorance of the asserted portion of the utterance. Deontic d. The speaker’s communicative intent is to supply information to the hearer. e. The speaker assumes that the hearer will welcome, or at least won’t object to, being informed. All the features in (5) are, at least in principle, scalar. As we shall see further below (§17.5), this scalarity is characteristic of the functional space that underlie all speech-acts.

17.4

Interrogative speech-acts

17.4.1 Epistemic and deontic features The mix of epistemic and deontic conventions that characterize the portion of the communicative contract that is relevant to interrogative speech-acts must include at least the following: (6) Conventions governing interrogative speech-acts Epistemic a. The speaker assumes that the various presuppositions associated with the utterance are sufficiently acceptable to the hearer and will prompt no challenge. b. The speaker has relatively low certainty in, or may be altogether ignorant of, the queried portion of the utterance. c. The speaker assumes that the hearer knows the queried information. Deontic d. The speaker’s communicative intent is to request and receive information from the hearer. e. The speaker assumes that the hearer is willing to part with the information. Conventions (6) presumably underlie all interrogative speech-acts. In the space below we will deal separately with the two major interrogative prototypes.

291

292 Syntax

17.4.2 Yes/no-questions 17.4.2.1
Functional dimensions 17.4.2.1.1
Truth and epistemic bias. The traditional logician’s rendition of a yes/no-question as speech-act runs roughly as follows: (7) Given proposition P, tell me whether it is true or false. Sadock and Zwicky (1985) give a somewhat more flexible rendition: “…the yes/no (nexus) question, one that seeks comments on the degree of truth of the questioned proposition…” (1985: 179)

Within this tradition, both questions (8a,b) below presuppose, presumably without bias, that either the affirmative declarative (8c) or its corresponding negative (8d) is true. The overtly expressed interrogative speech-act then bids the hearer to select which one: (8) a. b. c. d.

Did John eat the salami? Didn’t John eat the salami? John ate the salami. John did not eat the salami.

As Bolinger (1978b) points out, however, yes/no-questions are not merely open alternative questions. Rather, affirmative yes/no-questions such as (8a) involve a systematic bias toward the negative response (8d); while negative yes/no-questions, such as (8b), involve a systematic bias toward the affirmative response (8c). Indeed, the presupposition implicit in yes/no-questions, the speaker’s epistemic bias toward either the affirmative or negative declarative response, is probably even more finely graded: strongest bias toward the negative

(9) a. b. c. d.

John didn’t eat the salami, did he? Did John eat the salami? Didn’t John eat the salami? John did eat the salami, didn’t he? strongest bias toward the affirmative

In other words, the tag questions (9a,d) are even more strongly biased than the simple yes/no-questions (9b,c). 17.4.2.1.2
Alternative questions. A variant of yes/no-questions that is much closer to the logician’s traditional definition (7) is the alternative question form, where both the affirmative and negative, or even a longer list of alternatives, are overtly expressed: (10) a. Is it raining, or is it not? b. Is it raining, or is it snowing? c. Is it raining, or did someone leave the sprinklers on?

Non-declarative speech-acts

d. Is it raining, snowing, or hailing? e. Did Bill do it, or did Harry, or Joe? f. Would you like to have coffee, tea or milk? Overtly expressed alternatives may not necessarily be exclusive of each other, but may rather be hierarchically organized as a progressive search procedure. With the conjunction ‘or (just)’, the search seems to progress from the specific to the generic, as in: (11) a. Have you ever been to Europe, or just to the East Coast? b. *Have you ever been to the East Coast, or just to Europe? c. Do you ever go out for italian food, or go out for another type of ethnic stuff, or just go out at all? d. *Do you ever go out at all, or go for ethnic food, or just for Italian food? e. Have you ever been a boy scout, or a member of a youth group, or any social organization? f. *Have you ever been a member of any social organization, or just a youth group, or just the boy scouts? Other conjunctions, such as ‘or (maybe) like’, seem to direct the search from the generic to the specific, as in: (12) a. Have you ever been a member of any social organization, like maybe a youth group, or like the Boy Scouts? b. *Have you ever been a member of the Boy Scouts, like maybe a youth group, or maybe like a social organization? 17.4.2.1.3
Focused yes/no-questions. Focused yes/no-questions have been noted earlier (Ch. 15). The type of yes/no-questions considered so far in this chapter are the most neutral regarding the exact source of the speaker’s ignorance. Such questions are used, presumably, when all the specific elements of the putative state/event — verb, subject, object(s) — are well known, but the event/stat’s epistemic status remains in doubt. Such neutral questions, as in (13a) below, presumably stand for their more expanded version, as in (13b): (13) a. Did Joe kill the goat? b. Did the event Joe killed the goat take place? Frequently, however, yes/no-questions are used when the epistemic doubt concerning the state/event is more specific. That is, when a state/event is assumed to have occurred, but a particular component element of it — subject, object, verb, adverb — is not fully known to the speaker. This element is thus the crux of a focused yes/no-question. As illustrations, consider questions (14) below, where contrastive stress is used to mark the focus elements: (14) a. Did Joe kill the goat? (> or did someone else do it?) b. Did Joe kill the goat? (> or did he only kick it?)

293

294 Syntax

c. Did Joe kill the goat? (> or did he kill some other animal?) As noted earlier (Ch. 15), the focus element in a yes/no-question can also be coded by word-order or morphology. As noted in Chapter 15, when an optional constituent is present in a declarative clause, the focus of assertion tends to be attracted to it. Such focus attraction also occurs in yes/noquestions. Thus, for example, the yes/no-questions in (15) below are obligatorily focused questions: (15) a. Did Joe kill the goat deliberately? (> or accidentally?) (*> or did he not kill it?) b. Did Joe kill the goat on Sunday? (> or some Monday?) (*> or did he not kill it?) c. Did Joe kill the goat in anger? (> or in cold blood?) (*> or did ne not kill it?) d. Did Joe kill the goat in the barn? (> or on the lawn?) (*> or did he not kill it?) e. Did Joe kill the goat for Mary? (> or for Sue?) (*> or did he not kill it?) The attraction of yes/no-question focus to optional constituents is obvious from the fact that stressing another constituent in the presence of an optional constituent is normally odd. Stressing the optional constituent itself, on the other hand, is natural: (16) a. Did Joe kill the goat on PURPOSE? (> or did he do it accidentally)? b. *Did JOE kill the goat on purpose? (*> or did someone else do it on purpose?) c. *Did Joe KILL the goat on purpose? (*> or did he kick it on purpose?) d. *Did Joe kill the GOAT on purpose? (*> or did he kill another animal on purpose?) 17.4.2.2
Syntactic and typological dimensions 17.4.2.2.1
The use of intonation, morphology and word-order in the coding of yes/no-questions. To code a yes/no-question distinctly vis-a-vis the declarative norm, a language may resort to all three overt syntactic coding devices — intonation, morphology and wordorder. Of the three, intonation is probably the most universal. Morphology and word-

Non-declarative speech-acts

order, either separately or together, are added to intonation in some, but by no means all, languages.5 To illustrate the use of intonation alone, consider yes/no-questions in Israeli Hebrew: (17) a. Declarative: ²²²²²²-----------------------²²²²²² hu gamar li-vnot et-ha-bayit he finished to-built acc-def-house ‘He finished building the house’ b. Yes/no-question: ²²²²²²--------------------------¯¯¯¯ hu gamar li-vnot et-ha-bayit? he finished to-build acc-def-house ‘Did he finish building the house?’ As an example of adding morphology to intonation (here left unmarked), consider Swahili: (18) a. Declarative Juma a-li-kwenda mji-ni Juma he-past-go town-loc ‘Juma went to town’ b. Yes/no-question Je, Juma a-li-kwenda mji-ni? q Juma he-past-go town-loc ‘Did Juma go to town?’ As an example of combining intonation with word-order, consider German, where the VS word order is characteristic of yes/no-questions, as against the more likely SV order of declaratives. Thus (Sadock and Zwicky 1985: 166; with intonation again left unmarked): (19) a. Declarative (SV order) ich sehe zwei Papageien I see two parrots ‘I see two parrots’ b. Yes/no-questions (VS order) sehe ich zwei Papageien? see I two parrots ‘Do I see two parrots?’ Finally, some languages combine all three devices in constructing yes/no-questions. This is the case in present-day English, where the VS word-order (as in German, above), remains applicable to only auxiliaries and the copular ‘be’. The old emphatic perfective auxiliary ‘do’, erstwhile rather frequent in declaratives, has become the grammaticalized morphology of yes/no-questions when no other auxiliaries are present:6

295

296 Syntax

(20) a. Declarative with Aux John is eating dinner b. Yes/no-question Is John eating dinner? c. Declarative without Aux John ate dinner d. Yes/no-question Did John eat dinner? 17.4.2.2.2
Shared interrogative morphology. Occasionally, the morpheme used to mark yes/no-questions is also used to mark wh-questions. This can be seen in Swahili, where the question morpheme je is very frequent in yes/no-questions (see (18) above), but much less frequent in wh-questions: (21) a. Declarative Juma a-li-kwenda mji-ni Juma he-past-go town-loc ‘Juma went to town?’ b. Wh-question (je,) nani a-li-kwenda mji-ni? (q) who he-past-go town-loc ‘Who went to town?’ The less frequent use of the generalized question morpheme in wh-questions is of course understandable: wh-questions are already well-marked by their interrogative pronoun(s). Only in a few languages, all with bound question morphemes, is the general question morpheme obligatory in wh-questions. As illustration of this, consider Greenlandic Eskimo (Sadock and Zwicky 1985: 184): (22) a. Declarative piniar-p-oq hunt-asp-indic ‘He is hunting’ b. Yes/no-question piniar-p-a? hunt-asp-q ‘Is he hunting?’ c. Wh-question kina piniar-p-a? wh hunt-asp-q ‘Who is hunting?’

Non-declarative speech-acts

17.4.2.3
The syntax of focused yes/no-questions As noted earlier above, English uses only intonation to mark the focus constituent of focused yes/no-questions. Other languages add morphology, word-order or both, while retaining the use of intonation. To illustrate the combination of intonation plus morphology, consider Turkish (Erguvanli 1976): (23) a. Declarative Mehmet Ankara-ya git-ti Mehmet Ankara-to go-past ‘Mehmet went to Ankara?’ b. Yes/no-q, neutral (or verb focus) Mehmet Ankara-ya gít-ti-mi? Mehmet Ankara-to go-past-q ‘Did Mehmet go to Ankara?’ c. Yes/no-q, subject focus Mehmét-mi Ankara-ya git-ti? Mehmet-q Ankara-to go-past ‘Did Mehmet go to Ankara?’ d. Yes/no-q, object focus Mehmet ánkara-ya-mi git-ti? Mehmet Ankara-to-q go-past ‘Did Mehmet go to Ankara?’ The combination of intonation plus word-order to mark focused yes/no-questions can be seen in Spanish, where post-posing the focused constituent in yes/no-questions is possible though perhaps optional: (24) a. Declarative María (le) Mató a Juan Mary (him) killed/3sg obj John ‘Mary killed John’ b. Yes/no-q, verb focus (or neutral) A Juan, le mató? obj John him killed/3sg ‘As for John, did she kill him?’ c. Yes/no-q, subject focus A Juan, le mató María? obj John him killed/3sg Mary ‘As for John, did Mary kill him?’ d. Yes/no-q, object focus le mató a Juan? him killed/3sg obj John ‘Did she kill John?’

297

298 Syntax

Finally, the combination of all three coding devices to mark focused yes/no-questions is found in Ute, where the focused element is then pre-posed and the yes/no-question morpheme is suffixed to it. Thus consider (Givón 1980a, 1984b): (25) a. Declarative ’áapach sivaatuch-i pakh-kwa-pu =ga boy/subj goat-obj kill-asp-rem ‘The boy killed the goat’ b. Yes/no-q, verb focus pakha-kwa-pu =ga-aa (sivaatuch-i)? kill-asp-rem-q (goat-obj) ‘Did s/he kill it (the goat)?’ c. Yes/no-q, subject focus ’áapach-aa siváatuch-i pakha-kwa-pu =ga? boy/subj-q goat-obj kill-asp-rem ‘Did the boy kill the goat?’ d. Yes/no-q, object focus siváatuch-i-aa pakha-kwa-pu =ga? goat-obj-q kill-asp-rem ‘Did s/he kill the goat?’ 17.4.2.3.1
Clefted Yes/no-questions. In addition to the focused patterns described above, most languages can also use the stronger focusing device of cleft structure (Ch. 15) to mark focused yes/no-questions. As in: (26) a. Declarative Joe killed the goat b. Yes/no-q, subject cleft Was it Joe who killed the goat? c. Yes/no-q, object cleft Was it the goat that Joe killed? d. Yes/no-q, verb cleft ?Was it killing that Joe did to the goat? In more formal terms, cleft structures such as (26b–d) may be viewed as those where the yes/no-question focuses on the predicate noun of the corresponding affirmative cleft clause, respectively: (27) a. Subject cleft It was Joe who killed the goat b. Object cleft It was the goat that Joe killed c. Verb cleft ?It was killing that Joe did to the goat

Non-declarative speech-acts

In French, this use of cleft structure has been de-marked and grammaticalized, so that nonfocused yes/no-questions can be expressed either with word-order inversion, or with the frozen particle traceable to the erstwhile cleft structures. Thus compare: (28) a. Declarative Vous êtes fou you are mad ‘You are mad’ b. Yes/no-q, VS order êtes-vous fou? are you mad ‘Are you mad?’ c. Yes/no-q, cleft morphology est-ce-que vous êtes fou? is-it-that you are mad ‘Are you mad?’ 17.4.2.3.2
The syntax of alternative choice questions. As noted earlier above, the conjunction ‘or’ is used in English to mark alternative choice in yes/no-questions. When a binary choice is involved, i.e. a selection between an affirmative and its corresponding negative, the negation marker joins or, as in: (29) Is he coming or not? In Mandarin Chinese, such questions are coded by the negative morpheme alone, as in (Li and Thompson 1984: 52–53): (30) a. Declarative affirmative ta zài jia 3sg be/at home ‘S/he is at home’ b. Declarative negative ta bu zài jia 3sg neg be/at home ‘S/he is not at home’ c. Yes/no-q, long form ta zài jia bu zài jia? 3sg be/at home neg be/at home ‘Is s/he home or (is s/he) not at home?’ d. Yes/no-q, short form ta zài jia bu zài? 3sg be/at home neg be/at ‘Is s/he at home or (is s/he) not?’

299

300 Syntax

The alternative-choice pattern contrasts in Mandarin with the biased yes/no-question, which is marked by a clause-final question morpheme (Li and Thompson 1984: 54): (31) a. Declarative zhang-san cháng kàn diànying Z.-S. often see movie ‘Z.-S. sees a movie often’ b. Interrogative zhang-san cháng kàn diànying ma? Z.-S. often see movie q ‘Does Z.-S. see a movie often?’ Another way of marking alternative-choice questions may be seen in Japanese, where the question morpheme is repeated after both alternatives, as in (Hinds 1984: 160): (32) a. Declarative sono hon-wa omoshiroi desu that book-top interesting be ‘That book is interesting’ b. Alternative yes/no-q sono hon-wa omoshiroi desu-ka omoshiroku-nai desu-ka? that book-top interesting be-q interesting-neg be-q ‘Is that book interesting or not?’ 17.4.3 Wh-questions 17.4.3.1
Functional dimensions 17.4.3.1.1
Focus and presupposition. As already noted earlier (Ch. 15), wh-questions (also called ‘constituent questions’) are used typically when the speaker presupposes that the hearer shares with them the knowledge of a state/event, but the speaker still misses one element of that state/event. That missing element may is then the focus of the wh-question, the rest is its presupposed portion. The focus element of the wh-question can be the subject, object, verb, predicate, adverb, indirect object, time, place, manner, reason etc. In principle, any case-role — nominal, oblique or adverbial — specified by the grammar may be placed under wh-focus. In many but not by any means all languages, the verb may also be placed under wh-focus. Thus consider: (33) a. Declarative Yesterday John sneakily gave a kiss to Mary in the barn b. Subject wh-question Who gave mary a kiss? c. Object wh-question What did John give to Mary?

Non-declarative speech-acts

d. Indirect-object wh-question To whom did John give a kiss? e. Manner wh-question How did John give Mary a kiss? f.

Time wh-question When did John give Mary a kiss?

g. Place wh-question Where did John give Mary a kiss? h. Verb wh-questions What did John do to Mary? i.

Reason wh-question Why did John give Mary a kiss?

j.

Possessor Whose barn was it?

Most languages tend to display a set of interrogative pronouns (‘wh-question words’) to be used in this pattern. But in some languages the set is rather limited, and the information about case-role of the wh-focused element may be marked elsewhere in the clause. 17.4.3.1.2
Semantic distinctions in interrogative pronouns. The set of interrogative pronouns found in any particular language tends to display, through explicitly marked morphology, a subset of the four most universal nominal inflectional categories. In descending order of probability these are:

•
case-roles •
gender/class •
number •
reference and/or definiteness In English (33), for example, case-role is the most widespread morphological distinction in wh-questions. Animacy, on the other hand, is marked only sparse, in the distinction between ‘who’/‘whom’ (human) vs. ‘what’ (non-human). But semantic classification can be added to either definite or non-referring interrogative pronouns in English (see (34), (35) below). Similarly, number is unmarked in the wh-pronouns of English, but can be added when the pronouns are used for definite or non-referring questions (see again (34),(35)). English marks reference and definiteness distinctions in a fairly systematic way, by augmenting the interrogative pronouns with appropriate quantifiers or nouns. To illustrate this, consider the restrictions on possible answers to the wh-questions (34a–c):

301

302 Syntax

(34) a. Unrestricted wh-pronoun Who murdered Smith? (i) Definite Joe. (ii) REF-indefinite Some woman I used to know. (iii) Non-Ref A pervert. b. Definite wh-pronoun Which one did it? (i) Definite Joe. (ii) *REF-indefinite *Some woman I know. (iii) *Non-ref *A pervert. c. Non-referring (‘type’) wh-question What kind of a person did it? (i) *Definite *Joe. (ii) *REF-indefinite *Some woman I know. (iii) Non-ref A pervert. In both the definite (34b) and non-referring (34c) questions above, number and class/type/ gender distinctions may be added. Thus compare: (35) a. b. c. d.

Which man did it? Which houses did you see? What kind of a town is this? What kind of people are they?

(Def, Sg, human) (Def, Pl, inan.) (Non-ref, Sg, inan.) (Non-ref, Pl, human)

In other languages, gender, number and reference or definiteness may be built into the pronominal system itself. To illustrate this, consider the interrogative pronouns of Ute (Givón 1980a, 1984b): (36) Interrogative pronouns in Ute Subject

Object

Gender/#

Ref

Non-ref

Ref

Non-ref

an-sg an-pl inan

’áa ’áa-m(u =) ’agha-r(u =)

’ín(i) ’iní-u ’íp(u =)

’áa-y ’áa-mu = ’agha-ru =

’ini ’ini-u ’ipu =

Non-declarative speech-acts

In both English and Ute, the marking of indirect-object case-roles usually requires supplementing the wh-pronoun system with the normal case-markers. The pronouns used for this purpose come, almost universally, from the object set. In English, prepositions are added to the indirect-object wh pattern, either adjacent to the pronouns or post-verbally. These two alternative patterns echo the situation of English relativization (Ch. 14): (37) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

To whom did you give the book? Who did you give the book to? With what did he do it? What did you do it with? With whom did she work? Who did she work with? In which box did you put it? Which box did you put it in?

Some oblique/adverbial wh-pronouns have their own unique forms, such as the English ‘where’, ‘when’, ‘why’ or ‘how’. But alternative combinatorial patterns as in (37) can sometime be found, as in: (38) a. b. c. d.

Where did you send here? What place did you send her to? Why did you do it? What did you do it for?

In a language where the wh-pronouns themselves are marked for gender/class, number, or reference distinctions, those are carried over to the indirect-object wh-question paradigm. Thus, compare the Ute wh-pronouns in (36) with the various indirect-object roles coded by post-positions (Givón 1980a, 1984b): (39) a. Associative (Ref, An-Sg) ’áa-wa wú == u ka-kha? wh-accomp work-ant ‘Who did s/he work with?’ b. Instrumental (Non-ref, Inan) ’ipu =-m tu =kuav-i cikavi’na-kha? wh-instr mean-obj cut-ant ‘What did s/he cut the meat with?’ c. Locative (Non-ref, Inan) ’ipu =-naagh karu =-y? wh-inside sit-imm ‘Inside what is s/he sitting?’ d. Comparative (Ref, An-Pl) ’áa-mu =-pani paghay’wa-r? wh-pl-compar walk-hab ‘Who-all does s/he walk like?’

303

304 Syntax

In some languages, the range of semantic features that are coded on the wh-pronoun is rather restricted. Information about features that are not coded explicitly in the wh-pronouns, particularly case-role, must be thus either marked elsewhere in clause or inferred from clause-level semantic considerations. As an illustration of one extreme case, consider Asheninka (So. Arawak; see Ch. 15,16). The subject and object NPs in Asheninka are morphologically unmarked. Topical nominals are obligatorily coded on the verb by gender-marked pronouns. The question suffix in Asheninka is shared by yes/no- and wh-questions. In forming a wh-question, an invariant wh-word is added at the clause-initial position. When case-role is not verb-coded, it is inferred from various clause-level semantic considerations (David Payne, i.p.c.): (40) a. Subject tsika i-tim-i-ka iri-]ta? wh 3masc-be-real-q he-there ‘Who is he (that one)?’ b. Direct object tsika pi-pai-t-a-ka eero-ka? wh 2-name-&-real/refl-q you-here ‘What do you name yourself?’ c. Intransitive locative object tsika o-saik-i-ka? wh 3fem-sit-real-q ‘Where is she?’ d. Bi-transitive locative object tsika p-a-ak-e-ro-ka? wh 2-get-perf-real-3fem-q ‘Where did you get it (fem)?’ e. Manner tsika i-ka]t-ai-t-i-ro-ka ’choclo’? wh 3masc-say-pass-&-real-3fem-q corn ‘How do you say “corn”?’ f.

Quantity tsika i-kara-t-i-ka iri-ka? wh 3masc-be/pl-&-real-q 3masc-here ‘How much is it?/How many are there?’

The pronominal affixes on the verb play an important role in making the subject vs. object distinction in wh-questions, as may be seen in the following contrast (David Payne, i.p.c.): (41) a. Subject wh-question tsika i-tim-i-ka a-ak-e-ro-ri? wh 3masc/subj-be-real-q take-perf-real-3fem/obj-rel ‘Who took it?’ (lit.: ‘Who is it that took it?’

Non-declarative speech-acts

b. Object wh-question tsika o-pai-t-a-ka h-a-ak-e-ri? wh 3fem/subj-name-y-real/refl-q 3masc-take-perf-real-rel ‘What did he take?’ (lit.: ‘What does it call itself that he took?’) In the subject wh-question (41a), the main information-bearing verb (‘take’) carries no prefixal subject pronoun, since the subject is not part of the presupposed clause, but is rather under wh-focus.7 The suffixal object pronoun is present being part of the presupposition. In the object wh-question (41b) the situation is reversed. Only the subject pronoun is present, but not the object pronoun. Some oblique case-roles in Asheninka are verb-coded, and thus automatically furnish the relevant case-role information in wh-questions, as in (David Payne, i.p.c.): (42) tsika p-ira-a] ]t-i-ka? wh 2-cry-purp-real-q ‘Why are you crying?’ 17.4.3.1.3
Quantified wh-questions. Wh-questions can also be applied to quantifiers, to extent adverbs and modifying predicate adjectives, as well as to extent manner adverbs that modify verbs. In terms of constituency, such questions focus narrowly on sub-parts of NPs or adverbs, a fact that can be illustrated by comparing quantified wh-questions with their corresponding declaratives: (43) a. Quantifier (count) (i) She saw three mules. (ii) How many mules did she see? b. Quantifier (mass) (i) He drank lots of water. (ii) How much water did he drink? c. Predicate adjective (i) It is very big. (ii) How big is it? (iii) How big a house is it? d. Manner adverbs (i) She worked very hard. (ii) How hard did she work? 17.4.3.1.4
Multiple wh-questions. The most common strategy in wh-questions is to presuppose the entire clause except for one element and then question that focused element. However, at least in some languages, it is possible to formulate multiple-wh questions, as in: (44) a. Who gave what to whom? b. Who said what, did you say?

305

306 Syntax

Wachowicz (1975) points out that this pattern is used when the speaker has failed to hear the information in the preceding turn, particularly when that preceding turn had identified a group of two or more parallel events. While this is a possible pattern, it is clearly atypical. This is so because the narrow, single focus of wh-questions merely recapitulates the general trend in language processing of accruing one chunk of new information per clause (Givón 1975c, 1995b; DuBois 1987; Chafe 1994). 17.4.3.2
Syntactic and typological dimensions 17.4.3.2.1
Preamble. One syntactic common denominator of all wh-questions is that the queried element is represented (‘replaced’) by an interrogative pronoun. In addition, a marked word-order may be also involved, often several possible orders. Another common variation involves the use of cleft structure (see Ch. 15), with the attendant REL-clause morphology. In many languages, this strategy was used historically, and has left its footprint on the synchronic morpho-syntax of wh-questions. 17.4.3.2.2
The position of the wh-pronoun. The position of wh-pronouns mirrors, in most languages, the position of contrastively-focused elements (see Chapter 15). As in the case of the focused element, the most common position for the wh-pronoun is clause-initial (‘fronted’). The English and Ute examples in (38) and (39) above illustrate such fronting. The seeming naturalness of wh-fronting is underscored by the fact that in strict V-first languages, such as Malagasy, Jacaltec, Bikol or Luo, one of the few constituent types that can be fronted is the wh-pronoun (the others are cleft and Indef-subject; see Givón 1988a). Another fairly typical pattern, found mostly in rigid SOV languages, is to place the wh-pronoun pre-verbally. This is the most common pattern in Georgian (Caucasian), though the clause-initial position is also possible in some discourse contexts. Thus consider (Harris 1984): (45) a. Declarative rezom dedas vardebi achuka Rezo mother/dat roses (he)gave(her/them) ‘Rezo gave roses to Mother’ b. Subject wh-question dedas vardebi vin achuka? mother/dat roses who gave? ‘Who gave roses to Mother?’ c. Dative wh-question rezom vardebi vis achuka? Rezo roses who/dat gave ‘To whom did Rezo give roses?’ d. Object wh-question rezom dedas ra achuka? Rezo mother/dat what gave ‘What did Rezo give Mother?’

Non-declarative speech-acts

As in the case of the pre-verbal placement of focused constituents, it may very well be that the Georgian wh-question pattern developed from an earlier paratactic construction, where the non-focused (‘presupposed’) participants were topicalized (see Ch. 15). As already noted, much of the wh-question clause is presupposed, so that its nominal arguments are highly anaphoric. Such arguments may be expressed as pronominal affixes on the verb, a configuration that would again leave neutralized the difference between the fronted and pre-verbal wh-pronoun positions. This may be illustrated in English: (46) a. Topicalized paratactic wh-question As for Rezo, and the roses, WHO did he give them to? b. Anaphoric pronoun wh-question WHO gave them to her? 17.4.3.2.3
Word-order in wh-questions. As noted earlier, English requires VS word-order, a species of subject post-posing or Subject-Aux inversion, when a non-subject wh-pronoun is fronted. In the absence of auxiliaries, this inversion applies to the auxiliary ‘do’: (47) a. b. c. d.

Where is John? What did you see? How will she do it? Whom has John seen?

It is likely that the VS order in English wh-questions is the consequence of the fronting of a non-subject wh-pronoun. We have noted this pattern earlier (Ch. 16) in languages with flexible subject position (Biblical Hebrew, Givón 1977), as well as in some rigid SVO languages (Dzamba; Bokamba 1971, 1976; German; Vennemann 1973)). The VS (‘inverted’) order in English wh-questions may thus be a frozen relic of an erstwhile period of pragmatically controlled word-order. The connection between wh-fronting and VS-order is further underscored by noting the variant wh-question pattern in English without any wh-fronting. It is used in surprise or disbelief contexts, with a proper intonation — and is conspicuously devoid of any Subject-Aux inversion (VS): (48) a. b. c. d.

She went where? He will do what? She is coming when? John has seen who?

17.4.3.2.4
Cleft and pseudo-cleft wh-questions. It has been frequently observed (e.g. Heny 1971; Myers 1971; Takizala 1972; inter alia) that wh-questions often share many of the syntactic characteristics of cleft or pseudo-cleft constructions, including the attendant REL-clause structure (see again Ch. 15). This is not altogether surprising, given that the wh-pronoun is in fact the focus of requested new information. It is thus natural to render wh-questions as either cleft or pseudo-cleft, two of the most common focus constructions (Ch. 15). As an illustration, compare the focus and wh-question constructions below:

307

308 Syntax

(49) Focus clauses a. Neutral declarative John saw Mary b. Subject cleft It’s JOHN who saw Mary c. Object cleft It’s MARY that John saw d. Subject pseudo-cleft The one who saw Mary was JOHN e. Object pseudo-cleft The one John saw was MARY (50) Wh-questions a. Neutral declarative John saw Mary b. Subject cleft-wh It’s WHO that saw Mary? c. Object wh-cleft It’s WHO that John saw? d. Subject pseudo-cleft-wh The one that saw Mary was WHO? e. Object pseudo-cleft-wh The one that John saw was WHO? This seemingly systematic connection between wh-questions and cleft constructions is important for understanding the naturalness of either the pre-posed or post-posed position of ‘simple’ wh-pronouns cross-linguistically. Two mutually-compatible explanations of such parallelism may be offered. First, one may note the semantic parallelism between focus and wh-questions, then suggest that both are equally sensitive to the pragmatics of word-order. Second, one may suggest that the reason why the wh-pronoun in ‘simple’ wh-questions is either pre-posed or post-posed is due to the diachronic origin of wh-questions: They tend to come from simplification (‘de-marking’) of earlier paratactic cleft or pseudo-cleft constructions such as (50b–e). Thus recall the Kihung’an data seen earlier (Ch. 15) and reproduced below (Takizala 1972): (51) a. Clefted object wh-question kwe khi ki ka-swiim-in Kipes? be wh dem he-buy-past Kipes ‘It’s WHAT that Kipes bought?’

Non-declarative speech-acts

b. Semi-simplified khi ki ka-swiim-in Kipes? wh dem he-buy-past Kipes ‘WHAT (is it) that Kipes bought?’ c. Fully simplified khi Kipes ka-swiim-in? wh Kipes he-buy-past ‘WHAT did Kipes buy?’ (52) a. Clefted subject wh-question kwe na wu ka-mweene Kipes? be wh dem he-see/past Kipes ‘It’s WHO that saw Kipes?’ b. Semi-simplified na wu ka-mweene Kipes? wh dem he-see/past Kipes ‘WHO (is it) who saw Kipes?’ c. Fully simplified na ka-mweene Kipes? wh he-see/past Kipes ‘WHO saw Kipes?’ A similar parallelism between focus clauses and wh-questions is seen in the most paratactic version of both constructions in Kihung’an (Ch. 15; Takizala 1972): (53) a. Paratactic object-cleft kwe kit, kiim ki a-swiim-in Kipes be chair thing dem he-buy-past Kipes ‘It’s a CHAIR, the thing that Kipes bought’ b. Paratactic object wh-question kwe khi, kiim ki a-swiim-in Kipes? be wh think dem he-buy-past K. ‘It’s WHAT, the thing that Kipes bought?’ In some languages, a wh-question pattern that incorporates REL-clause structure is obligatory, at least for some verb types. Thus for example, in Asheninka (So. Arawak) wh-questions with most transitive verbs require this complex pattern, as in (David Payne, i.p.c.; see earlier above): (54) a. tsika o-pai-t-a-ka p-a]t-i-ri? wh 3fem-name-&-real/refl-q 2-do-real-rel ‘What are you doing?’ (lit.: ‘What does it call itself that you do?’)

309

310

Syntax

b. tsika i-tim-i-ka a-ak-e-ro-ri? wh 3masc-be-real-q take-perf-real-3fem-rel ‘Who took it?’ (lit.: ‘Who is it that took it?’) c. tsika o-pai-t-a-ka h-a-ak-e-ri? wh 3fem-name-y-real/refl-q 3masc-take-perf-real-rel ‘What did he take?’ (lit.: ‘What does it call itself that he took?’) It may well be that in other languages as well, pre-posed wh-question patterns arose through the diachronic simplification of an earlier paratactic cleft construction. And that likewise, post-posed wh-question patterns arose through the diachronic simplification of an earlier paratactic pseudo-cleft construction. 17.4.3.3
Embedded wh-questions A certain group of complement-taking perception/cognition verbs allow, in addition to their normal indicative complements, also wh-question complements. As illustration consider: (55) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j.

I know who did it She guessed why it happened He discovered where the key was She suggested to me whom I should see I forgot how it was done *I thought who did it *She regretted why it happened *He hoped where the key was *He said whom I should see *I wish how it was done

Semantically, verbs that allow such wh-complements (55a–e) are all epistemic (‘knowledge’) verbs. Further, they are all verbs that can take a nominal object with a REL-clause, whose meaning is then deceptively close to that in (55a–e) above. Thus compare, respectively: (56) a. b. c. d. e.

I know the man who did it She guessed the reason why it happened He discovered the place where the key way She suggested to me the person whom I should see I forgot the way how it was done

It may well be that the seeming wh-question structures in (55a–e) arose as headless REL-clauses, and that structures such as (56a–e) served as the analogical templates for such syntactic extension. Some support for this comes from the fact that one structural feature of wh-question in English — subject-AUX inversion — is absent in these wh-complements. Thus, compare, respectively:

Non-declarative speech-acts

(57) a. b. c. d. e.

(I know who did it) *She guessed why did it happen *He discovered where the key was *She suggested to me whom should I see *I forgot how was it done

Note, finally, that the same seeming wh-question structures can also occupy the subject position for predicates that take clausal subjects (Ch. 12). Here again, subject-AUX inversion is not used, a fact that again suggests that these structures may be better interpreted as headless REL-clauses: (58) a. b. c. d. e.

17.5

Who did it remains a mystery Why it happened is not clear Where the key was perplexed her Whom I should see is still a question How is was done was never discovered

Manipulative speech-acts

17.5.1 Preamble Under the generic umbrella of imperative fall a potentially large number of manipulative speech-acts. The common denominator of all of them has to do with intended manipulation. They are all verbal acts by which the speaker attempts to get the hearer to act. 17.5.2 Functional dimensions 17.5.2.1
Conventions under the communicative contract Manipulative speech-acts are verbal acts through which the speaker attempts to manipulate the behavior of the hearer, with the goal being that of eliciting action rather than information. One can therefore subsume, at least trivially, the interrogative under the manipulative speech-act, with the added provision that the second aims to elicit verbal acts of information, i.e. declarative speech-acts (Moravcsik 1971; Pope 1973). Like all speech-acts, manipulatives are governed by various sub-clauses (‘conventions’) of the communicative contract. Of those, the ones most central to manipulative speechacts are, at the very least:8 (59) Conventions governing manipulative speech-acts Epistemic a. Present state of the world Some present state of the world is presupposed to exist. b. Intended state of the world Some different state of the world, the goal of the manipulation, does not yet exist.

311

312

Syntax

Deontic c. Manipulee’s power to act The manipulee (hearer) is free to act in the proposed direction (bring about (59b)). d. Manipulator’s authority The manipulator (speaker) has legitimate authority over the manipulee. All these conventions are part of the pre-conditions that make a manipulative speech-act felicitous. Two of them pertain to the epistemic modalities of presupposition (59a) and irrealis assertion (59b). The other two pertain to the deontic modalities of ability (59c) and power (59d). To illustrate how they govern the manipulative speech-act, consider the imperative in (60a) below and the various objections to it that a manipulee may felicitously raise (60b–e): (60) a. b. c. d. e.

Slice the salami! But I see no salami. But it is already sliced. But both my hands are tied behind my back. Who are you to tell me what to do?

Objection (60b) challenges the presupposed present state of the world (59a). Objection (60c) challenges the intended state of the world (59b), asserting that it is already extant. Objection (60d) challenges the manipulee’s ability to act (59c). Objection (60e) challenges the manipulator’s authority to command (59d). 17.5.2.2
Manipulation, status and power As noted above, clause (59d) that governs verbal manipulation involves the social-personal relations between the speaker and hearer. The exact variant manipulative speech-act to be selected is determined by the status, power, and obligation gradients between the manipulator and the manipulee. Questions of politeness, propriety, fear or respect, and of potential social consequences of improper usage, are all germane to the choice of appropriate manipulative construction. These factors are not independent of each other, but rather interact in predictable ways that may be summarized as conditional implications: (61) a. Higher speaker’s power/status …
greater hearer’s obligation to comply
lesser speaker’s need to be deferent b. Higher hearer’s power/status …
lesser hearer’s obligation to comply
greater speaker’s need to be deferent

• • • •

While predictions (61) appear rather universal, many culture-specific conventions govern inter-personal verbal manipulation in specific languages. In all cases, the grammar of verbal manipulation shades into the grammar of deference, honorification and even of epistemic certainty. As an illustration of the wide range available even in one language, consider the following gradation of manipulative speech-acts in English:

Non-declarative speech-acts

highest manipulative force

(62) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Get up! Get up, will you. Could you please get up? Would you mind getting up? Do you think you could perhaps get up? I wonder if you’d mind if I asked you to get up? Wouldn’t it be awfully nice if you could perhaps get up? lowest manipulative force

The gradation in (62) reveals a number of coding principles that are used cross-linguistically to weaken manipulative speech-acts: (63) Devices for weakening manipulative force a. increased length b. use of question form c. overt mention of the manipulee pronoun d. use of irrealis e. use of negation f. embedding under modality or cognition verbs The various devices that tone-down manipulative force are closely related to the universals of politeness and indirection discussed by Brown and Levinson (1978). 17.5.3 Syntactic and typological dimensions In this section we will discuss the most common syntactic devices used in the coding of various manipulative speech-acts. Many of them are inversely related to the weakening devices noted in (62)/(63). 17.5.3.1
Finiteness Topping the scale of manipulative force, the imperative form of the verb tends to exhibit a highly restricted range of pronominal affixes and tense-aspect-modal distinctions. In English, for example, this reduction in finite verbal morphology goes all the way to zero. And in many other languages, the imperative form of the verb is the least marked of all major speech-acts. Both aspects of reduced finiteness — subject marking and tense–aspect modality — are predictable, given the norms of face-to-face verbal manipulation. In such a contexts, the subject — manipulee/hearer — is uniquely identified from the speech situation. The aspectuality is most commonly telic or perfective. And the modality is invariably irrealis. In some languages, some pronominal marking on the imperative verb is possible. Thus in Biblical Hebrew, the singular-plural and masculine-feminine (second-person) distinctions are also found in the imperative, as in the four forms for ‘sit!’:

313

314

Syntax

(64) sg pl

Masculine

Feminine

shev shvu

shvi shevna

When the imperative takes a future/irrealis inflection, it is but the vestige of a diachronic extension from an erstwhile subjunctive form, as is the case for many verbs in spoken Modern Hebrew, where the older imperative forms have been displaced by the 2nd person future/irrealis forms: (65) a. sg-masculine: ta-vi et-ze le-kan! 2-bring/fut acc-it to-here ‘Bring it over!’ b. sg-feminine ta-vi-i et-ze le-kan! 3-bring/fut-sg.fem acc-it to-here ‘Bring it over!’ c. pl ta-vi-u et-ze le-kan! 2-bring/irr-pl acc-it here ‘Bring it over!’ The very same future/irrealis verb form is also used in Modern Hebrew as the subjunctive form in complements of manipulative verbs (see Ch. 12), and likewise in the hortative: (66) a. Subjunctive Comp (sg/masc) hi amra l-o she-ya-vo le-sham she told/3sg.fem to-him sub-3sg.masc-come/irr to-there ‘She told him to come there’ b. Subjunctive (sg/fem) hi amra l-a she-ta-vo le-sham she told/3sg.fem to-her sub-3sg.fem-come/irr to-there ‘She told her to come there’ c. Subjunctive Comp (pl) hi amra la-hem she-ya-vo-u le-sham she told/3sg.fem to-them sub-3masc-come/irr-pl to-there ‘She told them to come there’ d. Hortative (sg/masc) she-ya-vo kvar! sub-3sg.masc-come/irr already ‘Let him come then!’

Non-declarative speech-acts

e. Hortative (sg/fem) she-ta-vo kvar! sub-3sg.fem-come/irr already ‘Let her come then!’ f.

Hortative (pl) she-ya-vo-u kvar! sub-3masc-come-pl already ‘Let them come then!’

And likewise in the exhortative: (67) a. Exhortative (sg/masc) bo ne-shev sham! come/imp/2sg.masc 1pl-sit/irr there ‘Let’s (we-2) sit there!’ b. Exhortative (sg/fem) bo-i ne-shev sham! come/imp/2sg.fem 1pl-sit/irr there ‘Let’s (we-2) sit there!’ c. Exhortative (pl) bo-u ne-shev sham! come/imp/2-pl 1pl-sit/irr there ‘Let’s (we-all) sit there!’ When a language has both imperative and subjunctive forms of command, the more finite subjunctive form, the one used in complements of weaker manipulation verbs, is used to tone down the coercive force of the manipulation (Vol. I, Ch. 7,8; Ch. 12; Givón 1994d). As an illustration, consider Spanish: (68) a. Imperative (non-deferent, informal) ven! come/2sg ‘Come!’ b. Subjunctive (deferent, formal) venga! come/subjunct/2sg ‘Come!’ (deferent) Subjunctive verb-forms of manipulative speech-acts, being more finite, tend to be marked for more tense–aspect distinctions than the imperative. This may be illustrated with Bemba (Bantu), where the subjunctive of manipulation is also used as the hortative. Of the 24 independent tense–aspect combinations used in main clauses in Bemba, the subjunctive displays only five (Givón 1972a: Ch. 4):

315

316

Syntax

(69) a. Perfective (‘unmarked’) a-iimb-e! 3sg-sing-subjun ‘Let him/her sing!’ b. Imperfective a-lèé-iimba 3sg-impf/subjun-sing ‘Let him/her keep singing!’ c. Tomorrow/perfective future a-kà-iimb-e 3sg-fut-sing-subjun ‘Let him/her sing (tomorrow)!’ d. Tomorrow/imperfective future a-kà-lèé-iimba 3sg-fut-impf/subjun-sing ‘Let him/her keep singing (tomorrow)!’ e. Beyond tomorrow/perfective future a-ká-iimb-e 3sg-fut-sing-subjun ‘Let him/her sing (after tomorrow)!’ 17.5.3.2
Aberrant case-marking in manipulative clauses In a number of Uto-Aztecan languages, a seeming ‘reversal’ of the neutral main-clause case marking is found in some manipulative clauses, where the object receives nominative case marking, while the subject receives accusative/genitive marking. This pattern is seen in some subjunctive-obligative clauses in Ute (Givón 1980a, 1994c): (70) a. Neutral declarative pattern ta’wach sivaatuch-i pakha-vaa-ni man/nom goat-acc kill-irr-fut ‘The man will kill the goat’ b. Subjunctive of uncertainty ta’wach-i sivaatuch pakha-vaa-p(u =) man-gen goat/nom kill-irr-nom ‘The man should/must/may have killed the goat’ c. Obligative ta’wach-i sivaatuch pakha-vaa-n(a) man-gen goat-nom kill-irr-nom ‘The man must kill the goat’ It is fairly clear that this ‘reversed’ case-marking pattern is due, at least in part, to the nominalized origin of these constructions, all of them historically subordinate clauses. As noted earlier (Ch. 11), the subject of nominalized clauses is often marked as genitive. In

Non-declarative speech-acts

most Numic languages (Ute, Paiute, Shoshone) as well as in other Uto-aztecan languages (Yaqui, Huichol, Tarahumara), most subordinate clauses are nominalized. What is more, the accusative and genitive cases on nouns in most of these languages have collapsed together. Consequently, the subjects of clauses that were erstwhile subordinate and thus nominalized appear to take the object case (Givón 1990a, 1994c).9 17.5.3.3
Prohibitives or negative-imperatives Negative-imperative clauses follow, in the main, the variety of manipulative patterns noted above. In many languages, the same negation pattern is used in the imperative (and other manipulatives) as in declaratives, as in Spanish: (71) a. Declarative usted viene mañana you come tomorrow ‘You are coming tomorrow’ b. Neg-declarative usted no viene mañana you neg come tomorrow ‘You are not coming tomorrow’ c. Subjunctive (‘polite imperative’) venga mañana come/subjunc tomorrow ‘Come tomorrow’ d. Neg-subjunctive no venga mañana neg come/subjunc tomorrow ‘Don’t come tomorrow’ A language may have a special negation pattern for imperatives or other manipulatives. Such a dual pattern is found in Modern Hebrew. The verb itself may take the very same irrealis form in the future and imperative. When used as a future-declarative, the NEG-prefix is lo-. In the imperative, the NEG-prefix is al-: (72) a. Declarative ata ta-vo hena you/sg.masc 2sg.masc-come/irr here/all ‘You will come here’ b. Neg-declarative ata lo-ta-vo hena you neg-2sg.masc-come/irr here/all ‘You will not come here’

317

318

Syntax

c. Imperative ta-vo hena! 2sg.masc-come/irr here/all ‘Come here!’ b. Neg-imperative al-ta-vo hena! neg/imper-2sg.masc-come/irr here/all ‘Don’t come here!’

17.6

The speech act continuum

17.6.1 Preamble: Syntactic prototypes vs. functional continuum As noted above, most languages code grammatically at least four major speech-act prototypes that differ from each other markedly in terms of their communicative goals: Goal = imparting information •
Declarative:
Imperative: Goal action •
Interrogative: Goal= eliciting = eliciting information; either •
Wh-question: to confirm the identity item; or •
Yes/no-question: to confirm the truth ofof aa missing proposition. • Traditional speech-act analysis has tended to describe these well-coded prototypes as absolute and discrete functional entities (Austin 1962; Searle 1970; Grice 1968/1975, inter alia). This tradition deals with the major prototypes without paying too much attention to the continuum between them. While not unprecedented in linguistics, such a tradition tends to incur certain costs, which are particularly visible in the analysis of the so-called indirect speech acts. Explicitly or implicitly, the literature on indirect speech-acts identifies them as “speech-acts that mean one thing but masquerade as another” (Sadock 1970; Green 1970, 1975; Gordon and Lakoff 1971; Searle 1975; Davison 1975; inter alia). That is, bizarre coding infelicities that perform one function under the structural guise of another. This is in spite of a considerable body of data (Brown and Levinson 1978) suggesting that the socalled masquerade is relatively systematic across languages. That is, that the same range of ‘indirect’ constructions are used in unrelated languages to perform the same range of intermediate speech-act functions.10 There are strong grounds for suspecting that the three or four major well-coded speech-acts are just the most common, conventionalized (‘grammaticalized’) prototypes. These prototypes distribute along a multi-dimensional continuum space organized along a number of social-psychological dimensions. As noted above (see (5), (6), (59)), all these dimensions are at least in principle scalar. In the following sections we will show how the syntactic coding of the minor speech-act variants that span the continuum between the four main prototypes upholds this scalarity.

Non-declarative speech-acts

17.6.2 From imperative to interrogative Consider first the continuum in (73) below, between prototypical imperative and interrogative speech-acts: prototypical imperative

(73) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

Pass the salt. Please pass the salt. Pass the salt, would you please? Would you please pass the salt? Could you please pass the salt? Can you pass the salt? Do you see the salt? Is there any salt around? Was there any salt there? prototypical interrogative

The extreme points of scale, (73a) and (73i), correspond to the well-coded prototypes. The mid-points on the scale — (73c–e) — exhibit intermediate features both functionally and syntactically. Finally, intermediate (73b) is more like the imperative prototype (73a), and intermediates (73f–h) are closer to the interrogative prototype (73i). One may consider the intermediate points (73b–h) as a continuum of metaphoric extensions between the prototypes of imperative and interrogative. Felicity conditions under which such extensions are appropriate have been discussed in the speech-act literature (Grice 1968/1975; Gordon and Lakoff 1971; inter alia). The exact nature of the socio-psychological dimensions that underlie this continuum is yet to be determined, by methods that should transcend the traditional linguistic and philosophical ones.11 One would assume that the epistemic and deontic features that underlie both manipulative and interrogative speech-acts, noted above, are involved. 17.6.3 From imperative to declarative Consider next the scale in (74) below, spanning the continuum between the prototypes of imperative and declarative:

319

320 Syntax

prototypical imperative

(74) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i.

Wash the dishes! You better wash the dishes! You might as well wash the dishes. I suggest you wash the dishes. It would be nice if you could wash the dishes. It would be nice if someone could wash the dishes. The dishes need to be washed. The dishes are dirty. The dishes were dirty. prototypical declarative

Extreme points (74a) and (74i) are the syntactic prototypes of imperative and declarative, respectively, while the intermediate points (74b–h) code a gradual shift from one prototype to the other. Again, one would assume that the underlying multi-dimensional continuum space involves the epistemic and deontic features that underlie both the imperative and declarative speech-acts. 17.6.4 From declarative to interrogative A graded continuum also exists between the prototypes of declarative and interrogative (yes/no-questions), as in: prototypical declarative

(75) a. b. c. d. e.

Joe is at home. Joe is at home, I think. Joe is at home, right? Joe is at home, isn’t he? Is Joe at home? prototypical interrogative

Some languages may code continuum (75) with a much larger set of distinct points. This may be seen in the Japanese speech-act particle system, where up to 15 distinct verbal suffixes code a fine gradation between the most assertive declarative and the most solicitous yes/no-question (Tsuchihashi’s 1983; Hinds 1984). Finally, a continuum may be shown between declarative and wh-question:

Non-declarative speech-acts

prototypical declarative

(76) a. b. c. d. e. f.

Joe called, and… What’s-his-name called, and…12 Whoever it was that called, tell them… I don’t know who called. Who knows who called… Who called? prototypical interrogative

A realistic theory of speech-acts, whenever it finally emerges, will have to take account of both the distinct major prototypes and the intermediate minor types that spans the continuum between them. In such a theory, so-called indirect speech-acts will not be considered as aberrant instances of mis-alignment between form and meaning, but rather as finer-grained modulations of the form along the gradients of meaning.

17.7

The interaction between epistemic and deontic aspects of speech-acts

17.7.1 Preamble As noted earlier above, the traditional discussion of propositional modalities, from Aristotle down, has taken for granted a clear division between the epistemic and the deontic. Among the former, irrealis is the well recognized modality of lower certainty. But as noted in our discussion of modality (Vol. I, Ch. 6,7), the two sub-modes of irrealis, the epistemic and deontic, exhibit a one-way conditional association, so that: (77) deontic … epistemic In terms of markedness, then, the epistemic irrealis sub-mode of uncertainty is the unmarked aspect of irrealis, and is always present in the deontic sub-modes of irrealis, such as intent, ability, power, need or obligation. We have noted, further, that deontic sub-modes of irrealis are part of the multidimensional continuum that underlies all speech acts, even the declarative (cf. (5), (6), (59)). While the association between the epistemic and deontic sub-modes of irrealis is easy to define logically (77), their intimate association in human communication transcends mere logical analysis, involving many pragmatic inferences about various norms and likelihoods that govern social interaction. In our earlier discussion of the clauses of the communicative contract that govern declarative speech-acts, we noted that the speaker-anchored low certainty (epistemics) seemed to entail the hearer-anchored probable challenge (deontic). That is: (78) low certainty … high probability of challenge or: The lower is the speaker’s certainty in P, the higher is the speaker’s probability-assignment that the hearer will challenge P.

321

322

Syntax

17.7.2 Certainty, power and status One chain of pragmatic norms that seem to govern human communicative interaction may be given as: (79) a. knowledge … certainty b. certainty … power c. power … status Consider first the case of the Japanese epistemic particles that span the continuum between declarative and interrogative (§17.6.4 above). As Tsuchihashi (1983) has noted, these particles scale rather coherently along the dimensions of subjective certainty and probability of challenge. On both scales, the one particle that can be only used by women ranks considerably below the prototypical male-used strong assertion (realis) particles. In other words, the deontic feature of lower status/power is associated with the epistemic feature of lower certainty. In a more general vein, Syder and Pawley (1974) observe that in facing an interlocutor of higher power, status or authority, speakers tend to scale down their expression of certainty, by using hedges that bump their assertions down into a lower epistemic range of irrealis. This is not done, necessarily, because of perceiving a contrary attitude on the part of the high-status interlocutor. Rather, toning down is a hedge against the possibility that the higher authority might hold a contrary belief. Such epistemic deference is a pervasive feature of many, perhaps all cultures (Brown and Levinson 1978). Questions of politeness and deference, with their complex and oft culture-specific detail, indeed intrude rather persistently into the epistemics of certainty, so much so that Syder and Pawley (1974) have proposed a modesty principle, by which speakers in at least some cultures as a matter of course claim to know less than they do, especially when the information may reflect favorably on their personal stature. While this tendency may be somewhat culture-specific, it may reflect a more universal principle, already noted above (see also Lewis 1979): (80) Subjective certainty vis-a-vis higher authority In communicating to an interlocutor of higher status, one downgrades one’s own subjective certainty. 17.7.3 Negation, authority and politeness Negative assertions are a contrary, denying speech act (Vol. I, Ch. 8). One would thus expect its use to be extremely sensitive to the perceived social status of the interlocutor. This is borne out in the seemingly-universal use of NEG-assertions in contexts when the interlocutor is perceived to be of higher status or power. In such social contexts, speakers tone down their disagreement, couching contrary opinions in a variety of ‘softening’ devices. Many of these are sub-varieties of irrealis, as in:

Non-declarative speech-acts

(81) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

Quite, quite. Yes, I see. I see what you mean. I suppose you got a point there. Perhaps not quite so. Perhaps you may wish to consider an alternative. Well, I’m not sure about that, maybe… Now if it were up to me, I would suggest…

In more traditional cultures, it is not always easy to find an overtly-marked negation in speech directed toward perceived superiors, outsiders, or even bona fide members of the intimate social group. Contrariness has its obvious social costs in the stable, closely-knit society of intimates (Givón and Young, forthcoming). Somewhat paradoxically, negation can itself be used as a softening device in the face of perceived higher authority. This toning down function of negation seems to apply to both the epistemic and the manipulative mode. Thus consider: (82) a. Won’t you come in please? (> Do come in) b. I suppose he isn’t done yet. (> I wonder if he’s done) c. I don’t suppose he’s done yet? (> I wonder if he’s done) d. Wouldn’t it be better if… (> It’d be better if…) e. I suppose you couldn’t spare a fiver… (> I wish you could) This epistemic use of negation, often in conjunction with other irrealis operators such as modals, subjunctives, conditionals and yes/no-question markers, is wide-spread crosslinguistically (Brown and Levinson 1978; Salisbury 1986). Its deference value may derive from the overlap between negation and irrealis along the psychological dimension of subjective certainty. 17.7.4 Certainty, responsibility and blame In many cultures, claiming direct personal responsibility for asserted information may be a serious social error, to be strictly avoided in any but the most intimate social contexts. Strong claims to direct authorship of transmitted information, with the attendant marking of high subjective certainty and strong evidential support, are all to be avoided. In carrying out communication under these cultural constraints, a variety of highly conventionalized strategies are used, including indirection, disclaimer, oblique attribution, impersonalization, coding assertions as yes/no-questions, negatives or irrealis.

323

324

Syntax

While the structural devices may be the same as in some of the cases of low-status and deference cited above, the guiding principle is perhaps different, roughly (Givón and Young, forthcoming): (83) The hazardous information principle a. Knowledge entails power, but power entails responsibility. b. Information may be coveted, it may also be hazardous and socially destabilizing. c. Transmitting new information may entail social advantage, but it also incurs risks. d. Therefore, being identified explicitly as the author of information may be unwise, and must be avoided. Principle (83) is most conspicuous in small, rural, geographically scattered communities, where residents of isolated homesteads are adept at cajoling fresh gossip, preferably malicious, out of the occasional visitor. In spite of their geographic scatter, such communities are often intimate social units, where one’s business is everybody’s business, and where the most mundane news disseminates with lightning speed. The transmission of fresh gossip may be the real purpose of a visit. Yet the would be transmitter must tread lightly, lest he be later on pointed at — often accusingly and by the very same host who wormed the information out of him/her — as the explicit author of socially sensitive information.

Notes 1. There may be a weak correlation between the usage-frequency of constructions in communication, and their prevalence in grammars. In Givón (1985a) this correlation was suggested as a general principle that relates pragmatic need and code coherence: “…The more important a facet of experience is to the organism or culture, the more distinctly it is coded in language…” (Givón 1985a: 210) 2. Sadock and Zwicky’s (1985) distinction between ‘sentence types’ and ‘attitude markers’ appear, up to a point, to correspond to our distinction here between major prototypes and minor sub-types. Their treatment, in discussing Matisoff’s (1973) grammar of Lahu, is couched purely in terms of exclusivity of co-occurrence: Sentence types are exclusive of each other; attitude markers — when semantically compatible — can co-occur with sentence types, or with each other. The latter claim is probably too strong, since the contrast among finer sub-variants (‘attitudes’) may involve not single markers, but rather their various combinations. The distinction between ‘sentence types’ and ‘attitudes’ is a somewhat inelegant way of handling non-discreteness and multi-dimensionality of the functional substratum of speech-acts. 3. While the approach pursued here is cognitive rather than normative, I am more than happy to acknowledge its indebtedness to the normative philosophical tradition culminating in Grice’s maxims (1968/1975). 4. The relativity here is due to the fact that it spans the range from irrealis (low certainty) to realis (high certainty), thus yielding a continuum. See further below. 5. The same universal is found in the use of these three devices to code contrastive focus (Ch. 15).



Non-declarative speech-acts

6. As in negation, in similar grammatical contexts (Vol. I, Ch. 8). 7. Contrastive focus and relativization in Asheninka work the same way (Ch. 14,15). 8. For a traditional view of the conventions governing imperatives and other speech acts, see Gordon and Lakoff (1971). 9. Comrie (1982) observed the same synchronic pattern in Huichol, but chose to interpret it in purely synchronic terms, as a ‘reversal’ of grammatical relations. 10. See discussion in Levinson (1983), pp. 263–278. The lone exception seems to be Lyons (1977: 753–768), where the shading from epistemic doubt (i.e. irrealis) to interrogative speech-acts is acknowledged, and where questions are considered grammaticalized features of doubt. 11. For suggestions in the traditional literature see Grice (1968/1975), Gordon and Lakoff (1971) or Searle (1975), inter alia. 12. The use of wh-pronouns to code epistemic uncertainty is wide-spread. Thus, for example, in Ute any wh-pronoun can be used in low-certainty declarative sentences, if the speaker is unsure of either the token-identity or type-identity of a nominal. Such expressions are usually translated into English as ‘what’s-his-name’, ‘what-cha-ma-call-it’, ‘who knows’, etc.

325



Chapter 18

Inter-clausal coherence

18.1

Introduction

18.1.1 Subordination vs. coordination The subordinate clauses described thus far were, for the most part, embedded in well defined syntactic positions inside other clauses: subjects or objects (Ch. 11,12) •
clausal
verbal complements the VP (Ch. 12) •
relative clauses insideinside the NP (Ch. 14) • Such clauses are syntactically bound to — or dependent on — their main clauses in three major respects: (1) Major syntactic devices signaling clause dependence a. Intonational integration Dependent clauses tend to fall under a single intonation contour with the main clause, without an intervening pause. b. Relational government Dependent clauses tend to be relationally governed by the main-clause’s subject or object, in a way that constrains both possible co-reference relations and obligatory zero anaphora or pronominalization. c. Reduced finiteness Dependent clauses tend to exhibit reduced finite marking, in terms of pronominal agreement and tense–aspect-modality on the verb, or casemarking and determiners on the subject or object. The inter-clausal connections surveyed in this chapter are much looser, and involve two major clause-types: adverbial clauses •
subordinate
coordinate chained clauses • Of these, the former have been traditionally described as dependent vis-a-vis their main clauses, the latter independent main clauses. But dependence, both functional and syntactic, is not an absolute discrete property but rather a matter of degree. To begin with, no clause in connected, coherent discourse is

328

Syntax

functionally 100% independent of its local (‘linear’) or even global (‘hierarchic’) context. This is, after all, the very definition of coherence. And discourse coherence always has some grammatical consequences that, however subtle, tend to be uni-directional, and thus rightly couched in terms of dependence, government, or control. In the same vein, an absolute binary distinction between subordinate (‘dependent’) and coordinate (‘independent’) clauses is woefully untenable. As noted in our earlier discussion of verbal complements (Ch. 12), the functional dimension of event integration and the syntactic dimensions of clause integration (‘clause union’) formed two parallel isomorphic scales. Subordinate/adverbial and coordinate/chained clauses are but the natural extension of those scales. Along the functional continuum, the propositionalsemantic features of event integration shade gradually into the more discourse-pragmatic features of cross-event coherence. Along the parallel syntactic continuum, the grammatical bonds of inter-clausal dependence become gradually looser. The two major clause-types surveyed in this chapter join the overall functionalsyntactic continuum of event- and clause-integration towards its lower end: (2) Continuum of inter-clausal dependency most dependent (‘semantic’) complements •
verbal
subordinate/adverbial clauses •
coordinate/chained clauses • least dependent (‘pragmatic’) As we shall see below, the very same syntactic devices (1) that signal stronger inter-clausal dependence in V-complement clauses also signal the stronger dependence of subordinate/ adverbial and coordinate/chained clauses — but to a smaller degree, in different ratios, with greater flexibility or weaker control. Ultimately, it seems, the very same iconic meta-principle governs inter-clausal connectivity along the bottom of the dependency scale (2) that also governed cross-clausal connectivity at the top (Ch. 12). Recapitulated in more general terms (Givón 1991b): (3) Isomorphism between semantic-pragmatic connectivity and syntactic dependency The stronger is the semantic or pragmatic connectivity between two events/states, the stronger will be the syntactic dependencies between the two clauses that code them. 18.1.2 Coherence and grounding Coherence may be defined, at this point heuristically, as continuity:1 (4) Coherence as continuity Coherence is the continuity or recurrence of some element(s) across a contiguous span of multi-propositional discourse.

Inter-clausal coherence

Of the many elements that can recur across a span of coherent discourse, the most concrete, grammatically or lexically well-marked, and thus easiest to track are: (5) Well-marked elements of discourse coherence a. referents (‘participants’) b. location c. temporality d. aspectuality e. modality f. perspective (‘narrative voice’) g. action/events Of these, referential coherence (5a) and tense–aspect-modal coherence (5c–e) are wellcoded by grammar (see Vol. I, Ch. 9,10; Ch. 6,7; respectively). Event coherence (5g) is coded primarily by lexical verbs. While spatial coherence (5b) and coherence of perspective (5f) are coded by a mix of lexical and grammatical clues (Givón 1995b, 1999b). But it is important to emphasize that the concrete stands in (5) are woven together into an overall tapestry of thematic coherence, and that many of the grammatical devices surveyed in this chapter are keyed to signalling this more-holistic aspect of coherence. This paradoxical nature of text coherence — multiple-stranded yet still a whole — is, one suspects, what Aristotle had in mind in his treatment of coherence in the Poetics, insisting first on diversity: “…The unity of plots does not consist, as some suppose, of having one man as its subject. An infinity of things befall that one man, some of which it is impossible to reduce to unity; and in like manner there are many actions of one man which cannot be made to form one action…”(Aristotle, Poetics 8, p. 2322).

but still on an ultimate unity: “…the story […] must represent one action, a complete whole, with its several incidents so closely connected that the transposition or withdrawal of any one of them will disjoin and dislocate the whole. For that which makes no perceptible difference by its presence or absence is no real part of the whole…” (ibid.)2

The study of coherent discourse, whether oral or written, suggests that the mental representation of a coherent text must involve a network of nodes and connections whose structure is both linear (‘local’) and hierarchic (‘global’; see Kintsch 1974, 1977, 1982a,b; Anderson et al. 1983; Trabasso et al. 1984, 1995; Trabasso and Sperry 1985; Gernsbacher 1990; Givón 1995b; Goodwin 1995). Coherent mental representation of text is the chief guarantor of reliable, rapid access to mentally-stored episodic information during both text production and text comprehension. The guarantee lies in the connectivity or grounding of each node to other nodes in the network. From the perspective of the hearer, such grounding insures subsequent access and retrieval. From the perspective of the speaker, the connectivity makes it possible to produce a text that the hearer can comprehend — i.e. store coherently and accessibly (Gernsbacher 1990).

329

330

Syntax

18.2

Adverbial subordinate clauses

18.2.1 Functional dimensions The distinction between coordination and subordination, however problematic, is nonetheless a useful point of departure for describing the various semantic links that bind dependent ADV-clauses to their main clauses. By ‘semantic’ one means here ‘local’, i.e. relations between two adjacent clauses irrespective of the wider (‘global’) discourse context. In this respect, these relations resemble the semantic bonds between main verbs and their verbal complements (Ch. 12). As we shall see further below, adverbial clauses also have wider-scoped discourse-pragmatic connectivity. 18.2.1.1
Local semantic links of adverbial clauses 18.2.1.1.1
Temporal adverbial clauses. A large number of grammaticalized connectives can specify the temporal relation of an adverbial clause to its main clause. Some of the most common ones are: (6) Temporal links of adverbial clauses a. Precedence: Before she came, he left b. Subsequence: After she came, he left c. Simultaneity: While she was working, he left d. Point coincidence: As she was coming, he saw her e. Terminal boundary: Till she left, he worked steady f. Initial boundary: From the minute she came, he ignored her g. Intermediacy: Between her starting the project and her quitting in a huff, nobody slept Quite often, a more general (‘unmarked’) temporal subordinator, such as ‘when’ in English, is used when more specific temporal relations are in fact intended. Such demarked coding strategy succeeds when the semantic specificity of the temporal relation can be inferred from other features of the two clauses — most commonly from the verb and its tense–aspect-modality. As an illustration, consider: (7) a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Precedence: When she came, he had already left Subsequence: When he got up, she did too Simultaneity: When she lived there, everybody was real friendly Point coincidence: When he opened the door, she shot him Terminal boundary: When you’re done, tell me Initial boundary: When you start, just keep going Intermediacy: When he’s done and she’s not yet started, that’s when you should enter

18.2.1.1.2
Conditional adverbial clauses. Conditional ADV-clauses are divided into two main types:3

Inter-clausal coherence

conditionals •
irrealis •
counter-fact conditionals We will consider them in order. a.

Irrealis conditionals Irrealis conditional clauses fall under the scope of non-fact modality. Much like irrealis clauses elsewhere, they thus have no truth value. Rather, their truth value depends on the truth value of their associated main clause — which most typically is also under irrealis scope and thus has no truth value either. Typically, irrealis conditionals have an implied futurity, with the main clause itself marked by either future, modal or some other irrealis operator. As illustrations consider: (8) a. b. c. d. e.

Modal: If you finish on time, you can have this Future: If she comes, you will see her Imperative: If you see him, please tell him that… Indirect request: If she comes, I would like to know Certainty marker: If she comes, then I think we’re in good shape

The pending truth value of the irrealis conditional clause persists even when it is marked with the past tense. Thus consider: (9) a. b. c. d.

If she really did it, it should be a coup. If they arrived that late, they must be tired. If she really was there, then she knows as much as I do. If she was there, then she did see it.

Whether preceding overtly-marked (9a,b) or unmarked (9c,d) main clauses, a sense of the irrealis sub-mode of prediction persists in all such cases, so that (9c,d) may be rendered more fully as, respectively: (10) a. If she was there, then it must be the case that she knows as much as I do. b. If she really was there, she must have seen it. The pending truth value of the irrealis conditional clause also persists in the habitual mode/ aspect: (11) a. b. c. d.

If he works that hard, he has no time for this. If she lives here, she’ll show up sooner or later. If this goes on here regularly, then we had better quit right now. If you work here, how come I never see you?

Again, overt irrealis operators are used in some of the main clauses above (11b–d). But even the unmarked main clause in (11a) carries a distinct sense of irrealis, and may be more fully rendered as, e.g.: (12) If he works that hard, then surely he has no time for this.

331

332

Syntax

In many languages, irrealis conditionals and irrealis when-clauses share their grammatical marking, so that the slight meaning difference between them is inferred from the context. Such an overlap is also possible in English, as in: (13) When you bring it to me, I’ll pay you. Under a conditional interpretation of (13), the speaker has lower epistemic expectations concerning the eventual truth of the conditional clause. Under a temporal interpretation, the speaker has higher epistemic expectations. What the two interpretations share is the logical structure of irrealis conditionals, one that stands at some variance from the deceptively similar bi-conditional logical connector:4 (14) a. Temporal When you bring it, I will pay you (… Until you bring it, I won’t pay you) b. Conditional If you bring it, I will pay you (… If you don’t bring it, I won’t pay you) That is, both the irrealis ‘if ’ and the irrealis ‘when’ behave like bi-conditional connectors, allowing the inference: (15) (a = b) … (Neg-a … Neg-b) A language may also possess a special NEG-conditional subordinator that in a way combines the meaning “if not” (Thompson and Longacre 1985: 196). Thus, consider the rough equivalence in English of (16a) and (16b): (16) a. Unless you pay up, we’ll have you arrested. b. If you don’t pay up, we’ll have you arrested. Finally, it has been suggested (Haiman 1978) that conditional clauses are ‘topics’, i.e. that they are pragmatically presupposed in spite of having no truth value. The argument is probably applicable only to pre-posed conditionals, and probably applies equally well to all pre-posed adverbial clauses (see §18.2.3.2 below). b.

Counter-fact (‘hypothetical’) conditionals Unlike irrealis conditionals, whose truth value is pending, counter-fact conditionals fall under the firmer, negative epistemic scope of non-fact. This conditional type involves propositions that could, would or should have been true — if other propositions were also true. But since those other propositions turn out to be false, the conditionally-marked proposition is also false. Thus: (17) a. If she had known, she would have done it. b. If I had only met her then, my life would have been rather different. The counter-fact modality is not associated only with conditional ADV-clauses, but also with main clauses or verbal complements:

Inter-clausal coherence

(18) a. Main clause You should have told me he was here. b. Main clause I would have loved to see him. c. Complement clause She knew that it could have been her. d. Complement clause I wish you were here. In addition to whatever subordinators that may mark them, counterfact clauses crosslinguistically tend to be marked by a combination of two semantically conflicting verbal inflections: prototypically realis past, perfective or perfect. •
the
the • prototypically irrealis future, subjunctive, conditional or modal. In the English examples (17), (18) above, one finds in (17) the perfect ‘have’ combined with the past in the subordinate clause, while the main clause combines the perfect ‘have’, the past and a modal. In (18a–c), the counterfact clause combines past, ‘have’ and a modal. While (18d) again illustrates the counter-fact use of the past by itself — used as a subjunctive form. The specific counter-fact marking combinations may vary from language to language, depending on the availability of inflectional morphology. Thus for example, Spanish counter-fact conditionals employ the past subjunctive: (19) Si fuera mi amigo… if be/past/subjun/3sg my friend ‘If he were my friend, …’ Modern Hebrew counter-fact conditionals combine the past of ‘be’ with the imperfective: (20) im hu haya ose et-ze… if he be/past/3masc.sg do/hab/3masc.sg acc-it ‘If he had done it…’ The most transparent counter-fact marking combination is found in Creoles, where the irrealis-future and the perfect-anterior markers are combined, as in (Hawaii English Creole; D. Bickerton’s transcripts; see also Bickerton 1981): (21) i bin go order am, see he perf irr order them see ‘…he would have ordered them, see…’ c.

Conditionals with intermediate truth value As Thompson and Longacre (1985) note, in addition to the two extreme modal points on the semantic dimension of conditionals — irrealis (‘possibly true’) and counter-fact (not true), many languages allow finer gradation, most particularly of events/states that are

333

334

Syntax

judged to be unlikely but not altogether impossible. Whether such clauses display a special grammatical form remains at issue. Often, the very same combination of forms — perfective cum irrealis — that are used in the coding of counter-fact clauses are also used to code low-probability conditionals, thus subjunctive mode (Vol. I, Ch. 6), as in e.g. English: (22) a. Low likelihood If I did this, I would surely die. If I were to do this, I would die. If I had done this, I would die. b. Counter-fact If I did this, I would have died. If I was to have done this, I would have died. If I had done this, I would have died. While the forms marking the subordinate clauses in (22a) and (22b) are nearly identical, the marking of the main clauses is different: Only irrealis operators appear in the lowprobability conditionals (22a), but a combination of irrealis and perfective is used in the counter-fact conditionals (22b). A similar situation can be seen in Early Biblical Hebrew, where the perfect can be used by itself to mark low-likelihood (subjunctive) clauses, subordinate/conditionals as well as main clauses. The poly-synthetic verbal morphology of EBH makes it impossible to combine irrealis and perfect; the two verb forms are mutually exclusive. To render the sense of dire injunctions or unthinkable but still possible events, the first clause in the passage is marked with irrealis, the rest with the perfect. The two markers are thus combined over a chain rather then in one clause (Givón 1977): (23) a. …pen yishalh» yad-o …lest 3masc.sg/send/irr hand-his ‘…Lest he sent his hand b. ve-laqah» me-’ets ha-hayim » and-take/perf/3masc.sg from-tree/of the-life and took from the tree of life c. ve-’axal ve-hay » le-’olam… and-eat/perf/3masc.sg and-live/perf/3masc.sg for-world and ate and lived forever…’ (Genesis 3:22) d.

Concessive conditionals Concessive conditional clauses involve combinations equivalent to the English ‘even if ’. In some languages, such a connection is marked by a special morpheme (rather than by the combination of ‘even’ and ‘if ’), as in Mandarin Chinese (Li and Thompson 1981):

Inter-clausal coherence

(24) a. Irrealis-conditional (suffixal marker) ta song gei wo-de-hua, wo dou bu yao he give to me-nom-if I still neg want ‘If he gives it to me, I still don’t want it’ b. Concessive conditional (prefixal marker) jiushi ta song gei wo, wo dou bu yao even.if he give to me I still neg want ‘Even if he gave it to me, I still wouldn’t want it’ 18.2.1.1.3
Cause and reason adverbial clauses. In most languages, no morpho-syntactic distinction is made between ‘cause’ and ‘reason’ clauses. Semantically, one may of course argue that the two are non-identical but rather exhibit a one-way conditional association, so that ‘cause’ is a sub-species of ‘reason’: (25) cause … reason It may well be that ‘cause’ prototypically involves external motivation, while reason may also involve various internal motivations: (26) a. Cause Some external factor either impels an agent to act, or causes a state to become. b. Reason Either (a) above, or the speaker (or another human human referent) has a reason for acting, speaking or thinking in a particular way. To illustrate this general division as well as some of its subtleties, consider first some of the more obvious distinctions: (27) a. Agentive external cause for event Because he bumped me, I dropped the glass. b. Non-agentive external cause for event Because it was freezing, the water-pipes broke. c. Eventive external reason for action Because she showed up there, I left. d. Non-eventive external reason for action Because it was cold, I put my coat on. e. Eventive internal reason for action Because my leg began to hurt, I stopped running. f.

Non-eventive internal reason for action Because it was boring, I left.

The invocation of ‘reason’ is often subtle or opaque. Consider, for example, the multiplicity of ‘because’ answers that may be used as answers to the same ‘why?’ question:

335

336

Syntax

(28) A: –This is a bad idea. B: –Why? A: –Because you made a mistake in your assessment. –Because it’s not this kind of a problem. –Because I plainly don’t see how it could work. –Because suppose you were right, where can we go next? –Because the boss won’t like it. –Because I can detect a fallacy right here. –Because I don’t like it. –Because I say so. –Because Joe told me all about it. The inferential complexity of ‘reason’ clauses seems wholly unconstrained, except by the pragmatics of relevance. 18.2.1.1.4
Concessive adverbial clauses. Concessive clauses involve a presupposed contrast or counter-expectancy, with the ADV-clause supplying the grounds for the counter-expectation, and the main clause supplying the unexpected or less-likely event or state. Thus consider: (29) a. b. c. d. e. f.

Although he liked her, he stayed away. In spite of liking him, she spoke harshly. In spite of the fact that she liked him, she spoke harshly. Even though she disapproved, she went along. No matter what he did, she forgave him. Except for her meddling in his affairs, John loved Susan dearly.

18.2.1.1.5
Substitutive adverbial clauses. Closely akin to concessive clauses are substitutive clauses. Here the ADV-clause codes an event or state that is expected, via some pragmatic presupposition, however subtle, to be the case but in fact isn’t, as in: (30) a. Rather than do the dishes, he watched TV b. Instead of doing her homework, she loafed John Haiman (in personal communication) points out that the main difference between substitutive and concessive clauses has to do with exclusivity: The main clause is not mutually exclusive in concessive clauses, but only unexpected. In contrast, the main clause is mutually exclusive with a substitutive clause. Thus compare: (31) a. Concessive In spite of being tall, Joe was quite agile (… Joe was both tall and agile) b. Substitutive Instead of being tall, John was short (… Joe was not tall, but rather short)

Inter-clausal coherence

18.2.1.1.6
Additive adverbial clauses. In at least some languages, English included, additive clauses can be coded distinctly, as in (Thompson and Longacre 1985): (32) a. In addition to having your hand stamped, you must show your ticket stub b. Besides missing my bus, I got my feet all wet The subjects of the additive clauses in (32) are co-referent with that of the main clauses, and the clauses that display a less-finite, participial verbal morphology (see §18.2.2.8 below). But an additive clause may have an overtly expressed non-co-referent subject, as in: (33) Not only did I miss the bus, but the driver who finally picked me up turned out to be a jerk 18.2.1.1.7
Purpose clauses. Purpose clauses, with their subject most typically co-referential with that of the main clause, signal the purpose of the agent for acting as they did in the event coded by the main clause. The main clauses are thus typically active/agentive, as in: (34) a. He went out to look for his boy b. To go there, you must take the train c. In order to finish on time, she had to cut corners The semantic restriction on the main clause is not so much that it must code an action, but rather that it must involve choice or control. Thus, stative main clauses can take purpose clauses, provided some plausible inference of control by the subject of the main clause is possible: (35) a. To do this, you must be brave. b. To play basketball, one had better be tall. As Thompson (1985) points out, the exact scope of ‘purpose’ is rather different when the clause is pre-posed, as in (34b,c) or (33a,b), as against when it follows the main clause (34a). Post-posed purpose clauses most typically code the intent of the main-clause agent in performing his/her action. Pre-posed purpose clauses typically have a broader, more diffuse scope, not necessarily referring to the main-clause agent’s purpose. As a brief illustration of the difference, contrast: (36) a. Pre-posed To illustrate this, consider the following passage b. Post-posed *Consider the following passage to illustrate this c. Pre-posed *To fix the plumbing then he went out d. Post-posed Then he went out to fix the plumbing

337

338

Syntax

The purpose in the pre-posed (36a) is obviously not that of the implicit main-clause agent (‘you’), but rather that of the implicit speaker. For this reason presumably, (36b) is odd. Likewise, the purpose in the post-posed purpose clause in (36d) is the main-clause agent’s, and for this reason (36c) is now odd. In the main, the grammar of purpose clauses closely parallel that of the verbal complements of equi-subject modality verbs (Ch. 12). 18.2.2 Participial adverbial clauses 18.2.2.1
Finiteness and cross-clausal integration Like complements of modality and manipulation verbs (Ch. 12), participial ADV-clauses are tightly integrated with their main clause. Functionally first, this integration involves two major components of coherence: coherence: Participial ADV-clauses tend to have the same-subject as their •
Referential main clause. coherence: Participial ADV-clauses tend to exhibit rigid tense-aspect-modal •
Temporal restrictions vis-a-vis their main clause, most commonly either: imperfective aspect •
Simultaneity:
Anteriority: perfect aspect • Of the two conditions, referential coherence — the equi-subject conditions — may be relaxed in some cases, in contexts where the other components of coherence take over (see below). Syntactically, participial ADV-clauses most typically display less-finite features. But as noted earlier (Ch. 11,12), finiteness is complex, a scalar dimension. Along the finiteness continuum, participial clauses tend to occupy an intermediate position in most languages — more finite than infinitival V-complements but less finite than main clauses. Of the cluster of morpho-syntactic features that code finiteness (see (1c) above), the following four are most relevant here: marking •
verb
tense–aspect-modality •
pronominal agreement • marking •
nominal of NPs •
zero-marking
genitive case-marking of NPs • To recapitulate our earlier discussion of the scalarity of finiteness, compare the gradation of finite morphology in not-fully-finite subordinate clauses in English: (37) a. Lexical nominal Her rejection of the job was unexpected b. ing-infinitive/nominal His rejecting the job was never contemplated

Inter-clausal coherence

339

c. For-to infinitive For her to reject the job was a mistake d. Infinitival V-complement He wanted to reject the job e. Imperfective participial adverb Rejecting the job, she moved to Atlanta f.

Perfect participial adverb Having rejected the job, she went on vacation

The use of morpho-syntactic features of finiteness in ranking these six English constructions in (37) may be summarized as, respectively: (38) Ranking of less-finite clauses (English) Morpho-syntactic marking Clause-type

Verb

Object

Subject

a. b. c. d. e. f.

nominal ing-INF to-INF to-INF IMPFV-aspect PERF-aspect

genitive accusative accusative accusative accusative accusative

genitive genitive benefactive (Ø-anaphor) (Ø-anaphor) (Ø-anaphor)

LEX-NOM ING-NOM FOR-TO V-COMP IMPFV-PART PERF-PART

It is worth noting, finally, that finite verbal marking (or lack thereof) strongly correlates with cross-clausal tense–aspect-modal coherence. Finite nominal marking (or lack thereof), in turn, correlates with cross-clausal referential coherence (see §18.3.3.7 below). 18.2.2.2
Imperfective participial adverbial clauses Imperfective (‘progressive’) participial ADV-clauses tend to code events or states that are simultaneous (co-temporal) with the main clause. In most languages, and across many discourse types, such clauses — especially when pre-posed vis-a-vis their main clause — tend to convey background information. This contrasts with foregrounded, main clauses in discourse, which tend to code sequential events (Hopper 1979; Hopper and Thompson 1980). The imperfective aspectuality of the verb in these participial clauses is thus significant, in that events tend to be temporally compact and thus more likely to be sequential, while states are temporally diffuse and thus more amenable to simultaneity. In English and many other languages, the progressive aspectual verb-form (-ing) also functions as a nominal or infinitive form. This sometimes gives rise to ambiguity, whereby sequential, foregrounded, chained clauses are coded by the same participial-infinitive verb form as imperfective ADV-clauses (see further below). Therefore, when the -ing verb-form is used in English to code sequential chained clauses, it denotes neither the imperfective aspect nor simultaneity nor backgrounding. To illustrate the contrast between the two usages of the -ing verb-form in English, consider the effect of order alternation on the interpretation of imperfective participial

340 Syntax

clauses. Technically, such clauses can occur either before (pre-posed to) or after (postposed to) the main clause. But when they are post-posed, an imperfective, simultaneous interpretation seems much more natural. When they are pre-posed, a sequential, chained interpretation seems more natural. Thus compare: (39) Pre-posed vs. post-posed -ing-marked participials a. He stayed home all day doing his tax-returns (> He did his tax returns while at home) b. ?Doing his tax returns, he stayed home all day (?> He first did his tax returns, then stayed home) c. Turning the corner, she slowed down (> She first turned, then slowed down) ? d. She slowed down turning the corner (?> She slowed down as she was turning) e. Walking slowly, he arrived (> He walked slowly, then finally arrived) f. He arrived walking slowly (> He was walking slowly as he arrived) g. Leaving the house, she called her office (> She first left, then called) h. ?She called her office leaving the house (?> She called as she was leaving) Now note that the odd combinations (39b), (39d) and (39f) become acceptable if the right aspectuality is marked more explicitly; respectively:5 (40) a. Perfective Hav-ing do-ne his tax return, he stayed home all day. b. Imperfective She slowed dow as she was turning the corner. c. Imperfective She called her office as she was leaving the house The perfective, sequential, chained nature of pre-posed -ing-marked participial adverbs in English is even more apparent when several clauses precede one main clause: (41) Coming out, stopping to check the mailbox, taking a look at the driveway and pausing to adjust his hat, he turned and walked to his car. Not one of the -ing-coded clauses in (41) is aspectually imperfective (progressive). Together, they form a chain of telic, perfective, sequential events whose end is marked by the finite ‘main’ clause. We will return to this rather common type of clause-chaining further below.

Inter-clausal coherence

18.2.2.3
Perfect participial adverbial clauses Perfect participial ADV-clauses code events that have been terminated prior to those coded in the main clause. The verb in the ADV-clause is then marked by the perfect-anterior aspect, which redundantly denotes antecedence and thus sequentiality, regardless of surface order: (42) a. Having finished dinner, he left b. He left, having (first) finished dinner One may thus suggest that the perfect participial clause is the marked case as compared to the unmarked imperfective participial clause. Perfect participial ADV-clauses in English may also appear in chained sequences, as the -ing-marked participials in (41) above. While clearly temporally sequenced, such chains do not seem to convey the same tightly-packed thematic coherence as the chained -ing-marked participials (41). Thus compare: (43) Having first tended toward the offer, and having then vacillated for two weeks, and having written a withdrawal letter, he finally accepted. Finally, while chained -ing-marked participials must maintain their temporal sequence across the entire chain, chained perfect participials may, in keeping with their perfectanterior aspectuality, violate the sequential order — as long as they are all anterior to the main clause. Thus consider: (44) Having been tending toward the offer, in spite of having earlier vacillated for two weeks and having earlier yet even written a withdrawal letter, she finally accepted the job. 18.2.2.4
The equi-subject constraint on participial clauses: Referential vs. thematic coherence The participial ADV-clauses we have surveyed thus far share the same subject with their main clause. But in many languages, and under some conditions even in English, participial clauses may display different subjects than their main clause. Note first that the subject of the participial ADV-clause may be possessed — as either part or relation — by the mainclause subject-possessor: (45) a. b. c. d.

His heart pounding, Joe opened the box. His wife sick and his children gone, he disappeared. Her mother following behind her, Sarah barged in. Her career in shambles, Wendy went home.

Similarly, with perfect participials:

341

342

Syntax

(46) a. His wife having left, Joe moved in with Myrna b. His quest having been concluded, the knight rested The possessive relation need not be grammatically marked, but could be implicit. And ‘possession’ trails off into the increasingly vague relation of relevance: (47) a. The house being old, Joe sold it for a pittance (> it was Joe’s house) b. The war having been won, they were all discharged (> they fought in the war) c. Food being scarce, they foraged in the bush (> for them to eat) d. English being too easy, she switched to Math (> for her to learn) In some languages, syntactic provisions are made for telling apart same-subject (SS) from different-subject (DS) participial clauses. Thus, recall the following from Latin (Thompson and Longacre 1985): (48) a. SS participial clause ab oppid-o duct-a, from town-abl lead/past/part-nom ‘Having been brought from the town, femin-a prope templ-um habita-ba-t woman-nom near temple-acc live-impf-3sg the woman lived near the temple’ b. DS participial clause Caesar, accept-is litter-is, Caesar-nom receive/past/part-abl letter-abl ‘Caesar, the letter having been received, nunti-um misi-t messenger-acc send/perf-3sg sent a messenger’ This use of the case-marking system to code the SS/DS distinction in clause chaining will be discussed further below (§18.3.3.7.2). 18.2.3 Discourse-pragmatic connectivity of adverbial clauses 18.2.3.1
Preamble In the preceding sections we described the more local, semantic links between adverbial and their adjacent main clauses. In this section we deal with the other major type of connections that bind ADV-clauses to both their local and global context — their discourse-pragmatic connectivity. Several of the observations made above, concerning referential and thematic coherence, sequential chains, and the effect of serial order on the

Inter-clausal coherence

interpretation of adverbial clauses, already impinge upon the domain of discoursepragmatics. The treatment below is more explicitly. 18.2.3.2
Coherence and grounding 18.2.3.2.1
Local (semantic) vs. global (pragmatic) grounding. Pre-posed ADV-clauses seem to be attested in all languages, but many languages have no post-posed ADV-clauses. When a language allows both options, as in English, the grounding properties of the two turn out to be quite different. The difference may be summarized at two levels: (49) Correlation between the order of ADV-clauses and their connectivity a. Semantics A post-posed ADV-clause tends to have more local, semantic connections to its main clause, and is thus more closely integrated into its semantic structure. b. Pragmatics A pre-posed ADV-clause tends to have more global, diffuse pragmatic connections to its discourse context, and is thus less integrated into the semantic structure of the main clause. The distinction between semantic and pragmatic connectivity, as noted earlier, often coincides with the distinction between more local and more global coherence, respectively. But that distinction too remains, in principle, a matter of degree. Thus, in the earlier chapters of Vol. I, we tended to consider intra-clausal relations as semantic and interclausal relations as pragmatic. But in the case of both verbal complements and ADV-clauses, we shifted the cut-off point, treating the more local connectivity between adjacent clauses as semantic and the more global connectivity between non-adjacent clauses as pragmatic. An added complexity, already noted above, stems from the effect of word-order on the type of connectivity to adjacent clauses. Thus, -ing-marked participials in English were more likely to be interpreted as simultaneous-imperfective when they followed the main clause, but sequential-perfective when they preceded it. Further, the pre-posing of ADV-clauses can render their connectivity more global and pragmatic. And one may thus argue that co-temporality of two events means stronger event integration, while sequentiality (lack of co-temporality) means weaker event integration. What is more, as noted above (see also Thompson 1985), post-posed purpose clauses tend to refer to the motivation of the agents of their adjacent main-clause, while pre-posed purpose clauses often have a wider, more diffuse scope of reference, including even the purpose of the speaker, some other discourse participant, or even some generic-impersonal entity. This again points out to the more local, semantic connectivity of post-posed ADV-clauses, as against the more global, pragmatic connectivity of pre-posed ADV-clauses.

343

344 Syntax

18.2.3.2.2
Anaphoricity, backgrounding and ‘topicality’. Turning now to the more clearly pragmatic connectivity of ADV-clauses, both Haiman (1978) and Thompson and Longacre (1985) suggest that ADV-clauses, or at least pre-posed ADV-clauses, function as topical or backgrounded clauses.6 This seems to be supported by examples such as: (50) a. Backgrounded (‘topical’) main clause Context: When did he leave? Response: (i) He left when she called (ii) ?When she called, he left b. Backgrounded (‘topical’) ADV-clause Context: What did he do when she called? Response: (i) When she called, he left ? (ii) He left when she called Another indication of the more ‘topical’ status of pre-posed ADV-clauses comes from their morphological marking. Some languages mark ADV-clauses (as well as other topical or presupposed clauses) with the same topicalizing marker used to mark topicalized NPs. As illustration, consider the following from Isthmus Zapotec (Thompson and Longacre 1985): (51) a. Topicalized NP (L-dislocation) ngiiu-ke-la, bigapa ba’du-ke man-that-top hit child-that ‘The man, he hit the child’ b. Topicalized time-ADV clause laga kayuni be-nga-la, bedanda hnaa-be while do/prog he-that-top arrive/compl mother-his ‘While he was doing that, his mother arrived’ c. Topicalized because-ADV clause kumu wara be-la, naa uyaa’ because sick he-top go/compl I ‘Because he was sick, I went’ The problem of calling pre-posed ADV-clauses ‘topics’ (rather then ‘backgrounded’) is two-fold. First, using the functional label ‘topic’ does not absolve one from having to specify the exact discourse-pragmatic function of the construction. Clearly, the function of backgrounded clauses is not the same as that of topical referents, even if the two constructions share some functional and grammatical features. As elsewhere, partial similarity (oneway conditional) need not mean identity (two-way conditional). Second, as noted earlier (Vol. I, Ch. 10), the topicality of nominal referents can be factored out into two distinct features: accessibility: being a ‘given’, accessible argument in the preceding dis•
Anaphoric course. importance: being a recurrent, important argument in the subsequent •
Cataphoric discourse.

Inter-clausal coherence

Of these two features of topicality, only anaphoric accessibility (‘givenness’, ‘backgroundedness’) applies to pre-posed ADV-clauses. But unlike topical NPs, pre-posed ADV-clauses are seldom recurrent or important, either cataphorically or anaphorically. Their cataphoric connectivity is strictly local, ending with the adjacent main clause. One must conclude, then, that calling pre-posed ADV-clauses ‘topics’ is another unfortunate legacy of the Praguean tradition that blurred the distinction between the two cognitive-pragmatic aspects of topicality. This tradition has tended to confuse the high statistical association between the two features of topicality with logical identity (Givón 1988a). As noted earlier (Vol. I, Ch. 10), the two aspects of topicality can easily be dissociated even in the case of referent NPs. Thus, for example, REF-indefinite NPs are cataphorically topical but anaphorically inaccessible. And many anaphorically accessible definite NPs, such as oblique-case referents, remain cataphorically unimportant. Only some grammatical devices — pronouns, definite subjects, L-dislocation, Y-movement and cleft — tend to combine both features of topicality. 18.2.3.2.3
Anaphoric grounding and thematic re-orientation. Two studies, Thompson (1985) and Ramsay (1987), compared the discourse-pragmatic connectivity of pre-posed and post-posed ADV-clauses in written English. Their results, compatible with the ‘given’ pragmatic status of pre-posed ADV-clauses, shed further light on the use of ADV-clauses for anaphoric grounding. First, both studies suggest that post-posed ADV-clauses have a narrow, local, semantic connectivity, primarily to their adjacent main clause. They are, for example, more likely to display referential coherence (equi-subject) with their main clause. Syntactically too, post-posed ADV-clauses are more strongly integrated with their main clause, and less likely to be separated from it by a pause. Most revealing, post-posed ADV-clauses tend to appear at chain-medial positions, i.e. in contexts of high thematical continuity. In contrast, pre-posed ADV-clauses tend to have wider-scoped, diffuse, anaphoric grounding. Both their referential and thematic links project far into the preceding chain, paragraph or episode. Syntactically, pre-posed ADV-clauses are more likely to be separated from their main clause by a pause. Finally, they are typically chain initial, thus also paragraph- and episodeinitial. That is, they appear in contexts of high thematic discontinuity. As an illustration of the contrast between pre-posed and post-posed ADV-clauses, consider first their occurrence in the following written English narrative (cited from Thompson 1985: 62):7 (52) “…The Brendan was rushing madly farther and farther out to sea. To slow her down, we streamed a heavy rope in a loop from the stern and let it trail in the water behind us to act as a brake…” The pre-posed purpose ADV-clause in (52) is chain-initial, is followed by a pause, and refers anaphorically to both a referent (‘The Brendan’) and events beyond the chain’s

345

346 Syntax

boundary. The post-posed purpose ADV-clause is chain-medial, is intonationally merged with the main clause, and codes the motives of the subject/agent of the adjacent main clause. At first glance, the local cataphoric connectivity of the pre-posed ADV-clause to its main clause in (52) seems to be just as specific and local as the local anaphoric connectivity of the post-posed clause. For example, both ADV-clauses hold the same co-reference relation with the subject of the main-clause (‘we’). However, both the anaphoric connectivity and syntactic government of pre-posed ADV-clauses can be much more diffuse, as can be seen in the following passage from the same narrative (Thompson 1985: 63): (53) “…Tedium became our new enemy. Once or twice we glimpsed enough sun to make it worthwhile to hang the sleeping bags in the rigging and to try to dry our clothes. But usually the weather was too foggy or too damp for any success. And it was so cold that the next migrant to land on The Brendan, another water pipit, also failed to survive the night and perished. To pass the time, there was a shipboard craze for fancy rope work…” The pre-posed ADV-clause ‘To pass the time’ refers to neither a specific event nor a specific subject/agent in the preceding 4-chains, but rather to the thematic whole, a meta-distillation of the entire passage. Nor is there a clear syntactic equi-subject constraint vis-a-vis the subsequent main clause, itself a subjectless impersonal clause with only an implicit subject (‘we’, ‘the crew’). Essentially the same contrast between pre-posed vs. post-posed conditional (‘if ’) and temporal (‘when’) ADV-clauses was shown by Ramsay (1987). Thus compare (examples from pp. 388, 405, respectively): (54) a. Pre-posed “…The early rehearsals tend to be in Italian. Mike Turner, the company’s director, who was to conduct, was insistent on this. If they knew Italian, this would smooth things over the early rehearsal with Julia Contini…” b. Post-posed “…You can only split up if you’ve been going together…” In the same vein, compare the use of the two ‘if ’ ADV-clauses in the very same passage, one pre-posed and reaching diffusely back across several preceding chains, the other post-posed and tightly focused on the main clause (L’Amour 1962: 2): (55) “…The rifles spoke again from the sounding board of the rocks, racketing away down the canyons to fade at the desert’s rim. Motionless upon a sun-baked slope, he waited while the sweat found thin furrows through the dust on his cheeks, but there was no further sound, no further shot, nor was there movement within the range of his vision… merely the lazy circle of a buzzard against the heat-blurred sky. If they had not seen him already, they would not see him if he remained still, and Shalako his learned his patience in a hard school…”

Inter-clausal coherence

347

18.2.3.2.4
Pre-posed adverbial clauses as chain-initial coherence bridges. Pre-posed ADV-clauses may be viewed as coherence bridges, used at major thematic breaks — chaininitial, paragraph initial of episode-initial positions. Their bridging capacity is facilitated by their two-directional connectivity: cataphoric semantic links to the subsequent main clause, anaphoric pragmatic links to the preceding discourse. The grounding function of such ADV-clauses may be summarized as (Givón 1987a): (56) Grounding functions of pre-posed ADV-clauses predecing chain chain-Wnal clause

subsequent chain coherence-bridge clause

diVuse anaphoric links

,

chain-initial clause

,

local cataphoric link

One may as well note that a similar chain-initial coherence bridge function is also performed by shorter adverbials, with a similar contrast between the pre-posed and postposed ordering. Thus compare: (57) a. Pre-posed In december she decided to quit her job. b. Post-posed She decided to quit her job in December. c. Pre-posed In the big agency, she worked as an account. d. Post-posed She works as an accountant in a big agency. e. Pre-posed On the contrary, she succeeded beyond expectations. f.

Post-posed ?She succeeded beyond all expectation on the contrary.

The anaphoric connectivity of pre-posed adverbials may be underscored by noting their definiteness and reference restrictions, which parallel restrictions on topicalizing constructions (Ch. 15,16). Thus compare: (58) a. Definite In the big agency, she worked as an account. b. Non-referring In agencies, she worked as an accountant

348

Syntax

c. *REF-indefinite *In an agency, she worked as an accountant. No such restriction applies to the post-posed adverbial (57d). To illustrate the use of this contrast in natural text, consider passage (59) below, in which the temporal reference of the pre-posed adverbial reaches back rather diffusely through an entire page of preceding narrative stasis. In contrast, the post-posed imperfective temporal ADV-clause focuses narrowly on its adjacent main clause (L’Amour 1962: 3): (59) “…The roan gelding was a mountain-bred horse and could survive on cholla or prickly pear if the spines were burned away, but water and grass lay within that opening in the hills, and Shalako had no intention of skirting the mountain unless circumstances insisted. Yet the sound of shots had come from that direction. After a while he made, with sparing movements, a cigarette, his eyes holding on the far, blue mountains briefly, then surveying the country while he worked with the small, essential movements…” The pre-posed element can also be a nominal argument of the verb, as in the chain-initial locative-presentative construction in (60) below, with its ‘inverted’ OVS syntax (see Ch. 16; L’Amour 1962: 2): (60) “…Movement attracts the eye, draws the attention, renders visible. A motionless object that blends with the surroundings can long remain invisible even when close by, and Shalako was not moving. About him lay vast immeasurable distances, pastel shadings of salmon, pink and lemon broken by the deeper reds of rock…” 18.2.4 Conjoined (‘chained’) clauses 18.2.4.1
Preamble We have already noted above (§18.1.1) that the traditional clean dichotomy between ‘independent’ and ‘dependent’ clauses is unrealistic both functionally and syntactically. Rather, our analysis must deal more specifically with degrees — and types — of semanticpragmatic connectivity (2) on the one hand, and syntactic dependency, finiteness or control (1) on the other. While the different types of conjoined clauses may vary among themselves in the degree and type of their connectivity, their pragmatic links tend to be local (narrow scoped). In this, they contrast with pre-posed adverbials but resemble the post-posed ones. 18.2.4.2
Coherence and thematic continuity Most languages have a number of conjunction morphemes that signal the degree and type of connectivity — or cataphoric transition — to the next clause. In written discourse, punctuation marks (period, colon, semi-colon, comma, parentheses or hyphens) are part of the system that codes inter-clausal connectivity, being a weak replica of intonational cues. To illustrate this gradation briefly, consider:

Inter-clausal coherence

349

(61) a. Comma-‘and’ conjunction She came in, [Ø] stopped, [Ø] looked around and froze. b. Period conjunction She came in, [Ø] stopped and looked around. She froze. c. Period-‘then’ conjunction She came in and looked around. Then she froze. d. Period-pre-posed-adverbial conjunction …She froze. Later on she woke up in a strange house… The cataphoric thematic continuity following the conjunction is highest in (61a), lower in (61b), lower yet in (61c) and lowest in (61d). Such thematic continuity may be expressed in terms of the probability of change in the main strands of thematic coherence, reproduced below: (5) Well-marked elements of discourse coherence a. referents (‘participants’) b. location c. temporality d. aspectuality e. modality f. perspective (‘narrative voice’) g. action/events Consider, for example, the statistical correlation between the use of various conjunctions (including punctuation marks) and cataphoric subject (5a) continuity in written English (Hayashi 1989): (62) Cataphoric referential continuity associated with zero punctuation, comma, period and paragraph indentation with ‘and’ and ‘then’ in English (Hayashi 1989) Conjunction type

% subject switch (DS) across the conjunction

and , and . And


15
70
81

and then , and then . and then


16
36 100

, then . Then . PARAG/Then


50
56 100

comma (alone) period (alone)


10
72

The punctuation devices are ranked in a predictable, iconic, order:

350

Syntax

(63) highest cataphoric continuity zero comma period paragraph indentation lowest cataphoric continuity 18.2.4.3
Continuative vs. contrastive junctions There appears to be a systematic connection between the use of contrastive conjunctions, thematic discontinuity, and referential discontinuity. Thus in English, the continuative conjunction ‘and’ codes greater cataphoric continuity than the contrastive conjunction ‘but’. Thus compare: (64) a. b. c. d.

He gutted the fish, cleaned it and cut off the head ?He gutted the fish, cleaned it but cut off the head

He gutted the fish, cleaned it, but then stopped ?He gutted the fish, cleaned it and stopped

One could of course dream up a presuppositional background that would render (64b,d) more felicitous and (64a,c) odd; as, for example: (65) Background: We love eating fish-heads. But (65) is at clear variance with the cultural norms that render (64a,c) more likely. The strong statistical association between contrastive conjunctions and referential discontinuity, and between continuative conjunctions and referential continuity, has been shown in Hayashi’s (1989) study of English: (66) Cataphoric referential continuity and contrastive conjunctions in written English (Hayashi 1989) Conjunction type

% subject switch (DS) across the conjunction

and (all punctuations)


29

, while


77

but (all punctuations)


85

, though

100

. Yet

100

The contrastive ‘while’, ‘but’, ‘though’ and ‘yet’ are strongly associated with switch-subject (DS), while the continuative ‘and’ is strongly associated with equi-subject (SS). Similar results have been reported by Carlson (1987) for Sup’ire (Senufu), where the non-contrastive conjunction maá ‘and’ is associated 99% of the time with cataphoric referential continuity, while the contrastive conjunction kà (‘but’) is associated 98% of the time with cataphoric referential discontinuity. Similar strong associations have been

Inter-clausal coherence

reported by Frajzyngier (1986) for Polish and Li (1988) for Green Hmong, albeit without quantification. The correlations noted above should not be taken to mean that various conjunctions and punctuation devices signal the degree of referential continuity. Rather, they signal primarily degrees of thematic coherence. As noted earlier, however, thematic coherence is a multi-strand phenomenon, and one of its most visible, concrete, important strands is referential continuity. While the sub-strands of coherence may be conceptually distinct, they tend to be strongly associated in connected discourse. Thematic contrasts usually involve at least the predicate, but often both the predicate and a referent. Thus compare: (67) a. Switch verb Mary sat down, but didn’t eat b. Switch verb and subject (negation) Joe came, but Sally didn’t c. Switch verb and object (negation) I found Sally, but not Joe d. Switch verb and subject Mary sat down, but Bruce stayed on his feet e. Switch verb and object Mary loved lettuce, but loathed spinach f.

Switch verb, subject & object Mary played chess, but Bruce detested board-games

As elsewhere, ‘contrast’ is always embedded in a context of some pre-set expectations about states, activities, subjects or objects that are expected to behave in a certain way but in fact don’t. The expectations may be normative-cultural, as in (68a) below, or else set up for the specific occasion in the preceding discourse, as in (68b): (68) a. Generic-cultural expectations Mary had an IQ of 72 but still was a famous physicist (Expectation: Physicists need high IQ) b. Anaphorically-set expectations Mary sat down but Bruce stayed on his feet (Expectation: Mary and Bruce are similar or closely linked, thus expected to behave alike.)

351

352

Syntax

18.3

Syntactic and typological dimensions of inter-clausal connectivity

18.3.1 Finiteness and control 18.3.1.1
Recapitulation As noted earlier (Ch. 11), finiteness is a clausal phenomenon that may be coded at multiple sites on either the verb or subject and object NPs. Its most conspicuous features may be discussed in terms of two extreme prototypes — the verbal (finite) vs. nominal (non-finite). (69) The morpho-syntax of the finite vs. non-finite prototypes Finite (verbal)

Non-finite (nominal)

+ + − − −

− − + + +

Nom/Acc −

Gen +

a. Verbal inflections

•
tense–aspect-modality affixes •
pronominal
nominalizers •
determiners •
classifiers, number • b. Nominal inflections •
case-markers •
obligatory zero-anaphors

Since finiteness is coded at multiple sites and each of those may involve multiple markers, finiteness is in principle not a discrete binary distinction but rather a scalar dimension (Ch. 11,12). Our survey of the clause-types that make up connected discourse, however complex it may seem at times, ultimately revolves around the leitmotif of degree of finiteness. 18.3.1.2
Finiteness and adverbial clauses As noted earlier above, one type of adverbial clauses, equi-subject participial clauses, tend to display less-finite syntax in most languages, in terms of reduced tense–aspect-modal marking (most commonly just the aspectual contrast of imperfective vs. perfect), participial/nominalized verbal morphology, lack of subject/object pronominal inflections, and obligatory zero subject. In some language families, such as Indo-European, Bantu, Senufu or Athabaskan, ADV-clauses, particularly the non-participial ones, are syntactically much closer to the finite prototype. But even in these, strong restrictions on the distribution of tense–aspectmodality are observed, so that the range of finite verbal morphology is sharply reduced. Other language families, such as Uto-Aztecan, Turkic, Cariban or Tibeto-Burman, present more extreme cases of radically non-finite syntax in ADV-clauses — as well as in other subordinate clauses. We will illustrate this first with data from Ute (Uto-Aztecan), where three of the features of non-finite syntax listed in (69) characterize most ADV-clauses:

Inter-clausal coherence

case-marking on the subject •
genitive morpheme on the verb •
nominalizing
severely reduced tense–aspect marking on the verb • As an illustration of this, consider (Givón 1980a, 1994c): (70) Nominal ADV-clauses in Ute a. Main clause ta’wach sarich-i magha-qa man-subj dog-obj feed-ant ‘The man fed the dog’ b. ‘If ’/‘when’ ADV-clause ta’wach-i sarich-i magha-kwa… man-gen dog-obj feed-sub ‘If/when the man feeds/fed/will feed the dog…’ c. ‘After’/‘because’ ADV-clause ta’wach-i sarich-i magha-kway-kwa… man-gen dog-obj feed-ant-sub ‘After/because the man feeds/fed/will feed the dog…’ d. Subjunctive purpose ADV-clause ta’wach-i sarich-i magha-vaa-kwa… man-gen dog-obj feed-irr-sub ‘In order that the man feed the dog…’ e. Equi-subject purpose ADV-clause ta’wach yu =ga-qa sarich-i magha-vaa-ci man/subj enter-ant dog-obj feed-irr-sub ‘The man came in to feed the dog’ f.

Concessive ADV-clause ta’wach-i sarich-i magha-kwa-sap… man-gen dog-obj feed-sub-mod ‘Even though the man has fed/may feed/is feeding the dog, …’

g. Counterfact conditional náaghasu =ni ta’wach-i sarich-i magha-kway-kwa, mod man-gen dog-obj feed-ant-sub ‘If the man had fed the dog, mamach págh-kwa-vaa-qa-t(u =) woman/subj leave-go-irr-ant-nom the woman would have left’ A language may begin to grammaticalize ADV-clauses via a nominalization pathway, but then gradually add more finite tense–aspect-modal morphology. This diachronic process of re-finitization has indeed been going on in Ute (Givón 1994c), and has also been described in Cariban (Gildea 1998) and Kham (Tibeto-Burman; Watters 1998). We will

353

354

Syntax

illustrate this process by contrasting the nominalized ADV-clauses of Early Biblical Hebrew with their fully-finite Modern Hebrew equivalents: (71) Non-finite EBH adverbial clauses a. be-yom ’asot YHWH ’et-ha-shamayim… loc-day/of make/inf/of YHWH acc-the-heavens ‘on the day that God made the sky…’ (lit.: ‘on the day of God’s making of the sky…’) (Genesis 2:4) MH equivalent ba-yom she-YHWH ’asa ’et-ha-shamayim at-day rel-YHWH make/perf/3masc.sg acc-the-heavens b. be-hibar’-am loc-pass/create/inf-their ‘when they were created’ (lit.: ‘at their being created’) (Genesis 2:4) MH equivalent ke-she-hem nivre’-u when-rel-they create/pass/perf-3masc.pl c. ’ad shuv-xa ’el ha-’adamah time/of return/inf-your to the-earth ‘till you return to the earth’ (lit.: ‘until your return to the earth’) (Genesis 3:19) MH equivalent ’ad-she-ta-shuv ’el ha-’adamah till-rel-3masc.sg-return/irr to the-earth d. ’axarey holid-o ’et-Mahal’el behind/of sire/inf-his acc-Mahal’el ‘after he sired Mahal’el’ (lit.: ‘after of his siring Mahal’el’) (Genesis 5:13) MH equivalent ’axarey she-hu’ holid ’et-Mehal’el after rel-he sire/perf/3masc.sg acc-Mehal’el e. ki-shmo’a malxey ha-’emorim as-hear/inf/of kings/of the-Emorites ‘when the Emorite kings heard’ (lit.: ‘upon the hearing of the Emorite kings’ (Joshua 5:1) MH equivalent ke-she-sham’-u malxey ha-’emorim as-rel-hear/perf-3masc.pl kings/of the-Emorites

Inter-clausal coherence

f.

ki-lh.ox ha-shor ’et-yereq ha-sadeh as-chew/inf/of the-ox acc-grass/of the-field ‘the way the ox chews the grass of the field’ (lit.: ‘like the ox’s chewing the field grass’) (Num. 22:4) MH equivalent kemo she-ha-shor melaxex ’et-yereq ha-sadeh like rel-the-ox chew/impf/masc.sg acc-grass/of the-field

The change from non-finite to finite subordinate clauses had already begun in Biblical Hebrew, and was essentially complete by the Mishnaic period (200 AD). It affected REL-clauses first, then spread by analogy into the ADV-clauses paradigm, given that both clause-types shared essentially the same nominalized structure (Givón 1991d). 18.3.2 Finiteness and clause-chaining 18.3.2.1
Clauses, chains, and paragraphs As noted earlier, the traditional view of inter-clausal connectivity, heavily weighted by the study of English-like languages, took for granted the contrast between clausal subordination and coordination (‘conjunction’), as well as the assumption that clause-chains were sequences of conjoined clauses (or even conjoined verb phrase). But the term clause chaining itself, due to Longacre (1983, 1985), was taken initially as a suggestion that a radically different system of clause-combining existed, one in which the traditional distinction between subordinate and coordinate was either irrelevant or superseded. As in many other cases of so-called radical departures, the radicalism turns out to be in part the product of terminological murk, and in part the product of lingering Platonic essentialism in one’s approach to categories, taxonomy and thus typology. The terminological murk arises from the oft-overlapping use of the terms sentence, paragraph and chain, and can be dispatched with relative ease by eliminating the term ‘sentence’ altogether. The term ‘clause’ — simple or complex — is then reserved for syntactic units packed under a single intonation contour.8 The clause-chain, the smallest unit of coherent multi-propositional discourse, combines clauses that are packed under separate intonation contours and have the tightest, most continuous cross-clausal coherence links. In written discourse, inter-clausal junctures within the chain are most commonly marked with a coma, and inter-chain junctures with a period. These punctuation conventions correspond closely to intonational units in spoken discourse (Givón 1991b). While chains in coherent discourse are typically multi-clausal, a chain can also on occasion be of a single clause. The paragraph is the next-higher thematic coherence unit, most commonly made out of a number of chains, but on occasion of only a single chain. The episode, under whatever guise, is the next-higher thematic coherence level, grouping paragraphs. At first glance, the hierarchic organization of clauses, chains, paragraphs and episodes seems to pertain most narrowly to the thematic structure of narrative discourse, in which

355

356

Syntax

perspective and thus coherence is controlled by a single speaker. However, the thematic organization of conversation can be just as hierarchic, complex and global, in spite of the repeated shifts between speakers in control of perspective. Thus, collaborative conversation is characterized by a high degree of thematic coherence across successive turns (Goodwin 1995; Chafe 1997; Coates 1997; Ervin-Tripp and Küntay 1977; Linell and Kirolija 1997, inter alia). And natural oral narrative can easily be chaotic, choppy and downright incoherent. The second problem with the typological radicalism that takes clause-chaining systems to be utterly unique is, paradoxically, a mirror image of the Platonism inherent in the traditional English-based clean split between subordination and coordination. This approach takes for granted that the English-type chaining strings together conjoined independent clauses with neither syntactic dependency, nor gradients of finiteness, nor switch-reference devices. The approach pursued here is neither radical nor traditional, but only factual. While recognizing the typological variability of clause-chaining systems, it does not let go of the search for both functional and syntactic universals and explanatory principles. 18.3.2.2
Clause-types within the chain The most general feature of clause-chaining systems, thus of the grammar of thematic coherence, is the distinction between chain-grounding, chain-initial, chain-medial and chain-final clauses. This distinction is significant first at the functional level of thematic coherence. clauses must perform the coherence-bridge function so characteristic •
Chain-grounding of pre-posed adverbials, L-dislocation, existential-presentatives and similar devices.

•

They code both the global anaphoric links of the new chain to the preceding discourse, and the local cataphoric links to the subsequent chain-initial clause. Their finiteness is often unpredictable, although in many languages they are nominalized, at least historically. And many chains, especially paragraph-medial ones, lack this clause-type all together, presumably because the thematic continuity within the paragraph is high enough so that a conjunction or short adverbial will suffice to signal thematic reorientation.
Chain-initial clauses launch the new chain, initiating its major thematic strands (topical referent(s), tense–aspect-modality, perspective). Their anaphoric connectivity is low or strictly local, primarily to the chain-grounding clause, and their cataphoric coherence is maximal. At least in one major clause-chaining type, this is grammatically the most elaborately marked, thus most finite clause-type in the chain.
Chain-medial clauses carry the bulk of sequential new information in the chain, and display the highest degree of cross-clausal coherence. Their grammatical marking is the most minimal, since most threads of thematic coherence (topical referents, temporality, aspectuality, modality, perspective) remain the same. Thus in spite of earlier claims to the contrary, this is syntactically the least finite clause-type in the chain.
Chain final clauses terminate the thematic unit. Their coherence properties are just the opposite of those of chain-initial clauses: maximal anaphoric continuity, minimal

• •

Inter-clausal coherence

cataphoric continuity. Indeed, their grammar often signals the impending major thematic break and, most commonly, the initiation of a new chain. And at least in one major clause-chaining type this is the most finite clause type. In our treatment of the typology of clause-chaining systems, we will divide them first into two major types: chaining (chain-final = most finite clause) •
SOV-type
VO-type chaining (chain-initial = most finite clause) • For each type, the attested sub-types will be then described in the now-familiar terms of diachronic pathways of grammaticalization. 18.3.2.3
The SOV clause-chaining type The most salient syntactic feature of this type of clause-chaining is the assignment of most finite grammatical marking to the chain-final clause. While the correlation with wordorder is not absolute, this clause-chaining type is found most conspicuously in SOV languages. We will nonetheless illustrate its most simple sub-type with a rigid SVO language (English), where this chaining type is optional and of limited use. 18.3.2.3.1
The simple participial equi-subject chain. As noted earlier, English has pre-posed equi-subject participial ADV-clauses. Such clauses, with their rigid cataphoric SS (equisubject) constraint, lend themselves rather naturally to being grammaticalized into one of the most rudimentary and wide-spread clause-chaining system. This is done by the simple extension — or iteration — of the clause’s cataphoric SS constraint, while ditching its anaphoric coherence-bridge function. The resulting structure is now a sequential, maximally-continuous, equi-subject chain: (72) a. b. c. d. e. f.

Coming out of the house, stopping to check the mailbox, taking a look at the driveway and pausing to adjust his hat, Marvin turned around and froze.

The participial clauses (72a–d) are all chain-medial (non-final), signalling equally the very same maximal thematic continuity. Only clause (72e), technically pre-final in the chain, has fully finite grammar (verbal inflections, non-zero subject), serving at the same time as the more-finite chain-initial clause of the VO-type short chain that ends with a slightly lessfinite (zero subject) chain-final clause (72f). As we shall see below, this simple system partakes repeatedly in more elaborate variants of the SVO clause-chaining type. 18.3.2.3.2
Adding a chain-medial cataphoric-DS (‘switch-reference’) clause. The most common further elaboration of the simple participial cataphoric-SS chaining system may be seen in Miskitu (Misumalpan; Chibchan), where a chain-medial cataphoric switchreference (cataphoric-DS) clause-type has been added.

357

358

Syntax

In Misumalpan languages, the participial/infinitive/nominal suffix -i marks non-finite clauses in a variety of grammatical contexts (Hale 1988, 1991): (73) a. Complement of modality verb naha nani w-a-m-tla maki-i ta krik-ri we pl house-your build-inf end break-past/1 ‘We began to build your house’ b. Serial verb constructions baha uku-ka pal-i wa-n that vulture-cnstr fly-inf go-past/3 ‘The vulture flew away’ (lit.: ‘The vulture left flying’) c. ‘Complement’ of aspectual auxiliary kuh puht-i saak-yang fire blow-inf stand-1 ‘I am blowing the fire’ (lit.: ‘I stand blow the fire’) d. Serial verb plus auxiliary yang nani utla kum mak-i banghw-i s-na I pl house one build-inf join-inf be-1 ‘We are building a house togehter’ (lit.: ‘We are joining to build a house’) In clause-chaining, the -i-suffixed verb-form codes chain-medial cataphoric-SS clauses, as in the simple participial system. A finite verb form, marked with past tense and subject pronoun, has been grammaticalized as the chain-medial cataphoric-DS clause. The tense–aspect and subject agreement marking in such clauses remain the same as in pastmarked chain-final clauses. Thus (Hale 1988, 1991): (74) a. Same-subject baha ulu-ka baut-i ik-amna that wasp-constr hit-inf kill-fut/1 ‘I will swat that wasp and kill it’ b. Different subject man sula kum kaik-ram plap-an you deer one see-past/2 run-past/3 ‘You saw a deer and it ran’ c. Different subject yang sula kum kaik-ri plap-an I deer one see-past/1 run-past/3 ‘I saw a deer and it ran’

Inter-clausal coherence

d. Different subject aisi-k-i Bilwi-ra ai blik-an wa-ri father-cnstr-1 B.-to me send-past/3 go-past/1 ‘My father sent me to Bilwi (Puerto Cabezas)’ (lit.: ‘My father sent me — and I went — to P.C.’) The logic of the diachronic rise of the Miskitu cataphoric-DS clause is easy to discern. In the SOV-type clause-chaining system, fully-marked finite clauses are typically chain-final. Such clauses signal cataphorically the impending thematic break. And thematic breaks, as noted above, are strongly associated with referential discontinuity, thus switch-subject or switch-reference. One may sum up the Misumalpan clause-chaining system as the product of two diachronic cycles of ‘recruitment’. In the first, a chain-grounding cataphoric-SS non-finite clause (participial adverbial) was recruited to extend its referential continuity function into the chain-medial positions. In the second, a chain-final cataphoric-DS finite clause was recruited to extend its referential discontinuity function into a chain medial position. That is: fi chain-medial-SS •
chain-grounding-SS
chain-final-DS fi chain-medial-DS • Both developments capitalized on the universal tendency, indeed the very definition of thematic chains, to maintain tight coherence within the chain and allow breaks only between chains. But the second development is much less common than the first, given that the chain-medial position is overwhelmingly a topic continuity position. 18.3.2.3.3
The use of finite adverbial clauses in chain-medial switch-reference. An alternative diachronic route to developing a chain-medial cataphoric-DS clause can be seen in Kanite (Papuan Highlands). In this language, the verb in chain-medial cataphoric-SS clauses is marked only by a subject pronoun (‘subject agreement’) that agrees both anaphorically and cataphorically. A finite ADV-clause is then used in two capacities, both signaling switch reference (cataphoric-DS). First, as a chain-grounding clause, where its verb displays two different suffix pronouns, the first anaphoric (‘subject agreement’), the second cataphoric and ‘agreeing’ with the next clauses’s subject (cataphoric-DS). An additional suffix is sandwiched between the two pronouns, historically most likely a conjunction or subordination marker (Haiman 1983, 1987). In its second capacity, the finite ADV-clause is used in a chain-medial cataphoric-DS capacity, but without its now-superfluous anaphoric pronoun. Only the chain-final clause in Kanite is marked by finite morphology (anaphoric subject pronoun, tense–aspect-modality, speech-act). As an illustration, consider the chain (Longacre 1985): (75) a. his-u’a-ke-’ka do-we-ds-you ‘…If we do this,

359

360 Syntax

b. naki a’nemo-ka hoya ali-’ka so women-you garden work-you you women work the garden, c. naki ali ha’noma hu-ne’atale-’ka so work finish do-compl-you then you finish, d. inuna kae-’ka weeds burn-you and burn the weeds e. popo hu-’ka hoe do-you and hoe, f. naki ha’no hu-talete-ke-ta’a so finish do-compl-ds-we and when you finish, g. naki viemoka-ta’a keki’yamo’ma ha’noma nehis-i-ana so men-we fence finish make-it-irr then we men will finish making the fence…’ The logic of the rise of the Kanite system is complex but still coherent. Fully finite chaininitial ADV-clauses, unlike their participial counterparts, have non-local anaphoric connections and signal an impending (cataphoric) major thematic and referential break. The conjunction/subordination marker is part of the morphology signaling the break, and in an OV language such markers tend to be V-suffixes (see §18.3.2.7). The pronoun that follows the conjunction and codes the subject of the next clause must have belonged initially to that subsequent clause, as a topic-switching independent pronoun, perhaps in an L-dislocation structure. The use of both devices for switchreference is wide-spread cross-linguistically (Ch. 16; Vol. I, Ch. 9). When the finite ADV-clause was pressed into service in the chain-medial cataphoric-SS slot, all it lost was its anaphoric pronoun (‘subject-agreement’), now superfluous in the new chain-medial slot. Otherwise, the conjunction and cataphoric pronoun continue to signal the same cataphoric-DS function they had in the chain-initial position. As an illustration of combining the two discontinuity devices, conjunction and independent pronoun, consider the following from Krio (English-based Creole; Sierra Leone). In this strict SVO language, where the conjunction na in combination with a pronoun is used in subject switching L-dislocation clauses (Givón 1984c): (76) …di pikín den jis de-se, den kam fo, den kam fo… …the child them just prog-say they come for they come for …the children just kept saying (that) they came for, they came for… na-in di mamí taya, en se mek den go on… and-her the woman tired she say make them go home but the woman got tired, so she told them to go home…’

Inter-clausal coherence

18.3.2.3.4
The use of chain-grounding clauses. Chuave, another Papuan Highlands language related to Kanite, codes morpho-syntactically four positions in the chain. In ascending order of degree of finiteness: grounding (optional) •
chain-initial
chain-medial •
chain-medial cataphoric-SS cataphoric-DS •
chain-final finite clauses • Chain-medial cataphoric-SS and chain-final clauses in Chuave are near-identical to their counterparts in Kanite. The minor differences lie in, first, the systematic use of chain-preinitial grounding clauses; and second, the clause-type recruited for the chain-medial cataphoric-DS (switch reference) function. Functionally, chain-grounding clauses in Chuave code backgrounded, presupposed information with strong anaphoric connections, thus conforming to our profile of ‘coherence bridge’. But the range of backgrounded clauses they code is broad, includes not only ADV-clauses, but also REL-clauses, V-complements and other ‘topic clauses’. Syntactically, Chuave chain-grounding clauses are marked with the nominalizing suffix -g/-k and sometimes also a determiner. They are further marked aspectually as either simultaneous or sequential (imperfective -i, perfect -a, respectively) vis-a-vis the subsequent main clause. They thus closely resemble participial ADV-clauses, albeit without their rigid cataphoric equi-subject constraint. Thus, all four examples in (77) below involve switch-subject between the chain-initial and subsequent clause; and the chain-grounding clause is always followed by a finite chain-final clause. That is, these examples involve short chains (Thurman 1978): (77) a. REL-clause (in English) gan moi-n-g-u-a, child be-he-nom-him-perf ‘The child (who) is here, Gomia tei awi d-i Gomia there send leave-impfv send (him) to Gomia!’ (or: ‘Send the child who’s here to Gomia!’) b. V-complement (in English) kasu di-in-g-a, lie say-they-nom-perf ‘That they told a lie, fai-ke-[Ø]-m-a right-neg-past-it-emph (it’s) not right’. (or: ‘It’s not right that they told a lie’)

361

362

Syntax

c. ADV-clause (in English) ne iki-num moi-n-g-i, you house-your be-you-nom-impfv ‘While you are in your house, tei u-na-y-e there come-fut-I-declar I will come there’. (or: ‘I’ll come over when you’re at home’) d. Topic clause (in English) koma du-pun-g-a-rai before say-we-top-nsim-that ‘Concerning that talk we had before, niki do-[Ø]-m-e bad be-past-it-declar it was no good’. In longer chains, medial clauses are marked only for the contrast between cataphoric-SS and cataphoric-DS. The chain-medial cataphoric-SS marker is -re/-ro, historically the 3sg subject pronoun (see Tairora, below). The chain-medial cataphoric-DS marker -go/-ge is added before the pronoun, most likely arising from the very same conjunction as in Kanite, above. Thus (Thurman 1978): (78) a. ka-i-k-a-i see-I-nom-perf-that ‘When I looked, b. kiapu guwai-nom-i muro furuwai bei-de-in-goro, officer thing-their-that all stew do-leave-3pl-ds they were strewing all the officers’ stuff about, c. niki-de fi-i-y-e bad-thing be-perf-I-decl and I got angry’ As can be seen in (78b) above, the erstwhile 3sg subject pronoun (-ro/-re) is not functioning as a pronoun any more, because the chain-medial-DS clause carries its own subject pronoun, in this case 3pl. To further illustrate the contrast between SS-medial that carry no synchronic subject pronoun and DS-medial clauses that do, consider the longer chain fragment in (Thurman 1978): (79) a. …meina i-ne-ro, …money take-eat-ss ‘…(I) took the money, b. ena tekoi u-re then again come-ss then came back again

Inter-clausal coherence

c. iki moi-i-koro, house stay-I-ds and stayed home, d. tekoi u-boi-n-goro, again call-exit-3sg-ds so then he sent for me again, e. inako-de-ro return-come-ss and so (I) came back f. fu-i-goro, go-I-ds and went there, g. tokoi numba lin-lin numba-i naro-[Ø]-m-e again number one-one number-that give-me-perf/3sg-decl and again he made me foreman (of the work-line)…’ The development of the chain-medial system of cataphoric-SS vs. cataphoric-DS marking in Chuave is again well motivated. As in Kanite, the least-marked, most frequent clausetype, medial-SS, is coded by an erstwhile anaphoric pronoun, here projecting only cataphoric switch-reference but with no pronominal value. As in Kanite, combining such a pronoun with a conjunction yields the cue for chain-medial cataphoric-DS (switchreference). But the clause-type that brought the conjunction in was not the chain-initial grounding clause, but most likely a chain-medial clause. 18.3.2.3.5
The recruitment of pronouns to mark chain-medial-SS clauses. Tairora, a related Papuan Highlands language, sheds some light on the rise of the chain-medial marking system in Chuave. The normal anaphoric pronouns (‘subject agreement’) are used in Tairora in both chain-medial-SS and chain-final clauses. The two clause-types exhibit few formal differences except for perhaps tense–aspect restrictions. One of the suffix pronouns in Tairora is the 3sg pronoun -ro, which is cognate with the Chuave chain-medial-SS marker. Chain-medial-DS clauses in Tairora display two pronouns, as in Kanite, one anaphoric (‘subject agreement’), the other cataphoric, agreeing with the subject of the following clause. Unlike Kanite, however, no conjunction is involved here, although the very same conjunction as in Kanite (-ke) is available. Finally, while SS-medial and chain-final clauses often dispense with tense–aspect markers, DS-medial clauses always retain them. Thus consider (Vincent 1973; Givón 1991b): (80) a. SS-medial and chain-final clauses …rori vare-ro vi katari-ra tu’a-ira vate-ro… …axe take-3sg go tree-gen root-loc put-3sg ‘…he takes the axe and puts it at the base of the tree…’

363

364 Syntax

b. DS-medial clauses …saavori-vata paepae-vata vata-iva-ro, …shovel-conj machete-conj put-past/3sg-ds/3sg ‘…he puts down the shovel and the machete, saavori vi-va hi’int-iva-ro, shovel dem-subj fall-past/3sg-ds/3sg the shovel falls down, vara vaavi ara-ke-ro vate-ro… take over stand-conj-3sg put-3sg so he props it up there again and…’ The logic of the diachronic recruitment of chain-medial clauses in Tairora is complex but still transparent. First, normal anaphoric pronouns (‘subject agreement’) code, by default of high frequency, the chain-medial cataphoric-SS function, as well as chain-final. Both functions are motivated by the high frequency of referential continuity within chains. Next, a second pronoun is added, one that refers explicitly, cataphorically, to the subject of the next clause. Most likely, this pronoun arises through L-dislocation in the subsequent clause. In a rather unproblematic way, as in Kanite, this second pronoun signals the chainmedial cataphoric-DS function. Finally, since the cataphoric-DS clause is the most finite in the Tairora chaining system, it was most likely recruited from the chain-final position, as in Misumalpan, above. This makes it even more plausible that the cataphoric pronoun arose from a subsequent L-dislocation clause, since this topic-shifting construction is typically chain-initial. 18.3.2.3.6
Finiteness in chain-medial-DS clauses. To illustrate how the complexity of the SOV-type clause-chaining system can increase further, adding finer thematic distinctions and finer gradations of finiteness, consider the chaining system of Kalam (Papuan Highlands). Following our main prediction, above, chain-final clauses in Kalam are the most finite, and chain-medial cataphoric-SS the least finite, displaying not even a pronominal suffix (‘subject agreement’). Thus (Pawley 1966; Givón 1991b): (81) Chain-final clauses a. Perfective-past …bi-nak ak spet omi]al dand sa]d-ip… …man-your def spade two carry leave-perf/3sg ‘…The man carries away two spades…’ b. Present-progressive …mon kamb ak yupiri-sap… …wood heap def gather-impfv/3sg ‘…she’s gathering the wood-pile…’

Inter-clausal coherence

(82) Chain-medial-SS clauses a. Sequential-SS …nyaip nyilung ak d-iy, ko]am tik-iy… …knife small def take-seq/ss throat cut-seq/ss ‘…she picks a knife, cuts its throat and…’ b. Irrealis-SS (V-complement) …nying mal-ning gi-sap… …water fill-irr/ss do-pres ‘…she intends to fill (it with) water…’ c. Irrealis-SS (V-complement) …mindak kind nuk pik-juw-ning… …later back her hit-dislocate-irr/ss ‘…later he aims to dislocate her back…’ Chain-medial cataphoric-DS clauses in Kalam, as in Miskitu, Kanite and Tairora, display some tense–aspect-modal marking as well as obligatory subject pronouns. But the two most common major tense–aspects, the perfective/past (81a) and present/progressive (81b), cannot appear in chain-medial-DS clauses: (83) Chain-medial clauses a. Non-sequential-DS (recent-past) …kikaruk am-nak-ni] ] nuk kimb-iy… …chicken go-rpast/3sg-sim/ds she leave-seq/ss ‘…with the chicken having run away, she leaves…’ b. Sequential-DS, remote-past (followed by simultaneous-DS immediate-past) …ny-ek, nuk dand korip ow-ak-ni] ]… …give-rpast/ss/seq/ds/3sg she carry house come-rpast/3sg-sim/ds ‘…(he) having given it to her, she brings it over to the house…’ c. Non-sequential-SS (followed by chain-final present-progressive) …kikaruk gok tangiy-ying a-sp-ay akan, … …chicken some walk-sim/ss say-pres-3pl q ‘…(maybe) the chicken walking and making noise…’ Unlike Chuave, Kalam has no explicitly-marked background clauses. However, chainmedial-DS clauses can be interpreted, at least for the purpose of English translation, as preposed ADV-clauses, as in (83a,b) above. 18.3.2.4
Finiteness gradients: Interim summary We have noted earlier that the most salient feature of the SOV-type clause-chaining system is the concentration of the most finite marking in the chain-final clause. In the course of surveying the various sub-types, a finer gradation of the distribution of finite morphosyntax in the chain may be discerned, albeit tentatively. Not surprising, the degree of finiteness of the various clause-types correlates, in an interesting way, with the degree of their thematic continuity.

365

366 Syntax

(84) Distribution of finite syntax and thematic continuity in the various clause-types in the chain Syntactic marking Least finite

Thematic continuity Anaphoric

Cataphoric

+ − + +

+ + − −

chain-medial-SS chain-initial chain-medial-DS chain-final most finite

The correlations in (84) may be summed up as follows: highest continuity (in both directions) correlates best with reduced finiteness •
The (chain-medial-SS vs. all others). continuity correlates better than anaphoric continuity with reduced •
Cataphoric finiteness (chain-initial vs. chain-final & chain-medial). discontinuity correlates better with reduced finiteness than single•
Multiple-strand strand discontinuity (chain-final vs, chain-medial-DS). These correlations reveal two underlying governing principles, a transparent quantity principle (85a), and a less transparent directionality principle (85b): (85) Principles governing the correlation between thematic discontinuity and finiteness discontinuity

less finite

more finite

a. quantity

both directions multiple strands cataphoric

one direction single strand anaphoric

b. direction

18.3.2.5
The VO-type clause-chaining system 18.3.2.5.1
Reduced finiteness in non-initial clauses. As noted earlier above, the most salient feature of the VO-type clause-chaining system is the assignment of maximal finite morphosyntactic marking to the chain-initial clause. However, the chain-initial clause that is maximally finite in this system is not the anaphorically-anchored grounding clause (‘coherence-bridge’), but rather the subsequent clause that opens the sequential main line of the new thematic unit (§18.3.3.2 above). To illustrate the contrast between the SOV-type and VO-type, compare the use of the latter in English in (72), reproduced below, with its translation into the more common VO-type (86):

Inter-clausal coherence

(72) a. Coming out of the house, b. stopping to check the mailbox, c. taking a look at the driveway d. and pausing to adjust his hat, e. Marvin turned around f. and froze. (86) Having finished packing, (coherence bridge) a. Marvin came out of the house, b. [Ø] stopped to check the mailbox, c. [Ø] took a look at the driveway, d. [Ø] paused to adjust his hat, e. [Ø] turned around f. and [Ø] froze. The chain-initial clause (86a) is the most finite in terms of fully-marked subject. All subsequent clauses are less marked, but the chain-final clause (82f) carries a special cataphoric marker, the conjunction ‘and’, indicating the impending thematic break. The lack of overtly-marked subject in the non-initial clauses (86b–f) seems to be a minor detail since, due to the inflectional nature of the English perfective-past, there is no reduction in verbal inflections of the non-initial clauses. However, a quick inspection will demonstrate that whenever tense–aspect modality in English is non-inflectional, i.e. marked by auxiliaries, it marks only the chain-initial clause. Consider first the distribution of the imperfective auxiliary ‘be’ in (87): (87) Maximally-coherent imperfective-aspect chain a. She was writing to her parents, b. telling them about her new flat, c. describing the furniture d. and poking fun at the neighbors. Break in aspectual coherence e. She also told them… Unacceptable alternative following the break e. *, also told them… The shift in aspectual coherence between (87d) and (87e) dictates the termination of a chain with a period. The new tense–aspect is now fully marked, and the subject is reinstated with, at least, a pronoun in the new chain-initial clause (83e). In the same vein, consider the effect of a break in aspectual continuity, and the distribution of perfective-past vs. the pluperfect auxiliary ‘have’, in: (88) Maximally-coherent perfective-aspect chain a. He came into the room, b. stopped, c. saw the woman on the couch, d. looked at her briefly e. and wondered why she was there.

367

368 Syntax

f.

Break in action sequentiality He had been told about her…

Unacceptable alternative following the break f. *, had been told about her… And likewise, consider the effect of breaking modal continuity, and thus the distribution of the modals ‘should’ and ‘can’, in: (89) Maximally coherent initial sequence a. She should go there, b. stop by, c. pick up a pound of salami d. and take it home. Break in modal continuity e. She can rest then… Unacceptable alternative after the break e. *, can rest then… Finally, consider the effect of a break in referential continuity, as in: (90) Maximally coherent initial sequence a. He came into the room, b. stopped, c. saw the woman on the couch, d. looked at her briefly e. and wondered why she was there. f.

Break in referential continuity After a minute she looked at him and…

Unacceptable alternative after the break f. *, (she) looked at him and… As noted in example (88) above, the reduction of finite tense–aspect-modal marking in English cannot proceed beyond the fused verbal inflections. This may be seen again in (91) below, where the two auxiliary verbs do not recur in non-initial clauses, but the inflectional verbal suffix still persists: (91) a. b. c. d. e. f.

Mary has been coming here every summer, gathering plants, watching birds, collecting rocks and just resting and having a quiet time.

In sum, the tense–aspect-modal and overt-subject features of finiteness go hand in hand in the VO-type clause-chaining system of English, with the chain-initial clause carrying the most finite marking.

Inter-clausal coherence

18.3.2.5.2
The ‘consecutive’ aspect as reduced finiteness. Many VO languages have a ‘consecutive’ aspectual marker that marks, either obligatorily or optionally, the verbs in all noninitial clauses. Such a marker, grounded anaphorically to the preceding (and ultimately chain-initial) clause, signals maximal tense–aspect-modal anaphoric continuity, much like zero-marking of auxiliaries in English, above. As an illustration, consider first Swahili (Bantu), a strict SVO language with two such markers, -ka- and -ki-. In (92) below, the past tense appears only in the chain-initial clause, the ‘consecutive’ in all other clauses (Mbotela 1934; see also Ashton 1944): (92) a. …wa-Ingereza wa-li-wa-chukua wa-le maiti, …pl-British 3pl-past-3pl-take 2pl-dem corpses ‘…then the British took the corpses’ b. wa-ka-wa-tia katika bao moja, 3pl-cons-3pl-put on board one put them on a flat board, c. wa-ka-ya-telemesha maji-ni kwa utaratibu w-ote. 3pl-cons-them-lower water-loc of in-order 3pl-all and lowered them steadily into the water…’ The very same chain can be easily converted into the future tense: (93) a. …wa-Ingereza wa-ta-wa-chukua wa-le maiti, …pl-British 3pl-fut-3pl-take 2pl-dem corpses ‘…then the British will take the corpses’ b. wa-ka-wa-tia katika bao moja, 3pl-cons-3pl-put on board one put them on a flat board, c. wa-ka-ya-telemesha maji-ni kwa utaratibu w-ote. 3pl-cons-them-lower water-loc of in-order 3pl-all and lower them steadily into the water…’ Or into the progressive: (94) a. …wa-Ingereza wa-na-wa-chukua wa-le maiti, …pl-British 3pl-prog-3pl-take 2pl-dem corpses ‘…then the British are taking the corpses b. wa-ka-wa-tia katika bao moja, 3pl-cons-3pl-put on board one putting them on a flat board, c. wa-ka-ya-telemesha maji-ni kwa utaratibu w-ote. 3pl-cons-them-lower water-loc of in-order 3pl-all and lowering them steadily into the water…’ And the ‘consecutive’ can also be used with the perfect, as in (Mbotela 1934):

369

370 Syntax

(95) a. Asubuhi siku ya pili morning day of two ‘In the morning of the second day b. tu-me-kwenda mto-ni Ruvu, we-perf-go river-loc Ruvu we went to the Ruvu river, c. tu-ka-mw-ita mwenye mitumbwi we-cons-him-call owner canoes called the owner of the canoes d. tu-ka-mw-ambia: “Haya, lete mitumbwi”, we-cons-him-tell “exhort bring-imper canoes and told him: “Hey, bring the canoes”, e. tu-ka-vuka wote pia we-cons-cross all complete and then crossed all together wapagazi na wanyampara na tajiri. porters and guards and trader with porters, guards and trader.’ In Akan (Benue-Congo), a strict SVO language, one tense–aspect, the progressive, cannot be reduced to the consecutive marker, but all the others can. Further, both anaphoric 3rd person subject and object display zero anaphora in highly continuous non-initial clauses. Thus (Osam 1994): (96) Progressive-marked chain (irreducible) a. Kofi re-pra dan-no-mu, Kofi prog-sweeb room-def-in b. ro-hor ndemba-no, prog-wash clothess-def c. na re-ye edziban-no. and prog-make food-def ‘Kofi is sweeping the room, washing the clothes and cooking the food’ In the past/perfective, the use of the consecutive marker is optional: (97) Past-marked chain (unreduced) a. Araba tf-ff dwow, Araba buy-past yam b. kyew-e, fry-past c. tfn-e sell-past ‘Araba bought yam, fried it, and sold it’

Inter-clausal coherence

(98) Past chain with the consecutive a. Araba tf-ff dwow, Araba buy-past yam b. à-kyew, cons-fry c. à-tfn cons-sell ‘Araba bought yam, fried it, and sold it’ And likewise in the future: (99) Future-marked chain (unreduced) a. Kofi b77-pra dan-no-mu, Kofi fut-sweep room-def-in b. bo-hor ndemba-no, fut-wash clothes-def c. na be-ye edziban-no. and prog-make food-def ‘Kofi will sweep the room, wash the clothes and cooking the food’ (100) Future chain with the consecutive a. Kofi b77-pra dan-no-mu, Kofi fut-sweep room-def-in b. a-hor ndemba-no, cons-wash clothes-def c. na a-ye edziban-no. and cons-make food-def ‘Kofi will sweep the room, wash the clothes and cooking the food’ 18.3.2.5.3
Referential vs. thematic coherence in switch-reference systems. As noted above, thematic coherence is a multi-strand phenomenon, within which referential coherence is but the most concrete, visible strand. It is traditionally assumed that the grammar of cataphoric switch-reference — and thus of the degree of finiteness of conjoined medial clauses — is governed by strict considerations of referential continuity. In this section we will survey evidence suggesting that the finiteness of conjoined clauses is ultimately governed by considerations of thematic coherence. The central, highly visible position of referents within the overall tapestry of discourse coherence, and the high statistical coincidence between referential and thematic continuity, merely make it appear that the clause-chaining grammatical system is about reference. Consider first the Swahili consecutive marker -ka, as in (92), (93), (94), (95) above. It seems to be used in contexts of maximal continuity, both referential and aspectual. But is it geared specifically to referential continuity? The answer may be found in the long narrative passage in (101) below. When tense–aspect and thematic continuity is disrupted, as in (101f), (101h), (101m), a finite tense–aspect must be re-established. When only referential continuity is disrupted but thematic continuity is maintained, as in (101i), (101j), (101l), the use of the ‘consecutive’ -ka persists (Mbotela 1934: 37):

371

372

Syntax

(101) a. …Asubuhi siku ya pili …morning day of two ‘In the morning of the second day b. tu-me-kwenda mto-ni Ruvu, we-perf-go river-loc Ruvu we went to the Ruvu river, c. tu-ka-mw-ita mwenye mitumbwi we-cons-him-call owner canoes called the owner of the canoes d. tu-ka-mw-ambia: “Haya, lete mitumbwi”, we-cons-him-tell “exhort bring-imper canoes and told him: “Hey, bring the canoes”, e. tu-ka-vuka wote pia we-cons-cross all complete and then crossed all together

f.

g.

h.

i.

j.

k.

l.

m.

wapagazi na wanyampara na tajiri. porters and guards and trader with porters, guards and trader. Tu-li-po-toka Ruvu, we-past-rel-leave Ruvu When we were done with the Ruvu, tu-li-kwenda Bigiro kambi moja. we-past-go Bigiro camp one we went to a camp in Bigiro. Tu-li-po-fika, we-past-rel-arrive When we arrived, ni-ka-wa-ambia wapagazi: “Pang-eni mizigo”, I-cons-them-tell porters “arrange-imper loads I told the porters: “Line up your loads”, Wa-ka-leta mizigo, they-cons-bring loads so they brought over their loads, wa-ka-i-panga mahali pamoja, they-cons-them-arrange place together arranged them together, ni-ka-wa-ambia tena: “Haya…”. I-cons-them-tell again “exhort and I told them: “Now…”. Siku ya pili tu-me-kwenda Viranzi, day of two we-perf-go Viranzi The following day we moved on to Viranzi,

Inter-clausal coherence

n. ya tatu tu-ka-enda Kangeni… of three we-cons-go Kangeni and the next one on to Kangeni…’ The transition from (101f) to (101g) and from (101h) to (101i) is of great interest. In the former, the transition between a chain-grounding ADV-clause (‘coherence bridge’) and the main clause is considered enough of a thematic break to re-instate the very same finite tense in (101g). In the latter, a similar transition cum switch reference is nevertheless considered too minor, hence the ‘consecutive’ marker in (101i). The Swahili ‘consecutive’ has never been claimed to be part of a grammaticalized switch-reference system. But a strong statistical correlation between thematic and referential coherence has already been noted in the case of clausal conjunctions (Hayashi 1989; Carlson 1987). And as Haiman’s (1987) suggests, discontinuous conjunctions — perhaps together with topic-switching independent pronouns — have the diachronic potential of becoming switch-reference markers. A case in point is Scancarelli’s (1989) study of the previously-assumed switch-reference system of Pima-Papago, where the clause-initial conjunction k/c has been traditionally described as coding referential continuity (SS), contrasting with the conjunction ku that was assumed to mark witch-reference. That is (Munro 1983): (102) a. SS-conjunction with k/c hegai ’uuvi ’a-t ’am s¸ ohnyi hegain ceoj that woman 3/aux-pf hit/pf that man ‘The woman hit the man c-’am s¸ o¸sa ss-loc cry and (she) cried’ b. DS-conjunction with ku hegai ’uuvi ’a-t ’am s¸ ohnyi hegain ceoj that woman 3/aux-pf hit/pf that man ‘The woman hit the man ku-t ’am s¸ o¸sa ds-pf loc cry and he cried’ As Scancarelli (1989) argues, in connected discourse ku signals neither switch-subject nor switch-topic (cf. Hale 1983), but rather switch-theme, as in (Scancarelli 1989): (103) a. ’iida cuuvi ’a-¸s si voho s-’eebeny this rabbit 3/aux-qt int really aff-scared ‘This jackrabbit was very frightened b. c-’a-¸s hab ’e ’aag: ss-3/aux-qt thus rf say and said to himself:

373

374

Syntax

c. “M-an-t hab¸s va meedad ¸ “intr-1sg/aux-pf just mod dur/run “I’ll just keep running d. cem ’an-s o s-geevko”, mod 1sg/aux-dub fut aff-tired even though I’m tired”, e. n-a-¸s pi ’iida cuuvi wud¸ ge qin-3/aux-qt neg this rabbit cop very because he was a very old rabbit, f. keli cuuvi… old-man rabbit an old rabbit… g. Ku-¸s ’am ’i meeda ¸ d… ¸ ds-qt loc pct dur/run While he was running, …’ The thematic chain (103a–f) clearly trails off with the stative clauses (103e,f ). When the action resumes in a new chain, with a pre-posed ADV-clause in (103g), the conjunction ku is used even without any break in referential continuity. Finally, the effect of thematic coherence on the grammar of referential continuity has also been demonstrated experimentally by Anderson et al. (1983) and Tomlin (1987b). These studies fully support the suggestion that major thematic breaks signal the severance of all coherence threads, thus also the re-instatement of the referent — even when it is, strictly speaking, continuous (Vol. I, Ch. 10). 18.3.2.5.4
Where do chain-medial-DS clauses come from?. One clause-type seems to be conspicuously missing from the VO-type clause-chaining system surveyed thus far — the chain-medial-cataphoric-DS clause. This is the clause type that signals switch-reference within the chain, i.e. without breaking thematic continuity. In this section we will briefly recapitulate earlier discussion of three such devices. 18.3.2.5.4.1
Inverse clauses. As noted earlier (Ch. 13), some languages recruit the inverse clause into coding switch-reference in chain-medial contexts. The logic of such recruitment is fairly transparent: Inverse clauses are used in contexts where the subject — the previous topical referent — is still somewhat topical, but the object is more topical. This device thus topicalizes a referent that was not the previous main topic, thus also not the previous subject. Like other marked topicalizing devices, such as Y-movement, L-dislocation or existential-presentatives, inverse clauses signal cataphorically the switch to a new topic that is currently not the subject. As an illustration, recall the Sahaptin examples cited in Ch. 13 (Rude 1994):

Inter-clausal coherence

(104) a. Continuity with ‘proximate’ subject kúuu-xi vwána-pa shushansh i-q’ínunu =-xan-a thus-same river-loc stealhead 3/nom/dir-see-hab-past ‘…the same way he [prox] would see a stealhead [obv] in the river ku i-pú =tya-xan-a kwn-kínk and 3/nom/dir-spear-hab-past that-instr and [prox] would spear it [obv] with it (the spear)…’ b. Switch from ‘proximate’ to ‘obviate’ subject kuuk á-q’inun-a xwú =saat inch’u-sha, then 3/abs/dir-see-past old.man sleep-impfv ‘…then he [prox] saw an old man [obv] sleeping, kuuk xwú =saat pá-q’inuun-a then old.man inv-see-past the old man [obv] saw him [prox] ku pá-’n-a:… and INV-say-past and [obv] said to him [prox]: …’ c. Switch back from ‘obviate’ to ‘proximate’ subject íkush pá-’u =n-a xwú =saat-in thus inv-say-past old.man-obv ‘…thusly the old man [obv] said to him (Wild Cat) [prox]. ku áw-n-a:… and 3/abs/dir-say-past And he (Wild Cat) [prox] said to him (old man) [obv]: …’ A similar use of the inverse for switch-reference is found in Kutenai (Dryer 1994). 18.3.2.5.4.2
Stressed independent pronouns. As noted earlier (Vol. I, Ch. 9,10), stressed (contrastive) independent pronouns are widely used as switch-referent devices, chain initially as well as chain medially. Thus recall the contrast in English between the unstressed anaphoric pronoun (or zero) and the stressed pronoun: (105) a. Cataphoric-SS = unstressed PRO (or zero) Bill saw Marvin, then he went home and [Ø] slept. b. Cataphoric-DS = stressed pronoun Bill saw Marvin, then HE went home and [Ø] slept A more systematic use of the stressed pronoun as cataphoric-DS markers may be seen in Ute oral narratives, where the independent subject pronoun is used in combination with the noun to mark the chain-initial introduction of a referent (106a,b,h), or by itself to signal chain-medial DS (106d,f ). Thus (Givón ed. 1985b):

375

376

Syntax

(106) a. ’uwas ’ura-pu =ga Sinawav… 3sg/subj be-rem Sinawav/subj ‘There was once that one, Sinawav… b. ’umu = chakuura-y-u ‘umu =-kway… 3pl/gen crane-gen-pl 3pl-mod and those cranes, whoever… c. ’umu =-aa… pu =-paay-am ya-tagha-kway-pu =… 3pl/obj rel-loc-2pl/subj red-cry-perf-nom whatever it was that they were crying to them… d. ’uwas-’ura ’avi-pu =ni-gya… 3sg/subj-top lie-look-impfv… well he had been lying on his back looking (up at the cranes)… e. ’umu = Sinawavi-u yúaa-va-t 3pl/obj Sinawav-pl plains-loc-dir toward the country of those Sinawavs tavi-navici-pu =ga, ’um chakuura-u, ’uwa-vaa-cu =. step-mass-rem 3pl/subj crane-pl 3sg/obj-loc-dir they flocked and landed, those cranes, toward him. f. ’uwas-’ura: “agha-paa poro-xwa-y ’ani-kh” 3sg/subj-top “wh-dir go/pl-impf-imm do-imm so HE: “where are you flocking like that?” g. may-pu =ga ’uwas. say-rem 3sg/subj he asked them. h. ’umu =s-’ura chakuura-u may-kya-pu =ga:…. 3pl/subj-top crane-pl say-pl-rem so those cranes said (to him):…’ 18.3.2.6
The recruitment of case-markers into switch-reference morphology 18.3.2.6.1
Preamble. In some languages, an interaction develops between the grammar of referential coherence and case-marking. Earlier reports of this phenomenon involved Yuman languages, where in certain dependent clauses the SS-marker was etymologically related to the nominative case, and the DS-marker to the accusative (Munro 1976). But in Yuman languages this system is confined to the links between subordinate and main clauses. In this section we will note how such system may be extended to indicate referential coherence — both SS and DS — in chain-medial clauses. This development capitalizes on the conflation of three distinct grammatical-typological trends: participial ADV-clauses as noun modifiers; •
treating
case-agreement with the head noun; •
the recruitment ofof modifiers participial-ADV clauses into the chain-medial position. •

Inter-clausal coherence

18.3.2.6.2
Case-agreement in Latin participial clauses. We have already noted earlier (§18.2.2.8.4) the treatment of Latin participial ADV-clauses as noun modifiers for the purpose of case agreement. What makes such a system amenable to becoming a grammaticalized chain-medial switch-reference system is the great potential for participial clauses, especially in SOV languages, to become chain-medial clauses. Recall now example (48), reproduced as (Thompson and Longacre 1985; Haiman 1983): (48) a. SS participial clause ab oppid-o duct-a, from town-abl lead/past/part-nom ‘Having been brought from the town, femin-a prope templ-um habita-ba-t woman-nom near temple-acc live-impf-3sg the woman lived near the temple’ b. DS participial clause Caesar, accept-is litter-is, Caesar-nom receive/past/part-abl letter-abl ‘Caesar, the letter having been received, nunti-um misi-t messenger-acc send/perf-3sg sent a messenger’ In (48a), the participial clause modifies (and agrees with) the nominative subject (‘woman’) of the subsequent main clause (SS). In (48b), the participial clause modifies (and agrees with) its own ablative object (‘letter’), thus signaling the switch to the subject of the main clause (‘Caesar’). In Latin, this system already functions as a rudimentary grammaticalized switchreference system (Haiman 1983), although the use of the Ablative — rather than any other non-Nominative case — to mark switch-reference is yet to be explained. The diachronic potential is certainly there, in treating participial clauses as case-marked noun modifiers. What is missing is their more extensive recruitment into a chain-medial system. 18.3.2.6.3
Case agreement and switch-reference in Jiwarli subordinate clauses. In Jiwarli, a West-Australian aborigine language, several types of dependent clauses must be marked for referential congruence (SS) or incongruence (DS) vis-a-vis their main clause. In addition, the case-marking system is pressed into service for a more exact pinpointing of co-reference: When the dependent clause is marked as SS, its verb agrees with case-marking of the coreferent argument in the main clause. When the dependent clause is marked as DS, its verb agrees with the case-marking of the other argument — if the switch is to another argument of the main clause. Consider first SS-imperfective clauses (Austin 1988, 1992): (107) a. SS-imperfective nhurra-kara-lu thika-nma yarrukarri-ngu-ru-thu you-pl-erg eat-imper want-impf/ss-erg-def ‘You eat it if (you) want it!’

377

378

Syntax

b. SS-imperfective panhalu-ru yukarri-ngu-ru ngatha-nha nhanya-nyja he-erg stand-impf/ss-erg I-acc see-past ‘He — while (he was) standing up — saw me’ c. SS-imperfective manthara-lu kurrpirli-nha pinya-nyja yanga-rnu-ru man-erg kangaroo-acc spear-past chase-imperf/ss-erg ‘The man speared the kangaroo while (he was) chasing it’ d. SS-imperfective mantharta kumpa-inha wurnta-wu yinka-rnu man/abs sit-pres shield-dat adz-impf/ss/abs ‘The man sits adzing a shield e. juma-wu nhanya-ngu-ru child-dat see-impf/ss-erg while watching the children’ In the first dependent clause in (107d), the verb agrees with the absolutive case of the mainclause subject. In the second dependent clause (107e), the verb agrees with the ergative case of the preceding transitive clause’s ergative subject — even with zero-anaphora subject. Consider now DS-imperfective clauses (Austin 1988, 1992): (108) a. DS-imperfective tharla-nma yinha julyu-nha kamu-rri-ya-nha feed-impf this old.man-acc hunger-inch-impf/ds-acc ‘Feed this old man who is getting hungry’ b. DS-imperfective payalpa-nthu-rru ngatha nhanya-nyja at.last-again-now I see-past ‘At last I saw wirntu ngurnta-iniya-nha dead lie-impf/ds-acc (him) lying dead’ c. DS-imperfective ngatha nhanya-nyja ngatha-nha malu I see-past I-acc shadow ‘I saw my shadow yukerri-ya-nha papa-ngka stand-impf/ds-acc water-loc standing in the water’ d. DS-imperfective wuru ngunha tharrpa-rninyja ngarti-ngka stick that insert-past inside-loc ‘(He) inserted the stick inside

Inter-clausal coherence

kajalpu-la ngarri-ngka ngurntha-iniya-la emu-loc ashes-loc lie-impf/ds-loc the emu (who was) lying in the ashes’ The recruitment of dependent clauses into the chain-medial switch-reference system in Jiwarli is, as in Latin, an extension of noun-modifier case-agreement. Normal headmodifier case agreement in Jiwarli may be seen in (Austin 1988, 1992): (109) ngatha mana-nyja yanya-nha mantharta-nha Ngurtirti-nha I get-past other-acc man-acc Ngurtirti-acc ‘I got another man Ngurtirti’ Although the Jiwarli system seems to be primarily used to code the referential coherence of dependent clauses vis-a-vis their main clause, a relatively trivial diachronic extension of such a system can recruit its morphology into chain-medial conjoined clauses. There are grounds for suspecting that such a change has already happened in Jiwarli. Word-order in this as well as many other Australian languages is flexible, i.e. pragmatically controlled. Dependent participial clauses may either precede or follow their main clauses, and — like other noun modifiers — may be ‘scattered’ away from their head nouns. And case agreement is obligatory when modifiers, including participial clauses, are ‘scattered’ (Hale 1976; see discussion in Ch. 11). The reanalysis of ‘scattered’ participial clauses as conjoined chain-medial clauses may have already happened in Swahili, obscured by the grammar-bound translation of all participial clauses as subordinate ADV-clauses.9 18.3.2.6.4
Case-agreement and switch-reference in Cavineña. Cavineña is a flexible order exSOV language of the Takanan family, spoken in the Amazonian north-eastern region of Bolivia. It has an ergative-absolutive case-marking morphology, with the absolutive either unmarked or marked with the suffix -ke as in (Guillaume 2000): (110) a. Transitive (ERG subject) Tata Crisanto-ra bakwa iye-kware Mr. Crisanto-reg viper/abs kill-rem ‘Mr. Crisanto killed the viper’ b. Intransitive (unmarked ABS subject) Roberto etare-ju judiru-kware Roberto/abs house-loc arrive-rem ‘Roberto arrived at the house’ c. Transitive (marked ABS object) ba-chine sawa-ke see-rec fish-abs ‘(we) saw a fish’ When the NP includes modifiers, case-markers appear as suffixal clitics on the NP-final constituent. NP-final modifiers thus display, in essence, obligatory case agreement with their NP — even if the head-noun is unmarked for case. Thus consider:

379

380 Syntax

(111) a. ekwana nei dyake arida-ra a-kware 1pl/abs rain very big-erg do-rem ‘A very big rain got us’ b. chapa kwana-ra dadi-diru-kware awada dog many-erg find-go-rem tapir/abs ‘the dogs found a tapir (on their way)’ c. beta pere arida-ke-tu bute-kware two raft big-abs-cl go.down.river-rem ‘two big rafts went down the river’ d. ba-chine sawa dyake arida-ke see-rec fish very big-abs ‘(we) saw a very big fish’ The perfect and imperfective aspects can mark main clauses with no further tense-marking: (112) a. i-ke epu-ju kwa-ya 1sg-abs village-loc go-impf ‘I am going to the village’ b. tu-ke tupujuyda kwanubi jeti-ya him-abs behind animal come-impf ‘some animals were coming behind him’ c. shidiritana-wa i-ke warasha-eke slip-perf 1sg-abs bridge-from ‘I slipped off the bridge’ d. e-kwe ebakwa kwana bakwe tawi-wa 1sg-gen child many emph sleep-perf ‘my children had been sleeping’ Participial clauses, either perfect or imperfective, may appear in chain-initial slots as equisubject (SS) ADV-clauses; in which case they display obligatory case-agreement with the subject of the main clause: (113) a. kwa-ya-ke, pakaka-nati-kware go-impf-abs fall-go-rem ‘As (I) was going, (I) fell’ b. kwa-ya-ra, tu-ke ba-nati-kware awada go-impf-erg it-abs see-go-rem tapir/abs ‘As (he) was going, (he) saw the tapir’ The same subject-agreeing participial clause, signaling cataphoric-SS, is being extended into the chain-medial slot: (114) a. peadya ekwita [Esperanz-ju ani-ya]-ke, jekutana-kware one man [Esperanza-loc live-impf]-abs got.scared-rem ‘A man living in Esperanza got scared’

Inter-clausal coherence

b. ekwana peadya ekwita-ra kwaba-tswere kati-kware then one man-erg canoe-with fetch-rem ‘then one man with his canoe fetched (us) Esperanza-ju ani-ya-ra Esperanza-loc live-impf-ereg who was living in Esperanza’ c. mare-dadi-kware waburu [kueti-ya]-ke shoot-go-rem boar [pass-impf]-abs ‘(I) shot a pig while it was passing’ d. tuke tuwajudya paq-tu barepa [kayumati-wa]-ke jietana-tsu go there rep-cl weather worsen-perf]-abs improve-ss ‘the weather, having deteriorated, got better and…’ In contrast, participial clauses marked by the locative-allative case signal switch-reference (DS), as in: (115) a. [tu-ke kwinana-diru-ya]-ju, [it-abs exit.go-impf]-loc ‘While it (tapir) was jumping out, tu-ja epititsaju-ju kwita atsa-kware kuchiru-tsewe it-gen spine-loc emp reach-rem knife-with (I) reached its spike with my knife’ b. [e-ra tapa-ya]-ju, [I-erg step.on-impf]-loc ‘As I was stepping on it, nere kwinana ju-kware matuja suddenly exit do-rem crocodile the crocodile suddenly went out (of the water)’ c. [kareeketi-wa]-ju, ekwana nei ebari-ra a-kware [cross-perf]-loc 1pl/abs rain big-erg do-rem ‘As (we) were crossing, a big rain got us’ While it is not clear that the participial clauses of Cavineña have fully assumed the function of chain-medial clauses, their wide latitude of position, often detached from and most commonly preceding the main clause, certainly points out in this direction. 18.3.2.6.5
Case agreement as cataphoric signal of transitivity in Amahuaca (Panoan). The last variant on the use of case agreement in the grammar of cataphoric coherence may be seen in Amahuaca (Panoan; Amazonian Peru). Amahuaca is an SOV ergative-absolutive language with a marked ergative subject and unmarked absolutive subject or object. Case makers on chain-medial clauses signal cataphorically the transitivity of the following clause: = next clause is intransitive; •
Abs
Erg = • next clause is transitive.

381

382

Syntax

Since intransitive clauses have an absolutive subject and transitive clauses an ergative subject, this marking is a transparent diachronic extension of treating participial clauses as noun modifiers, including case-agreement with the head noun in the main clause. But caseagreement here cuts across the SS vs. DS distinction, signalling neither. Thus consider (M. Chávez, i.p.c.; see also Sparing-Chávez 1998). (116) a. SS: ABS-S to ABS-S = ABS agreement hino nincaa-tan-mun yohinna, jonu-u-qui-nhu dog/abs hear-seq/abs-top animal-abs hide-refl-3pl/perf ‘As soon as the animal heard the dog, it hid itself ’ ‘The animal heard the dog and hid itself ’ b. SS: ABS-S to ERG-S (ERG agreement) chaii nihii ca-xo-n, yohinna ha-ti-mun-nhu far woods go-3sg/seq-erg game-abs kill-can-top-decl ‘if one goes far in the woods, one can kill game’ ‘one goes far into the woods and kills game’ c. DS: ABS-O to ABS-S (ABS agreement) jato hii-n tuca-ha them-abs stingray-erg sting-impf-abs after a stingray stings them, the stingray stings them jaa yovaa-vaux-mun hishi-nox-can-qui-nhu, those great-emph/pl/abs-top cry-hab-3pl-dur-decl even the adults cry (in pain)’ and even the adults cry in pain’ d. DS: ABS-S to ABS-Obj (ABS agreement) nihii ca-xo-mun hiya hina-n pi-xo-nhu woods go-3sg/seq/abs-top me-abs tiger-erg bite-3sg/seq-decl ‘(I) having gone (hunting), a tiger bit me’ ‘I went hunting and a tiger bit me’ A somewhat similar system, but integrated with markers of cataphoric SS vs. DS, has been described in Shipibo-Kanibo, a related Panoan language (Valenzuela 2000). In suggesting that the system in Shipibo-Kanibo has nothing to do with case agreement, Valenzuela (2000) raises two arguments. First, she suggests that Shipibo has no case agreement of modifiers, but rather an NP-final case marking. But as in Cavineña, since modifiers in S-K often follow the head-noun, they are indeed case-marked even if their head-noun is not. They simply agree with the case of their noun phrase. Second, Valenzuela (2000) then observes that: “…(in)transitivity agreement morphology on S-K adverbials does not correspond to [the current] regular case-markers, but to same-subject markers in complex sentences…”

Inter-clausal coherence

This still leaves the possibility of an interaction, at the very least historically, between case agreement and switch-reference morphology. Thus, the ‘regular’ ergative (and genitive) case suffix in S-K is -nin, the Amahuaca ergative marker is -n, and the cataphoric transitive marker on ADV-clauses (and other adverbials) in S-K is -xon. Further, in another Panoan language, Matsees, the ergative suffix is -n (as in Amahuaca); and the four cataphoric markers that signal that the next clause is ergative/ transitive are transparently a fusion of various ‘conjunctions’ — most likely arising from perfective (sequential) and imperfective (simultaneous) aspectuals — with that ergative suffix. Thus (D. Fleck, i.p.c.): (117) a. ademibi Matses-n sh7ktenam7 cues-e-c, similar Matsees-erg peccary kill-nonpast-ind ‘…Also, Matsees kill the white-lipped peccary, istuid-shu-n, mun-ke-sho tantia-shu-n… find-after-erg onom-say-while hear-then-erg after finding them while hearing them say “mun”…’ b. aid Matses-n subu-ua-nu-n cut-hab one Matsees-erg house-make-after-erg cut-hab ‘in order to make a house, the Matsees cut that one’ c. acte nantan mish-ki-n stream inside touch-while-erg ‘while feeling them inside the stream, d7co pe-quid sh7cten ne-e-c snail eat-agt/sub peccary be-nonpast-indic it’s the peccaries who eat the water-snails’ The ‘conjunction’ -nu(n) and -shu (n) of Matsees are transparent cognates of the ShipiboKanibo -ni(n) and -xo(n), respectively. 18.3.2.7
Clause chaining, finiteness and word-order As noted above, the two major types of clause-chaining systems correlate consistently, if not absolutely, with the OV vs. VO word-order dimension. In the first type, finite marking gravitates to the chain-final clauses; in the second, to the chain-initial clause. Another morpho-syntactic feature that also correlates with the two types, adding to the cluster of finite morphology at the chain-final or chain-initial position — the conjunction or subordinator morpheme that codes various junctures of thematic coherence. In OV languages, this morpheme tends to be a clause-final clitic and thus verb suffix, cataphorically signaling the thematic transition to the next clause; or, in chain-final positions, to the next chain. In VO languages, this morpheme tends to be a clause-initial clitic, signalling the thematic transition to the very clause it is attached to; or, in chain-initial positions, to the next chain. Most commonly, this morpheme is a verb prefix, given the high frequency of subject anaphora. To recapitulate the difference between the two types, compare the following examples from Nepali, rigid OV, with their English glosses. The Nepali subordinator may be either

383

384

Syntax

a real subordinator, as in (118a), the participial/nominal suffix, as in (118b), or a serial verb functioning as subordinator, as in (118c). Thus (Leman 1985): (118) a. Ram-le Sham-lay kura gfr-i rfh-eko-bela, Ram-erg Sham-dat talk do-part stay-perf/masc-while ‘While Ram was talking to Sham, kukur dekh-yo dog see-past/3sg.masc he saw a dog’ c. Ram a-yo bhfn-e, Sham jan-chf Ram come-past/3sg.masc say-part Sham leave-pres/3sg.masc ‘If Ram came, Sham leaves’ d. Ram nf-gf-yeko huna:-le, Maya-le gali gfr-yin Ram neg-go-perf/masc be-instr Maya-erg scold do-past/3sg.fem ‘Because Ram had not gone, Maya scolded him’ In longer clause-chains in connected narrative, the conjunction morpheme joins the participial suffix in chain-medial junctures, leaving the finite morphology at the end to signal the cross-chain transition: (119) …us-le ka:g-lay dekh-e-rff, …3sg-erg crow-dat see-part-conj ‘…he saw the crow “timi-le mf-lay rozi din-chf…” bhon-e-rff, “2sg-erg 1sg-dat bread give-pres say-part-conj, and: “If you give me bread…” (he) said, phfka-yo. bribe-past/3sg.masc and (thus) bribed him’. A schematic rendition of the locus of finite morphology in the two types of clause-chaining may be given as: (120) a. OV clause-chaining …MED, FIN. • INI, MED, MED, FIN. • INI, MED, MED, FIN. • INI, MED… b. VO clause-chaining …MED, FIN. • INI, MED, MED, FIN. • INI, MED, MED, FIN • INI, MED… The superficial differences between the two types mask their fundamental functionalcognitive unity. In the OV chaining type, the cataphoric morphology cliticizes at the very end of the preceding chain. In the VO type, it cliticizes at the very beginning of the following chain. One way or another, in both types finite morphology clusters at the interchain break, signaling the impending — cataphoric — thematic transition. The finite morphology that gravitates to the thematic juncture between clause-chains is the most grammaticalized signal of thematic discontinuity or cognitive re-orientation. In

Inter-clausal coherence

385

this capacity, grammatical morphology merely joins and supplements the highly universal pre-grammatical system of intonational cues and pauses.10 18.3.3 Finiteness, dependence and control We turn back, once again, to the grand theme of finiteness, and its relation to two nearsynonymous syntactic notions — dependence (‘subordination’) and control. The two main features of finiteness relevant here are: co-referent NPs •
zero-marked
finite verbal inflections (T-A-M, pronouns) • In the discussion in three previous chapters (Ch. 11,12,14), we noted that zero-marked coreference in four types of dependent clauses was governed by the subject or object of the main clause. This has been the traditional view of subordination. But our subsequent survey of clause-chaining, and in particular of grammaticalized cataphoric switch-reference morphology, has unearthed a similar relational control, in this case exercised by arguments in a preceding chained clause over a subsequent one. In other words, within the syntactic configuration of coordination.11 All these GR-controlled relations are summarized below. (121) Relational control of co-reference or zero anaphora Clause type complements of modality verbs complements of manipulation verbs participial ADV-clauses REL-clauses chain-medial cataphoric-SS/DS clauses

controller (Main cl.)

controlee (Subord. cl.)

S O S S/O S

S S S S/O S

In many languages with chain-medial cataphoric switch-reference morphology, this control is fully grammaticalized only in cataphoric-SS clauses (cf. the English OV-type participial chains). In a smaller set of languages, grammaticalized cataphoric-DS clauses are added to the cataphoric-SS system (Miskitu, Cavineña, Gorokan languages, Kalam). And in a smaller-yet set, other grammaticalized signals are added, signalling transitions such as S > S, O > S, S > O or O > O, or the transitivity of the subsequent clause (Latin, Jiwarli, Panoan). The statistical distribution of these types is far from random. The primacy of grammaticalized cataphoric-SS morphology merely echoes the text-distribution facts — even languages with no rigidly grammaticalized switch-reference morphology reveal the predominance of subject continuity (S > S) in chain-medial contexts (Givón ed. 1983a). Intra-chain coherence is, after all, the hallmark of human multi-propositional discourse. Once again, the well-known correlation between text-frequency and grammaticalization is revealed (Givón 1979a; DuBois 1987).

386 Syntax

In the very same five clause-types with GR-governed zero-marked co-reference (121) one also finds the other major feature of lower finiteness — reduced verbal inflections. What is more, in clause-chaining systems, this reduction follows a scale that correlates rather naturally with two other dimensions — degree of thematic discontinuity and the probability of intonational breaks (pauses; Givón 1991b). This three-way correlation may be summed up, for three types of chained clauses, as: (122) Correlation between finite verbal morphology, pause probability and thematic discontinuity Pause probability least finite chain-medial-SS clauses chain-medial-SD clauses chain-final position most finite

lowest higher highest

Thematic discontinuity lowest higher highest

Finite marking, much like inter-clausal pauses, turns out to correlate with informational unpredictability. We have noted earlier (Vol. I, Ch. 10) that zero-coding of referents occurs in context of highest continuity, thus highest predictability. The un-marking of pronominal inflections on the verb is one expression of this trend. And unmarked tense–aspectmodal and speech-act inflections on the verb likewise reflect the high thematic continuity — predictability — of chain-medial contexts. Note, finally, that tense–aspect-modal predictability is also found in participial ADV-clauses (§18.2.2.8), as well as in the two GR-governed V-complement types (Ch. 12). What is more, the three types of subordinate clauses where co-reference is least restrictive — REL-clauses (Ch. 14), complements of PCU verbs (Ch. 12) and non-participial ADV-clauses — consistently display more finite T-A-M inflections. The two controlled features of finiteness, zero-coding of co-referent NPs and reduced tense–aspect-modality marking, reflect the very same iconic quantity principle (Givón 1985a):

•
Information is left unmarked when it is either predictable or unimportant. One feature of reduced finiteness, the marking of subject or object arguments as genitives, is not explained by informational predictability. Rather, it must be explained in terms of nominalization as a process of syntactic analogy. This feature crops up invariably when verbal clauses are placed in prototypically nominal (NP) syntactic slots — subject or object. In such alien contexts, verbal clauses are treated by analogy as NPs.



Inter-clausal coherence

Notes 1. Our heuristic treatment here deals primarily with the more concrete elements of coherence that can be tracked across an oral or written text. It is fairly clear, however, that a more profound and ultimately more realistic notion of coherence involves the mind that produces and interprets such texts. From such a cognitive perspective, coherence is understood in terms of the network of mental nodes and connections, formed during language processing in and across the three main mental representational areas responsible for language processing — working memory, episodic memory and semantic memory. Our treatment of the grammar of referential coherence (Vol. I, Ch. 10) was already cast in such terms. A more detailed discussion of the neuro-cognitive aspects of discourse pragmatics may be found in Givón (1993, 1997c, 2001a). 2. Being the incorrigible empirical methodologist that he was, Aristotle pointed out here to a method of substitution and elimination that has proven reliable to this day in both discourse studies and experimental psycholinguistics. 3. Haiman (1978) also lists a third type, ‘given’ conditionals. It is not clear that this is a separate semantic link, rather than a pragmatic connection that is associated, potentially, with all adverbial subordinate clauses (see further below). 4. The one-way conditional of logic would disallow such inference from (12), allowing only the proper modus tolens; that is: (a … b) … (Neg-b … Neg-a) 5. The interpretation of post-posed participial clauses is also affected by the presence vs. absence of a pause, written as a comma. Without a pause, a post-posed participial clause tends to be interpreted as co-temporal; with a pause it is more likely to be interpreted as sequential. Thus contrast: He ran out chasing the cat He ran out, chasing the cat The iconic nature of this effect is of course transparent: Pauses — or lower clause-integration — signal lower event-integration. And two co-temporal events are more integrated than two events in sequence. 6. Neither papers make this distinction explicit, but all their examples involve pre-posed ADV-clauses. 7. From T. Severin (1978) The Brendan Voyage, NY: McGraw-Hill 8. The traditional ‘sentence’ is used ambiguously for either a simple clause, a complex clause or a clause-chain. 9. As noted earlier above, many cataphoric-DS medial clauses in Kalam, particularly the nonsequential ones, receive an ADV-clause interpretation in English translation. 10. For the role of intonation and pauses in inter-clausal and cross-chain junctures, see Givón (1991b). For the correlation between pauses and cognitive discontinuity, see Eisler-Goldman (1968). 11. One could, of course, re-christen chained clauses — and thus clausal conjunction in general — as ‘subordinate’ whenever they display GR-governed control on zero-marked co-reference, as was done in Finer (1985). However, this is a rather dubious formal manoeuver, one that is designed to salvage the formal requirements imposed by a ubiquitous Generative formalism — the insistence that GRs can only be read off PS-tree configurations.

387



References

Anderson, A., S. C. Garrod and A. J. Sanford (1983) “The accessibility of pronominal antecedents as a function of episode shifts in narrative”, Quarterly J. of Experimental Psychology, 35A. Anderson, S. R. (1977) “On mechanisms by which languages become ergative”, in C. Li (ed., 1977). Aristotle, Poetics, tr. by I. Bywater, in J. Barnes (ed 1984) The Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. II, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ashton, M. (1944) Swahili Grammar, London: Longmans. Austin, J. (1962) How to Do Things with Words, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Austin, P. (1988) “Cases and clauses in Jiwarli, Western Australia”, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Vic. (ms). Austin, P. (1992) “Cases and clauses in Jiwarli, Western Australia”, La Trobe University Working Papers in Linguistics, 5. Bergvall, V. (1988) “Questions, cleft and COMP in two Bantu languages: Kikuyu and Duala”, Paper read at the Nineteenth Conference on African Linguistics, Boston University, April 1988 (ms). Bickerton, D. (1981) Roots of Language, Ann Arbor: Karoma. Bird, C. (1968) “Relative clauses in Bambara”, J. of West African Languages, 5. Bloomfield, L. (1962) The Menomini Language, C. F. Hockett (ed.), New Haven: Yale University Press. Bokamba, G. (1971) “Specificity and definiteness in Dzamba”, Studies in African Linguistics, 2.3. Bokamba, E. G. (1976) Question Formation in Some Bantu Languages, PhD dissertation, Bloomington: Indiana University (ms). Bolinger, D. (1954) “Meaningful word-order in Spanish”, Boletin de Filología, tomo 8, Santiago: Universidad de Chile. Bolinger, D. (1961) “Contrastive accent and contrastive stress”, Language, 37. Bolinger, D. (1966) unpublished letter to F. Householder, by courtesy of the late Dwight Bolinger (ms). Bolinger, D. (1978a) “Intonation across languages”, in J. Greenberg, C. Ferguson and E. Moravcsik (eds) Universals of Human Language, Vol. 2: Phonology, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Bolinger, D. (1978b) “Yes-no questions are not alternative questions”, in H. Hiz (ed.) Questions, Dordrecht: Reidel. Bolinger, D. (1985) “The inherent iconism of intonation”, in J. Haiman (ed. 1985). Bolinger, D. (1991) “The role of accent in extraposition and focus” (ms). Bommelyn, L. and T. Givón (1998) “Internal reconstruction in the Tolowa Athabaskan verb”, Cuarto Encuentro Internacional de Linguística en el Noroeste, Universidad de Sonora, Hermosillo, Son. Borgert, U. H. G. and C. A. Nyhan (1976) A German Reference Grammar, Sydney: Sydney University Press. Brainard, S. (1994) “Voice and ergativity in Karao”, in T. Givón (ed. 1994a). Bresnan, J. and J. Kanerva (1988) “Locative inversion in ChiChewa: A case study of factorization in grammar”, Linguistic Inquiry, 20.1.

390 References

Brown, P. and S. Levinson (1978) “Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena”, in E. Goody (ed.) Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Byarushengo, E., L. Hyman and S., Tenenbaum (1976) “Tone, accent and assertion in Haya”, BLS 2, U.C. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Byrne, F. (1987) Grammatical Relations in a Radical Creole, Creole Language Library #3, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Byrne, F. (1992) “Tense, scope and spreading in Saramaccan”, J. of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 7.2. Carlson, R. (1985) “Relative clauses in Ponapean”, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Carlson, R. (1987) “Narrative connectives in Sup’ire”, in R. Tomlin (ed., 1987). Carlson, R. (1994) A Grammar of Supyire, Berlin/NY: Mouton De Gruyter. Chafe, W. (1976) “Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subject, topic and point of view”, in C. Li (ed., 1976). Chafe, W. (1987) “Cognitive constraints on information flow”, in R. Tomlin (ed., 1987). Chafe, W. (1994) Discourse, Consciousness and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chafe, W. (1997), “Polyphonic topic development”, in T. Givón (ed. 1997b). Chafe, W. and J. Nichols (eds 1986) Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Chisholm, W. (ed. 1984) Interrogativity, TSL #4, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures, The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge: MIT Press. Coates, J. (1977) “The construction of collaborative floor in women’s friendly talk”, in T. Givón (ed. 1997b). Cole, P. (1977/1984) “The grammatical role of the causee in universal grammar”, I.J.A.L., 49.2. Cole, P. and J. Morgan (eds, 1975) Speech Acts, Syntax and Semantics 3, NY: Academic Press. Comrie, B. (1976) “The syntax of causative constructions: Cross- language similarities and divergences”, in M. Shibatani (ed., 1976a). Comrie, B. (1977) “In defense of spontaneous demotion: The impersonal passive”, In P. Cole and J. Sadock (eds) Grammatical Relations, Syntax and Semantics 8, NY: Academic Press. Comrie, B. (1982) “Grammatical relations in Huichol”, in P. Hopper and S. Thompson (eds 1982). Comrie, B. and S. Thompson (1965) “Lexical nominalizations”, in T. Shopen (ed., 1985, Vol. III). Cooper, W. and J. R. Ross (1975) “World order”, Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistics Society. Cooreman, A. (1982) “Topicality, ergativity and transitivity in narrative discourse: Evidence from Chamorro”, Studies in Language, 6.3. Cooreman, A. (1985) Transitivity and Discourse Continuity in Chamorro Narratives, PhD dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene. Cooreman, A. (1987) Transitivity and Discourse Continuity in Chamorro Narratives, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [revised]. Cooreman, A. (1988) “Ergativity in Dyirbal discourse”, Linguistics, 26. Cooreman, A., B. Fox and T. Givón (1984) “The discourse definition of ergativity”, Studies in Language, 8.1. Dahlstrom, A. (1986) Plains Cree Morphosyntax, PhD dissertation, UC at Berkeley (ms). Dahlstrom, A. (1987) “Discontinuous constituents in Fox”, in P. Kroeber and R. Moore (eds.) Native American Languages and Grammatical Typology, Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Davison, A. (1975) “Indirect speech acts and what to do with them”, in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds, 1975).

References

Delancey, S. (1981) “The category of direction in Tibeto-Burman”, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area, 6.1. Delancey, S. (1985) “The analysis-synthesis-lexis cycle in Tibeto- Burman: A case study in motivated change”, in J. Haiman (ed. 1985b). Delancey (1988) “Relativization and nominalization in Tibetan and Newari”, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). De Mello, G. (1978) “On the use of ‘por’ plus agent with ‘se’ constructions”, Hispanica, 61. Dickinson, C. and T. Givón (1997) “Memory and conversation: Toward an experimental paradigm”, in T. Givón (ed. 1997b). Dixon, R. M. W. (ed. 1976) Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Dixon, R. M. W. (1977) “The syntactic development of Australian languages”, in C. Li (ed., 1977). Donellan, K. (1966) “Reference and definite description”, The Philosophical Review, 75.3. Dreizin, A. (1980) “The flavor of Russian negation: Some notes on and around”, Haifa University (ms). Dryer, M. (1994) “The discourse function of the Kutenai inverse”, in T. Givón (ed. 1994a). DuBois, J. (1987) “The discourse basis of ergativity”, Language, 63.4. Duranti, A. and E. Ochs (1979) “Left-dislocation in Italian conversation”, in T. Givón (ed. 1979b). Egerod, S. (1975) Paper read at the 8th Sino-Tibetan Conference, UC Berkeley, October 1975 (ms). Eisler-Goldman, F. (1968) Psycholinguistics: Experiments in Spontaneous Speech, NY: Academic Press. Elgin, S. (1972) “The crossover constraint and Ozark English”, in J. Kimball (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, I, NY: Academic Press. Erguvanli, E. (1976) Scope of Presupposition in Turkish Interrogative, MA Thesis, UCLA (ms). Ervin-Tripp, S. and A. Küntay (1997) “The occasioning and structure of conversational stories”, in T. Givón (ed 1997b). Estival, D. (1986) The Passive in English: A Case of Syntactic Change, PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania (ms). Finer, D. (1985) “The syntax of switch reference”, Linguistic Inquiry, 16. Fodor, J. and M. Garrett (1967) “Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity”, Perception and Psychophysics, 2. Fox, A. (1983) “Topic continuity in Biblical Hebrew narrative” in T. Givón (ed. 1983a). Fox, R. (1985) “Existential clauses in written English discourse”, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Fox, B. (1987) “The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy revisited”, Language, 63.4. Fox, B. and P. Hopper (eds 1994) Voice: Form and Function, TSL #27, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fox, B. and S. Thompson (1990) “A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation”, Language, 66. Forrest, L. (1994) “The de-transitive clause in Bella Coola: Passive vs. inverse”, in T. Givón (ed. 1994a). Frajzyngier, Z. (1986) “Grammaticalization through analysis: A case of switch reference”, in S. DeLancey and R. Tomlin (eds) Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting, Pacific Linguistics Conference, Eugene: University of Oregon. Frishberg, N. (1972) “Navajo object markers and the great chain of being”, in J. Kimball (ed.) Syntax and Semantics I, NY: Academic Press. Fujii, N. (1989) Right Dislocation in Japanese Discourse, Ma Thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). García, E. (1975) On the Role of Theory in Linguistic Analysis: The Spanish Pronoun System, Amsterdam: North Holland. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990) Language Comprehension as Structure Building, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

391

392

References

Gernsbacher, M. A. and D. Hargreaves (1988) “Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention”, J. of Memory and Language, 27. Gernsbacher, M. A. and T. Givón (eds 1995) Coherence in Spontaneous Discourse, TSL #31, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gildea, S. (1994) “‘Inverse alignment’ and ‘inverse voice’ in Carib of Surinam”, in T. Givón (ed. 1994a). Gildea, S. (1998) On Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Cariban Morphosyntax, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Girardello, R. (1999) A Reference Grammar of Trumai, PhD dissertation, Rice University, Houston, Texas (ms). Givón, T. (1970) “The resolution of gender conflicts in Bantu conjunction: When syntax and semantics clash”, CLS 6, University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistics Society. Givón, T. (1971) “Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip”, CLS #11, University of Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. Givón, T. (1972a) Studies in ChiBemba and Bantu Grammar, Studies in African Linguistics, supplement #3. Givón, T. (1973b) “Complex NPs, word-order and resumptive pronouns in Hebrew”, CLS #9, The Chicago Which-Hunt, University of Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. Givón, T. (1974a) “Syntactic change in Lake-Bantu: A rejoinder”, Studies in African Linguistics, 5.1. Givón, T. (1975a) “Cause and control: On the semantics of inter-personal manipulation”, in J. Kimball (ed.) Syntax and Semantics 4, NY: Academic Press. Givón, T. (1975b) “On the role of perceptual clues in Hebrew relativization”, Afroasiatic Linguistics, 2.8. Givón, T. (1975c) “Focus and the scope of assertion: Some Bantu evidence”, Studies in African Linguistics, 6.2. Givón, T. (1975d) “Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger-Congo”, in C. Li (ed., 1975). Givón, T. (1976a) “Some constraints on Bantu causativization”, in M. Shibatani (ed., 1976a). Givón, T. (1976b) “Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement”, in C. Li (ed. 1976). Givón, T. (1976c) “On the VS word-order in Israeli Hebrew: Pragmatics and typological change”, in P. Cole (ed.) Studies in Modern Hebrew Syntax and Semantics, Amsterdam: N. Holland. Givón, T. (1977) “The drift from VSO to SVO in Biblical Hebrew: The pragmatics of tense–aspect”, in C. Li (ed. 1977). Givón, T. (1979a) On Understanding Grammar, NY: Academic Press. Givón, T. (ed. 1979b) Discourse and Syntax, Syntax and Semantics 12, NY: Academic Press. Givón, T. (1980a) Ute Reference Grammar, Ignacio, CO: Ute Press. Givón, T. (1980b) “The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements”, Studies in Language, 4.3. Givón, T. (1981a) “Typology and functional domains”, Studies in Language, 5.2. Givón, T. (ed. 1983a) Topic Continuity in Discourse: Quantified Cross-Language Studies, TSL #3, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givón, T. (1983b) “Topic continuity in spoken English”, in T. Givón (ed., 1983a). Givón, T. (1983c) “Topic continuity and word-order in Ute”, in T. Givón (ed., 1983b). Givón, T. (1984a) “Direct object and dative shifting: Semantic vs. pragmatic case”, in F. Plank (ed.) Objects, London: Academic Press. Givón, T. (1984b) “Ute interrogatives”, in W. Chisholm (ed., 1984). Givón, T. (1984c) “The Krio numeral ‘one’ and the pragmatics of reference”, African Studies Journal, Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. Givón, T. (1985a) “Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax”, in J. Haiman (ed., 1985b).

References

Givón, T. (ed. 1985b) Ute Traditional Narratives, Ignacio, CO: Ute Press. Givón, T. (1987a) “Beyond foreground and background”, in R. Tomlin (ed. 1987a). Givón, T. (1988a) “The pragmatics of word-order: Predictability, importance and attention”, in M. Hammond, E. Moravcsik and J. Wirth (eds 1988). Givón, T. (1988b) “Tale of two passive: Internal reconstruction in Ute”, in M. Shibatani (ed. 1988). Givón, T. (1989) Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Givón, T. (1990a) “On reconstructing the object and genitive suffixes in Ute”, Fonción, 3.1. Givón, T. (1991a) “Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations”, Studies in Language, 15.1. Givón, T. (1991b) “Some substantive issues concerning verb serialization: Grammatical vs. cognitive packaging”, in C. Lefebvre (ed. 1991). Givón, T. (1991c) “Markedness in grammar: Distributional, communicative and cognitive correlates of syntactic structure”, Studies in Language, 15.2. Givón, T. (1991d) “The evolution of dependent clause morphosyntax in Biblical Hebrew”, in E. Traugott and B. Heine (eds 1991). Givón, T. (1993) “Coherence in text, coherence in mind”, Pragmatics and Cognition, 2.1. Givón, T. (ed. 1994a) Voice and Inversion, TSL #30, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givón, T. (1994b) “The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: Functional and typological aspects of inversion”, in T. Givón (ed. 1994a). Givón, T. (1994c) “Nominalized clauses in Ute: The diachronic seasaw of finite structure”, Proc. of the II Encuentro de Linguistica en el Noroeste, Hermosillo, Mexico: Universidad de Sonora. Givón, T. (1994d) “Irrealis and the subjunctive”, Studies in Language, 18.2. Givón, T. (1995a) Functionalism and Grammar, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givón, T. (1995b) “Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind”, in M. A. Gernsbacher and T. Givón (eds 1995) . Givón, T. (ed. 1997a) Grammatical Relations: A Functionalist Perspective, TSL #35, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givón, T. (ed. 1997b) Conversation: Cognitive, Communicative and Social Perspectives, TSL #34, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givón, T. (1997c) “Toward a neuro-cognitive interpretation of ‘context’”, TR 97-08, University of Oregon: Institute of Cognitive & Decision Sciences. Givón, T. (1999a) “The bounds of generativity and the demise of competence, I: The mirage of (non-)configurationality”, Symposium on Frequency Effects in Emergence, Carnegie-Mellon University, May 1999 (ms). Givón, T. (1999b) “The usual suspects: The grammar of perspective in narrative fiction”, Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense (Madrid), 7. Givón, T. (2000a) “Internal reconstruction: As method, as theory”, in S. Gildea (ed.) Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Linguistics and Grammaticalization, TSL 43, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givón, T. (2001a) “The role of grammar in discourse processing”, in A. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher and S. Goldman (eds) Handbook of Discoiurse Processes. Givón, T. and L. Bommelyn (2000) “The evolution of transitive voice in Tolowa Athabaskan”, Studies in Language, 24.1. Givón, T. and A. Kimenyi (1974) “Truth, belief and doubt in KinyaRwanda”, Studies in African Linguistics, supplement 5. Givón, T. and P. Young (Forthcoming) “Cooperation and inter-personal manipulation in the society of intimates”, in M. Shibatani (ed.) Causatives and Inter-Personal Manipulation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Goddard, I. (1979) Delaware Verbal Morphology, NY: Garland.

393

394 References

Goodwin, C. (1995) “The negotiation of coherence within conversation”, in M. A. Gernsbacher and T. Givón (eds 1995). Gorbet, L. (1974) Relativization and Complementation in Diegeño: Noun Phrases as Nouns, PhD dissertation, UC San Diego (ms). Gordon, D. and G. Lakoff (1971) “Conversational postulates”, CLS #7, University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistics Society. Green, G. (1970) “Whimperatives: Schizophrenic speech acts”, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (ms). Green, G. (1975) “How to get people to do things with words: The whimperative question”, in P. cole and J. Morgan (eds 1975). Greenberg, J. (1974) “The relation of frequency to semantic features in a case language (Russian)”, Working Papers in Language Universals, 16, Stanford: Stanford University. Greenberg. J. (1976) Language Universals, With Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies, The Hague: Mouton. Grice, H. P. (1968/1975) “Logic and conversation”, in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds 1975). Gruber, J. (1967) Functions of the Lexicon in Formal Descriptive Grammars, Santa Monica, CA: Systems Development Corporation. Guillaume, A. (2000) “Participials, case agreement and switch reference in Cavineña”, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Haberland, H. (1985) “Review of Klaus Heinrich’s Dahlemere Vorlesungen I, J. of Pragmatics, 9. Haiman, J. (1978) “Conditionals are topics”, Language, 54.3. Haiman, J. (1983) “On some origins of switch-reference marking”, in J. Haiman and P. Munro (eds 1983). Haiman, J. (1985a) Natural Syntax, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haiman, J. (ed. 1985b) Iconicity in Syntax, TSL #6, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haiman, J. (1987) “One some origins of medial verb morphology in Papuan languages”, Studies in Language, 11.2. Haiman, J. and P. Munro (eds 1983) Switch Reference and Universal Grammar, TSL #2, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hale, K. (1972) “A note on subject-object inversion in Navajo”, in B. Kachru et al. (eds) Issues in Linguistics: Papers in Honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Hale, K. (1976) “Person marking in Walbiri”, in R. M. W. Dixon (ed. 1976). Hale, K. (1983) “Papago k/c” I.J.A.L., 49. Hale, K. (1988) “Misumalpan verb sequencing constructions”, paper read at the Chibchan Session, AAA Annual Meeting, Phoenix (ms). Hale, K. (1991) “Misumalpan verb-sequencing constructions”, in C. Lefebvre (ed. 1991). Hammond, M., E. Moravcsik and J. Wirth (eds 1988) Studies in Syntactic Typology, TSL #17, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hancock, I. (ed., 1972) The Journal of the Krio Literary Society, 1.1. Harris, A. (1981) Georgian Syntax: A Study in Relational Grammar, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, A. (1984) “Interrogatives in Georgian”, in W. Chisholm (ed. 1984). Hayashi, L. (1989) “Conjunctions and referential continuity”, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Heine, B., U. Claudi and F. Hünnemeyer (1991) Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework, Chicago: University of Chicago Pres. Heny, F. (1971) “Focus and interrogative in Bali” (UCLA, ms). Hennesy, P. (1996) “Adverbial clauses in Tolowa”, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Hetzron, R. (1971) “Presentative function and presentative movement”, Studies in African Linguistics, Supplement #2.

References

Hetzron, R. (1975) “The presentative movement, or why the ideal word-order is V.S.O.P.”, in C. Li (ed. 1975). Hidalgo, R. (1994) “The pragmatics of de-transitive voice in Spanish: From passive to inverse?”, in T. Givón (ed. 1994a). Hinds, J. (1984) “Japanese interrogatives”, in W. Chisholm (ed., 1984). Hopper, P. (1979) “Aspect and foregrounding in Discourse”, in T. Givón (ed. 1979b). Hopper, P. and S. Thompson (1980) “Transitivity in grammar and discourse”, Language, 56. Hopper, P. and S. Thompson (eds 1982) Studies in Transitivity, Syntax and Semantics 15, NY: Academic Press. Hopper, P. and S. Thompson (1984) “The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar”, Language, 60. Hopper, P. and E. Traugott (1993) Grammaticalization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hulstaert, G. (1966) Grammaire du Lomongo, 3-iem Prt: Syntax, Tervuren: Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, serie IN-8, #58. Hyman, L. (1975) “On the change from SOV to SVO: Evidence from Niger-Congo”, in C. Li (ed., 1975). Jelinek, E. (1986) “Yaqui minus control”, in S. DeLancey and R. Tomlin (eds) Papers from the Second Pacific Linguistics Conference (PLC II), University of Oregon, Eugene. Jespersen, O. (1924) The Philosophy of Grammar, NY: Norton [1965 edition]. Justus, C. (1976) “Topicalization and relativization in Hittite”, in C. Li (ed., 1976). Kachru, Y. (1976) “On the semantics of causative constructions in Hindi-Urdu”, in M. Shibatani (ed. 1976a). Kalmár, I. (1979) Case and Context in Inuktitut (Eskimo), Publication #49, Ottawa: National Museum of Man. Kalmár, I. (1980) “The antipassive and grammatical relations in Eskimo”, in F. Plank (ed.) Ergativity: Toward a Theory of Grammatical Relations, NY: Academic Press. Karttunen, L. (1970) “The logic of English predicate complements”, Langages. Karttunen, L. (1971) “Some observations on factivity”, Papers in Linguistics, 4. Karttunen, L. (1974) “Presupposition and linguistic context”, Theoretical Linguistics, 1.2. Kawasha, B. (1999) Some Aspects of Lunda Grammar, MA thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Kawasha, B. (2000) “The pragmatic function of the Lunda passive: A quantitative text-based study”, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Kawasha, B. and T. Givón (2000) “Indiscrete grammatical relations: The Lunda passive”, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Keenan, E. (1975) “Some universals of passive in relational grammar”, CLS #11, University of Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. Keenan, E. L. (1976a) “Toward a universal definition of ‘subject’”, in C. Li (ed. 1976). Keenan, E. and B. Comrie (1977) “Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar”, Linguistic Inquiry, 8. Kemmer, S. (1988) The Middle Voice: A Typological and Diachronic Study, PhD dissertation, Stanford University (ms). Kemmer, S. (1989) “Reciprocal marking”, in D. Payne et al. (eds) Papers from the Fourth Pacific Linguistics Conference (PLC-4), Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. Kimenyi, A. (1976) A Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda, Ph D. dissertation, Los Angeles: University of California (ms). Kintsch, W. (1974) The Representation of Meaning in Memory, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kintsch, W. (1977) “On comprehending stories”, in M. A. Just and P. Carpenter (eds) Cognitive Processes in Comprehension, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

395

396 References

Kintsch, W. (1982a) “Psychological processes in discourse production”, in H. W. Dechter and M. Raupach (eds) Psycholinguistic Models of Production, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kintsch, W. (1982b) “Memory for text”, in A. Flammer and W. . Kuno, S. (1972/3) The Structure of the Japanese Language, Cambridge: MIT Press. Lakoff, G. (1967) “Deep and surface grammar”, Cambridge, Harvard University (ms). Lakoff, R. (1971) “Passive resistance”, CLS #7, University of Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. Lambrecht, K. (1987) “On the status of canonical SVO sentences in the structuring of stories”, in R. Tomlin (ed. 1987). L’Amour, L. (1962) Shalako, NY: Ballantine. Langacker, R. (1976) Non-Distinct Arguments in Uto-Aztecan, Linguistics publication #82, Berkeley: UC Press. Langacker, R. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, R. and P. Munro (1975) “Passives and their meaning”, Language, 51. Lee-Kwok, I. (1994) “The pragmatics of voice in Korean”, in T. Givón (ed. 1994a). Lefebvre, C. (ed. 1991) Serial Verbs: Grammatical, Comparative and Cognitive Approaches, SSLS #8, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Leman, E. (1985) “Interclausal conjunctions in Nepali”, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, D. (1979) “Score keeping in language games”, J. of Philosophical Logic, 8. Lewis, G. L. (1967) Turkish Grammar, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Li, C. (ed. 1975) Word Order and Word Order Change, Austin: University of Texas Press. Li, C. (ed. 1976) Subject and Topic, NY: Academic Press. Li, C. (ed. 1977) Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, Austin: University of Texas Press. Li, C. (1988) “From conjunction to switch reference in Green Hmong”, paper read at the Symposium on Grammaticalization, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Li, C. and S. Thompson (1981) Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar, Berkeley: UC Press. Li, C. and S. Thompson (1984) “Mandarin interrogatives”, in W. Chisholm (ed., 1984). Lichtenberk, F. (1985) “Multiple uses of reciprocal constructions”, Australian J. of Linguistics, 5.1. Lindenfeld, J. (1973) Yaqui Syntax, University of California Publications in Linguistics, #76, Berkeley: UC Press. Linell, P. and N. Korolija (1997) “Coherence in multi-party conversation: Episodes and contexts in interaction”, in T. Givón (ed 1997b). Longacre, R. (1968) Discourse, Paragraph and Sentence Structure in Selected Philippine Languages, Vol. 3 (Final Report on HEW Research Contract OE-08-062838-0391), Santa Ana: SIL Publication #21. Longacre, R. (1983) “Switch reference systems in two distinct linguistic areas: Wojokeso (Papua New Guinea) and Guanano (Northern South America)”, in J. Haiman and P. Munro (eds 1983). Longacre, R. (1985) “Sentences as combinations of clauses”, in T. Shopen (ed., 1985, Vol. II). Lord, C. (1973) “Serial verbs in transition”, Studies in African Linguistics, 4.3. Lyons, J. (1977) Semantics, Vols 1,2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacWhinney, B., C. Pléh and E. Bates (1985) “The development of sentence interpretation in Hungarian”, Cognitive Psychology. Manney, L. (1998) “The reflexive archetype and its various realization in Modern Greek”, Studies in Language, 22.1. Manney, L. (2000) Middle Voice in Modern Greek, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Marantz, A. (1983) “Comments on Givón’s Typology and Functional Domains”, Proc. XIII International Congress of Linguists, Tokyo, August 1982; edited by S. Hatori and K. Inue, The Hague: CIPL.

References

Marín, J. (1989a) “Functions of se in the Poema del Mio Cid”, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Marín, J. (1989b) “Functions of se in El Quijote”, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Matisoff, J. (1972) A Grammar of Lahu, Berkeley: UC Press. Mazaudon, M. (1978) “La formation des propositions relatives en tibétain”, Bulletin de la Société de Linquistique de Paris, 73.1. Mbotela, J. (1934) Uhuru wa Watumwa, London: Nelson [1966 reprinting]. Mead, D. (1998) Proto-Bungku-Tolaki: Reconstruction of its Phonology and Aspects of its Morphosyntax, PhD dissertation, Rice University, Houston, Texas (ms). Mithun, M. (1986) “Evidential diachrony in Northern Iroquois”, in W. Chafe and J. Nichols (eds 1986). Mithun, M. (1987) “Is basic word-order universal?”, in R. Tomlin (ed., 1987). Mithun, M. (1991) “The role of motivation in the emergence of grammatical categories: The grammaticalization of subjects”, in E. Traugott and B. Heine (eds 1991). Mithun, M., (1994) “The implication of ergativity for a Philippine voice system”, in B. Fox and P. Hopper (eds 1994). Monje, F. (1955) “Las frases pronominal de sentido impersonal en Español”, Archivo de Philología Aragonesa, VII, Zaragoza: Institución “Fernando el Católico” (C.S.I.C.). Moravcsik, E. (1971) “Some cross-linguistic generalizations about yes-no questions and their answers”, Working Papers in Language Universals, 7, Stanford University. Munro, P. (1974) Topics in Mojave Syntax, PhD dissertation, UC at San Diego (ms). Munro, P. (1976) Mojave Syntax, NY/London: Garland Publ. Munro, P. (1983) Sketch of Pima Grammar, Los Angeles, CA, UCLA (ms). Myers, A. (1971) “On the similarities between interrogatives and emphatics in Kikuyu”, Studies in African Linguistics, Supplement #2. Osam, E. K. (1994) Aspects of Akan Grammar: A Functional Perspective, PhD dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Osam, E. K. (1997) “Grammatical relations in Akan”, in T. Givón (ed. 1997). Pawley, A. (1966) The Structure of Karam: A Grammar of a New Guinea Highlands Language, PhD dissertation, Auckland University, Auckland, NZ (ms). Payne, Doris (1987) “Information structure in Papago”, Language, 63.4. Payne, Doris (1989) “Discontinuity vs. continuity in Yagua narrative”, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Payne, Doris, M. Hamaya and P. Jacobs (1994) “Active, inverse and passive in Maasai”, in T. Givón (ed. 1994a). Payne, J. (1985) “Complex phrases and complex sentences”, in T. Shopen (ed. 1985, Vol. II). Payne, T. (1988) “Role- and reference-related subject properties and ergativity in Yu’pik Eskimo and Tagalog”, Studies in Language, 6.1. Payne, T. (1994) “The pragmatics of voice in a Philippine language: Actor-focus and goal-focus in Cebuano narrative”, in T. Givón (ed. 1994a). Perlmutter, D. and P. Postal (1977) “Toward a universal characterization of passivization”, BLS, 3, Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Pope, E. (1973) “Question answering systems”, CLS #9, University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistics Society. Posner, M. I. and C. R. Snyder (1974) “Attention and cognitive control”, in R. L. Solso (ed.) Information Processing and Cognition: The Loyola Symposium, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Postal, P. (1974) On Raising, Cambridge: MIT Press. Pu, M.-M. (1997) “Zero anaphora and grammatical relations in Mandarin” in T. Givón (ed. 1997a). Ramsay, V. (1987) “The functional distribution of pre-posed and post-posed ‘if ’ and ‘when’ clauses in written discourse”, in R. Tomlin (ed. 1987a).

397

398 References

Redden, J. (1966) “Walapai II: Morphology”, I.J.A.L., 32. Rhodes, R. (1976) The Morphosyntax of the Central Ojibwa Verb, PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (ms). Roland, K. (1994) “The pragmatics of Modern Greek voice: Active, inverse and passive”, in T. Givón (ed. 1994a). Ross, J. R. (1967) Constraints on Variables in Syntax, PhD dissertation, MIT (ms). Rude, N. (1985) Studies in Nez Perce Grammar and Discourse, PhD dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Rude, N. (1987) “Topicality, transitivity and the direct object in Nez Perce”, I.J.A.L.. Rude, N. (1988a) “Ergative, passive and antipassive in Nez Perce: A discourse perspective”, in M. Shibatani (ed. 1988). Rude, N. (1988b) “Possible sources of the Sahaptin inverse prefix pa-”, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Rude, N. (1991) “Origin of the Nez Perce Ergative NP suffix”, I.J.A.L., 57.1. Rude, N. (1994) “Direct, inverse and passive in Northwest Sahaptin”, in T. Givón (ed. 1994a). Sadock, J. (1970) “Whimperatives”, in J. Sadock and A. Vanek (eds) Studies Presented to R. B. Lees, Edmonton: Linguistic Research. Sadock, J. and A. Zwicky (1985) “Speech act distinctions in syntax”, in T. Shopen (ed. 1985), Vol. I. Salisbury, M. (1986) “Negation and irrealis in Pukapukan”, Anthropology Department, Auckland University, Auckland, NZ (ms). Saxena, A. (1988) “On the grammaticalization of the verb ‘say’: A typological and diachronic study”, in S. DeLancey and R. Tomlin (eds) Papers from the Third Pacific Linguistics Conference (PLC II), Eugene: University of Oregon. Scancarelli, J. (1989) “Marking discontinuity in Pima and O’odham (Papago)”, U. of Kentucky (ms). Schachter, P. (1971) “Focus and relativization”, Language, 47. Schauber, E. (1978) The Syntax and Semantics of Questions in Navajo, Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Schneider, W. and R. M. Shiffrin (1977) “Controlled and automated human information processing, I: Detection, search and attention”, Psychological Review, 84. Searle, J. (1970) Speech Acts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. (1975) “Indirect speech acts”, In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds, 1975). Shibatani, M. (1973) “Semantics of Japanese causativization”, Foundations of Language, 9. Shibatani, M. (ed. 1976a) The Grammar of Causative Constructions, Syntax and Semantics 6, NY: Academic Press. Shibatani, M. (1976b) “The grammar of causative constructions: A conspectus”, in M. Shibatani (ed. 1976a). Shibatani, M. (1985) “Passive and related constructions: A prototype analysis”, Language, 61.4. Shibatani, M. (ed. 1988) Passives and Voice, TSL #16, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Shibatani, M. (ed. Forthcoming) Causatives and Inter-personal Manipulation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Shopen, T. (ed. 1985) Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 3 volumes (Vol. II: Complex Constructions), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Silverstein, M. (1976) “Hierarchy of features and ergativity”, in R. M. W. Dixon (ed. 1976). Slobin, D. (1986) “The acquisition and use of relative clauses in Turkic and Indo-European languages”, in D. Slobin and K. Zimmer (eds.) Studies in Turkish Linguistics, TSL #8, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sparing-Chávez, M. (1998) “Interclausal reference in Amahuaca”, in D. C. Derbyshire and J. Pullum (eds) Handbook of Amazonian Languages, Vol. 4. Stahlke, H. (1974) “Pronouns and islands in Yoruba”, Studies in African Linguistics, 5.2.

References

Svedova, N. J. (1970) Grammatika Sovremennogo Russkogo Literaturnogo, Moscow: Nauka. Sun, C.-F. and T. Givón (1985) “On the so-called SOV word-order in Mandarin Chinese: A quantified text study and its implications”, Language, 61.2. Sundberg, K. (1985) “Word-order in Klamath: The effect of topic continuity in determining pre- and post-verbal position”, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Syder, F. and A. Pawley (1974) “The reduction principle in conversation”, Anthropology Department, Auckland University, Auckland, NZ (ms). Takizala, A. (1972) “Focus and relativization in Kihungan”, Studies in African Linguistics, 3.2. Tenenbaum, S. (1977) “Left and right dislocation”, in E. Byarushengo, A. Duranti and L. Hyman (eds) Haya Grammatical Structure, SCOPIL 6, Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Thompson, C. (1987), “Pronouns and voice in Koyukon Athabaskan”, IJAL. Thompson, C. (1989) Voice and Obviation in Athabaskan and Other Languages, PhD dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Thompson, C. (1994) “Passive and inverse constructions”, in T. Givón (ed. 1994a). Thompson, S. (1985) “Grammar and written discourse: Initial vs. final purpose clauses in English”, in T. Givón (ed.) Quantified Studies in Discourse, Text, 5.1/2. Thompson, S. (1991) “That deletion in English from a discourse perspective”, in E. Traugott and B. Heine (eds 1991). Thompson, S. and R. Longacre (1985) “Adverbial clauses”, in T. Shopen (ed. 1985), Vol. I. Thurman, R. (1978) Interclausal Relations in Chuave, MA Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles (ms). Tomlin, R. (ed. 1987a) Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, TSL #11, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tomlin, R. (1987b) “Linguistic reflections of cognitive events”, in R. Tomlin (ed. 1987a). Tomlin, R. and R. Rhodes (1979) “An introduction to information distribution in Ojibwa”, CLS 15, Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. Trabasso, T., T. Secco and P. van Broek (1984) “Causal cohesion and story coherence”, in H. Mandl, N. L. Stein and T. Trabasso (eds) Learning and Comprehension of Text, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Trabasso, T. and L. L. Sperry (1985) “Causal relatedness and importance of story events”, J. of Memory and Language, 24 cohesion and story coherence”, . Trabasso, T. S. Suh and P. Payton (1995) “Explanatory coherence in understanding and talking about events”, in M. A. Gernsbacher and T. Givón (eds). Traugott, E. (1982) “From propositional to textual and expressive meaning: Some semanticpragmatic aspects of grammaticalization”, in W. P. Lehmann and Y. Malkiel (ed.) Perspectives on Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Traugott, E. and B. Heine (eds 1991) Approaches to Grammaticalization, TSL #19.1/2, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Trout, K. (1974) Venus on the Half Shell, NY: Dell (ppbk). Tsuchihashi, M. (1983) “The speech-act continuum: An investigation of Japanese sentence-final particles”, J. of Pragmatics, 7.4. Tsunoda, T. (1985) “Ergativity and coreference in Warrungu discourse”, Nagoya University Working Papers in Linguistics, 1. Tsunoda, T. (1987) “Ergativity, accusativity and topicality”, Nagoya University Working Papers in Linguistics, 2. Valenzuela, P. (1996) “Tolowa relative clauses”, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Valenzuela, P. (2000) “Adverbials, transitivity and switch- reference in Shipibo-Kanibo”, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Vennemann, T. (1973) “Topic, subject and word-order: From SXV to SVX via TVX”, paper read at the First International Congress of Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh (Sept. 1973; ms).

399



400 References

Verhaar, J. (1983a) “Two aspects of pragmatics: Topicality and iconicity”, in S. Hattori and K. Inoue (eds) Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Linguists, Tokyo, 1982, The Hague: CIPL. Verhaar, J. (1983b) “Ergativity, accusativity and hierarchy”, Sophia Linguistica, 11. Vincent, A. (1973) “Tairora verb structure”, in H. McKaughan (ed.) The Languages of the Eastern Family of the East New Guinea Highlands Stock, Seattle: University of Washington Press. Wachowicz, C. (1975) “Double wh-questions”, Language Universals Project, Stanford University (ms). Walusimbi, L. and T. Givón (1970) “Conjoined vs. stacked restrictive relative clauses: Deep and nonso-deep constraints in light of some Luganda data”, Studies in African Linguistics, 1.2. Watson, R. (1966) “Clause to sentence gradation in Pacoh”, Lingua, 16. Watters, D. (1998) The Kham Language of West-Central Nepal (Takale Dialect), PhD dissertation, Eugene: University of Oregon (ms). Weber, D. (1996) Una Gramatica del Quechua del Huallaga, Seria Linguística Peruana 40, Lima, Perú: Instituto Linguístico de Verano. Williams, W. (1971) “Serial verb constructions in Krio”, Studies in African Linguistics, Supplement #2. Williamson, K. (1965) A Grammar of the Kolokuma Dialect of Ijo, West African Language Monograph #2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, S. (1999) Co-verbs and Complex Predicates in Wagiman, Stanford: CSLI Publications. Wolfart, C. (1973) Plains Cree: A Grammatical Study, Philadelphia: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, 63.5. Wright, S. and T. Givón (1987) “The pragmatics of indefinite reference: Quantified text-based studies”, Studies in Language, 11.1. Yang, L. and T. Givón (1994) “The rise of the English GET- passive”, in B. Fox and P. Hopper (eds 1994). Zavala, R. (1994) “Acatec voice constructions: A functional analysis”, University of Oregon, Eugene (ms). Zubin, D. (1979) “Discourse function of morphology: The focus system in German”, in T. Givón (ed. 1979b).



Index

A active direct voice 93, 122, 155 active-stative solution 142 adjectival phrase 6 adjectival-resultative 132 adjectives 6 adverbial clauses 342, 352 adverbial subordinate clauses 330 affectedness 275 agentive control 45, 46 agent deletion 156 agent suppression 125 agreement 22 alternative questions 298 alternative choice questions 299 anaphoric 254 anaphoric accessibility 344 anaphoric grounding 175, 345 anaphoric pronoun strategy 185 anaphoricity 344 anteriority 338 antipassive 93, 94, 122, 155, 170, 172 antipassive voice 168 assertion scope 222, 230 attention 249,250 Austin 377 authority 322 B backgrounding 344 BE-passive 128 blame 323 C case agreement 377, 379, 381 case-bumping hierarchie 78 case-marking 32, 60, 66, 74, 77, 316, 376 case recoverability 180 case recoverability strategies 182

case roles 301 cataphoric 254 cataphoric grounding 177 cataphoric importance 344 causativazation 7 cause 335 chain 356 chain-final clauses 356 chain-grounding clauses 356, 361 chain-initial clauses 356 chain-medial clauses 356 chain-medial-DS clauses 357, 364, 374 chain-medial-SS clauses 363 chain-medial switch-reference 359 clause-chaining 355, 383, 384 clause types 356 clause union 39, 59, 74, 79, 87 certainty 322, 323 cleft 224, 234, 307, 308 clefted Yes/no-questions 298 coercive power 44 coherence 328, 343, 348 coherence bridges 347 coincidence 330 Cole 78 co-lexicalization 63, 74 co-temporality 44, 49 co-reference 44 code quantity principle 249 complementation scale 43, 65, 71 complex noun phrases 15 complex NP constraint 211 complexity 218 Comrie 77, 78, 242 communicative contract 311 concessive adverbial clauses 336 concessive conditionals 334 conditional 332 conditional adverbial clauses 330, 330

402 Index

conjunction 15 conjunction morpheme 22 conjoined (‘chained’) clauses 348 connectivity 328 consecutive aspect 369 constituency 3 continuative 350 continuity 328 contrary belief 223 contrast 221, 223 contrastive conjunctions 350 contrastive focus 221, 222, 230, 234, 242, 247 constrastive quantifiers 233 contrastive strength 224 contrastive stress 249 contrastive topicalization 262 control 44, 352, 385 coordinate 327 coordination 327 Cooreman 124, 155 Counter-fact (‘hypothetical’) conditionals 332 Cross-clausal integration 338 D dative-shifting 269 declarative 288, 295, 318, 319, 320 deictic 165 definite 175 definiteness 208, 301 deletion under co-reference 180 deontic 54, 290, 291, 312, 321 dependence 385 dependent 327 determiners 4, 6 de-transitive constructions 91 de-transitive voice 91, 92 diachronic perspective 92 diachronic simplification 238 direct active voice 159 direct contact 44, 48 direct manipulation 47 direct quote 53 discourse-pragmatic connectivity 342 DO-only restriction 145 double-genitive 32 E Eisler-Goldman 387 embedded wh-questions 310

embedding languages 80, 83 epistemic 51, 52, 290, 291, 311, 321 ergative 170, 172 ergative solution 142 equi-case strategy 192 equi-subject (SS) 80, 149 equi-subject chain 357 equi-subject constraint 341 event integration 40, 44, 56 existential-presentative 154, 255 expectation 221 external speech 53 extraposed relative clauses 207 extraposition 209 F finite 26 finite ADV-clause 359 finite adverbial clauses 359 finite verbal clause 25 finite verbal morphology 60, 68, 386 finiteness 24, 313, 338, 339, 352, 355, 383, 385 finiteness gradients 365 flexible-order languages 259 focus 237, 300 focus attraction 230, 231 focus morpheme 240 focused yes/no-questionss 293 functional dilemma 141 functional markedness 124 G gap strategies 189 gap zero strategy 184 GET-passive 132 gender/class 301 genitive case-marking 27 Gernsbacher 250 Greenberg 124 grammatical relations 61, 112, 203 grammaticalization 79, 87 grounding 328, 343 group nouns 22 H Haberland 287 habitual aspect 169 habituality 57

Index

403

Haiman 371 Hale 15, 157, 358 Hazardous information principle 324 head 1 headless relative clauses 205

irrealis modality 169

I identifiability 222 ignorance 223 imperative 288, 318, 319 imperfect 380 imperfective participial 339 impersonal passive 129 impersonal pronoun 139 impersonal subject pronoun 135 implicativity 56 implicative 44 inchoative 105 inchoative middle-voice 118 indefinite subject 259 indefiniteness 169 independent 327 independent pronouns 375 indirect manipulation 47 indirect speech 53 indirect speech-acts 318 indirect-quote 53 infinitive 69 infinitival complements 51 informational unpredictability 386 initial boundary 330 intentionality 44, 45, 57 inter-clausal coherence 327 inter-clausal connectivity 352 inter-clausal dependency 328 intermediate truth value 333 internal speech 53 interrogative 288, 318, 319, 320 interrogative pronouns 301 interrogative speech-acts 291 intonation 247, 294 intonational integration 327 intransitive 170, 172 inverse voice 93, 94, 122, 154, 155, 159 inverse clauses 374 inverse construction 158 inverse-to-Ergative 167 inverse-to-passive 167 irrealis conditionals 331

L Latin participial clauses 377 L-dislocation 139, 264 left dislocation 265 light vs heavy reciprocal 108 linear order 3 locative-allative 381 Longacre 359 low affectedness 169

K Kemmer 105, 108 know-how 57

M manipulation 312 manipulation verbs 40, 41 manipulative speech-acts 50, 311 manipulee 66, 77 Matisoff 165 marked topic 253, 254 memory 250 middle-voice 106, 118 middle-voice constructions 120 Mithun 29 mixed relativization strategies 198 modality verbs 40, 54 modifiers 1 morphology 247, 294 morphological causatives 75 multiple embedding 214 multiple wh-questions 305 N negation 231 negative imperatives 317 nominalization 24 nominalization strategy 190 nominalized structure 26 nominalizer suffix 27 nominative typological solution 142 non-declarative speech-acts 287 non-distinct arguments 99 non-embedding strategy 182 non-implicative 44 non-promotional 142, 161 non-promotional passive 127, 128, 151

404 Index

non-referentiality 169 non-referring head nouns 178 non-referring object 168, 170 non-restrictive modifiers 10 non-restrictive Rel-clauses 11, 179, 202 normative expectations 222 noun complements 9, 35 noun compounds 8 noun modifiers 382 noun phrase conjunction 15 noun phrases 1 number 301 O object deletion 169 object demotion 170 object incorporation 169 oblique case 170 oblique adverbial cases 201 order of conjoined NPs 16 optional constituents 230 OV clause chaining 384 P parataxis 218 paratactic 308 participial clauses 341, 380, 384 participial ADV clauses 357 participial adverbial clauses 338 passive 93, 94, 105, 122, 155, 159, 173 passive/inverse 146, 154 passive-to-inverse 167 passive voice 125 passives and grammatical relations 141 partial promotion 146 patient suppression 168 pause probability 386 perfect 380 perfect participial 341 perfect passive 132 Perlmutter 127 PCU verbs 41, 42 Plato 287 plurality 169 politeness 322 Postal 127 potential state 106, 286 possessive reflexives 105, 106, 107 post-nominal modifiers 9

power 312, 322 pragmatic case-marking 141 pragmatic de-transitivity 91 pragmatic inversion 155 pragmatic presupposition 176 pragmatics of de-transitive voice 93, 122 precedence 330 predictability 221 predicate adjective 132 preference 50 pre-nominal modifiers 4 pre-posed ADV-clause 346, 347 pre-posed order principle 250 presentative function 209 presupposition 175, 222, 289, 300 prohibitives 317 promotion to direct object 195 promotional 142, 161 promotinal inverse 159 promotional passive 127, 128, 151 pronouns 363 Protagoras 287 proximity principle 64 prototype noun phrase 25 pseudo-cleft 224, 307, 308 punctuation 349 purpose clauses 337 Q quantifiers 4 quantity principle 386 R raising 273 raising in text 280 raising to subject 274 re-analysis of GRs 87 reason 335 reciprocals 95, 96, 99, 108 recursive center embedding 217 reduced finiteness 327, 366 REF-indefinite head nouns 177 reference 209, 227, 301 referent accessibility 254 referential accessibility 175 referential coherence 338 referential cohesion 56 referentiality 228 reflexive 132, 137, 150

Index

405

reflexives 95, 99, 105 reflexivization 105, 151 relational control 385 relational government 327 relational properties 154 relative clauses 9, 175 relative pronoun strategy 187 relativization 234 relativization and passivization 193 resistance 48 restrictive modifiers 10, 226 restrictive Rel-clauses 11, 106, 177 restrictiveness 207 responsibility 323 resulting state 106 rigid SOV word-order 243 right dislocation 267 Ross 17, 211 Rude 155, 157, 166 S scattered NPs 13 semantic inversion 156 semantics of de-transitive voice 93, 95 serial-verb languages 82, 85 simultaneity 330, 338 single-genitive 33 SOV clause-chaining 357 speech-act continuum 318 speech-act prototypes 289 status 212, 322 stereotypical object 168 stranded case-marking 198 stress-focus 224 strict co-reference 178 subject properties 105 subjunctive 60, 69 subjunctive complements 51 subordinate 327 subordinating morphemes 71 subordination 327 subordinators 72 subsequence 330 substitutive adverbial clauses 336 success 57 successful causation 49 successful (implicative) manipulation 42 switch reference 157, 357, 376, 377, 379, 381 switch reference systems 371

switch-subject (DS) 83 syntactic amalgamation 18 syntactic coding 59 syntactic complexity 211 syntactic dependency 328 T temporal 332 temporal coherence 338, 371 temporal integration 46 terminal boundary 330 text distribution 124 thematic continuity 348 thematic discontinuity 386 thematic re-orientation 345 topicality 227, 229, 253, 256, 344 topicality hierarchies 156 transitive event 93 truth value test 289 typology of passive 126 typology of REL-clauses 182 typological diversity 126 U unindividuated object 168 use-frequency 124 V verb agreement 189, 270 verb clefting 245 verb-coding passive 133 verb-coding strategies 193 verbal complements 39 verb-phrase nominalization 36, 137 vestigial copula 238 V-first languages 259 VO clause chaining 366, 384 voice 91 W Wh-questions 232, 288, 297, 300, 318 Wh-pronouns 303, 306 word-order 242, 247, 250, 257, 269, 294, 307, 383 word-order inverse 162 word-order strategy 169



406 Index

Y Y-movement 164, 225, 262 Yes/no-questions 231, 237, 288, 292, 295, 318 Z Zavala 123 zero subject passive 134